do you think Tillman was really racist, ignorant about what he was fighting for, and lastly stupid for dying for it?
What kind of question is this? Who knows? Do you? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Do you have extra information regarding his intentions that haven't appeared in this thread?
What kind of question is this? Who knows? Do you? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Do you have extra information regarding his intentions that haven't appeared in this thread?
Hey, the assertions are Rall's. If you don't believe them just say so.
But don't be some person that pretends to "honor" what Pat Tillman was fighting for while at the same time labeling what he died for a lie and lost cause because the only honor you are paying him and other soldiers is lip service.
And your point? Pat Tillman wanted to kill someone for what happened on 9-11. So much so that he was willing to give up millions of dollars. Is he a hero?
yeah, he gave up materialism (well that word's not right, can't think of a better one right now) for something he believed in
Hey, the assertions are Rall's. If you don't believe them just say so.
You are making just as strong assertions about his character.
I know next to nothing about the guy other than that he gave up a contract in order to go fight. That is commendable and honorable in itself. Does that imply he knew what he was doing? No.
Quote:
But don't be some person that pretends to "honor" what Pat Tillman was fighting for while at the same time labeling what he died for a lie and lost cause because the only honor you are paying him and other soldiers is lip service.
Don't be some person that pretends to "honor" so you can BS a bunch of people on an internet forum. You obviously came in here with a bug up your ass and barking orders left and right trying to pick a fight.
And you know what is constantly discussed by the former soldiers at work and the one soldier in my family who is not currently in Iraq or preparing to go there? - all of those policy papers that folks like you flat-out refuse to read.
You are making just as strong assertions about his character.
I know next to nothing about the guy other than that he gave up a contract in order to go fight. That is commendable and honorable in itself. Does that imply he knew what he was doing? No.
Don't be some person that pretends to "honor" so you can BS a bunch of people on an internet forum. You obviously came in here with a bug up your ass and barking orders left and right trying to pick a fight.
And you know what is constantly discussed by the former soldiers at work and the one soldier in my family who is not currently in Iraq or preparing to go there? - all of those policy papers that folks like you flat-out refuse to read.
You are hilarous. Toss that dust and chase that tail. You won't address the substance of the matter. Was Rall's comic hateful? Three posts so far. All questioning intent of ME instead of being willing to address the clear intent of Rall.
The policy papers I refuse to read. Oh yes, the classic giant "ignorance" ploy. Here we go again folks. He links them. I read them. I don't draw the same conclusions so I must be "ignorant."
You and Rall have so much in common. Thanks for proving my assertion about his tactics having much in common with your own.
Was Rall's comic hateful? Three posts so far. All questioning intent of ME instead of being willing to address the clear intent of Rall.
Your posts here are trolling for people to defend Rall so you can attack them, so why would I feed your petty and childish game. You don't like the comic, so don't ****ing read it. Problem solved.
But I will give you an opinion of it: I don't ****ing care. Newspaper comics (with the exception sometimes of Get Fuzzy) are stupid and I barely read this one. Was one of those guys Beetle Bailey?
If you are so concerned about political and news related comics, read something significant like Safe Area Gorazde.
Quote:
The policy papers I refuse to read. Oh yes, the classic giant "ignorance" ploy. Here we go again folks. He links them. I read them. I don't draw the same conclusions so I must be "ignorant."
You obviously haven't read them, and you demonstrated this a couple days ago when you didn't recognize one of the most widely discussed papers. That was elementary stuff for the mainstream public more than a year ago, so ignorance of it now is an unmistakable indicator of TOTAL ignorance of US Iraq policy and significant unfamiliarity with US foreign policy overall.
Your posts here are trolling for people to defend Rall so you can attack them, so why would I feed your petty and childish game. You don't like the comic, so don't ****ing read it. Problem solved.
But I will give you an opinion of it: I don't ****ing care. Newspaper comics (with the exception sometimes of Get Fuzzy) are stupid and I barely read this one. Was one of those guys Beetle Bailey?
If you are so concerned about political and news related comics, read something significant like Safe Area Gorazde.
You obviously haven't read them, and you demonstrated this a couple days ago when you didn't recognize one of the most widely discussed papers. That was elementary stuff for the mainstream public more than a year ago, so ignorance of it now is an unmistakable indicator of TOTAL ignorance of US Iraq policy and significant unfamiliarity with US foreign policy overall.
My cartoon is a reaction to the extraordinary lionizing of Mr. Tillman as a national hero. First of all, the media's decision to genuflect to a cult of death is terrifyingly similar to the cult of Palestinian suicide bombers in the Middle East and the glorious coverage given by the Japanese during World War II to fallen kamikaze fighters. Nowhere has this excessive praise for the act of voluntary death been more extreme than in Mr. Tillman's case.
Wow, so Mr. Tillman himself was a terrorist. The enemy is us. Sounds familiar. Sounds like Kerry in 1971.
Quote:
Second, Mr. Tillman served an evil president and an evil cause.
Hey nice one. Now the war on terrorism, not just in Iraq, but also on the Taliban in Afghanistan is also evil. I suppose Tillman must be evil as well. I mean how can you serve an evil cause and leader and not be evil yourself?
Quote:
Liberals tend to let volunteer soldiers off the hook, but let's not forget the hard, cold truth:
If no one had enlisted after 9/11, we wouldn't be fighting these immoral wars based on lies and greed now.
Big finish of course. Bush is evil, and of course those boys and girls who are in the service help him to be so.
I see plenty of grey areas. I'm a teacher and a landlord. I belong to a union, and the Republican party. I'm not a free trader, but a fair trader. I could go on about the numerous "grey areas" in which my thought is not dogmatically one party or the other. However a quick search of the forums will show you that.
I would encourage you to do a search with my name and conservative. You will see others label me that often. I seldom call myself that. So it would appear that is others that need the strict A or B to fit their own thinking into. I've got plenty of independent thought of my own, thanks.
Nick
1. It isn't necessary for me to read all your previous posts to respond to this particular one. That's not only irrational, but also just plain silly.
2. Maybe you don't identify yourself as "conservative", however you used the word "liberals" as if you were describing a race of people rather than a broad category of thought. It is just such a blatent indicator of shallow thinking. There are a lot of things that came to mind when I looked at that cartoon, but name calling was not one of them. Obvisously you are educated enough to know that you are merely trying to stir people up with the way you phrase things, so don't criticize people when they call your Bullsh*t. If you want people to respond to your topic, give them a rational argument/thought to which they can respond.
1. It isn't necessary for me to read all your previous posts to respond to this particular one. That's not only irrational, but also just plain silly.
2. Maybe you don't identify yourself as "conservative", however you used the word "liberals" as if you were describing a race of people rather than a broad category of thought. It is just such a blatent indicator of shallow thinking. There are a lot of things that came to mind when I looked at that cartoon, but name calling was not one of them. Obvisously you are educated enough to know that you are merely trying to stir people up with the way you phrase things, so don't criticize people when they call your Bullsh*t. If you want people to respond to your topic, give them a rational argument/thought to which they can respond.
No it's censorship when the liberal points out that he doesn't like someone's arguement and thus it shouldn't have been posted.
There you go with that L word again.
Quote:
I suppose another tactic for you could be, "When you can't find it in the quote, just paraphrase and lie."
So Shawn, do you think Tillman was really racist, ignorant about what he was fighting for, and lastly stupid for dying for it?
Nick
Since I happen to share the same opinion of your thread as Shawn, I hereby find myself qualified to answer your question and get this thread back on track.
Pat Tillman:
1. Racist: I don't know but I doubt it.
2. Ignorant: Also doubtful.
3. Stupid: Highly doubtful.
However if you asked the same questions of the non-military serving zealots that sent soldiers to Iraq to fight an unecessary war, I think the answers would be different.
President Bush and the his Grand Old Party cabinet:
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Apparently, it's "censorship" when a liberal points out someone's defective argument.
No it's censorship when the liberal points out that he doesn't like someone's arguement and thus it shouldn't have been posted.
I suppose another tactic for you could be, "When you can't find it in the quote, just paraphrase and lie."
So Shawn, do you think Tillman was really racist, ignorant about what he was fighting for, and lastly stupid for dying for it?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
No it's censorship when the liberal points out that he doesn't like someone's arguement and thus it shouldn't have been posted.
It's not censorship, or even attempted censorship, to point out when someone is lying.
You've heard of the push poll? This looks like push media.
Oh yeah, so as not to be accused of avoiding the question I will include the requisite-
Offensive comic. Totally bad taste. I denounce it completely.
Originally posted by trumptman
do you think Tillman was really racist, ignorant about what he was fighting for, and lastly stupid for dying for it?
What kind of question is this? Who knows? Do you? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Do you have extra information regarding his intentions that haven't appeared in this thread?
Originally posted by bunge
It's not censorship, or even attempted censorship, to point out when someone is lying.
Are you saying that Ted Rall isn't a liberal? Are you saying that his isn't calling Tillman racist, ignorant and stupid?
Prove your point or stop your personal attack.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
What kind of question is this? Who knows? Do you? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Do you have extra information regarding his intentions that haven't appeared in this thread?
Hey, the assertions are Rall's. If you don't believe them just say so.
But don't be some person that pretends to "honor" what Pat Tillman was fighting for while at the same time labeling what he died for a lie and lost cause because the only honor you are paying him and other soldiers is lip service.
Nick
Originally posted by anand
And your point? Pat Tillman wanted to kill someone for what happened on 9-11. So much so that he was willing to give up millions of dollars. Is he a hero?
yeah, he gave up materialism (well that word's not right, can't think of a better one right now) for something he believed in
Originally posted by trumptman
Prove your point or stop your personal attack.
What's up with you barking orders left and right? Did your wife take the remote from you?
Originally posted by trumptman
Hey, the assertions are Rall's. If you don't believe them just say so.
You are making just as strong assertions about his character.
I know next to nothing about the guy other than that he gave up a contract in order to go fight. That is commendable and honorable in itself. Does that imply he knew what he was doing? No.
But don't be some person that pretends to "honor" what Pat Tillman was fighting for while at the same time labeling what he died for a lie and lost cause because the only honor you are paying him and other soldiers is lip service.
Don't be some person that pretends to "honor" so you can BS a bunch of people on an internet forum. You obviously came in here with a bug up your ass and barking orders left and right trying to pick a fight.
And you know what is constantly discussed by the former soldiers at work and the one soldier in my family who is not currently in Iraq or preparing to go there? - all of those policy papers that folks like you flat-out refuse to read.
Originally posted by giant
What's up with you barking orders left and right? Did your wife take the remote from you?
Posting guidelines, try them sometime.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
You are making just as strong assertions about his character.
I know next to nothing about the guy other than that he gave up a contract in order to go fight. That is commendable and honorable in itself. Does that imply he knew what he was doing? No.
Don't be some person that pretends to "honor" so you can BS a bunch of people on an internet forum. You obviously came in here with a bug up your ass and barking orders left and right trying to pick a fight.
And you know what is constantly discussed by the former soldiers at work and the one soldier in my family who is not currently in Iraq or preparing to go there? - all of those policy papers that folks like you flat-out refuse to read.
You are hilarous. Toss that dust and chase that tail. You won't address the substance of the matter. Was Rall's comic hateful? Three posts so far. All questioning intent of ME instead of being willing to address the clear intent of Rall.
The policy papers I refuse to read. Oh yes, the classic giant "ignorance" ploy. Here we go again folks. He links them. I read them. I don't draw the same conclusions so I must be "ignorant."
You and Rall have so much in common. Thanks for proving my assertion about his tactics having much in common with your own.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Was Rall's comic hateful? Three posts so far. All questioning intent of ME instead of being willing to address the clear intent of Rall.
Your posts here are trolling for people to defend Rall so you can attack them, so why would I feed your petty and childish game. You don't like the comic, so don't ****ing read it. Problem solved.
But I will give you an opinion of it: I don't ****ing care. Newspaper comics (with the exception sometimes of Get Fuzzy) are stupid and I barely read this one. Was one of those guys Beetle Bailey?
If you are so concerned about political and news related comics, read something significant like Safe Area Gorazde.
The policy papers I refuse to read. Oh yes, the classic giant "ignorance" ploy. Here we go again folks. He links them. I read them. I don't draw the same conclusions so I must be "ignorant."
You obviously haven't read them, and you demonstrated this a couple days ago when you didn't recognize one of the most widely discussed papers. That was elementary stuff for the mainstream public more than a year ago, so ignorance of it now is an unmistakable indicator of TOTAL ignorance of US Iraq policy and significant unfamiliarity with US foreign policy overall.
Originally posted by giant
Your posts here are trolling for people to defend Rall so you can attack them, so why would I feed your petty and childish game. You don't like the comic, so don't ****ing read it. Problem solved.
But I will give you an opinion of it: I don't ****ing care. Newspaper comics (with the exception sometimes of Get Fuzzy) are stupid and I barely read this one. Was one of those guys Beetle Bailey?
If you are so concerned about political and news related comics, read something significant like Safe Area Gorazde.
You obviously haven't read them, and you demonstrated this a couple days ago when you didn't recognize one of the most widely discussed papers. That was elementary stuff for the mainstream public more than a year ago, so ignorance of it now is an unmistakable indicator of TOTAL ignorance of US Iraq policy and significant unfamiliarity with US foreign policy overall.
I just love it when I am right.
Nick
Insults of any form are not welcome by any member.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Fellowship
This thread is going to be locked if things do not resume to a civil level of discussion.
Insults of any form are not welcome by any member.
Fellowship
They started it!
My cartoon is a reaction to the extraordinary lionizing of Mr. Tillman as a national hero. First of all, the media's decision to genuflect to a cult of death is terrifyingly similar to the cult of Palestinian suicide bombers in the Middle East and the glorious coverage given by the Japanese during World War II to fallen kamikaze fighters. Nowhere has this excessive praise for the act of voluntary death been more extreme than in Mr. Tillman's case.
Wow, so Mr. Tillman himself was a terrorist. The enemy is us. Sounds familiar. Sounds like Kerry in 1971.
Second, Mr. Tillman served an evil president and an evil cause.
Hey nice one. Now the war on terrorism, not just in Iraq, but also on the Taliban in Afghanistan is also evil. I suppose Tillman must be evil as well. I mean how can you serve an evil cause and leader and not be evil yourself?
Liberals tend to let volunteer soldiers off the hook, but let's not forget the hard, cold truth:
If no one had enlisted after 9/11, we wouldn't be fighting these immoral wars based on lies and greed now.
Big finish of course. Bush is evil, and of course those boys and girls who are in the service help him to be so.
Remember now that "L" word is his, not mine.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I see plenty of grey areas. I'm a teacher and a landlord. I belong to a union, and the Republican party. I'm not a free trader, but a fair trader. I could go on about the numerous "grey areas" in which my thought is not dogmatically one party or the other. However a quick search of the forums will show you that.
I would encourage you to do a search with my name and conservative. You will see others label me that often. I seldom call myself that. So it would appear that is others that need the strict A or B to fit their own thinking into. I've got plenty of independent thought of my own, thanks.
Nick
1. It isn't necessary for me to read all your previous posts to respond to this particular one. That's not only irrational, but also just plain silly.
2. Maybe you don't identify yourself as "conservative", however you used the word "liberals" as if you were describing a race of people rather than a broad category of thought. It is just such a blatent indicator of shallow thinking. There are a lot of things that came to mind when I looked at that cartoon, but name calling was not one of them. Obvisously you are educated enough to know that you are merely trying to stir people up with the way you phrase things, so don't criticize people when they call your Bullsh*t. If you want people to respond to your topic, give them a rational argument/thought to which they can respond.
Originally posted by buckeye
1. It isn't necessary for me to read all your previous posts to respond to this particular one. That's not only irrational, but also just plain silly.
2. Maybe you don't identify yourself as "conservative", however you used the word "liberals" as if you were describing a race of people rather than a broad category of thought. It is just such a blatent indicator of shallow thinking. There are a lot of things that came to mind when I looked at that cartoon, but name calling was not one of them. Obvisously you are educated enough to know that you are merely trying to stir people up with the way you phrase things, so don't criticize people when they call your Bullsh*t. If you want people to respond to your topic, give them a rational argument/thought to which they can respond.
Very well said.
Originally posted by trumptman
No it's censorship when the liberal points out that he doesn't like someone's arguement and thus it shouldn't have been posted.
There you go with that L word again.
I suppose another tactic for you could be, "When you can't find it in the quote, just paraphrase and lie."
So Shawn, do you think Tillman was really racist, ignorant about what he was fighting for, and lastly stupid for dying for it?
Nick
Since I happen to share the same opinion of your thread as Shawn, I hereby find myself qualified to answer your question and get this thread back on track.
Pat Tillman:
1. Racist: I don't know but I doubt it.
2. Ignorant: Also doubtful.
3. Stupid: Highly doubtful.
However if you asked the same questions of the non-military serving zealots that sent soldiers to Iraq to fight an unecessary war, I think the answers would be different.
President Bush and the his Grand Old Party cabinet:
1. Racist: Yes.
2. Ignorant: Very much so.
3. Stupid: Clearly.