It really must be read to be believed. In one post, Doug slags on a news paper, a veteran, FDR, government entitlements, me, and wraps it up in a nice narcissistic rant. After all, it's always about Doug.
Naturally, I corrected the most blatantly false factual assertion Doug puts forward in slandering the news paper, via a comment on his blog.. which he deleted. What a coward - again. But then he came here to respond, and posted it in the wrong fucking post, and was wrong about his facts again. That can be read here.
I find it hilarious that Doug is trying to salvage some sense of credibility by offering up a few links, but he's just so stupid he doesn't even understand what he's arguing against, and completely misses the point of how he's completely wrong once again. It's becoming difficult to "debate" Doug because he doesn't understand the basics of the argument.
In most debates, there is an agreed factual foundation and a person would describe their opinion about the implications of these facts. That doesn't happen with Doug. I spend more time correcting his assumptions then actually explaining why his ideology is a failure. Maybe they go together. Maybe his ideology is a failure because it consistently draws from factual inaccuracies. Perhaps Doug should simply stick to innuendo and slander, without basing it on any particular event because invariably, he's going to botch the facts.
Before we get started, I find this funny. I really don't give a flying fuck, because it's an insult by it's very nature, but I still get a nice chuckle from it.
Anyway.. let's begin the shredding.. shall we? I do enjoy it so much. The foundation of the issue is the soldier asked to redeploy to Iraq after being classified with a disability by the VA. I wrote a short bit about it here. I'm not going to quote every word Doug wrote this time, because his mechanics have slipped again, and he's very repetitive. I will not, however, paraphrase anything.
The Leftwing Blogosphere and Leftwing e-mailers went ballistic on this. My cousin immediately sent me an e-mail stating that this kind of suffering and unfair tyrannical military actions are a direct result of Christianity, because if there was no Christianity, there would be no Islam (idiotic, I know but that is what she says).I need to come up with a name for this tactic. Doug likes to use it fairly frequently. The process entails picking out something that someone on the "left" said in an inarticulate fashion, then paraphrasing it, and then call it "idiotic". Apparently Doug thinks this is an effective debate tactic, as if he can demonstrate to his readers how "idiotic" the left is - by cherry picking less than well thought out opinions.
An astute observer might note that I do the exact same thing, but only to a point. Doug is the perfect foil of "conservative" because he says the dumbest shit, consistently gets his facts wrong, and his conclusions are borderline hallucinatory. The difference is, I don't cherry pick, and I don't paraphrase. It's much more effective to demonstrate the "idiocy" of the conservative ideology by highlighting the exact words, rather than arguing against the stawmen that Doug lives by.
In this case, Doug's cousin probably didn't literally mean that Islam would not exist if not for Christianity. The point is, and I support this argument, is that religion, by it's very nature, is antagonistic and violent. Religion leads to violent confrontations, and if not for organized religion, there would not be these religiously themed conflicts that we see around the world today.
Clearly, Doug's worldview is defined as "us vs them". Everything he writes is centered around his philosophy of "winners and losers". Liberals tend to view the world as if we all have an equal stake in it, and we all are more alike than different, and we all can "win", together. A good start would be to finally get over this mass hallucination that so many people are suffering from.
Obviously, that's an idealistic approach, but ideals do matter. You can't achieve great things without envisioning them as possible in the first place. Conservatism, and Doug's entire being, is pessimistic, fearful, and violent.
Tom the Neurotic Liberal Blogger said, "And the f***ers that cheered this on.. and the f***ers that think they deserve an opinion.. and the f***ers that didn't suit up and risk getting blown to pieces.. can f**k off. The vast majority of the "right wing Loon-o-sphere" sure can type a mean game.. eh?"How curious the asterisks. That's a strange mechanic that loons use, and I can't for the life of me understand why. Do they think that people can't understand what the actual word is? I've seen Doug use acronyms for "profane" words before, as if a different way of writing the profane word means it's not profane anymore.
Clue for the loons.. "phucker" and "fucker" is the same fucking thing, just as "bullshit" and "BS" are the same fucking thing... just as "f***kers" and "fuckers" are the same fucking thing. It's weird how their sensibilities can be offended by words, and in this case, letters.
The conservative morals are just twisted around backwards. Doug can post a picture of a nuclear detonation, in reference to turning Iraqi "cities to glass" - which of course is the vaporization of thousands and thousands of human beings, men, women, and children.. and that's A-OKAY!!11 but you can't see all the letters of the word "fuck" because that's immoral.
From the beginning we should have gone in with guns blazing, destroyed a few cities, turned some sand to glass, allowed for collateral damage, and showed the world that if you screw with the United States your nation is going to suffer. We should have went in from a position of strength. We should have went in as the Superpower that we are.And that's why I use "profane" language.. because I like to highlight the twisted world view and complete immoral functioning of the right wing Christian movement in the United States.
Nuking cities = Good
fucking = bad
Doug = certifiably insane
Wow, now that one is pure idiocy mixed with out-of-control anger . . . perhaps he needs to be lying on a couch explaining himself to a shrink.I addressed my "anger" here.
Stating that people have no business supporting a war effort without joining the military is like arguing that people don't have a right to be against illegal immigration if they never served as a Border Patrol Agent, or that I have no business supporting a politician if I've never been in politics. That argument by the left is pure lunacy, and proof that rather than argue the issue, they would rather go into a finger pointing, name calling fit.That characterization of the conservative ideology is "proof" in Doug's mind. Problem is, Doug doesn't even understand what "proof" is, and once again he reverts to analogies that do NOT fit the issue being discussed.
Is there an equivalence between the border patrol and 30,000 casualties in Iraq? Is there and equivalence between politics and 4000 dead Americans?
And once again, Doug bemoans the "finger pointing" and "name calling" in the same exact post he points his finger and calls names. You are singularly the stupidest fucking hypocrite on the face of the planet Doug - with bonus points for being oblivious to it.
Irony again abounds when Doug claims that liberals will "finger point" rather than argue the issues. I like to think I'm good at both. I can use "name calling" at the exact same time I'm arguing an issue, because I'm just talented that way.
How the fuck can a person that deletes every competing argument on his own blog even muster up the balls to claim that said liberals don't "argue the issues"? Jesus Fucking Christ on a stick, I just can't get over how stupid he is. Doug, you don't even argue issues, you argue points that nobody made, because you're paraphrasing everything, and getting it all wrong in the process. This blog is a towering monument to that.
Argue issues? Are you fucking kidding me?
Ages ago, Glenn Greenwald wrote a very detailed explanation why the failure of the conservative movement ideologues to actually participate in the Glorious War to Subjugate the Brown People actually matters. I went to his blog to find it, rather than have to write it out myself - and because Greenwald articulates the view far better than I could, and imagine what I find as the latest post on his blog.. a blistering indictment of pro-war (from a distance) neocon Bill Kristol. What Greenwald says about Kristol is true for every cheeto munching, mother's basement living, right wing freak that's avoided any responsibility for the carnage they've helped unleash.
As Greenwald says;
There are few more reprehensible traits in American political culture than the constant exploitation of the glories of "sacrifice for freedom" by war cheerleaders like Kristol who ensure that only others sacrifice and neither they nor their families ever do. What "sacrifices for the sake of freedom" has Bill Kristol -- the prime poster child of nepotistic protection -- ever made in his entire life? He really is someone who never ceases demanding that more and more people around the world be slaughtered, that more and more of the tiny sliver of his fellow citizens who serve in the military be separated from their families and die in wars that he cheers for, all the while telling them that it's their moral, patriotic and religious duty -- but never his or his family's -- to "sacrifice for freedom." Is it even possible to conceive of behavior more self-absorbed, dishonest, and repugnant than that?That really sums it up quite nicely. That's why the "left" gets so "angry" when a discharged soldier with a disability is called up once again to go face potential death in Iraq - while assholes like Kristol and Jonah Goldberg simply ask for more death and destruction.
So much worse, not only does Bill Kristol never endure any "sacrifices" himself, he benefits wildly from the sacrifices of others that he urges. People continue to be slaughtered and Americans sent to die so that his ideological dreams of an America-dominated Middle East and an Israel unconstrained by anyone or anything can be realized. As the wars and "sacrifices" rage on, his career as a War Commentator consequently flourishes, with more appearances on Fox, more readers for the war-loving Weekly Standard, and now even a column in the New York Times, itself the by-product of nepotistic connections, from which he preaches to the little people of their need to continue to sacrifice for his wars.
We need a draft.. of every member of the "young Republicans" and both of the Bush daughters.. and bring home those soldiers that have done their part.
Or.. you know.. bring them all home and let the Iraqis sort out their own issues. What's going to happen in Iraq is going to happen regardless.
As for the article about James Raymond, there may be an error in the article. The article states that the "Department of Veteran's Affairs determined that he was 10 percent disabled, enabling him to receive $120 a month for the rest of his life."There is no "error" in the article. As I pointed out, the article says;
In September 2004, he was given an honorable discharge and the Department Department of Veterans Affairs determined he was 10 percent disabled, enabling him to receive $120 a month for the rest of his life.I spent about 20 seconds to find the VA disability metrics at the military's web site, here.
Doug insists "we are both partially correct", when Doug is only correct in arguing against a point that nobody made. His mind works tangentially, and the tangent he ran off to is "military separation" and the article did not mention anything about that. It quite clearly states "Department of Veteran's Affairs determined".
Doug went off on that tangent because of his rampant narcissism, trying to inject his own experiences into the argument. The story was not about Doug. It was about an Iraq war vet, over 3 years discharged from the military, rated as disabled by the VA, and asked to return to a combat zone. It was all plainly detailed in the news report, however, Doug immediately thought he found an "untruth" in the "liberal media" report.. because he was biased to think it had to be there.
So, with an error like this in the article, I wonder how many other untruths there are in it.I wonder, Doug, with an error like you just made (VA disability benefits), I wonder how many "untruths" there are on your blog?
Answer - a fuck load of them.
I wonder, considering you were completely wrong, yet again, while attempting to discredit the Buffalo News, are you going to correct the post?
As the article in the Buffalo News explains, in addition to a service member's active duty commitment, there is a four year inactive reserve commitment in effect after a service member separates. Any disability that is less than 30% normally does not exempt a veteran from being later deployed during this period of Inactive Reserve. I learned quite a lot about this when I looked into re-entering the military service after the act of war against the United States on 9/11/2001, but because of my percentage, I am undeployable, therefore, unfit to serve.Bummer he was about 6 months from completing the "reserve commitment".
Again, Doug's narcissism requires that he let us know he tried to re-enlist, lest he be referred to as a "chicken hawk". It's unfortunate (in a sense) that I'm scrupulously ethical, lest I take a peek in the VA patient file to see what Doug's disability rating is. Not that it maters in any case, it's not about Doug, no matter how much he wants it to be about him. It doesn't matter.
The central issue is that most Americans are unaffected by the war. There is no national "sacrifice" - it's just an abuse of the Americans that did sign up. They get shot up in an unjust war, while ill equipped to begin with, and then come home to a system that abuses them.
James Raymond did his part. He was wounded in combat. He was trying to build a life, and now he's being sent back again while so many of these right wing assholes sit in their mom's basement cheering it on.
I understand the injuries that Raymond have incurred. I am deaf in my left ear, as is Mr. Raymond, and I have tinnitus (constant ringing in that ear) that is sometimes so loud I can't hear what people are saying in my other, still functioning, ear. And, like James Raymond, I have a damaged knee, one that the doctor's seriously wondered whether I would ever be able to use again. I was in a wheel chair, and graduated to a cane (twice), until I was finally able to walk fairly well, as I do now, with occasional bouts of pain that cause a visible limp. In addition to that, I incurred various other injuries during my time as a sailor, enough, apparently, to make me undeployable.More narcissism.. and it's really awful the way that Doug draws an equivalency between his injuries on a ship during peace time, to a combat soldier that was fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Nobody gives a shit about your injuries. It's not about you. It's about this young man, and countless other's like him. Christ..
But when I consider my disabilities, and then consider what I read about James Raymond's, I wonder. I am ready to return to service (or course it would be amidst objections by my wife) if ever they were willing to take me. But he, with less disability than myself, is crying foul.Crying foul? How you can put yourself on the same level as this young man, is narcissistic in the extreme. You're not going back in the military. You're not going anywhere. Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?
When James Raymond, like all other people who enter the U.S. Military, took that oath to defend this nation, he signed a contract. The contract included the inactive reserve period that he is now a part of. It is his obligation to fulfill the contract he signed. Or does the liberal left not place importance on contracts anymore?It wouldn't be a Doug post if he didn't try to tie the issue to the "liberal left" one paragraph after he accused a decorated combat veteran of "crying".
Not one single person has claimed this has anything at all to do with commitments or contracts, you stupid fucking moron. This is about the conditions that caused this young man to get called up again. This is about YOUR fucking failed ideology that must send him back into the meat grinder again... while so many like you narcissistic fucks sit back and claim he's "crying" or trying to skirt his duty.
He did his fucking duty, asshole.
Perhaps this is just more evidence of our Society of Dependency. Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are those cases where there are people that find it very difficult to fully participate in the rights that the Creator has endowed them. I recognize that there are some Americans that find themselves in such situations due to no fault of their own. These cases are rare, however, and should not dictate the direction of our society.Holy fucking tangent Batman. What the fuck?
Oh yes.. this is all the fault of "liberals" and "welfare". Jesus fucking Christ, the stupid it takes to connect government entitlements to this solider getting redeployed is monumental.
While Doug "recognizes that there are some Americans" - he never explains who the "some" are, versus the ones that somehow are undeserving, nor does he actually explain what entitlements he wants to do away with. It's rather exegasperating.
The current societal trend is to create dependency through a welfare state that perpetuates poverty. There are no rewards for getting people off of federal programs and no rewards for getting people back into the community with full-time jobs and independent lives.Ya, Jennifer.. you slacker.. You've got no incentive to get a fucking job you freeloader.
As a result of this welfare society that has been created, originally by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's unconstitutional "New Deal" which actually failed seven years after it had been originally put into place, and only succeeded because of the industry created by World War II, not because of his "socialized" government programs, our poorest neighborhoods are more violent and drug-infested, and the remainder of society has begun to believe that somehow the government owes them something.Holy fucking run-on-sentence Batman!
So now.. this soldier is being re-deployed to Iraq because of FDR.
Did your post actually make sense in your own head when you wrote it Doug? They have medications that can help with that now.
The New Deal was not unconstitutional - it's just a characterization from a movement that want's to dismantle Social Security and Medi-Care. Americans happen to like those programs, and they do a pretty good job. The loons have been propagandizing a "crises" for ages. There is no crises.
Why even argue it? Americans really like those programs, and there is absolutely no way they will be dismantled without suffering a popular revolt from the population.
And again, and I've had to do this before, I'll point out that FDR guided America from a isolationist position to global super power, and victory in WWII. That's Liberalism for you.
This "What can I get out of government" attitude is most apparent in stories we come across about people who take the "dependency" approach to life.Look, Doug.. you're a really fucking stupid, uninformed dumbass. You don't know a fucking thing about "welfare". You don't understand the rules, the qualifications, the justifications, the necessity, or the people who are assisted.
You really want to go down that road? You really want to post some annecdotal examples of people who abuse the system, and then try and extend the analogy to create the impression that it's the norm in the system? You really want to do that? Apparently so.. he did post a couple of analogies. Wow.. that must be the way everyone is, right?
Are you finally going to accuse Jennifer of trying to "get something out of the government"? I'd like to see that.
Or maybe, it's okay for Jennifer.. but not somebody else? Are you the arbiter of who gets a food stamp and who goes hungry?
The logical flaws in your argument are stunning.. completely incoherent rambling and ranting about the abuse of welfare. I suspect you're just regurgitating something you've read on other right wing blogs. You really don't have much capability in terms of independent thought, so I suspect that's the case.
Substantiate your argument Mr. "Argue Issues". For fucks sake..
In the end, the article in the Buffalo News is not about poor James Raymond who must place his life on hold, and go out on the battlefield with a bum ear and a less-than-100% knee.First he was "crying" and now he's "poor"? How dare he be upset having to once again go into combat?!?
Fuck you, you fucking douchebag asshole.
I'm going to stop quoting Doug now, because he just goes on for more paragraphs, accusing the soldier of being some sort of snivelling baby.. and accusing him of being a threat to unit "morale". I just find the whole thing disgusting. Doug isn't fit to carry that man's jock... all the while whining about his own situation and his own condition, lamenting his inability to rejoin the military - as if anybody is actually going to buy that argument.
Oh poor Doug.. waa.. waaa. waaa
That man is an American hero.. and fuck those assholes who think they have even a single right to say a fucking single thing about him.
No comments:
Post a Comment