Nice try. They are often defended as good and honorable because most all of them trained in US military.

Plus, they are doing jobs previously done only by soldiers -- guarding top US dignitaries in a foreign nation in wartime.

Whatever, they reflect on our nation just as if they were soldiers.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Uh, no, they don't. Not anymore than Boeing or Microsoft reflect our nation.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Rush Limblow.

Tom W

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

You share a certain history with Limbaugh.

Of course they do. You think an Iraqi is going to say to himself, 'he killed my brother, but he's not American, he's a Blackwater employee - I should hate them'?
And Boeing and Microsoft and McDonalds most certainly reflect our nation.

__________________
1984 300TD

ITs OK to attack Rush becasue you disagree with him.
But dosn't it bother you that 41 US Senators signed a letter designed to intimidate and limit his freedom of speech.

You MUST defend the speech you hate, or you do not truly support free speech.
If all you want to allow is that agrees with you, then, me friends, you are quite simply totalitarians.
And you parade as liberals.
Hypocrisy, if you ask me.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I think you missed the rule system.

It's hate speech when Limbaugh says it. It is free speech when MoveOn or MediaMatters says it.

Who are you talking to? I am sure that there are people who exhibit the hypocrisy you describe, but I don't recall seeing any of that on this website.

Limbaugh is repugnant, if you ask me, but he bothers me less than do those in Congress who think it is there place to either condemn or honor what he says. They are almost as bad as the ones who condemned moveon's ad attacking General Patraeus.

Says who? That looks like the type of straw man that Limbaugh uses all the time.

Implicit by those that decry the one and promote the other.

B

Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, and ignore the log in your own eye. Friend, first remove the log from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to be able to remove the speck in your brother's eye.

I know its pie-in-the-sky, but I'd like to see fairness, honesty and integrity displayed on BOTH sides.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I don't recall anyone saying that Limbaugh shouldn't be allowed to say whatever he wants. I also don't recall anyone saying that it was inappropriate for Congress to condemn moveon.org but appropriate for them to condemn Limbaugh.

My view is that moveon.org made a good faith argument, which was not ad hominem, that said that there is reason to ask whether General Patraeus might betray the country. It's not something I would have said, but their ad is obviously, unambiguously within the limits of permissible public debate. I also believe that they acted in good faith, although there is no way for me to know that for sure.

Limbaugh, by contrast, said something that appears to be ad hominem and then came up with a questionable story to explain why it really wasn't.

So, I would encourage people on all points on the political spectrum to continue to exercise the form of free speech used by moveon.org and I encourage people to stop being afraid to consider moveon's arguments. Most people probably reject moveon's arguments, I generally do, but there is no reason to fear them. I would also encourage people to ignore Limbaugh because his arguments are not made in good faith and are only occasionally supported by the facts. He should be ignored because his work is of such low quality, not because he is what has come to be known as "conservative."

1. You have either never heard of the FCC or never seen it at work. Its mission is pure censorship. IMO

2. You seem to be describing the mission of the ACLU

3. Have you ever listened to Rush's show? I have, many times. He routinely hangs up on callers in mid-sentence who disagree with him on-air.
Does that make him a totalitarian? There LOTS of people on either extreme side of the political spectrum - they don't want a respectful civilized debate.

4. Plenty of hypocrisy to go around, not just on the liberal side. The Republicans are rife with it these days if you ask me.

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

Gen "Betray Us" is not argumentum ad hominem for somebody sworn to be faithful to this country? How novel.

B

The question of whether General Patraeus would become "General Betray Us?" was not moveon's argument. It was the question to which their argument lead them. In their opinion, General Patraeus made misleading statements in the past and had painted an overly optimistic picture of progress in Iraq. I believe that many people, including some among the Pentagon brass, agreed with much of moveon's factual premise. Based on their good faith belief that he had mislead in the past, moveon concluded that there was reason to suspect he would do so again. That's not ad hominem.

If you want to ignore the facts they stated in support of their argument, then I guess you can call it argumentum ad hominem, but I don't see the point in doing that.