Gates: 'A few years' of combat in Afghanistan

[Peikko 1,575]

Thank you all (LEFTISTS) for proving my point beautifully. Still haven't refuted what anyone has said. Instead attacking terminology, and the "i'm smart, you're dumb" argument that so many LEFTISTS use.

Pike, you don't have a problem with the 70% stats? He told everyone to google it. Are you going to go after him? No, because stats that fit your ideology can be true or false, doesn't matter as long as it can be used for your propaganda.

Pike uses just as many labels as anyone, and insults as much. However, he runs around accusing whoever he disagrees with of doing just that, when he just doesn't know how to intelligently respond to an issue. He rarely responds, but just attacks the poster.

The same is done with other people as well; McCarthy was a drunk, Rush is on drugs and spews hate-speech, etc etc. They never refute the substance, just attack "qualifications" or life circumstances. Discrediting by defamation of sorts. They always do this.

This is what the LEFT constantly does, and they aren't going to stop. I'm not here to waste my time arguing with them, but to constantly keep on top of them and make sure everyone else knows that too. I don't get beaten into submission, and I don't go away. Too bad for you.

Who do you think you are addressing? Some amorphous mass of 'librulism'? How quaint.

[HAL 9000 96]

I just think its substantive enough to note that the substance being 'attacked' is wacky, incoherent, and devoid of most forms of rational logic, as well as improperly contextualized when looked at in retrospect by selective mindsets.

[DEDixon 39]

Actually, the 'fvcked' comment was completely in line because you are either unable or unwilling to understand that throwing out the term 'liberal' willy nilly is totally meaningless.

The more important point I was making, and the one that you simply haven't touched on, is that you seem to think everyone who is to the left of you thinks in the same way. In fact, as has often been pointed out, the people on the left of you as regards this one issue, may well be to the right of you on other issues. So long as you apply the labels' my liberal friends' and 'you libs' to any posts your views are a mish mash of views that no one person can address.

The context in which I was using liberal spot on... bullseye! Liberals, not conservatives, not right wingers were out protesting the Iraq war.

Liberals are the left wingers and they were the ones protesting the Iraq war. I'm not talking about "supporting or not supporting" the war from within your home or writing whatever on the internet, I'm talking protesters, live, real bodies out on the street.

If you are so right and I'm so wrong... go find the evidence to support what you are saying.

Liberals were out in the streets demanding an immediate end to the war.... simple as that really.

I just think its substantive enough to note that the substance being 'attacked' is wacky, incoherent, and devoid of most forms of rational logic, as well as improperly contextualized when looked at in retrospect by selective mindsets.

you forgot to add a:

[nowhereman 1]

Calling the VJ Right "you guys" is completely different than labeling people "liberals" or "socialists". First of all "you guys" is not meant as an insult, but your labels definitely are. Secondly "you guys" refers to a group of posters that basically say the same thing, but liberal & socialist is based on what you believe other people's opinions are. For example I'm a registered independent & my views on the issues do not run along party lines (e.g. my views on foreign policy lean right & my views on the environment lean left). What irritates the ####### out of me though is the incessant labeling, stereotyping & misinformation that you see over & over on VJ. I focus my efforts on the VJ Right because I see a lot more of the BS coming from that camp. Yes it comes from both sides but it's a fire hose of BS from the Right and a garden hose from the Left.

As for proving my numbers first of all "you guys" hardly ever produce statistics, as you rely on mindless rhetoric to make your point. If you want proof just hit google, it's easy to find. Furthermore you use the term "red herring" a lot & its obvious you don't have a clue about what it means. While you're on google look that up as well.

There is the problem. I have no problem with political labels. Call me a right winger, a neocon, a conservative or whatever, it doesn't bother me at all and I do not consider it an insult. I am to a degree all of these things and to a degree I am not. I wear these label like a badge and feel perfectly fine.

Since I have no problem with political labels I never gave it a thought that liberals didn't like, didn't want to be labeled liberals or that a liberal would be insulted with the label.

Again you don't even read what others write. I stated very, very clearly that the problem with labeling people is that for one you are using the label to degrade others, but worse you are throwing a bunch of people into a group without even knowing if they belong in it. Just because other people don't agree with you doesn't automatically mean that they are liberals and/or socialists or whatever the label is. I have never been accused of being a liberal anywhere but on VJ and I guarantee you that 99% of the VJers that called me a liberal either don't know what a liberal is, don't know what my political views are, or likely both.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I just think its substantive enough to note that the substance being 'attacked' is wacky, incoherent, and devoid of most forms of rational logic, as well as improperly contextualized when looked at in retrospect by selective mindsets.

Wow he uses big words. That must mean he is smart and everyone else is dumb! I bow before you.

The substance is never attacked or refuted, just the poster, the wording, the credentials, the "group", the spelling, the grammar. Its like talking to a bunch of 9th graders on a quest to see who can sound the most smart. You people are like talking to a brick wall, and the same amount of intelligence.

[nowhereman 1]

Thank you all (LEFTISTS) for proving my point beautifully. Still haven't refuted what anyone has said. Instead attacking terminology, and the "i'm smart, you're dumb" argument that so many LEFTISTS use.

Pike, you don't have a problem with the 70% stats? He told everyone to google it. Are you going to go after him? No, because stats that fit your ideology can be true or false, doesn't matter as long as it can be used for your propaganda.

Pike uses just as many labels as anyone, and insults as much. However, he runs around accusing whoever he disagrees with of doing just that, when he just doesn't know how to intelligently respond to an issue. He rarely responds, but just attacks the poster.

The same is done with other people as well; McCarthy was a drunk, Rush is on drugs and spews hate-speech, etc etc. They never refute the substance, just attack "qualifications" or life circumstances. Discrediting by defamation of sorts. They always do this.

This is what the LEFT constantly does, and they aren't going to stop. I'm not here to waste my time arguing with them, but to constantly keep on top of them and make sure everyone else knows that too. I don't get beaten into submission, and I don't go away. Too bad for you.

I call you ignorant because you are, plain & simple. You ask others to support their claims but all you post is labels, stereotypes, rhetoric and inflammatory statements. First of all I explained that I am not a liberal, or even a democrat (registered independent). I also stated that my political views do not run along party lines. Of course you completely glossed over this because it refutes your idea that anyone who disagrees with you is a flaming liberal.

I'm sure I will regret this, as I can almost guarantee you will say the numbers are left wing propaganda, but here is a link to a a New York Times/CBS News Poll on Bush's approval ratings. It is dated March 1st, 2007:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03...q-poll-numbers/

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): Twenty-three percent of those polled approved of the way Mr. Bush is dealing with the situation in Iraq. Twenty-five percent approved of his handling of foreign policy. Granted these numbers a snap shot in time. They obviously varied throughout the course of the war. However my claim that approximately 70% of Americans (this poll actually has the number at 77%) disapproved of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq wasn't far off.

My second assertion was that approximately 20% of Americans are liberals. According to a Rasmussen Report the numbers depend on what category you are referring to (i.e. either fiscal or social issues). It is quite possible to be conservative on one issue & liberal on another (or moderate in one or both). However only 9% of those polled considered themselves liberal on both fiscal and social issues. In any event the 20% number I threw out isn't outlandish regardless of how the numbers are crunched. The poll is dated November 25, 2007:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/4...vative_are.html

I'm sure you can find polls that have higher or lower numbers; this was an ad hoc search. However if you take both polls and analyze them side by side it is clear that a huge percentage of non-liberals disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq (and disapproved of him in general). Given this data any reasonable person could assume that the liberal bashing & stereotyping is based more on distorted perception than actual fact.

Edited August 22, 2009 by nowhereman

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I'm not sure where I came out in support of Bush here, but anyway....... My point was that Pike seems to have accepted what you said because it fitted the argument. Any other stats he demands 30 references by independent watchdogs if he doesn't agree with them.

And yes, the NYT and CBS are leftist outlets through and through. Its a faulty reference.

Yes anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. I understand that.

Oh, and i don't ask people to support their claims. I only said that mockingly of Pike since he demands references for anything he disagrees with. Yet he rarely if ever gives references for his claims.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Joseph & Ana

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not sure where I came out in support of Bush here, but anyway....... My point was that Pike seems to have accepted what you said because it fitted the argument. Any other stats he demands 30 references by independent watchdogs if he doesn't agree with them.

And yes, the NYT and CBS are leftist outlets through and through. Its a faulty reference.

Yes anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. I understand that.

Oh, and i don't ask people to support their claims. I only said that mockingly of Pike since he demands references for anything he disagrees with. Yet he rarely if ever gives references for his claims.

I didn't accept it. But then again - the claim wasn't directed towards me...

[DEDixon 39]

I'm sure I will regret this, as I can almost guarantee you will say the numbers are left wing propaganda, but here is a link to a a New York Times/CBS News Poll on Bush's approval ratings. It is dated March 1st, 2007:

When did anyone mention approval ratings? I labeled PROTESTERS liberals and some of you guys jumped on me. I'm not talking about what anyone was thinking privately or about overall approval ratings.

You are widening the scope of the conversation just to be right.

Get it right, this has always been about PROTESTERS!!!

Quote myself here... this whole thing about liberals started out with:

When liberals were protesting Iraq war, they didn't care how the US left the country, they wanted the US out immediately. Doesn't anyone remember the protests outside of Bush's ranch lead by the anti-war protester who's son died in Iraq (forget her name).

Who is talking about polls?

Edited August 22, 2009 by DEDixon

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the problem here is that you are oversimplifying the opinions of the anti-war folks for your own ends.

[DEDixon 39]

Just like to add that those liberal protesters helped Pelosi and crew win 2006 congressional elections and....

Pelosi has never did ANYTHING to end any war.... NOTHING!!!!!

[DEDixon 39]

I think the problem here is that you are oversimplifying the opinions of the anti-war folks for your own ends.

No, I don't think that is the problem. The problem is that people widen the scope of the conversation to make themselves right.

I know what I saw, read and hear... I know the liberals were out in the streets protesting the war and insisting that the US leave Iraq immediately.

[Peikko 1,575]

In the UK the anti war protests were wide spread and encompassed all the political spectrum as I have already said. Just out of interest, how did you know that those protesters that you spotted were librals? What, apart from protesting the war, alerted you to their political affiliation?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the problem here is that you are oversimplifying the opinions of the anti-war folks for your own ends.

No, I don't think that is the problem. The problem is that people widen the scope of the conversation to make themselves right.

I know what I saw, read and hear... I know the liberals were out in the streets protesting the war and insisting that the US leave Iraq immediately.

You're painting with mighty wide strokes there friend.

In the UK the anti war protests were wide spread and encompassed all the political spectrum as I have already said. Just out of interest, how did you know that those protesters that you spotted were librals? What, apart from protesting the war, alerted you to their political affiliation?

Didn't they have a million people turn out on the streets of London? And that was before war was formally declared...

[DEDixon 39]

In the UK the anti war protests were wide spread and encompassed all the political spectrum as I have already said. Just out of interest, how did you know that those protesters that you spotted were librals? What, apart from protesting the war, alerted you to their political affiliation?

The same way liberals or anyone else can tell that the majority of protesters outside an abortion clinic are right-wingers, conservatives, the religion right, neocons.

Now, I'm guessing what I will read next is that war protesting and abortion protesting is different and can't be compared?