Rush Limbaugh Defines A Real Vs A "Phony" Soldier - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-03-2007, 11:01 PM   #201
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,717
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Well, we disagree.


but you're wrong.

i mean, you are. it's that simple.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-03-2007, 11:02 PM   #202
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,717
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Where has he opposed the right to dissent?


he's being hyperbolic in order to provoke a reaction from those who do dissent so he can write them off.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-03-2007, 11:35 PM   #203
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


he's being hyperbolic in order to provoke a reaction from those who do dissent so he can write them off.
And it is a weak line of argument, but not at odds with free speech or it's principles.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 01:23 AM   #204
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Obviously you haven't been a soilder, soildiers are taught to make decisions, take stances and live by them..

dbs
and you know this how????
BVS is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 01:25 AM   #205
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I know. And to think these folks paraded signs like this around in front of children. But hey, in San Francisco anything goes.
So you've personally been to a lot of these rallies?
BVS is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 04:42 AM   #206
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,739
Local Time: 11:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Obviously you haven't been a soilder, soildiers are taught to make decisions, take stances and live by them..

dbs
So you run for President the same way you are carrying out a dangerous mission in a hostile jungle?

Have you ever served in the military?
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 04:48 AM   #207
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Personally I think Limbaugh is an opportunist who would walk over the bodies of 100 soldiers (or if need be, 100 Republicans) to get to a Cuban cigar and a game of golf with celebrities he can namedrop.

That being said, from reading the transcript several times, I don't think either side can make a definitive case from these words as to what exactly he meant. Both sides sound like they are pulling at straws. I noted the plural. But this isn't the transcript that's going to bury Limbaugh. He's got some wiggle room. Even the missing parts of the transcript didn't provide any smoking gun. I believe that was removed because Rush was making no sense in the missing part and it was a cosmetic airbrush.

I'm inclined to think though that he is trying to create a link in his people's heads between soldiers who protest the war and somebody like Macbath (Saddam and 9/11) without directly saying so. He basically called the preceding caller a fake Republican while ignoring any military credentials the caller may have had because he wasn't lockstep with Rush's position. He used the propagandist's or apologist's MO of not tackling the issue headon, but questioning the credibility of the other person until the real issue gets lost in the other's defense of himself.
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 05:53 AM   #208
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
Personally I think Limbaugh is an opportunist who would walk over the bodies of 100 soldiers (or if need be, 100 Republicans) to get to a Cuban cigar and a game of golf with celebrities he can namedrop.

That being said, from reading the transcript several times, I don't think either side can make a definitive case from these words as to what exactly he meant. Both sides sound like they are pulling at straws. I noted the plural. But this isn't the transcript that's going to bury Limbaugh. He's got some wiggle room. Even the missing parts of the transcript didn't provide any smoking gun. I believe that was removed because Rush was making no sense in the missing part and it was a cosmetic airbrush.

I'm inclined to think though that he is trying to create a link in his people's heads between soldiers who protest the war and somebody like Macbath (Saddam and 9/11) without directly saying so. He basically called the preceding caller a fake Republican while ignoring any military credentials the caller may have had because he wasn't lockstep with Rush's position. He used the propagandist's or apologist's MO of not tackling the issue headon, but questioning the credibility of the other person until the real issue gets lost in the other's defense of himself.
Your post captures how I feel about this issue 100%.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 05:59 AM   #209
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Isn't that a major purpose of this forum? To listen and discuss with others with opposing views? I'm sure I can spend more time in a Right wing dominated website, but this is far more engaging.

When I see something I disagree with, and I have the time, I'll join the discussion. What's the big deal? Isn't it more fun to beat up on the handful of Conservatives that venture into here than simply post applause smileys to every Liberal point?
Despite how it may appear, I AM glad you're here, AEON.

But here's the thing, and I don't mean to be offensive. . .I just think you could make stronger arguments than you have of late. The conservative political position is not completely ludicrous by any means, and a reasonable defense of the conservative point of view is definitely worthwhile and necessary (I''m going to talk more about that in a reply to the Conservatives/lLiberals think different). But the battles you've chosen to fight in this thread--I mean, defending Rush, a guy you yourself admitt you don't care much for--and in that illegal immigrants thread. . .I don't know, I'm sure this is very much a "left handed compliment" but it just seems beneath you. I just really believe you could do better.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 07:51 AM   #210
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


Despite how it may appear, I AM glad you're here, AEON.

But here's the thing, and I don't mean to be offensive. . .I just think you could make stronger arguments than you have of late. The conservative political position is not completely ludicrous by any means, and a reasonable defense of the conservative point of view is definitely worthwhile and necessary (I''m going to talk more about that in a reply to the Conservatives/lLiberals think different). But the battles you've chosen to fight in this thread--I mean, defending Rush, a guy you yourself admitt you don't care much for--and in that illegal immigrants thread. . .I don't know, I'm sure this is very much a "left handed compliment" but it just seems beneath you. I just really believe you could do better.
Agreed completely, and not sure I can really add anything. Mudslingers like Rush (and Ann Coulter, and O'Reilly) aren't people you want to hitch your wagon to.
CTU2fan is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 12:15 PM   #211
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:45 AM

This story and perspective is worth a view:

Modern Heroes
Our soldiers like what they do. They want our respect, not pity.

BY ROBERT D. KAPLAN
Thursday, October 4, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

I'm weary of seeing news stories about wounded soldiers and assertions of "support" for the troops mixed with suggestions of the futility of our military efforts in Iraq. Why aren't there more accounts of what the troops actually do? How about narrations of individual battles and skirmishes, of their ever-evolving interactions with Iraqi troops and locals in Baghdad and Anbar province, and of increasingly resourceful "patterning" of terrorist networks that goes on daily in tactical operations centers?

The sad and often unspoken truth of the matter is this: Americans have been conditioned less to understand Iraq's complex military reality than to feel sorry for those who are part of it.

The media struggles in good faith to respect our troops, but too often it merely pities them. I am generalizing, of course. Indeed, there are regular, stellar exceptions, quite often in the most prominent liberal publications, from our best military correspondents. But exceptions don't quite cut it amidst the barrage of "news," which too often descends into therapy for those who are not fighting, rather than matter-of-fact stories related by those who are.

As one battalion commander complained to me, in words repeated by other soldiers and marines: "Has anyone noticed that we now have a volunteer Army? I'm a warrior. It's my job to fight." Every journalist has a different network of military contacts. Mine come at me with the following theme: We want to be admired for our technical proficiency--for what we do, not for what we suffer. We are not victims. We are privileged.





The cult of victimhood in American history first flourished in the aftermath of the 1960s youth rebellion, in which, as University of Chicago Prof. Peter Novick writes, women, blacks, Jews, Native Americans and others fortified their identities with public references to past oppressions. The process was tied to Vietnam, a war in which the photographs of civilian victims "displaced traditional images of heroism." It appears that our troops have been made into the latest victims.
Heroes, according to the ancients, are those who do great deeds that have a lasting claim to our respect. To suffer is not necessarily to be heroic. Obviously, we have such heroes, who are too often ignored. Witness the low-key coverage accorded to winners of the Medal of Honor and of lesser decorations.

The first Medal of Honor in the global war on terror was awarded posthumously to Army Sgt. First Class Paul Ray Smith of Tampa, Fla., who was killed under withering gunfire protecting his wounded comrades outside Baghdad airport in April 2003.

According to LexisNexis, by June 2005, two months after his posthumous award, his stirring story had drawn only 90 media mentions, compared with 4,677 for the supposed Quran abuse at Guantanamo Bay, and 5,159 for the court-martialed Abu Ghraib guard Lynndie England. While the exposure of wrongdoing by American troops is of the highest importance, it can become a tyranny of its own when taken to an extreme.

Media frenzies are ignited when American troops are either the perpetrators of acts resulting in victimhood, or are victims themselves. Meanwhile, individual soldiers daily performing complicated and heroic deeds barely fit within the strictures of news stories as they are presently defined. This is why the sporadic network and cable news features on heroic soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan comes across as so hokey. After all, the last time such reports were considered "news" was during World War II and the Korean War.

In particular, there is Fox News's occasional series on war heroes, whose apparent strangeness is a manifestation of the distance the media has traveled away from the nation-state in the intervening decades. Fox's war coverage is less right-wing than it is simply old-fashioned, antediluvian almost. Fox's commercial success may be less a factor of its ideological base than of something more primal: a yearning among a large segment of the public for a real national media once again--as opposed to an international one. Nationalism means patriotism, and patriotism requires heroes, not victims.





Let's review some recent history. From Sept. 11, 2001, until the middle of 2003, when events in Afghanistan and Iraq appeared to be going well, the media portrayed the troops in an uncomplicated, positive light. Young reporters who embedded early on became acquainted with men and women in uniform, by whom they were frankly impressed. But their older editors, children of the '60s often, were skeptical. Once these wars started going badly, skepticism turned to a feeling of having been duped, a sentiment amplified by the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
That led to a different news cycle, this time with the troops as war criminals. But that cycle could not be sustained by the facts beyond the specific scandal. So by the end of 2004, yet another news cycle set in, the one that is still with us: the troops as victims of an incompetent and evil administration. The irony is that the daily actions of the troops now, living among Iraqis, applying the doctrines of counterinsurgency, and engaged regularly in close-quarters combat, are likely more heroic than in the period immediately following 9/11.

Objectively speaking, the troops can be both victims and heroes--that is, if the current phase of the war does indeed turn out to be futile. My point is only to note how the media has embraced the former theme and downplayed the latter. The LexisNexis statistics reveal the extent to which the media is uncomfortable with traditional heroism, of the kind celebrated from Herodotus through World War II. If that's not the case, then why don't we read more accounts about the battlefield actions of Silver Star winners, Bronze Star winners and the like?

Feeling comfortable with heroes requires a lack of cynicism toward the cause for which they fight. In the 1990s, when exporting democracy and militarily responding to ethnic and religious carnage were looked up upon, U.S. Army engineering units in Bosnia were lionized merely for laying bridges across rivers. Those soldiers did not need to risk their lives or win medals in order to be glorified by the media. Indeed, the media afforded them more stature than it does today's Medal of Honor winners. When a war becomes unpopular, the troops are in a sense deserted. In the eyes of professional warriors, pity can be a form of debasement.





Rather than hated, like during Vietnam, now the troops are "loved." But the best units don't want love; they want respect. The dilemma is that the safer the administration keeps us at home, the more disconnected the citizenry is from its own military posted abroad. An army at war and a nation at the mall do not encounter each other except through the refractive medium of news and entertainment.
That medium is refractive because while the U.S. still has a national military, it no longer has a national media to quite the same extent. The media is increasingly representative of an international society, whose loyalty to a particular territory is more and more diluted. That international society has ideas to defend--ideas of universal justice--but little actual ground. And without ground to defend, it has little need of heroes. Thus, future news cycles will also be dominated by victims.

The media is but one example of the slow crumbling of the nation-state at the upper layers of the social crust--a process that because it is so gradual, is also deniable by those in the midst of it. It will take another event on the order of 9/11 or greater to change the direction we are headed. Contrary to popular belief, the events of 9/11--which are perceived as an isolated incident--did not fundamentally change our nation. They merely interrupted an ongoing trend toward the decay of nationalism and the devaluation of heroism.

Mr. Kaplan, a correspondent for The Atlantic and a visiting professor at the U.S. Naval Academy, is the author of "Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts: The American Military in the Air, at Sea, and on the Ground," just published by Random House.
diamond is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:01 PM   #212
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Who is looking out for the soldiers?

Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730.

Quote:
Iraq vets say Pentagon is denying benefits







When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit.

The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush's surge.

And 1st Lt. Jon Anderson says he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.

"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership, once again failing the soldiers."

Here's what happened: Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days. Had they been written for 730 days -- one day more -- the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.

"Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month," Anderson said.

That money would help him pay for his master's degree in public administration.

It would help Anderson's fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, pay for a degree in law enforcement.

"I would assume, and I would hope, that when I get back from a deployment of 22 months, my senior leadership in Washington -- (the leadership) that extended us in the first place -- would take care of us once we got home," Hobot said.

Both Hobot and Anderson believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730.
deep is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:04 PM   #213
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 01:45 AM
I have tuned in to Limbaugh today

and he is missing in action

on this one.


Perhaps these phony soldiers do not deserve beneifts?



I did hear about it on Air America

I guess The Left does care about the soldiers that are risking their lifes.
deep is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:07 PM   #214
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep

I did hear about it on Air America

I guess The Left does care about the soldiers that are risking their lifes.
Haven't you heard a word Diamond or AEON have said? The left hate soliders.

The right loves them, even if it's only in word.
BVS is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:20 PM   #215
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 04:45 AM
As a lefty, I hate the sin (the war itself), not the sinner (members of the military). Unless the sinners are civilians in the White House. Then I hate them.
Varitek is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:37 PM   #216
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Who is looking out for the soldiers?

Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730.

C'mon - you are dealing with a huge organization. There will be paperwork mistakes. I have to fight Tuition Assistance from time to time. It's a headache, but I never think it is some sort of conspiracy to shave a buck or two. It is simply the nature of a huge organization.
AEON is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:38 PM   #217
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
I have tuned in to Limbaugh today



I did hear about it on Air America
I thought they went bankrupt from lack of audience.
AEON is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 04:03 PM   #218
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 01:45 AM
bankruptcy

often is a way of staying in business

reorganizing and perhaps eliminating some debt
deep is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 05:10 PM   #219
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,670
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


C'mon - you are dealing with a huge organization. There will be paperwork mistakes. I have to fight Tuition Assistance from time to time. It's a headache, but I never think it is some sort of conspiracy to shave a buck or two. It is simply the nature of a huge organization.
Really? You think it was just a clerical error that their tour of duty was officially written one day shy of the duration that would allow them tuition assistance?

That seems a very suspicious error, especially when the error saves the organization so much money.
Diemen is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 05:12 PM   #220
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
C'mon - you are dealing with a huge organization. There will be paperwork mistakes. I have to fight Tuition Assistance from time to time. It's a headache, but I never think it is some sort of conspiracy to shave a buck or two. It is simply the nature of a huge organization.
I give up.
__________________

phillyfan26 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×