« AIDS Complacency | Main | A Simple Way to "Save" The Trackback »

Why was it only conservative bloggers?

I've looked around and have not seen this discussed. Maybe it was too self-evident or maybe I just missed it.

Why was it only conservative bloggers who were outraged at Eason Jordan's comments? Jordan accused the U.S. military of murdering journalists, yet the left side of the blogosphere felt no outrage?? I find that curious. There are only a 4 possibilities I can come up with:

1) They hate the military anyway, so slandering them was not a big deal.

2) They believed the insanity.

3) They knew Jordan was "on their side" so they protected one of their own no matter how egregious the behavior.

4) Their hatred of George Bush is so out of control they actually hoped it was true and could be tied to his orders.

It was most probably a combination of all of the above. The left has never been a friend of the people who protect this country. Clinton "loathed" the military and the liberals were OK with it. That hatred might have even lead them to believe it to be true. After all, when you go around shrieking about the military being baby killers and just trying to steal Iraq's oil, killing a few journalists would not be too far fetched.

Maybe they were quiet because they knew Jordan was one of them and they wanted him to protect him. It would not be the first time. Clinton abused women -one of the cardinal sins of the left- and he got a pass from the lefties because they liked his politics. You never heard the National Organization for Women complain about Clinton like they did Thomas or Packwood.

The most cynical reason of all is their hatred for Bush was so strong they hoped what Jordan said was true.... This is horrific to consider. That they would wish that upon their country for political gain. Still- their past behavior does not preclude that conclusion.

Whatever the reason, I think it speaks poorly of the lefty bloggers. We are a country at war and when our military was accused of a horrendous act, they remained silent. After an event like this, both sides should be united in a quest to get to the bottom of the allegations. -- And dare I say it, both sides should have turned a skeptical eye toward Mr. Jordan's comments.

But whatever motivates the left, it is clear that love of the military isn't it. Add this to the ever growing list of reasons why the majority of America does not trust the left with power.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why was it only conservative bloggers?:

» Scribe linked with Eason Jordan Defines the New Media

» Scribe linked with Eason Jordan Defines the New Media

» The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill linked with Or the even more worrisome question, why didn't Dr

» SeriouslyNow.Net linked with Education and Political Ideology Trends

» SeriouslyNow.Net linked with Education and Political Ideology Trends

» SeriouslyNow.Net linked with Education and Political Ideology Trends

» SeriouslyNow.Net linked with Education and Political Ideology Trends

» www.SeriouslyNow.Net linked with Education and Political Ideology Trends

Comments (67)

Bill Press, the liberal com... (Below threshold)
Johnny Oldfield:

Bill Press, the liberal comentator for CNN was on Reliable Sources yesterday and when asked of his opinion on the merits of Jordans charges he said something to the effect that he did not believe that the US military intentionally targets journalist, BUT then again he would have never thought that the US Military tourtured POW's before Abu Grahib came to light.. no one challenged him on this qualification of his defense of the military. I found it to be typical of his ilk on the left..the DO distrust the military but for political reasons can not be seen this way. His little slip I guess wsa his coded attempt to let his fellow liberals out there to know that he is right there with them.

Good question, I sort of le... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Good question, I sort of lean towards it being #3 for most of them, although I wonder if you shouldn't have added a #5 which is some combination of all of the above.

I think there really is an undercurrent of hatred for Bush, that probably influences the ability of the far left to think critically.

I fully believe that it is ... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

I fully believe that it is their hatred of Bush. They want to believe that he personally ordered the military to attack journalists in much the same way they wanted the ANG memos to be true. It justifies their belief that he is unfit to be the commander-in-chief. It would prove all the "Hitler" remarks as far as they were concerned.

In their minds, it proves the military is a bunch of thugs and their boss is a criminal.

Oh come off it, where's the... (Below threshold)

Oh come off it, where's the outrage from the conservative blogosphere at Jeff Gannon's bit of nuttery?

I think both sides are doing an excellent job of keeping the other honest. Why don't you just let it go at that and be happy both sides of the blogosphere have a large enough voice to kick scandals all the way up into the media realm?

Throughout history the left... (Below threshold)

Throughout history the left has cast a distrustful eye at the military, mainly because they fear and loathe the mindset that the military instills in its members. Honor in defending your country, sacrifice for your brother soldier or common man, responsibility for your actions, and adhering to a code of ethics that doesn't place more emphasis on the ends justifying the means. The military runs counter to everything the left wants to achieve. It's a disciplined hierarchy where performance takes precedent over pedigree (in most cases), where the common man with little education can excel. After years of applying social experimentation on the military, the left has failed to destroy its core attitudes and moral structure, and this makes them angry. During my entire time in the service, I fully understood that some administrations valued and understood the military’s role and purpose , and other administrations did not. It was no coincidence that Clinton was not popular with the rank and file military, and that George Bush gets overwhelming popular support even during a time with far longer and far more dangerous deployments.

Could it be that liberals a... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Could it be that liberals and liberalism are driven by dishonesty and hypocrisy and that both readily accept both?

#4... All the way. The le... (Below threshold)
LJD:

#4... All the way. The left is so completely out of control with their hatred, they'll accept any story to support their belief system.

It's not that they hate the... (Below threshold)
George:

It's not that they hate the military; it's that they
have been listening to CNN so long, they believe
without hesitation that our military is capable of
that.

The left believes that singular atrocities and
thuggery are not the actions of derelict
soldiers running counter to the greater
plan to bring good to the world. Instead,
they believe it is all right in line with the
grand evil imperial plan. Good is evil
and evil is good.

To the dismay of the left, Iraqis have more
hope than ever for their future. Most Iraqis
believe it was good to rid their leadership
of Saddam Hussein and only force could
have done that. The left is stuck with a
perplexing question: if force is evil, how
did force bring good?


Man, you guys have as much ... (Below threshold)

Man, you guys have as much hate and vitriol for the left as you purport that they have for Bush and Republicans.

Get a little perspective!

None of the above. Somehow... (Below threshold)
Jay:

None of the above. Somehow I don't think the left leaning blogosphere gets their talking points from the right leaning blogosphere. The fact is that nobody else really cares. He said something bad and is gone now--End of story.

Stephen VanDyke wrote:... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Stephen VanDyke wrote:

Man, you guys have as much hate and vitriol for the left as you purport that they have for Bush and Republicans.

Exactly.

To answer your question Paul, "Why was it only conservative bloggers?":

Come on dude, get off all the moral judgements about the left. Conservatives jumped all over Eason Jordan, and liberals all over Gannon for the very same fucking reasons, and you know it. Political gain. Both sides acted the same way, and went a bit too far with all of it, IMO.

Jordan made statements that were false at best, and Gannon asked lame questions. Big fucking deal. Bloggers latched onto both stories, and made them known, which is great. But all of this character assassination going back and forth between liberals and conservatives is stupid.

Liberals were soft on Jordan for the very reason that conservos were soft on Gannon. Both sides go after stories that help to demonize the other side. It's all for political gain, and conservatives do the very same thing. You know it.

Bloggers are a great equalizing force, which is really cool, but there has to be some in here who balance everyone out. I'm sick of seeing how far everyone takes things, the stretches that both sides make in trying to tear the other side apart.

The conservative side of the blogosphere engages in just as much slander as the liberal side. I think you're all going overboard.


None of the above. Someh... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

None of the above. Somehow I don't think the left leaning blogosphere gets their talking points from the right leaning blogosphere. The fact is that nobody else really cares. He said something bad and is gone now--End of story.

Jay...thanks for providing a bit of perspective here.

Anyone have a link to a lef... (Below threshold)

Anyone have a link to a lefty blog post asking why only the liberals are asking about Gannon? I would love to put this post and that one up side by side.

I know it's out there... gut feeling.

I'd qualify that statement ... (Below threshold)
Steve the LB:

I'd qualify that statement by saying it's only been since 1968 that the left hates the military--FDR, Truman, JFK and all were solid on this.

As to van Dyke's assertion, we at the LLamabutchers have been shocked---shocked---by the outrage of Gannonquiddick, and have relished in the takedown of that pillar of the MSM establishment of Talon News. The sheer inhumanity of the White House press secretary feeding softballs to preselected reporters---CJ Craig would never do such a thing!

I think we should make our mantra be "What Would CJ Do?" as the new standard in political ethics.

All the way. The left is... (Below threshold)
mantis:

All the way. The left is so completely out of control with their hatred, they'll accept any story to support their belief system.

So by not posting on a story, they automatically accept it? I haven't seen Wizbang post on how molemen are coming to take over the country, so I guess they must want it to happen!

Let's examine Paul's mindset here. If conservatives pay no attention to a story that liberals are all over, it's fine. But if liberals pay no attention to a story conservatives are all over, they are no good, insane Bush-hating, anti-military, America-killers. Right.

You may be right r.a, but l... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

You may be right r.a, but liberals claim to support out troops but not the war, this proves what I said earlier, dishonesty and hypocrisy. They would and have sacrificed the good name of the soldiers they claim to support, or at least have ignored when one of their own did it, for the sake of politics. Liberals never once complained when it was 90% of the media throwing softballs to Clinton, but are offended when one reporter does it with Bush.

One other thing r.a., you p... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

One other thing r.a., you proved my point completely by comparing Jordan lying about our troops with Gannon throwing a few easy questions, not even in the same ballpark to anyone reasonable.

mantis:Paul at Wiz... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

mantis:

Paul at Wizbang making unfounded accusations?

Shocking, I know.M... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Shocking, I know.

Molemen!!

bullwinkle:well, i... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

bullwinkle:

well, if you want to get into a comparative analysis, I would agree that Jordan's statements are a bigger issue, IMO. what gannon was and said was pretty inconsequential in my thinking...there are plenty of biased reporters, so his case was no surprise to me.

as far as proving your point: hardly. i was talking about each side latching on to something that offered some political gain, and then taking some kind of moral stance about it.

both stories are a good example of one side politicizing a story for their own benefit. thats all.

Bullwinkle:Libe... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Bullwinkle:

Liberals never once complained when it was 90% of the media throwing softballs to Clinton, but are offended when one reporter does it with Bush.

I wont disagree. Liberals latch onto things that they can politicize, so why would they make a big deal about that? Of course what you are saying is true....AND BOTH SIDES DO THIS. This is just like conservatives getting upset about liberals booing Bush. When Clinton was prez, conservatives engaged in the same behavior.

And dont read me as defending one side or the other on this. I think both sides act like 2 year olds way too often.

You may be right r.a, but liberals claim to support out troops but not the war, this proves what I said earlier, dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Oh stop it. I did not agree with the way that we went about going into Iraq, and I have people that I know who are there, and I am certainly not against my friends who are there. Damnit I'm tired of that crap. Do you think that I am being dishonest when I say that? How so? Just because I disagree with an action or a policy doesnt mean that I am against you, or anti-american, or that I hate conservatives. Its not that simple. The beautiful thing about this place is that we CAN disagree without being strung up or shot.

OK, then I guess you are ad... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

OK, then I guess you are admitting that the left is getting pretty desperate and the right isn't doing much wrong if Gannon is the best thing they can come up with. It's good to see honesty like that from the left!

OK, then I guess you are... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

OK, then I guess you are admitting that the left is getting pretty desperate and the right isn't doing much wrong if Gannon is the best thing they can come up with. It's good to see honesty like that from the left!

Jordan made remarks that were incorrect. People exposed this. Thats good. Do I think that his whole career should go down the tubes because of it? No, I dont. I think its good that there are people who are catching misinformation and correcting it. Many people have made false accusations in the past, or lied, on all sides.

Look, stop trying to "win" against me. I'm not trying to defeat you at all, I'm just bringing up the fact that both sides do the same damn thing.

ra in his own goofy way sai... (Below threshold)
Paul:

ra in his own goofy way said:

"Jordan made remarks that were incorrect"

WRONG

He falsely accused people of murder.

Get a freaking clue.

ra and all the other lefty ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

ra and all the other lefty apologists.

See This Also

Paul,Uh...his rema... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Paul,

Uh...his remarks WERE incorrect Paul, so where am I wrong?

Incorrect (adj) 1. Not correct; erroneous or wrong: an incorrect answer.

Maybe I should use stronger language to appeal to your style of writing: Jordan made false assertions, unfounded accusations that were exposed. Better?

No, r.a., you must accuse h... (Below threshold)
mantis:

No, r.a., you must accuse him of treason and demand his head on a stake, otherwise you are downplaying his horrendous offenses and therefore agree with him.

word games... word games...... (Below threshold)
Paul:

word games... word games... word games...

Use for brain for something better.

You spend so much mental horsepower trying to defend the indefensible, it amazes me you don't figure out it is indefensible.

Uh...Paul sorry to burst yo... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Uh...Paul sorry to burst your bubble but I'm not apologizing for anyone. I have been writing that both sides latch onto stories for obvious political reasons, for political gain.

Liberals and Conservatives both engage in the same kind of behavior.

The "reasons" that you presented seemed to leave out the obvious reason for why conservatives and not liberals latched onto the Eason Jordan story. Conservatives had something to gain politically, and Liberals did not. For the same reason, Liberals publicize the hell out of things like Abu Ghraib.

I heard about it, read about it on all sorts of blogs. Yes Paul, conservative blogs. It was a good thing that they brought it to light. I think that Jordan made accusations that were unfounded, he was caught, and its good that he was. Yeah bloggers.

You are making the assertion that somehow because liberal blogs didnt latch onto the story that means that liberals are now morally inferior, and thats another one of your huge leaps in logic. Nice try though.

r.a.Saying that Jo... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

r.a.

Saying that Jorden's comments were "incorrect" is being disengenuous. He accused our troops of deliberatly targeting and killing journalists. That accusation alone is outrageous, and anyone who thinks our troops are going around killing journalists, indeed doesn't support our troops.

As for the Gannon comparison-I am not biting. Sorry, but my whole take on the Gannon thing has mostly been a "who cares?" He was a small time reporter, and he asked softball questions. The only real controversy seems to be whether or not he actually had access to the Valerie Plame documents/information, but in this case, you could actually argue for journalistic integrity, since he didn't print what was in the leak, until the leak had long been revealed.

All the gay stuff, I really don't care about, unless it turns out he was actually doing something illegal, and in that case, charge him, convict him a punish him.

But there is just something morally repulsive to me, in accusing our troops of murdering journalists, and giving the man who made the accusation and without any offer of proof a free pass.

You spend so much mental... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

You spend so much mental horsepower trying to defend the indefensible, it amazes me you don't figure out it is indefensible.

I'm not defending Jordan, I havent once. I'm saying that each side politicizes issues to their own benefit, and that the answer to the question of your post. Liberals dont jump onto issues that offer them no political gain, conservatives do the same thing. It's really very simple.

You want to turn this into a moral judgement on all liberals, but thats a big jump IMO.

r.a.In addition I ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

r.a.

In addition I agree that liberals and conservatives will latch on to things that give their side something to run with politically.

But there are just some stories that should be equal opporunity outrageous. I think the accusations by Eason Jodan qualify. The man was accusing our soldiers of doing something illegal, and repulsive, he did not deserve any kind of pass from liberals on this one.

When Abu Graib broke, I saw many a conservative covering the story for the outrage it was-they didn't beat the dead horse as much as liberals did, but they still covered it for what it was (I will add a for the most part, you can probably find me somebody who was totally defending what heppened).

There are some things that should bother everyone, and apparantly the liberals who say "we support our troops, but not the war" couldn't muster up much outrage, when the troops they support were accused of murder without any evidence. There is a real moral dissconnect on this one-and you should see it.

Saying that Jorden's com... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Saying that Jorden's comments were "incorrect" is being disengenuous. He accused our troops of deliberatly targeting and killing journalists. That accusation alone is outrageous, and anyone who thinks our troops are going around killing journalists, indeed doesn't support our troops.

Oh fuck. You guys are getting on me for saying incorrect instead of false. Big deal. I read all about it, and Jordan made assertions that were over the top, and he was called out. I've been saying here that its good that he was caught, and exposed. It sounds like you guys are upset that I dont sound shocked enough...but to be honest I'm finding it hard to be shocked by what a lot of shitheads in the media spit out...ON ALL SIDES.

As for the Gannon-Eason comparison....I'm not on here trying to say that I think that they both have an equal moral weight...I dont...it was an example of how both sides latch onto something for their own political gain.

All the gay stuff, I really don't care about, unless it turns out he was actually doing something illegal, and in that case, charge him, convict him a punish him.

I thought it was ridiculous that the guy's personal life and character was dragged through the mud. Completely stupid for people to resort to that shit.

But there is just something morally repulsive to me, in accusing our troops of murdering journalists, and giving the man who made the accusation and without any offer of proof a free pass.

Agreed. And he was caught and exposed and thats great. People on all sides make assertions that are morally repulsive IMO.

I consider myself neither a... (Below threshold)
Tom:

I consider myself neither a righty or lefty blogger (though I have been accused of being both, amusingly), just someone who covers the media. I gladly got myself caught up to speed on Jordan and posted on this subject twice, although not with any huge vitriol or attack towards him, just trying to relay what information I had on it, and shared a little bit of my own opinion, which is, and was, that he obviously knew what he was saying and that the backtracking was the worst thing he could have done - especially considering he had made the statements once before.

I can't speak for lefty "political" bloggers, but I will say that just as the righty bloggers go after lefty pundits and such, they do the same - there's no equal opportunity when it comes to poliblogging, and there are hundreds of examples of proof of that. If people would set aside their political beliefs for a second and assess what is actually right and wrong, not right and left, for two seconds, debate would be much more interesting and less annoying than "your party sucks," and "no, yours does."

It is interesting that both the Gannon and Jordan incidents came about at the same time, and how you can slice bloggers everywhere in a nice manner to show who covered what, how.

But there are just some ... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

But there are just some stories that should be equal opporunity outrageous. I think the accusations by Eason Jodan qualify. The man was accusing our soldiers of doing something illegal, and repulsive, he did not deserve any kind of pass from liberals on this one.

Yes. I completely agree, but what I was talking about was the sad game of political gain, and suggesting that that was why liberals didnt jump on board.

When Abu Graib broke, I saw many a conservative covering the story for the outrage it was-they didn't beat the dead horse as much as liberals did, but they still covered it for what it was (I will add a for the most part, you can probably find me somebody who was totally defending what heppened).

Hmmm...I would say that the liberal media went after that one with alot more zeal. I think that some conservatives went after it, but they werent trying to break the story wide open the same way as they have with this Jordan ordeal. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats how I remember it...I wouldnt guess that conservatives would have defended Abu Graib, but I also want surprised when they didnt want to publicize it as much as liberals...its the game.

There are some things that should bother everyone, and apparantly the liberals who say "we support our troops, but not the war" couldn't muster up much outrage, when the troops they support were accused of murder without any evidence. There is a real moral dissconnect on this one-and you should see it.

I do see it. And I'm not on here saying that Liberals are all that is good, or that they are the paragon of virtue either. I think both sides suck in many cases, and care too much about political gain. I thought they went way overboard on Gannon, and that was all for political gain.

If people would set asid... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

If people would set aside their political beliefs for a second and assess what is actually right and wrong, not right and left, for two seconds, debate would be much more interesting and less annoying than "your party sucks," and "no, yours does."

YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Liberalism for most is a la... (Below threshold)
Rick:

Liberalism for most is a lazy ideology. They also don't police their own as they have few principles that are hard and fast.

Liberals love to insult conservative intelligence but the truth is ugly. Many of the highest educated are Democratic but most are dirt poor and hence are vulnerable to Liberal class warfare. Conservatives tend to be better rounded educationally as they tend to fall in the Middle and less so in the elite academia.

We found recently in Public Opinion Class that most with a Bachelor's were more conservative, while most people with Graduate degrees tend toward liberal ideas. Why?, no one is really sure.

"Hmmm...I would say that th... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"Hmmm...I would say that the liberal media went after that one with alot more zeal."

Well, not surprising, but then I agree with you that each side will run with the things that support their side. But Fox news did a lot of coverage of Abu Graib, and I saw plenty of coverage in conservative blogs. Probably not as much as the left, but definitely it wasn't ignored.

I haven't seen much come out of the left bloggers about the Eason Jordan comments, and the MSM still isn't really covering the real story.

So I agree with you that there are political motivations in what is covered by blogs and the MSM, but other than the conservative bloggers, nobody seemed willing to tough the Eason Jordan story, and there is just something not right about that.

To put it one way, how do you think soldiers in Iraq right now feel about being accused of murder, and the fact that the left and the MSM seem unwilling to come to their defense?

Let me clarify-"the Left" i... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Let me clarify-"the Left" in my above post, is probably way too broad a brush stroke, since we know some members of the left at the meeting called Jordan on the comments. But the left bloggers, and wingnut left, and the MSM seem unwilling to really touch the story and defend our troops.

"We found recently in Publi... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"We found recently in Public Opinion Class that most with a Bachelor's were more conservative, while most people with Graduate degrees tend toward liberal ideas. Why?, no one is really sure."

This is an interesting fact. I wonder if they broke this down by actual graduate degree, and if that made a difference. I have a master's degree, but it hasnt made me any more liberal-actually I used to be very much in the liberal corner in college, swung to the right not long after I got out, and have probably swung a bit more towards the middle in the last few years.

To put it one way, how d... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

To put it one way, how do you think soldiers in Iraq right now feel about being accused of murder, and the fact that the left and the MSM seem unwilling to come to their defense?

I think that they would be pissed off for being accused of murdering reporters, but I'm guessing. But you're asking a really broad question here. What do all soldiers think about this accusation? Who knows? Maybe some are really pissed off, maybe some think that its politicized bullshit, and maybe some think that reporters should get shot! How the hell could I know?

Have you taken a poll of all soldiers in Iraq?

Maybe alot of soldiers just... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Maybe alot of soldiers just think that Eason Jordan is an idiot.

Many of the highest educ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Many of the highest educated are Democratic but most are dirt poor and hence are vulnerable to Liberal class warfare. Conservatives tend to be better rounded educationally as they tend to fall in the Middle and less so in the elite academia.

We found recently in Public Opinion Class that most with a Bachelor's were more conservative, while most people with Graduate degrees tend toward liberal ideas. Why?, no one is really sure.

Where are you getting this information from? And when you say you recently found in class, do you mean you're class did a survey? Of whom?

Interesting thread, and the... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Interesting thread, and the most balanced comments seem to be coming from r.a., if that matters. Having been in the military and experienced a little of the frustration with the politicians and the media, I would be even more frustrated by the comments of Mr. Jordan. It does damage to a group of people who are sacrificing something many will never understand, unless they experience it themselves.

Even more frustrating though, for me as a fiscal conservative, social liberal, is the actions taken by a few in the military at the Abu Ghraib prison. There should have never been any question that everyone involved, from the bottom to the top, should have been shown the door, with a boot in the ass to help them through. Now, does that include George? Maybe, but probably not because you would be hard pressed to prove a direct link. Even a direct link with Rumfield would be hard to prove, but he should have stepped down as a show of his resolve and overall responsibility for the DOD.

It really sickens me that these few people have poisoned the minds of the public and given ammunition to the media for questioning the character of all the military.

ra Once again you type thou... (Below threshold)
Paul:

ra Once again you type thousands of words and change the subject but you can't escape the core point.

The head of CNN news accuses our troops of murder and the left didn't give a fuck or even raise one finger to defend the troops.

You can sniff, snort, reply and retort but you can't change the facts.

Don't blame me for pointing it out.

r.a. the question was mostl... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

r.a. the question was mostly rhetorical, I wasn't expecting stats or anything.

But I do think it sucks, that when a man accused the military of doing something pretty evil, without any evidence or support for the claims, and the MSM/liberal leaning bloggers basically avoid the story.

These accusations were a huge slap in the face to the military, and they came out of the mouth of somebody in charge of a newsroom. They deserve better than that.

Just Me:But I d... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Just Me:

But I do think it sucks, that when a man accused the military of doing something pretty evil, without any evidence or support for the claims, and the MSM/liberal leaning bloggers basically avoid the story.

Me too. I'd chalk it up to politically motivated BS.

ra re your comment <a href=... (Below threshold)
Paul:

ra re your comment here

Look I give you lots of rope. But that reply was just intellectually dishonest.

Some guy asks how you think the soldiers in Iraq feel about being accused of murder and you say "I don't know how they feel, did you poll them?"

Dude that was just stupid.

Do you really think ANYONE would be ambilvilant (sp?) about being wrongfully accused of murder? Come on....

If you want to debate an intellectual point, dig in.... If you want to play dumbshit word games I'll delete it with a good heart.

You are quick gaining a reputation for jumping starting a flame war by setting up strawmen and playing word games.

I'll quickly gain a reputation for deleting that.

Grow up and debate ideas or just give it up. KnowwhatImean?

Paul, cool it.You ... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Paul, cool it.

You provided reasons that support your anti-liberal ideology, and I just tried to get you to look at it a little differently, which hasnt worked yet.

But when you try to use such examples as a reason to give conservatives a moral kudos, I simply tried to remind you that both sides engage in the same behaviors. Dont act like conservatives dont pursue issues for political gain. They do it just as anyone does.

Liberals didnt make much noise about Jordan, predictably, because it wouldnt reflect too well on them as Jordan is considered a liberal type. Not surprising. That doesnt mean that I agree with what they do, it means that I see whats going on. Political games.

Similarly, I wouldnt expect Conservatives to start some big investigation if the guy in question was a known conservative. It's really very simple.

Conservos call out Liberals, and vice versa. Simple.

You're jumping on the bandwagon and trying to say that since liberals arent all over the story they must all be military hating assholes, and thats a big leap. Sorry, but I dont agree with your logic.

Dont give me that sh... (Below threshold)
r.a.:


Dont give me that shit about deleting posts.


I'm sorry ra, were you saying something?

"Where are you getting this... (Below threshold)
Rick:

"Where are you getting this information from? And when you say you recently found in class, do you mean you're class did a survey? Of whom?"

In public opinion there are a lot of phenomena. The educational phenomena in terms of educations apparent correlation with party identification and self-described placement on the liberal/conservative spectrum is what i was referring to.

The numbers as the class are primarily based on a textbook, Public Opinion published in 1999 and authored by Carroll J. Glynn of Ohio State University, Susan Herbst of Northwestern University, Garret J. O'Keefe of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and Robert Y. Shapiro of Columbia University. They refer to various studies, including such regular polls as the GSS and NES. I took the class was last year, which for me is recent, at the University of Central Florida.

Its important to know that one thing we learned is that Public Opinion is an evershifting study that centers a lot on trends and various relationships or phenomena. Surveys, polls, etc often can't prove why, but they can point out patterns. The one I referred to earlier was that a conservative trend is found among those with bachelor level degrees but that for those graduate and post graduate studies there is a tendency to be more liberal. I personally find this to be evident in academia, which isn't to say that all professors are liberal it is merely to say that more are than are not.

If I get the chance I will analyze the NES2000 data we are currently working with in my scope and methods class to see what that data shows. I'll post that at my site at: www.seriouslynow.net

I suppose you feel that cen... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

I suppose you feel that censorship is power Paul. Well, to me it seems to prove that you cannot engage in debate that counters your ideas. I wonder how Kevin feels about you deleting posts that disagree with you. It seems that you would want to maintain a certain level of integrity, but clearly that isnt the case.

Your actions reveal your cowardice.

I stayed away from this who... (Below threshold)

I stayed away from this whole argument because of what r.a. said. My last attempt to throw softballs at Paul ended in disaster. Paul goes off on Power trips, and sounds as bad as Rob Hackney sometimes. He reminds me of a kid who, when you try to tell them something they don't want to hear, covers their ears and goes "LALALALALALALALALALA", then claims that what you said is wrong.

speaking truth to Journalis... (Below threshold)

speaking truth to Journalists. The left win Blogs follow the MSM. The right wing blogs follow the blood trail

ra you apparently can't rea... (Below threshold)
Paul:

ra you apparently can't read.

I've said multiple times that I will never delete you for disagreeing. But when you make asinine remarks, I'll keep them in check.

But for the record, you've never really disagreed with me because you can't. I say things that are demonstrably true. Instead, what you do is you disprove something I didn't say then imply that what I said was wrong because of that.

It is a technique you've perfected. I have a short fuse for intellectual dishonesty.

Sorry, thems is the breaks.

- If I were to accept the i... (Below threshold)

- If I were to accept the idea that I'm basically anti-Liberal/Marxist/Socialist/Progressive I wouldn't think that a bad thing, although thats an easy cop-out....playing the "victim" when you're not too proud of the groups actions that you are affiliated with is just weak.....

- Its not hard being "anti" any group that marches around with signs that say ..."We support our troops when they shoot their officers"....

- If I took the time to sit down and simply list all of the egregious, over the top, criminal, libelous actions of the left for the past 15 months I would need a hell of a lot of paper....No...the two sides of this equation are not "morally equivalent"... not in the opinion of anybody with a working brain cell....

- But its one of the "business as usual" outs for the AssHats and their ilk.....

- The really good news is the "elitist" left still isn't listening to anybody, and insists on making their choice of party logo apropos wuth their inane arguments.....

Oh get off it Paul. My "in... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Oh get off it Paul. My "intellectually dishonest" statement that set you off was when I didnt pretend to know what then consensus is on Eason Jordan by soldiers in Iraq? I did venture a guess that many are probably pissed, and that some probably just think that he's an idiot. How is that in any way dishonest? I dont know what they think, I can guess what many probably think, but why is it so offensive to you when I wont make generalizations about what I dont know?

I really dont get why you were set off by that one, and why that was such a horrible sentence that you needed to lash out about it. Damn, I was being honest in saying that I dont know what they think. For all I know many guys there dont give a damn what some liberal like Jordan says.

About the thread: I was answering your question about why it was all conservatives who took out Jordan, and the answer is really simple...political gain and bullshit, and I wasnt supporting liberals for it by any means.

But by your logic, silence on the part of liberal bloggers somehow implicates "the left" automatically. I tried to get you to consider the fact that both sides do things that are politically motivated, and that its not really accurate to condemn the entire left for this Eason Jordan ordeal.

Conservatives didnt go haywire about exposing the prison scandal at Abu Ghraib, understandably. By no means do I think that because of that, all people on the right support what happened, or are morally inferior, or anything. Thats basically what you are implying about the left on this post, and I'm just trying to get you to think a little more relatively.

I do disagree with what you are implying about the left, based on lefty bloggers reaction to this issue.

I am not disagreeing with you about Eason Jordan, and what he said. I am not disagreeing that it is a good thing this was brought out by bloggers.

Does the left truly get "ba... (Below threshold)
LJD:

Does the left truly get "bashed", or do they get called on their B.S.- that which they freely choose to say and believe. No one on the right is saying some one is a liar, a Hitler. No one on the right is saying our troops are torturing people and shooting journalists.

Do both sides need to find higher ground and work together? Maybe. But if the shoe fits... You dug your hole, lost the legislative and executive branches, and continue to dig deeper. Thank Boxer and Kennedy. Thank Dean, who started all this vitriol, and you went and made him Party Chair. Keep up the good work!

I agree with DavidB to some extent, as a veteran it is sickening to see media and Americans, trade our national security and integrity for political gain. I don't see how criticism of the left in any way affects our success overseas, or international stature.

Maybe we're shooting the wrong journalists. A strong thing to say. Not something I necessarily support, but it gives perspective to the crap coming from the other side.

it is sickening to see m... (Below threshold)
mantis:

it is sickening to see media and Americans, trade our national security and integrity for political gain. I don't see how criticism of the left in any way affects our success overseas, or international stature.

Criticize the right, and you're a traitor, criticize the left, and it doesn't matter. Hmm.

Mantis, no he was mentionin... (Below threshold)

Mantis, no he was mentioning criticizing the men in uniform, which are politic-neutral. They only exist to serve (during their time of service, that is). Get a clue and stop thinking in terms of right and left all the time.

It should be noted that Jor... (Below threshold)

It should be noted that Jordan's remarks were SO OFFENSIVE that they inspired noted right-wing Republican warmongers like Frank and Dodd to not only challenge them right there but later confirm what Jordan said in interviews and releases to "right-wing" sources.

Henry, it wasn't me who was... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Henry, it wasn't me who was equating the military with the right, it was LJD. By offering the counterpoint of criticizing the left, he implies that by criticizing the military you criticize the right, and vice versa.

Jeez, how to ruin a potenti... (Below threshold)
BR:

Jeez, how to ruin a potentially interesting thread. These days when I see "r.a." or "mantis" or "henry", I already know it's going to be a boring thread, with well-meaning conservatives falling for their bait. No sense casting pearls before swine. Why anyone even bothers feeding the trolls is beyond me.

If it weren't for the rubbish in between, I could have enjoyed conversing with Gabriel earlier in the thread. I've just finished the first 30 pages of Ann Coulter's "Treason" - describing the left's treachery since before WWII, all set out there and well-researched.

Steve the LB - it's earlier than '68. See the above book for FDR and Truman's collusion with Stalin and keeping known Soviet spies Alger Hiss, etc. and their apologists like Dean Acheson, in high govt positions, even promoting them after warnings from FBI Dir. Hoover and the then-Canadian Prime Minister.

This is probably a cold thr... (Below threshold)
BR:

This is probably a cold thread now, but Paul - in answer to your main article: I would say yes, 1-4. Those are four current manifestations of the underlying anti-survival tendencies of the insane. Anti-survival on a personal level, against others and any pro-survival group, activity and goal. Their goals are death for self and pulling all others down with them. That's why they are poison to a healthy society.

Why do they cluster together in the Democrat Party? I suppose its leaders since FDR have attracted them. But for Joe McCarthy and the patriots of the earlier Venona Project, they might have found their home in a thriving Communist Party today. And then the next step would have been one party only.

Related to this subject ..... (Below threshold)
Thomas:

Related to this subject ..... why has Robert Novak not been ostracized and imprisoned for exposing a CIA operative?

Where is the right on this?

BR...Why dont you ... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

BR...

Why dont you just address me directly? I'll debate with you anytime, and I'll do it without resorting to name mud slinging.

I find it very corwardly of you to make your little generalizations based on your beliefs about me, based on your 30 pages of Ann Coulter. She certainly has her points, as similar "lefty" writers do, but she loses validity for me due to her goals...she's just trying to create more hostility between all of us. I think that what she and Moore do is stupid.

And you've bought into it...here you are regurgitating her vitriole toward people that you dont even know, safely hidden behind your computer screen.

I would like to see more of you guys get away from the insults and just talk about issues. People have differing viewpoints...I'm ok with listening to yours without calling you names, etc...so whats your problem?

typos:"name mud sl... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

typos:

"name mud slinging" should just say "mud slinging"

"corwardly" ---> "cowardly"

crap.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy