President Bush on Memorial Day
at the Tomb of the Unknowns, Arlington Cemetery, Memorial Day, Monday, May 26, 2008:[ . . . ] On this Memorial Day, I stand before you as the Commander-in-Chief and try to tell you how proud I am at the sacrifice and service of the men and women who wear our uniform. They're an awesome bunch of people and the United States is blessed to have such citizens. (Applause.)
I am humbled by those who have made the ultimate sacrifice that allow a free civilization to endure and flourish. It only remains for us, the heirs of their legacy, to have the courage and the character to follow their lead -- and to preserve America as the greatest nation on earth and the last best hope for mankind.
May God bless you and may God bless America. (Applause.)
Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and his wife, Deborah, visited Section 60 after the ceremony to meet with families and friends of our newest heroes from Iraq and Afghanistan.Thank you.
posted by OYE @ 5/26/2008 04:15:00 PM
37 comments
37 Comments:
Bush actaully called the veterans "awesome". He is embrassing.
Nothing wrong with that. Seems entirely appropriate to call veterans awesome since they are. Here is something from Barack Hussein Obama that is truly "embrassing":
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020607.php
Only a single Groeney here: a simple, submissive recitation of a rightwing talking point...not very creative Kevy...c'mon...follow some instructions and try harder...
Anonymouse
Yes, I suppose only the right-wing thought Obama's "I see dead people" comment was idiotic.
If a Republican had made that comment, the media would be all over him. Look at Dan Quayle and "potatoe." (Of course, it was one of anonymouse's fellow public school teachers who wrote "potatoe" on the flash card Quayle was using in that classroom. That should have been the real story.)
Good boy, Kevy! I knew a nice little submissive like you would try to come back...That "the media is biased" comment is something that has NEVER been put out by your masters...
Anonymouse...
anonymouse:
Still waiting for you to provide proof that you have published a book. You made the claim--no back it up.
Kevy...you're not up to your usual level today...Again, only a single Groeney this time...using a strawman as part of your question...
Anonymouse
Come on, anonymouse. You've failed to provide proof yet again. I think it's time to admit that you lied about publishing a book.
Kevy...You sure thow the word "lie" around alot. You really need some more debate lessons. I'm sure that you weren't part of the debate team since you were likely homeschooled.
Anonymouse
You're digging a deeper hole for yourself. You're also making a bigger fool out of yourself with your homeschooling comments. As I noted before, it has been homeschoolers--and not your government school studrents--who have been dominating all those national spelling bees.
Since you cannot provide the proof I asked for, I can only conclude you lied about being published.
Kevy, Kevy, Kevy, they're also the ones using skulls for bongs.
And it appears that you are typical of inadequately-socialized homeschooled kids...you can spell but are incapable of normal human interaction like debate.
Anonymouse
anonymouse:
You're esposing yourself as a dishonest, government school hack. If your debating skills are indicative of the education you're providing your students, there's little wonder why home-schooled kids are outperforming government-school kids.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2007/10/05/pf-4553113.html
And where's your proof concerning being published? I'm still waiting.
Kevy...Lesson #1: Don't make assumptions about those who you are debating. Contrary to what little Kevy has conjured up in his little noggin, I am not and never have been a "government-school" teacher. Lesson #2: Try to use sources that have a reasonable pretention of being somewhat unbiased. Do you think that an environmental group would put out a report that said that their efforts to reduce global warming were ineffective? Then what would make you think that a pro-homeschool group would say that homeschooling would be ineffective? Lesson #3: Play nice with others. It's what Jesus would want.
Do you think that you can use these lessons, little guy?
Anonymouse
anonymouse:
You're getting a little worked up there, little fella. Calm down.
You said you were a teacher. Where do you teach? Obviously, you're not qualified to be a private school teacher.
In the item I linked to, where was my source incorrect? You have attacked the source rather than the source's argument. That is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem.
Regarding #3, practice what you teach, squirt.
Where's that proof concerning your claim that you have been published?
Ah Little Kevy, you're so cute...trying to sound like Teacher. You do know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And, as a naturally submissive type, it probably comes naturally to you.
As to issue #1, it seems that you're starting to understand the concept known as unprincipled assumptions. You just that, at this point, you sound like a j.v. debater. You would have sounded less doltish if you had asked these questions a while ago. I said that "I teach" not that I am a teacher ("teachers" apparently being lower life forms found in 'government schools' according to Kevy). Ironically, for the purposes here, I coach speech & debate at a Catholic university. I've also been recruited to instruct disgustingly intelligent & talented high school students (of liberal, conservative & middle-of-the-road classifications) at a couple institutes around the country.
As to issue #2, it's nice to know that you recalled my instructions to you regarding ad hominem attacks. Sadly you misapplied them here. The basis of my dismissal of the source was one of bias. It's difficult to argue with the methodology of a "study" that provides no indication of the sources of it's data. A debater can, however, argue effectively that a source can be biased. If you care to send me the bases of the unnamed studies mentioned in the article, I would be happy to critique the methodology.
As to issue #3, I have yet to see you be civil to any one in your little diatribes. Since people who disagree with you are either cowards or traitors, I figured you might benefit from a similar treatment.
If you keep reading son, you won't be able to avoid learning.
Anonymouse
anonymouse:
You've been caught in yet another lie. It is quite clear that you are not a teacher at a private school. Catholic schools would not hire someone (esp. to teach speech and debate) who writes, "It's difficult to argue with the methodology of a 'study' that provides no indication of the sources of it's data." Considering how easily I have defeated you here on issue after issue, it is obvious that you are incompetent as a debater. A true debater would have no problem attaching his name to his opinions.
I am respectful to those who are honest. You, however, have been caught in several lies here.
Kevy, Kevy, Kevy...You might want to get a little rest; there's nor reason for you to be up at midnight answering my posts...
Here we have a double Groeney (the usual ad hominem attack and an unwarranted declaration of victory). It's sad to see that your tactics haven't advanced that much this week. You showed much more promise last week. It's sad that you don't understand the concept of critical thinking and analysis when it comes to reviewing the basis of making a conclusion (otherwise known as a "methodology"). Perhaps that failing is understandable from someone so used to submissively accepting the talking points provided by his betters.
I'll keep working at teaching you to argue better but you must follow my instructions harder and try to think for yourself.
Anonymouse
The declaration is fully warranted. You clearly came to the debate unarmed and unprepared. You have also been caught in at least two lies, including your claims that you teach speech and debate and that you have been published.
But please feel free to continue recreating the role of the Black Knight. That gag never loses its humor.
Ah Kevy, Kevy, Kevy...It's good to see that you're hanging on my every word, particularly since it appears that I'm the only one who pays any attention to you. A good debater is able to be somewhat original and you're getting a little stale with a mere repetition of your earlier double Groeney. You have the potential to be a decent debater if you're willing to spend the time and listen to my instructions. Since you're a stay at home day that shuldn't be too hard. Now go do some reading on a new subject and get back to me in the afternoon.
" A good debater is able to be somewhat original and you're getting a little stale with a mere repetition of your earlier double Groeney."
More projection from the lying anonymouse.
Kevy, you're starting to remind me of a fellow of saw at Speaker's Corner in London many years ago (Since I doubt you've been there, try Googling the term). He was a self-described Jesus freak and, as is the idea behind SC, wanted to talk. The only problem was that the gentleman had a speech impediment. An audience member told him, "Cut the studdering...we can't heckle you if you don't
keep talking." Little Kev, you're like the stuttering Jesus freak. You're merely repeating your "projection" comment from last week and not really
saying anything interesting, so it's really difficult to continue smacking you around.
By the way, this is your debate tactic for the day. The Speaker's Corner story is called an "analogy." It is a way of comparing two different things to make a point. Now, my little student Kevy, why don't YOU try to make an analogy?
Anonymouse
"Studdering"? You're an ignorant squirt, aren't you?
I doubt that you have ever read John Locke, so you wouldn't know what he wrote about analogy being a poor debate tactic. See "A Letter Concerning Human Understanding."
Black Knight, all four of your limbs have been severed. If I were you I would stop yakking before you lost your head as well.
Kevy, Kevy, Kevy...Whoa! A triple Groeney! Granted that they're 3 ad hominem attacks but the little guy is actually trying to put up something of a fight! Good job little camper. We'll make a debater out of you yet. We'll just have to work on your analytical skills. On to an analysis of your comments.
Pardon my typo. You're right, it was incorrect. I'm sure that since you're a stay-at-home dad, you have plenty of time to proofread all of your missives between loads of wash and watching Monty Python re-runs. Sadly, unlike you, my wife doesn't make enought so that I have that luxury and have to work for a living.
As to your "substantive argument:"
Little guy, stop trying to impress others by throwing around names that you pulled out of Wikipedia. Just have faith in your own arguments. Locke is correct that analogy is the lowest form of argument but, since you were homeschooled, I have to start with the very basics of argument. That's why your first lesson related to analogies...which I see you were able to use successfully when you related it back to the Black Knight from that favorite series of yours...Excellent job, little Kev. I'll have you at an 8th grade level by Election Day.
You next assignment is to read something about Locke. Please do so by 4:00 and tell me what you've learned.
Anonymouse
Inane loop of words solipsistic
We all know Groeny's autistic
anonymouse:
Wrong, squirt. I read Locke long before there was a Wikipedia. His "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," "A Letter Concerning Toleration," and "Second Treatise of Government" are on my bookshelf. Of course, you liberals wouldn't care much for Locke since he greatly influenced Jefferson and the other Founders.
Nice insult with the stay-at-dad remark. Of course, your fellow Green Baboons have already noted that that is not the case. Try to keep up.
The Black Knight is not from the Monty Python series. He was from the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” You really ought to watch it some time so you’ll understand what I’m talking about.
Now, do you ever plan on issuing your insults while using your real name? Are will you just continue to be that coward hiding behind a tree? It's really amazing how you Green Baboons are so liberal with the word "coward" when it's used against Republicans, yet you lack the testicular fortitude to put your names on your opinions here.
Good boy, Kevy...It's good to see that you followed my instructions and looked up some of the writing of John Locke. It is wrong, however, to fib and say that you've read them when it's quite clear that you're more adept at describing the history of the Monty Python franchise than attempting to delve into the concepts that he describes. Don't worry your little head about that. Once you've developed your analytical skills, we'll have you start reading some of the classics.
By the way, what exactly is a "stay-at dad?" Does that mean that you've never left mommy and daddy or does it mean something deeper? Since you're constantly talking about "projection," I assume that could mean that you're fairly familiar with psychiatrists and you've picked up some of their lingo.
In addition (and possibly on a related note), you really need to get ahold of your emotions. Throwing the word "coward" around doesn't do anything to advance your arguments. That's the basis of an ad hominem attack and such a tactic is even weaker than mere arguing by analogy.
If it makes you feel better, I don't think I've said that you're a coward...simplistic, arrogant, misguided and juvenile, sure...but a coward...nah...
Anaonymouse
anonymouse:
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/locke.jpg
Now where's the proof to back up your claim that you have been published?
Groeny uses his own name
Cause he's impervious to shame.
His scholorship is mighty lame
But theres always liberals to blame
Kevy, Kevy, Kevy...Here's lesson #2 for the day. As we'll go into in later lessons, you need quality sources to provide support for your arguments. These sources are ones that you should have actually read, not merely ones that you can name.
I'm glad that you felt compelled to find Locke's writings on the Internet after I called you on your inadequacies and post them on your website. They would be most helpful to researchers if anyone had ever actually read anything on the site. The important thing is to read the documents. You will probably be ready to do so by the end of the year. Until then, my orders to you are to continue to monitor this site and follow my instructions.
Oh, and since you seem to have forgotten to answer, as I instructed you, please identify what you meant by a "Stay-at dad."
Anonymouse
Doggerelface:
Another instant classic!
anonymouse:
Yes, squirt, I was able to find Locke's books on the Internet, placed an order for rush delivery, received them 15 minutes later, took a picture of the books, and posted them on my web site (link above) all in one afternoon.
You're only succeeding making a bigger ass of yourself. You're doing OYE and the Green Baboons proud.
Now where's the proof to back up your claim that you have been published?
groenhagen, anonymouse-
Please continue this point-to-point on the special thread we've set up for you.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Truth to tell He's none too Bright
No surprise His sources are trite
A laundry list of knee-jerk fright.
Ever conjuring new enemies to smite
Pretzels logic with all his spite
Deadend stooge of the lunatic right
Barack Hussein Obama.
Jesus Christ, conservatives are pathetic excuses for human beings.
Desk jockey wannabe veterans who love the W (the drunk, cokehead, cheerleader, AWOL sissy) are almost as bad as true yellow elephants.
Groany calling someone a coward - this is the tough guy former Marine.. Who sat behind a desk....
Bombastic Powerline nationalist
Dogmatic Bush league idolitrist
Walter Mitty/Stormtrooper fantasist
a rude belligerent converstionalist
To logic he is an abortionist
To YE ass he is protectionist.
To progress he is an obstructionist
Like some George III monarchist
With words he is a contortionist
gibberish for a deconstructionist
blowing a corporate extortionist.
To truth, he is an antagonist.
Goanadhag YOU ARE A DOUCH!!!!
Now go away before I taunt you a second time.
Post a Comment
<< Home