Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

This is yet another case of the White House not being able to play a hand even when they deal it to themselves.


A desertion charge means they traded five terrorist mastermind criminals for one dim bulb, deserting criminal who had to ask his Sgt. what would happen if he lost his weapon.  A PR nightmare for the White House.


Not pressing the desertion charge means back pay, promotion and VA benefits for someone who probably actively collaborated with the enemy and violated the Code of Conduct as a prisoner.  Another PR nightmare for the White House and a serious morale hit for the US Military in general.


I think when the facts do come to light they will reveal that Sgt Bergdahl was just a convenient pretext to cut terrorists loose from GITMO. The White House would have traded those five terrorists for Bergdahls boonie hat and called it a victory.

2 days, 11 hours ago on The Deal with Bowe Bergdahl

Reply

The interview with Teamroom member Roger Shulz was great. He made some great points.  

3 days, 16 hours ago on Episode 130: Shot Show 2015 Recap

Reply

@TimothyWittmer @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) @Waterborne We really can't have an intelligent discussion on this unless you are willing to own the things you say without quibbling and prevarication.  


"TERRIBLE job blaming the police for something that was not their fault."


That is a clear, unambiguous, exonorating statement of the deputies conduct.


In the common understanding of plain English, to say that someone is not a fault is to hold them exactly and completely blameless.


Your point about the constraints on release of information are noted.  But it doesn't refute mine.  Which is, that if the victim/suspect was armed there is no legal restraint that prevents them from saying so.  At minimum they could have said; "At this point it appears the suspect was armed and threatened the deputies with a weapon."  But they did not do that.  Instead, they said the deputies "felt threatened" without tying a weapon to the issuance of that threat or saying that the threat was of a deadly nature..  Now, the PIO might be an idiot, but these public statements are carefully prepared, usually passing over the desk of an attorney that works for the Sheriff's office.   It seems to me that in this case they can't plausibly claim the officers acted properly and this statement reflects that doubt. 




1 week ago on Arizona Veterans Affairs Failure Kills Veteran in Crisis

Reply

@TimothyWittmer @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) @Waterborne It would appear from the facts presented so far that the officers were responding to several 9/11 call hang-ups from that address.  They would have arrived on scene ready for trouble.  You will recall that the victim/suspect was shot with a handgun and a patrol rifle.  The patrol rifle would have come out of a trunk of the cruiser at some point.  If that rifle was produced upon arriving at the scene that would support Derek's contention that they arrived ready for battle rather than ready to provide help. If the officers arrived in separate vehicles and not in a single cruiser that would also suggest that they expected trouble rather than rendering public assistance.  Given that they were responding to several 9/11 hangups that may have been Dept. procedure. 


Here are the problems I see with this shoot right away.


1)  There were two officers responding.  A question in the inquiry will be whether a 2 against 1 ratio would have allowed them to make a non-lethal response to the 'threat' presented.


2)  The language used by the MCSO did not clearly describe a 'deadly threat' presented to the officers.  I surmise that if that threat was clearly a 'deadly' one, they would have said so.


3)  MCSO does not state what kind of weapon the victim/suspect was in possession of.  Open or concealed carry is legal in Nevada without permit and the victim/shooter was in his own front yard.  He would not have been breaking the law simply by possessing a weapon.  I surmise that if the victim/suspect was brandishing a deadly weapon to the officers the MCSO would have clearly said "He brandished a handgun,knife, axe, machete, lead pipe, etc'."  Instead the MCSO has declined to say what kind of weapon he had or if he threatened officers with it.


The non-disclosure of certain facts that would have clearly made the shoot justified suggests those facts may not exist.  I'm willing to wait until more info comes out, but I don't think it's rash or reckless to suggest there may be a problem with the manner in which the officers reacted.  I don't think that reveals any anti-LEO bias either.


 I am pleased that you now want to wait for more facts to come out as well.  Previously, you were ready to hold them blameless on incomplete facts;  


"TERRIBLE job blaming the police for something that was not their fault."


1 week ago on Arizona Veterans Affairs Failure Kills Veteran in Crisis

Reply

@TimothyWittmer @Waterborne Actually, Tim you offered a strawman  of your own to knock down;  "police have to kill every single person they come in contact with regardless of threat or provocation."


And there will probably be an inquiry about whether the 'threat' they perceived warranted the use of lethal force.  The legal rules for cops are the same for civilians.  You may only use as much force as is needed to deal with the threat.


A cop can shoot a large dog that is biting him, but would get hammered for shooting a puppy that nipped his finger.  Both are dogs, both attacks are considered aggravated assault but the response should be different depending upon the force required to deal with the threat.  You misstate the known facts by claiming the officers faced a threat of "deadly force."   The Department spokesman did not describe the threat they faced as deadly;


“The officers felt threatened and fired at the man, one with a handgun and the other with an assault rifle."


The MCSO did not say what the nature of that threat was or what kind of weapon they were threatened with.  That matters a lot here.



There aren't really enough facts above to know whether the officers reacted properly within the law and department procedures.  But a guy shot dead in his own front yard needs to be carefully investigated to assure the public that the trust they place in LEOs is returned with prudence and restraint on part of law enforcement.



1 week, 2 days ago on Arizona Veterans Affairs Failure Kills Veteran in Crisis

Reply

@NicholasAB  "seems to be a gross overreaction to what is essentially an acknowledgment of honest similarities"


What are those similarities as you see them to be?

1 week, 4 days ago on Michael Moore and Seth Rogen Are Elitist Cowards

Reply

@RebeccaSummers That was a classy thing to do. BZ.

1 week, 4 days ago on Michael Moore and Seth Rogen Are Elitist Cowards

Reply

Both Moore and Rogan suffer from a terrible affliction.  They just can't rise above who they are.  Each in their own way, Moore making propaganda movies for Castro and Rogan being unfunny in one movie after another, are not just sitting in a sewer but feel compelled to add all they can to it.  That is the legacy of their achievements.  In 100 years history will still remember Chris Kyle but Moore and Rogan will be obscure footnotes, unsung, unmourned and unmissed.  They probably realize that too.

1 week, 4 days ago on Michael Moore and Seth Rogen Are Elitist Cowards

Reply

This may well be the finest piece of Journalism that Lindy has ever done. 

(For mature audiences, you will be watching 6,000 Calorie a day scarfing pre-diabetic slowly committing suicide here.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMJS2k_vBY0

3 weeks, 3 days ago on The Guardian and Lindy West Bash American Sniper With Hubris and Self-Admiration

Reply

@SOFREP @shooten And buy the book and see the movie. Tell em' Lindy sent ya.

3 weeks, 3 days ago on The Guardian and Lindy West Bash American Sniper With Hubris and Self-Admiration

Reply

@HM1 (FMF) Ret. Lol. Imagining Tony rewriting and trying to tone it down 5-6 times before finally posting the above.

3 weeks, 3 days ago on The Guardian and Lindy West Bash American Sniper With Hubris and Self-Admiration

Reply

Here is Lindy West in her own words accidentally describing herself; 


"Internet trolling is not random, it is not inevitable, it is a deliberate force with a political agenda—a strong-armed goon."


In a year who is going to remember Lindy as anything more than just another faded brown skid mark in the discarded Skivvies of the interweb? ....Not me, I'll be at the movies.


Tell Lindy you saw it because of her review.

3 weeks, 3 days ago on The Guardian and Lindy West Bash American Sniper With Hubris and Self-Admiration

Reply

"U.S. military shot down MH370 because they thought it had been hacked and was about to be used in terror attack', claims former airline boss"


(And the proof offered is a fisherman who says he saw the plane near the Maldives and a fire extinguisher that someone claimed to have found.  From that we have the US military shooting down the plane?)


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2883651/U-S-military-shot-MH370-thought-hacked-used-terror-attack-claims-former-airline-boss.html

1 month, 1 week ago on “Alright, Goodnight” – Does Malaysia Want To Know What Happened To Flight MH-370?

Reply

@mrspaul @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) @A7Dave @CarpeNoctem In Colorado the State imposed a 30% tax on weed, so the price went up, not down.  People will still be going to jail but it will be for selling untaxed weed rather than possession.  Given the that State approved stuff is so expensive the illegal market will still thrive, not effecting the revenue to the cartels very much.

1 month, 1 week ago on Is Legal Pot Crippling the Cartels?

Reply

@LawyerHandle That low margin, combined with its bulk and transport costs is probably the reasons the Mexican cartels got into the business.  Everyone else was getting out of the pot business.  The successful eradication efforts of home growers opened the market to Mexico. If we had a secure border we might have stopped that trade too.  There is something really shitty about people smoking pot from mexico knowing how many innocent people die over there to get it to them.

1 month, 2 weeks ago on Is Legal Pot Crippling the Cartels?

Reply

@JohnChristopher1 A Pharma company that makes a insect resistant, or draught resistant cannabis plant would be able to patent it.  If they genetically modified the plant to increase the THC level, reduce the carcinogen level or give it a different flavor that could also be patented.  And the gov't, interested in only having to collect taxes from a few large companies would be very willing to help them secure those patents to the disfavor of the small growers.  They would end up being able to grow a pound or so a year for personal use, with jail time for reselling it.  Much like personal distillers are regulated now.

1 month, 2 weeks ago on Is Legal Pot Crippling the Cartels?

Reply

@Waterborne Currently, 24 States allow cannabis and cannabinoids to treat certain medical conditions.  I'm in favor of doctors using every tool at their disposal to treat disease and disorder.  But, my point remains, that what is behind cannabis for "medicinal" use is an agenda  for cannabis for casual recreational use.  Like we just recently saw in Colorado.


And the proof of that is fairly obvious.  How many other life saving drugs or treatments have to be put on ballot initiatives to be approved?  Was Open Heart Surgery made available by a voter referendum?  Did Penicillin have to have voter approval to be given to patients?

1 month, 2 weeks ago on Is Legal Pot Crippling the Cartels?

Reply

@A7Dave @CarpeNoctem And their bio chemists will enhance the THC levels,  enhance the taste, try to mask the nasty odor, add filters to extract the carcinogens in the smoke, package it and market it.  And, since the Gov't stands a better chance of reaping a bigger return of tax revenue on large conglomerates marketing pot over Ma and Pa Stoner growing it in their backyard the gov't will pass regulations to put the small farmers out of business in favor of the big Agro or Pharma companies.

1 month, 2 weeks ago on Is Legal Pot Crippling the Cartels?

Reply

@mrspaul @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) @CarpeNoctem From the National Cancer Institute's website;


The main psychoactive constituent of Cannabis was identified as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). In 1986, synthetic delta-9-THC in sesame oil was licensed and approved for the treatment of chemotherapy -associated nausea and vomiting under the generic name dronabinolClinical trials determined that dronabinol was as effective as or better than other antiemetic agents available at the time.[7] Dronabinol was also studied for its ability to stimulate weight gain in patients with AIDS in the late 1980s. Thus, the indications were expanded to include treatment of anorexia associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection in 1992. Clinical trial results showed no statistically significant weight gain, although patients reported an improvement in appetite.[8,9]


http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page3

1 month, 2 weeks ago on Is Legal Pot Crippling the Cartels?

Reply

@mrspaul @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) @CarpeNoctem Yes, which is why pot legalization isn't really about medical patients.  It's about drug addiction explained away as; "Its my medicine."  

1 month, 2 weeks ago on Is Legal Pot Crippling the Cartels?

Reply

@CarpeNoctem @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) @A7Dave Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point.  And I took no offence.  I'm sure that's as polite as you know how to be.

1 month, 2 weeks ago on Is Legal Pot Crippling the Cartels?

Reply

@CarpeNoctem @A7Dave Actually, I've always been kinda disgusted with the way recreational smokers pimp "cancer patients and chronic pain sufferers" as the gateway to get what they really want. To smoke MJ to get high.

1 month, 2 weeks ago on Is Legal Pot Crippling the Cartels?

Reply

@CarpeNoctem What makes you think the Pharma companies won't start growing it?  You think it will stay Mom and Pop organic farming?  Seriously?

1 month, 2 weeks ago on Is Legal Pot Crippling the Cartels?

Reply

@papasmarvin @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) None of that answered my question.  Which was about the false moral equivalence that people like you persist in making.  You somehow manage to hold several contradicting ideas in your head at the same time and believe them all to be true.  That is to say;


Cheney is morally bad for not serving in the illegal, immoral Vietnam War.


While Clinton is a  moral hero for ducking service in that same illegal, immoral Vietnam War.


While Kerry is a moral hero for serving in the illegal, immoral, Vietnam War while confessing he engaged in actions that added to its immorality and illegality.




1 month, 2 weeks ago on CIA Torture Report: Why Was It Released?

Reply

@YankeePapa @caseymac1944 And the Japanese were more fanatical than the Jihadis as well.  In Japan you had a suicidal death cult inside a major industrial state.  It started the war with 6 million troops under arms, 10 aircraft carriers, 12 battleships, nearly 30 heavy cruisers, thousands of planes and 120 million people willing to die for the Emperor on order. Near the end, they didn't have guys wearing suicide vests, but hundreds of ships, boats, subs and even the largest battleship ever built going out on suicide missions.  It didn't help them a bit.   In just under 4 years, it was all gone, the country largely laid waste, the population starving.  We rebuilt that nation in a form of our liking and choosing and today they are an ally, economically prosperous, pluralistic in government and de-radicalized in terms of their religion.


There is a lesson in that for us in dealing with the Islamists.

1 month, 2 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

@caseymac1944 What they did in WWII in dropping the Atomic bombs was pick the lessor of two evils.  Obliterate two cities and end the war, or invade, obliterate the entire country and kill millions of them and lose a million of ours.  Today, many people lack moral clarity, let alone moral certainty about what is right and wrong.  That partially underlies the criticism of enhanced interrogation techniques expressed here; "


"We're just as bad as them if we do this"  -No we aren't.  We aren't torturing innocent civilians and videotaping it for propaganda.  We are doing this to the people planning and engaging in these outrages.   The Left engages in this moral confusion all the time.  A criminal butchers a whole family of innocents and they take up the cause of saving the killer from execution.  Saying society is just as bad as the killer.  What they can't seem to grasp from a moral standpoint is that the innocent victims, were just that, innocent.  Killed for kicks, money or just plain evil depravity.  Society isn't killing an innocent in putting a killer to death.  They are punishing him in retribution for destroying the lives of innocent people unjustly.


We are not torturing for kicks.  We are doing what we must to prevent innocent lives from being destroyed by evil.  We are picking the lesser of two evils.


1 month, 2 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

@Coriolanus @HonestBroker247 I think I big part of the problem is that civilians, without ANY background or exposure to the vast number interrogation techniques employed,still believe they are the arbiters of what works and what doesn't.  They're way out of their lane.

1 month, 2 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

@HonestBroker247 @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) When I went to SERE you signed a waiver holding the military harmless from harm that could come to you in that training. So that isn't a big deal.   And I agree with Waterborne on the Left's tendency to try and criminalize the politics of the Right.



Finally, there is no shield within US law that can waive extradition for international crimes against humanity.  We signed those treaties.  But don't worry, the Left isn't going to press for CIA agents and military personnel to be brought before the ICC in irons and prison jumpsuits.  They know they're unpopular enough as it is.

1 month, 2 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

FDR didn't serve in the military and sent over 400,000 Americans to their deaths in WW2.

And please explain to me how this whole Cheney/deferments/Vietnam War thing works.

The left claims that the Vietnam War was this illegal immoral war that should never have been fought. At least that was the Left's defense of Bill Clinton's deferments. Bill Clinton sent troops off to fight in Bosnia, Somalia and Iraq.

Then we have Vice President Joe Biden who is in the decision-making loop to send troops off to fight. But his five draft deferments in Vietnam aren't an issue apparently.

Then we get to John Kerry. Who admitted to committing actual atrocities and war crimes in that immoral illegal Vietnam War. And he was the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

So was Cheney's crime that he didn't serve in an immoral and illegal war that Bill Clinton was justified in avoiding? Or was it that he didn't go over to that immoral and illegal war and help John Kerry commit more war crimes?

1 month, 2 weeks ago on CIA Torture Report: Why Was It Released?

Reply

Àttention Liberals. May I remind you that the CIA is part of the government you have empowered to control your healthcare, tell you what kind of lightbulbs to use, how to sort your garbage and hide the salt shakers from you in restaurants unless you ask for it pretty please. Having handed so much over to the State in terms of your day to day life, does the government really need to take your feelings about the moral, legal and ethical considerations of the treatment of foreign terrorists into account? You folks cant be trusted with a salt shaker. Do you trust the government to run things and make the decisions or not? Lets us know when you decide.

1 month, 2 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

If the soldier's footwear covers the ankle and has a distinct heel attached to the sole made of leather or wood,, it is by definition "A boot" and not a shoe.

1 month, 3 weeks ago on A Soldier’s Story: From the Revolutionary War to OIF

Reply

Just released from Pew: "Being kind to terrorists during interrogations" ranks 1,564,116th on Americans' list of priorities.  We got our $40 million dollars worth didn't we?

1 month, 3 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

@ConsummateCanuck The exception does not prove the rule.

1 month, 3 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

@Kiyabear @Frumentarius China has murdered upwards of 20 million of their own citizens for concerns related to 'national security.' That isn't even remotely close to what the CIA did in enhanced interrogations.  Your remarks strongly suggest that you look at the US and think; 


 "Because it is not perfect, it is not good."

1 month, 3 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

@clluelo @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) And ISIS declaring themselves a "state" and levying taxes and issuing passports might have something to do with them wanting their captives to be treated like POWs instead of unlawful combatants under the Geneva Accords.

1 month, 3 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

What the Dems are accusing the CIA of are crimes against humanity.  Unless the Dems are also calling for those involved to be turned over to the ICC for prosecution they can just STFU with their BS chest thumping.

1 month, 3 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

@Recon6 @Minou_Demimonde @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) Let me posit this.  If Bush had not extended Lawful Combatant Status to these terrorists, they would have no legal status that anyone could bitch about.  The international handwringers could review the Tribunal proceedings for fairness and that would be about it.  We might not have even needed to torture anyone if we were in the position to say to an "Unlawful Combatant; 


"The Military Tribunal has found you to be unlawful combatant in this conflict because you engaged in hostilities on your own and not at the direction of any national authority, you did so without a distinctive uniform marking you as a combatant, and you were not acting under the responsible authority of a chain of command accountable to a nation/state government.  You have been sentenced to execution in the morning.  Unless you have information that could be of use in saving American lives, that is exactly what will happen. Think about what you want to eat for a last meal and I'll be back in an hour with your rug and a bag to put  your things in following the execution of sentence tomorrow.



1 month, 3 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

Probably thinking; "Gee, I hope they don't torture the people responsible for this."


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4dMI_PCUAErrHu.jpg:large

1 month, 3 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

By the way, the Christmas holiday was a great time for the committee to release this report.  I'm sure all the guys deployed overseas are going to really enjoy spending the next 6 weeks in high alert status. 'Cause we Support the Troops, or something, right?

1 month, 3 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

@LawyerHandle Gee, for a moment there I thought you were talking about that Rolling Stone piece, or the grand jury decision in Ferguson, or Donald Sterling's racist outburst, or Hobby Lobby, or climate change, or, or ,or....

1 month, 3 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

A few points that occurred to me during the media coverage of this today.


This report has a certain amount of shark-jumping in it.  An outgoing Senate Majority trying to get it's licks in before it goes out of power.  Expect the new Majority in January to give the CIA a little more credit.


The release of this report also seems to be convenient to trying the suck the air out of Jonathan Gruber testifying before Congress today where he stated under oath that he was actually lying in all those public appearances about O-Care being sold deceitfully to the stupid, gullible American People.   He must have watch the Frank Pentangeli scenes in The Godfather II over and over until he got the part down.


People claiming torture doesn't work are bucking two important facts. First, if torture doesn't work, why have we invested millions in SERE schools for 60 years trying to make our troops resistant to torture?  And 2nd, if it didn't work, why did we continue to do it for 10 years?  Sadism?  


The Bush Administration made a major mistake extending Geneva Convention protections to terrorists.    The Geneva Accords were written in the attempt to outlaw the very kid of warfare that AQ and other Islamist barbarians are engaging in.  Don't take my word for it, go and read it yourselves and the history behind it being written.  Lawful combatants have rights as prisoners of war.  Unlawful combatants have no rights as prisoners of war. NONE... The sole and only purpose of a military tribunal under the Accords should have been the determination of combatant status, not their guilt or innocence as terrorists.  The US Criminal Code does not apply to 'foreign' nationals acting in 'foreign' countries.   Oddly, it's the people most critical about supposed American Imperialism that argue that US law should be applied to foreign nationals living in foreign countries.  It's nonsense.


If a military tribunal determines that a combatant is unlawfully engaged, enhanced interrogation is very much on the table.  So is a summary execution of the unlawful combatant upon such a finding.   In order to avoid doing any of these things we no engage in drone strike executions of suspected terrorists in foreign countries without any tribunals at all.  The civilian casualties that attenuate these strikes ought to make us have another look at the Geneva Accords and see if we can't operate within them as they were written, deal with the terrorists as illegal combatants and try to restore a little civilized behavior to making war on each other.


That being said.  The hue and cry that led to the UN The Convention on Torture was not because of outrage at the treatment of captured terrorists but to shield ordinary citizens who were imprisoned for political crimes in their own countries.  And to protect from extradition people who would be tortured and imprisoned if returned to where they escaped from.  Typically, communist countries.  The UN definition of torture states that it must be "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" which is a rather subjective set of terms.  Defined so subjectively I reason that the UN could plausibly claim the boot camps our various armed forces are "torturing" their recruits.


The simple solution would be to repudiate the Geneva Accords and withdraw from them and do the same with the UN Convention on Torture.  Then we can do as we please, according to our own values and principles without risking the righteous indignation of such Human Rights protectors as Libya, Russia, Cuba, and China and the useful idiots carrying water for them in this country.


1 month, 3 weeks ago on CIA “Torture” Report: An Honest Debate?

Reply

@BudWeiser1 @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) I tell my kids to read the Bible and watch CNN, that way they get to hear both sides.

2 months ago on How to Think and Reason Like a Special Operator

Reply

@YankeePapa You know what?  The thing about the Soviets attempting a moon landing was a thing when I was in the Navy back in the 80's.  The story was they balled it up and killed their guys trying to set down. Never tried again after.  I don't buy it now, since there is no credible confirmation(like Sat images that would show the crash site.  But then, it was all hush-hush and a secret.  The source at the time was what I would consider impeccable..

2 months ago on How to Think and Reason Like a Special Operator

Reply

I would like to add this to the above; Be of a "discriminating" mind.  Look for the truth of something because it is the truth, not because it agrees with what you already believe.


Always be prepared to change your mind on better information or new facts.  A true sense of Intellectual honesty demands it.  You will encounter many people willing to twist facts or ignore them altogether to protect their own bias.  Ditch them immediately.


There is no such thing as an "objective observer" an "unbiased person"  or an "honest broker."  We are incapable of not being influenced by our own biases and ideas about how things work.  An intellectually honest man recognizes and discloses his own biases up front, he doesn't pretend not to have any.   Be very suspicious of the person claiming to be unbiased, objective or totally honest.  They never are.  And their end game in any argument is to claim you are biased while they are starched white and pure of thought and heart.  It's a means of avoiding an intellectual discussion, not participating in one.


The claim that something is "settled"  proves on its face that it almost never is.  It used to be settled that the universe was contracting.(Wrong.)  It used to be settled that you couldn't go faster than the speed of light.(Wrong.)   That you could time travel through black holes.(Probably wrong) And these are Laws of Physics that were dead opposite wrong, not who's budget deficit numbers are more reliable.  


Claims that things are "settled" is a way of keeping you from inquiring further.  Don't fall for it.


Finally, don't get your ego wrapped around the axle of your rhetoric.  SOFREP has some very smart, perceptive people as writers and members.  As soon as you skyline yourself as being more ego invested in winning an argument than making one stick, you will get branded a boor, and get ignoored.


Oh and don't correct people's spelling as a substitute for a substantive rebuttal.  The person who does so stands out as an intellectual lightweight who defaults to trying to be the teachers pet and smugly slap the chalkboard erasers out after class.


2 months ago on How to Think and Reason Like a Special Operator

Reply

@BudWeiser1 The Nielsen ratings says no one is actually watching MSNBC, so there must be very few liberals.

2 months ago on How to Think and Reason Like a Special Operator

Reply

@BrandonWebb Thank you Chief, I'm planning on it.  We'll wet our wings.

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Three Reasons Why SEAL Leaders Are Upset at O’Neill & Bissonnette

Reply

   Been around since "The Death Star Days" as Brandon once put it. I was an early defender of Bissonnette's obligation to correct the false narrative put out by the Administration when OBL got his facelift courtesy of an ST-6 housecall. To me, It just seemed like a much bigger event in history than just another autobiography about one SEAL's experiences on the Teams.  An important chapter in history that needed to be told.   Then it turned out Bissonnette's version had its own problems.  Now we have the O'Neill book that conflicts with Bissonnette's account. 


  So what was a very proud moment in US military history, the culmination of over a decade of hunting and searching for the worst Islamist terrorist in history is now the stuff of mockery on the news and social media.  Even the bullet that killed  OBL is writing a book now according to the Duffle Blog and the Navy is even considering a new rating; "Special Warfare Authorator" SWA.


    Back in the beginning, SOFREP.com's stated mission was to try and correct the errors about SOFs that appeared in the media.  It's not lost on me that SOFREP now finds itself trying to correct SOF guys that are appearing in the media.  So, Bravo Zulu and carry on Chief Webb.

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Three Reasons Why SEAL Leaders Are Upset at O’Neill & Bissonnette

Reply