Last warning, I already noted that the rhetoric and rant to statement ratio was too high to deal with the first time. I'll attempt to sort through the various person attacks cloaked as arguments.
Originally Posted by addabox
Again, as Midwinter pointed out, Scott Thomas is not a "false soldier".
I called it a list of people alleging atrocities. I asked how you could include fake soldiers and people making accusations without them being considered a fake soldier. He noted a vague pronoun reference. I told him I was open to seeing it done grammatically correct, which often doesn't occur in regular spoken conversation, but still would be open to seeing it so we could compare the two.
You're doing that thing that you do, which is to try and normalize some dubious claim you're making by just briskly acting as if its settled while in a slightly different context.
One fake soldier, not the darling of the left by any means. You still haven't even begun to support the notion that this whole discussion hinges on: that the left routinely produces "fake soldiers" to lie about conditions in Iraq.
What do you consider routine to be? My contention was that someone making absurd statements easily captures media attention and is reported on, while those who don't allege atrocities, and might or might not support the war are ignored. The media jumps on whatever fits their preconceived notions.
Unless there is an actual pattern, Limbaugh is just full of shit, in a typically duplicitous way.
Limbaugh noted and even clarified the one person to whom his phrase was referring. In this thread we have noted at least three instances of atrocities being alleged that were investigated and found to be false. As the saying about fooling people, institutions and whatnot goes, by now the media have been shown to be the fools, but they don't care because it promotes their agenda. They would rather scream that this particular person, memo, and story reflects the truth, even if it is a lie.
You (and Limbaugh) don't want to actually think about what is being said here, or talk about it directly, because it's just another bit of winger mythology that is taken as a truism amongst themselves but falls apart upon exposure to sunlight.
Well I'll give you half for the former statement and call the latter two ranting attacks.
"Apparently he did"? Shouldn't be too hard to know for sure, he runs his own transcripts.
And Media Matters didn't post "snippets", they ran the entire transcript of the two calls under discussion-- which is what they typically do.
Well, here is what his own transcript notes after the snippet.
It shows additional comments by the caller and Limbaugh.
So I guess this is not typical then? Should I start on a rant here about how Media Matters is "full of shit, in a typically duplicitous way" because really... that adds so much to the discussion.
You should probably actually look at Media Matters from time to time. I know that O'Reilly et al have made it out to be some kind of George Soros run Devil Machine, but what they do, in fact, is note instances of either outright false or unjustifiable claims and provide documentation to refute same.
Or, in the case of the Limbaugh remarks, they just run verbatim transcripts and let you see for yourself. It's pretty funny that a site that simply quotes people, at length, and in full, is therefore regarded as a savage propaganda smear organization.
In a previous post you remarked that another actor didn't "make up stuff" like Media Matters.
I think you should have to defend that, because it's yet another casual lie worked into the conversation that I'm sure you believe but which cannot be supported by even a cursory acquaintanceship with reality.
I think I juts have defended that.
One suggestion (which I already do), one statement, and then of course one attack.
I'll be nice.
Yes, it's true. As the right spend tens of millions of dollars to bring down the Clinton presidency by any and every means available, coordinating their efforts across private and governmental agencies, maintaining clearing houses to keep the press titillated with a steady supply of "leaks" and just made up shit, we all were shocked at the bare knuckled, knock down, drag them out maneuvering of the Clintons.
Is it just that you think we're all slightly retarded, and can't remember anything before a few months ago, or do you actually believe the things you say?
I'll call that only two ranting attacks.
Gotta get that ratio up to say three real points to say, one attack or else it will be /ignore.
I've got plenty of room on the list.