Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not saying it was a good ad, I'm just saying I haven't heard anyone debunk the information they used to "prove" that Petraus was, indeed, cooking the books for the white house, maybe not by his own choice... I have nothing against the guy, but I agree with the right-wingers on this discussion (I think) that it's much more productive to attack the message (Petraus' data/conclusions, the ad's points) than the messenger (the general himself, moveon.org)...
Or maybe I don't agree with the right wingers on that? After all, global warming can't be true if Al Gore says it's true, right? Since he's probably an egotistical douche all the scientists who agree with him must be wrong.
I'm not saying it was a good ad, I'm just saying I haven't heard anyone debunk the information they used to "prove" that Petraus was, indeed, cooking the books for the white house, maybe not by his own choice... I have nothing against the guy, but I agree with the right-wingers on this discussion (I think) that it's much more productive to attack the message (Petraus' data/conclusions, the ad's points) than the messenger (the general himself, moveon.org)...
Or maybe I don't agree with the right wingers on that? After all, global warming can't be true if Al Gore says it's true, right? Since he's probably an egotistical douche all the scientists who agree with him must be wrong.
Well, if the "books" which have been "cooked" are so persuasive, why isn't anyone (including the Democrat members of the House and Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees, both of which they chair and control) persuaded to introduce articles of impeachment against the President, court martials against Patraeus and his staff, and cut off funds for the troops in Iraq?
Just because the Nutroots are convinced doesn't mean everyone else is.
p.s. Al Gore's credibility is such that he couldn't even carry Tennessee against Smirky McChimphitler. Gore enlarges the ozone every time he pontificates. And he needs to quit doing that lame impression of Oliver Hardy as Count Dracula.
Other than that, it looks like a nice chilly October day outside.
Okay... here's the ad, why not just pick like one point they made (besides calling Petraeus a traitor) that you can either disprove or show to be unproven or merely "assumed?" The internet is a huge place, it shouldn't be that hard.
I'm not saying it was a good ad, I'm just saying I haven't heard anyone debunk the information they used to "prove" that Petraus was, indeed, cooking the books for the white house, maybe not by his own choice... I have nothing against the guy, but I agree with the right-wingers on this discussion (I think) that it's much more productive to attack the message (Petraus' data/conclusions, the ad's points) than the messenger (the general himself, moveon.org)...
Or maybe I don't agree with the right wingers on that? After all, global warming can't be true if Al Gore says it's true, right? Since he's probably an egotistical douche all the scientists who agree with him must be wrong.
It does not matter. It is already out there in the media. That is their strategy to street fight as low and dirty as they can. They sit back and say now look they can't disprove it look look!
The first time I ever voted was against Clinton.
As far as Gore did you not read the article on Bio and emitting more gas than what we use now.
Yeah, wow he is right on top of that one alrighty!
If they're easy to debunk and dismantle why not do so? Think of it as a fun and informative mental exercise.
According to my Uncle Harry all the statements in the moveon ad are baseless.
If you try and say this is not a good counter arguement please explain how the ad using "according to" and "reported by" is more factual.
The ad says that the Pentagon only counts assasinations if they are shot to the back of the head, where is our source for this besides them saying it was reported by someone else.
Does it explain what a shot to the front of the head is considered? No, it does not.
And your assertation that it is easy to debunk is false. It was puposely written with no factual data so as to be impossible to debunk.
They know that the NY Times did write an article stating what they stated.
Once again we don't know where the data they used came from. How do we argue with this?
According to my Uncle Harry all the statements in the moveon ad are baseless.
If you try and say this is not a good counter arguement please explain how the ad using "according to" and "reported by" is more factual.
The ad says that the Pentagon only counts assasinations if they are shot to the back of the head, where is our source for this besides them saying it was reported by someone else.
Does it explain what a shot to the front of the head is considered? No, it does not.
And your assertation that it is easy to debunk is false. It was puposely written with no factual data so as to be impossible to debunk.
They know that the NY Times did write an article stating what they stated.
Once again we don't know where the data they used came from. How do we argue with this?
So the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. have no more credibility than Uncle Harry Peterson? If you don't want to debate the points in the ad, what about the articles they reference?
"It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased—a key
security benchmark—since it is difficult to measure whether the
perpetrators’ intents were sectarian in nature, and other measures of
population security show differing trends. "
"As displayed in figure 4, average daily attacks against civilians have remained
unchanged from February to July 2007."
And then you have the pretty conservative Washington Post:
"Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."
"Among the most worrisome trends cited by the NIE was escalating warfare between rival Shiite militias in southern Iraq that has consumed the port city of Basra and resulted last month in the assassination of two southern provincial governors. According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military's statistics."
Or the AP?
"Iraq is suffering about double the number of war-related deaths throughout the country compared with last year — an average daily toll of 33 in 2006, and 62 so far this year."
Like I said before, try not to confuse the message with the messenger.
I'm not saying it was a good ad, I'm just saying I haven't heard anyone debunk the information they used to "prove" that Petraus was, indeed, cooking the books for the white house, maybe not by his own choice... I have nothing against the guy, but I agree with the right-wingers on this discussion (I think) that it's much more productive to attack the message (Petraus' data/conclusions, the ad's points) than the messenger (the general himself, moveon.org)...
Or maybe I don't agree with the right wingers on that? After all, global warming can't be true if Al Gore says it's true, right? Since he's probably an egotistical douche all the scientists who agree with him must be wrong.
conspiracy theories run a muck yet again.
You are beating a dead horse. flip flop flip flop.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
