Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Constant Reader who wrote (39020)	8/17/2005 11:31:03 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"I could be wrong about that but rapidly declining polling numbers aren't reassuring." Uh huh. Keep in mind there are a few things at play here. Many of the polls are BS bought & paid for by the lib MSM to achieve the desired outcome. They over sample dems & under sample conservatives often by wide margins. They ask leading & misleading questions. The lib MSM makes damn sure to pound Americans every single day with a heavy dose of all things negative regarding Iraq, the GWOT, our military & the Bush Admin. And for good measure they give wide coverage to all manner of looney lib politicians & left wing activists. Yet they rarely report on all the blatant lies & intentional misinformation these folks spew. And forget any objective coverage of all the positive developments. Don't you think that this may have a lot to do with the declining opinions of average Americans on the GWOT, Iraq & the Bush Admin? Heck, they have most Americans convinced the economy has been for years & continues to be in the tank despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's just that this evidence isn't widely or honestly reported. Instead we read front page "news" analyses, countless editorial pages & listen to leading libs telling us the exact opposite thing day after day. Rather than give in to popular misperception, why not speak out about against those who are doing their damndest to intentionally misinform the public & place our national security at risk over a blatant partisan political agenda?

To: Constant Reader who wrote (39020)	8/17/2005 11:37:40 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"The "chickenhawk" argument proves only one point: The left is incapable of discussing foreign policy in a rational manner." Why the 'Chickenhawk' argument is un-American: Part I Ben Shapiro townhall.com August 17, 2005 Who is qualified to speak on matters of national security? According to the American left, only pacifists, military members who have served in combat and direct relatives of those slain in combat or in acts of terrorism. The rest of us -- about 80 percent of voters -- must simply sit by silently. Our opinions do not matter. You want disenfranchisement? Talk to the political left, which seeks to exclude the vast majority of the American populace from the national debate about foreign policy. The bulk of the left in this country refuses to argue about foreign policy rationally, without resorting to ad hominem attack. The favored ad hominem attack of the left these days is "chickenhawk." The argument goes something like this: If you believe in any of the wars America is currently fighting, you must join the military. If you do not, you must shut up. If, on the other hand, you believe that America should disengage from all foreign wars, you may feel free not to serve in the military. This is the argument made by hate-America radicals like Michael Moore, who defines "chickenhawk" on his website thus: "A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person's youth." The "chickenhawk" argument was the implicit centerpiece of John Kerry's presidential campaign -- Kerry hyped his military service and denigrated George W. Bush's military service, all the while focusing on the fact that he, unlike President Bush, was anti-war. Kerry's campaign underling, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, made the argument explicit during April 2004: "They shriek like a hawk, but they have the backbone of the chicken," he said of the Bush Administration. "The lead chickenhawk against Sen. Kerry [is] the vice president of the United States, Vice President Cheney." Not coincidentally, Lautenberg utilized Moore's exact "chickenhawk" definition in making his point. The "chickenhawk" argument is dishonest. It is dishonest because the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal) as well as freedom of speech about political issues. We constantly vote on activities with which we may or may not be intimately involved. We vote on police policy, though few of us are policemen; we vote on welfare policy, though few of us either work in the welfare bureaucracy or have been on welfare; we vote on tax policy, even if some of us don't pay taxes. The list goes on and on. Representative democracy necessarily means that millions of us vote on issues with which we have had little practical experience. The "chickenhawk" argument -- which states that if you haven't served in the military, you can't have an opinion on foreign policy -- explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy. The "chickenhawk" argument also explicitly rejects the Constitution itself. The Constitution provides that civilians control the military. The president of the United States is commander-in-chief, whether or not he has served in the military. Congress controls the purse strings and declares war, no matter whether any of its members have served in the military or not. For foreign policy doves to high-handedly declare that military service is a prerequisite to a hawkish foreign policy mindset is not only dangerous, but directly conflicts with the Constitution itself. The "chickenhawk" argument proves only one point: The left is incapable of discussing foreign policy in a rational manner. They must resort to purely emotional, base personal attacks in order to forward their agenda. And so, unable or unwilling to counter the arguments of those like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and President Bush, they label them all "chickenhawks." By the leftist logic, here are some other "chickenhawks": John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton. American soldiers fight for the right of all Americans, regardless of race, class or past service, to speak out on foreign policy issues. If they fight for the right of pacifist anti-military fifth columnists like Michael Moore to denigrate their honor, they certainly fight for the right of civilian hawks to speak up in favor of the highest level of moral and material support for their heroism. ©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc. townhall.com

To: Constant Reader who wrote (39020)	8/17/2005 12:20:53 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"If I Got My News From the Newspapers I'd be Pretty Depressed As Well" Media Blog Stephen Spruiell Reporting Mark Finkelstein over at Newsbusters reported this morning that Matt Lauer got a surprise answer from a soldier on a recent trip to Iraq. After asking about morale, a few soldiers told him that morale was good. Like any good morning TV show journalist, Lauer was skeptical: LAUER: Don't get me wrong, I think you're probably telling the truth, but there might be a lot of people at home wondering how that might be possible with the conditions you're facing and with the insurgent attacks you're facing... What would you say to people who doubt that morale could be that high? CAPTAIN SHERMAN POWELL: Well sir, I'd tell you, if I got my news from the newspapers I'd be pretty depressed as well. Powell said that he knows the media have a hard time getting out in Iraq and seeing the improvements, but that he's "satisfied" and "proud" of the work the United States is doing in Iraq. Don't you also love how Lauer says, "What would you say to people who doubt that morale could be that high?" when he means, "What would you say to Matt Lauer, who doubts that morale could be that high?" media.nationalreview.com newsbusters.org