13 Responses to “I Knew Walter Cronkite…”

1. Terry Says:
   December 11th, 2006 at 12:06 pm

   From the dictionary.com definitions for ‘defeatists’:

   de·feat·ist /dɪˈfitɪst/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-fee-tist] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
   –noun
   1. a person who surrenders easily or is subject to defeatism.
   2. an advocate or follower of defeatism as a public policy.
   –adjective
   3. marked by defeatism.

   de·feat·ism (dĭ-fē’tĭz’əm) Pronunciation Key
   n. Acceptance of or resignation to the prospect of defeat.
   defeatist

   noun
   someone who is resigned to defeat without offering positive suggestions.

   Can we please start calling the policy of our friends on the left ‘defeatist’?

2. Fulcrum Says:
   December 11th, 2006 at 12:20 pm

   Terry, what any easy game!

   From the dictionary.com definitions for “delusion”:

   de·lu·sion /dɪˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
   –noun
   1. an act or instance of deluding.
   2. the state of being deluded.
   3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
   4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

   Can we pleast start calling the policy of our friends on the right “delusional’?

3. Terry Says:
   December 11th, 2006 at 1:10 pm

   Fulcrum-
   You can call anybody anything you want.
   But ‘delusional’ is an adjective and defeatist is a noun. That’s why the suffix is different.
   Rich’s and jbauer’s words, taken by themselves, prove that they are defeatist’s: “The actual reality is that we have lost in Iraq.” (Rich) “The long-term effects of Iraq are as likely to be harm to our national image due to that arrogance as they are due to it’s loss.” (jbauer) They may be right or wrong, but they are defeatist in any case.
   By contrast ‘delusional’ is your opinion. Unless you can find widespread examples of our friends on the right saying ‘I am delusional’ or ‘I have a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact’.

   I’m making a plea for accuracy here. If you believe we have already lost in Iraq, why the resistance to being called a defeatist?

4. Bill C Says:
   December 11th, 2006 at 1:16 pm

   ‘I have a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact’.

   Terry, that is simply what the vast majority of the left thinks about the vast majority of the right, regardless of what facts show, or people on the right might actually say.

5. Fulcrum Says:
   December 11th, 2006 at 1:32 pm

   terry, why is it that when someone takes a stance, or offers an opinion, your immediate reaction is to call them names? At least they offer something instead of your playground taunts.

   Fact is Afghanistan is slipping backwards. Fact is the war in Iraq is not going well at all, and the country has more or less descended into a civil war. But these are facts the right chooses to ignore…hmm, perhaps we should call those on the right ignorami.

6. Mitch Says:
   December 11th, 2006 at 1:38 pm

   terry, why is it that when someone takes a stance, or offers an opinion, your immediate reaction is to call them names?

   Calling Frank Rich “Defeatist” isn’t calling him names. Whether it’s realistic or not (the truth is somewhere in between), the appellation is accurate. He believes we’ve been defeated. It’s not namecalling if it’s accurate.

   At least they offer something instead of your playground taunts.

   Now, Fulcrum? Even if that were true – and it’s not – “offering something” isn’t necessarily a good thing, and it certainly doesn’t place one above criticism. I mean, David Duke is “offering something”.

   And when the “someone” that is “offering” something is Frank Rich – one of the most vacuous hamsters in American media (yes, it’s namecalling, and it’s accurate), it’s certainly not above criticism or question.

   perhaps we should call those on the right ignorami.

   Um, yeah, and that’d be different than the norm exactly how?

7. ak Says:
   December 11th, 2006 at 2:29 pm

   Long, incoherent, lousy grammar…

   …c’mon, spill it “Bauer”. You’re really PB.

   You can admit it! You’re among friends!

   Or fiends. If you spell them the same, I can too.

8. Terry Says:
   December 11th, 2006 at 2:48 pm

   PB-
   “You, on the other hand, want to through good money and lives after bad, repeat the same mistakes, and think it will all turn out right if we just “stick around.” Stick around waiting for what and doing what, exactly?”

   I don’t believe I’ve ever expressed an opinion on Mitch’s blog as to what we should do to achieve military and political victory in Iraq. I am pretty confidant, however, that victory does not lie in acknowledging defeat.

   “Insanity is defined as repeating the same process over and over again and expecting a different result.”

   Trite cliche’s are not analysis. At any rate the statement applies to certain comment writers on SITD as much as anything else.

9. Fulcrum Says:
   December 11th, 2006 at 3:25 pm

   Thanks for proving my point ak & terry….name calling and nothing else.

   I would be interested to see a “conservative’s” response to jbauer’s questions, because they seem to be serious questions that nobody in power cares to answer, or for a matter of fact, willing to ask.

10. Terry Says:
    December 11th, 2006 at 4:01 pm

    Fulcrum-
    Here’s every sentence that PB wrote that ended with a question mark:

    What do you see our role as, why is it not working then to resolve the problems in Iraq?
    What would, in your opinion, be the effect of replacing US Troops with Arab Troops (assuming they can be made available – perhaps through financial compensation)?
    I, and others, advocate the moral courage to challenge a failed approach. You seem to want to go on blithely believing in this debacle. McCarthy-esque pronouncements aside, do you think we’re winning in Iraq?
    If you think we’re not, then do you agree massive change is in order after 3.5 years of ‘not winning.?
    If you don’t think we need massive change, why not?
    There are a few paths open to us, but the key is that if we are to avoid creating a new Taliban-like regime just as existed in Afghanistan, or as exists now in Somalia, due to our ineptitude, we must end the chaos. How do you propose that is to be accomplished?
    One other point, do you have a regard for the number of Iraqis that have died, does it matter to you?
    You, on the other hand, want to through good money and lives after bad, repeat the same mistakes, and think it will all turn out right if we just “stick around.” Stick around waiting for what and doing what, exactly?

    The only opinion I expressed here was that Rich & jbauer are defeatists, and I backed it up with their words and dictionary definitions of what it means to be a ‘defeatist’. None of PB’s questions have anything to do with my comment. Pardon me if I’m unimpressed with the ability of a lefty commenter here to follow the thread of a discussion and not veer off into some ideological no mans land.
    I’ll be more explicit: To be a defeatist concerning our Iraq policy is to accept or be resigned to the notion of our defeat in Iraq. Nothing that PB (or you) has written challenges that proposition at all.

11. Troy Says:
    December 11th, 2006 at 5:11 pm

    I am reading an awful lot about ‘defeat’ this and ‘defeat’ that, but also about how offensive it is to be thought a ‘defeatist’. “Boo hoo”, you are breaking my heart, and I am sorry you did not see that one coming.

12. Terry Says:
    December 11th, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    PB, one of the identity-revealing peculiarities of your writing style is mixing adverbs,adjectives, and nouns in ways that surely God never intended.
    You say: “. . . acting in a blithely foolish way is the surest path to defeat.” ‘path’ and ‘defeat’ are nouns. ‘foolish’ is an adjective — good show — but ‘blithely’ is an adverb. To which verb does it apply?
    And then there’s “You want a blindered, myopic interpretation of one particular conduct that you, . . .” The noun here is ‘interpretation’ and ‘myopic’ is actually an adjective that modifies the noun. Again, good show! But ‘blindered’ is not only not an adjective, it isn’t a word of any kind. Oops!

13. Fulcrum Says:
    December 12th, 2006 at 9:44 am

    I must have missed it where the thread of this discussion was a grammitcal lesson.

    But it doesn’t suprise me that Terry is more concerned with grammitcal errors and name calling when there are horrible situations occuring in two countries, that at this time, are only getting worse.

    Buying those jingoist car magnet ribbons sure must feel like a security blanket huh?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.