Observe class, the modern American conservative, in a desperate effort to preserve his discredited ideology and collapsing worldview, runs through three primary tactics when under fire:
1. Avoid and ignore any embarrassing questions. Change the subject and just stick to your talking points no matter how many times the embarrassing question is repeated.
2. Utilize the "both sides do it" defense to justify the behavior of conservatives.
3. If all else fails, when pushed into a corner, just shamelessly lie your ass off.
And here, class, we see the cornered conservative now resorts to lying. He pretends to be completely oblivious to the OP despite how the question of the OP was repeated for him twice and linked to for his convenience.
He was asked to comment on the OP twice and ignored the question both times. In his fevered demagogue brain, he has to be aware that Republicans are lying in an effort to stoke the dying embers of this pseudo-scandal of Benghazi. However, as a conservative, he can't admit that. So he utilizes the technique perfected by the late, great political career of Sarah Palin. Ignore the question and talk instead about what you want to talk about.
Notice, class, how the OP's question has nothing to do with either W Bush or his war record. And in the paranoid conservative brain, everything always relates to some form of liberal persecution.
This thread also provides an excellent example of how conservatives are adept at seizing control of any narrative, even when completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed. Observe his entry into this thread:
An excellent example of conservative debate tactics: Red herring coupled with "both sides do it". A combination tactic that continued when he engaged with me:
The IOKIAR reference was to this last part of the OP, introduced as a side issue to the main point that he wanted to avoid discussing at all cost:
This issue has nothing to do with war records or draft dodging but whether or not one is permitted to say "lied" without being denounced by conservative-enabling pseudo-centrists in the media as being "shrill". The taboo on the use of the four-letter "L word" is an important victory for conservatives since lying is a cornerstone of their debate tactics.
So having been pushed into a corner, his last resort is to try to muddy the waters and desperately make the entire discussion about W's service in the national guard, re-litigating a fact that is not in dispute by anyone, specifically that he used his family's influence to escape the draft into Vietnam.
As with many examples of conservative faux-outrage, it's sometimes difficult to determine what exactly is the point in dispute. Was it that he was in the national guard? No. Was it that the draft for the Vietnam War was on at the time? No. Was it that those in the National Guard would be safe from fighting in Vietnam? No. Was it that wealthy, powerful families used their influence to get their children into these plum, cushy positions to avoid the draft? Common practice at the time. Did that happen here? Yes, as admitted to by the very people who helped make that happen.
Indeed, it was a plum position, sought after by hundreds of applicants, and helped him avoid the draft. The only alternative is to assert that it was coincidence that W managed to get in without any help.
And even if this is true, that it's all coincidence and Barnes is lying, Bush still joined an organization that helped him stay out of Vietnam (he could have just gone to Vietnam like Kerry did instead of joining the National Guard).
Ergo, he's still a chickenhawk.
So what will our cornered conservative do next? We'll just have to observe, class.
1. Avoid and ignore any embarrassing questions. Change the subject and just stick to your talking points no matter how many times the embarrassing question is repeated.
2. Utilize the "both sides do it" defense to justify the behavior of conservatives.
3. If all else fails, when pushed into a corner, just shamelessly lie your ass off.
(May 21, 2013 at 8:18 am)A Theist Wrote: Neither of your questions have any relevance since the whole crux of your argument depended on whether or not GW joined the Texas Air National Guard to avoid the draft...
And here, class, we see the cornered conservative now resorts to lying. He pretends to be completely oblivious to the OP despite how the question of the OP was repeated for him twice and linked to for his convenience.
Quote:Someone in the Obama administration or campaign actually stated, suggested or implied that Al Qaida, a decentralized terror conglomerate with independent cells working all over the world was now expected to fold up its tent because Bin Laden is dead?
He was asked to comment on the OP twice and ignored the question both times. In his fevered demagogue brain, he has to be aware that Republicans are lying in an effort to stoke the dying embers of this pseudo-scandal of Benghazi. However, as a conservative, he can't admit that. So he utilizes the technique perfected by the late, great political career of Sarah Palin. Ignore the question and talk instead about what you want to talk about.
Notice, class, how the OP's question has nothing to do with either W Bush or his war record. And in the paranoid conservative brain, everything always relates to some form of liberal persecution.
This thread also provides an excellent example of how conservatives are adept at seizing control of any narrative, even when completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed. Observe his entry into this thread:
Minimalist Wrote:Quote:
So you respect a miserable draft dodging coward (Cheney) who is very brave when someone else's life is on the line.
A Theist Wrote:....Draft dodging coward? I assume you're talking about Bill Clinton...
An excellent example of conservative debate tactics: Red herring coupled with "both sides do it". A combination tactic that continued when he engaged with me:
A Theist Wrote:DeistPaladin Wrote:
Quote:Hey A-Theist, I was hoping you or another Republican would drop by this thread and maybe shed some light on the main question in the OP....you should have added IOKIYAD to your OP...that way you or another Democrat wouldn't sound so much like leftist hypocrites...
The IOKIAR reference was to this last part of the OP, introduced as a side issue to the main point that he wanted to avoid discussing at all cost:
Quote:And since Cheney used the dreaded "L" word, can I assume it's no longer considered "shrill" to use that word or is this another case of IOKIYAR?
This issue has nothing to do with war records or draft dodging but whether or not one is permitted to say "lied" without being denounced by conservative-enabling pseudo-centrists in the media as being "shrill". The taboo on the use of the four-letter "L word" is an important victory for conservatives since lying is a cornerstone of their debate tactics.
So having been pushed into a corner, his last resort is to try to muddy the waters and desperately make the entire discussion about W's service in the national guard, re-litigating a fact that is not in dispute by anyone, specifically that he used his family's influence to escape the draft into Vietnam.
As with many examples of conservative faux-outrage, it's sometimes difficult to determine what exactly is the point in dispute. Was it that he was in the national guard? No. Was it that the draft for the Vietnam War was on at the time? No. Was it that those in the National Guard would be safe from fighting in Vietnam? No. Was it that wealthy, powerful families used their influence to get their children into these plum, cushy positions to avoid the draft? Common practice at the time. Did that happen here? Yes, as admitted to by the very people who helped make that happen.
Quote:A few months before Mr. Bush would become eligible for the draft, Barnes says he had a meeting with the late oilman Sid Adger, a friend to both Barnes and then-Congressman George Bush.
"It's been a long time ago, but he said basically would I help young George Bush get in the Air National Guard," says Barnes, who then contacted his longtime friend Gen. James Rose, the head of Texas' Air National Guard.
"I was a young, ambitious politician doing what I thought was acceptable," says Barnes. "It was important to make friends. And I recommended a lot of people for the National Guard during the Vietnam era - as speaker of the house and as lt. governor."
Indeed, it was a plum position, sought after by hundreds of applicants, and helped him avoid the draft. The only alternative is to assert that it was coincidence that W managed to get in without any help.
And even if this is true, that it's all coincidence and Barnes is lying, Bush still joined an organization that helped him stay out of Vietnam (he could have just gone to Vietnam like Kerry did instead of joining the National Guard).
Ergo, he's still a chickenhawk.
So what will our cornered conservative do next? We'll just have to observe, class.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
