View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Charlie Vignola: G.O.P. smears P.O.W.

Posted: June 10, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: June 10, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

Just when you think Fox News and the right-wing scandal machine can sink no further, they wallow in a new level of filth that just boggles the mind.

After successfully turning Americans against the poor, union workers and even school teachers, this past week they set about demonizing an American P.O.W. and his innocent family.

In 2009, after disappearing from his base, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan and has been held prisoner for the past five years.

His status as America’s only P.O.W. in Afghanistan was a source of pain for his family and a source of concern for politicians on both sides of the aisle who wanted an American soldier brought home.

And then President Obama made the grave mistake of actually arranging Bergdahl’s release.

Much like conservatives couldn’t allow Obama a foreign policy win when he oversaw the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden, so now would they have to find a way to fling mud all over what would at any other time be a downright joyous occasion for Americans.

In record time, the return of a U.S. prisoner of war was assiduously distorted by Fox News and the right-wing media into an episode of “Homeland,” perverting it from a long-anticipated, patriotic victory into an act of arrogance, sabotage and law-breaking so heinous, it’d only be natural to call for President Obama’s impeachment.

The challenge: How does one turn a U.S. soldier who was legitimately captured and held prisoner for a half decade into a traitor who arguably deserved to be left in the hands of America’s enemies to be tortured and possibly killed?

Well, when you don’t have all the facts yet, turn to gossip, innuendo and slander.

Since “swiftboating” worked so well to trash Senator John Kerry back in 2004, why not resurrect that tried and true strategy?

And so Republican strategist Richard Grenell arranged for Bergdahl’s disgruntled fellow soldiers to speak to the press and paint a one-sided, unflattering picture of the P.O.W.’s behavior before he was captured, implicitly suggesting he didn’t deserve to be rescued.

Next, have influential Fox News commentators like Bill O’Reilly slander Bergdahl’s father by saying his long beard made him “look like the Taliban.”

Never mind that his father grew the beard in solidarity with his imprisoned son, much like people shave their heads in solidarity with cancer victims — or that Bergdahl’s father looked as much like the Taliban as the cast of

“Duck Dynasty,” the members of Z.Z. Top and every single Amish male in America.

When reports emerge that Bergdahl has difficulty speaking English after being held prisoner by the Taliban for five years, get some quotes from super-patriot Sarah Palin that “real American” P.O.W.s like John McCain didn’t forget how to speak English — as if all people who are captured and tortured respond in exactly the same way, and if they don’t they’re suspect.

When Republican politicians who’d previously attacked President Obama for not getting Bergdahl back sooner are betrayed by their old Twitter posts, they immediately begin trying to erase them to cover evidence of their brazen hypocrisy.

Of course, this is all part of the long game conservatives are playing to taint any possibility of a “win” for President Obama, politicizing the most innocuous developments and trying to frame every one of his actions as a seditious event, turning their party collectively into “The Boy Who Cried Impeachment.”

We hear the inflammatory claim that Obama has “negotiated with terrorists,” which sounds good until you’re forced to acknowledge that the Taliban aren’t technically considered “terrorists” by the U.S., but are a guerilla army we’re dealing with in the Afghanistan War, and we’ve had to negotiate with them on numerous occasions — even bribing them back in 2010 not to attack our convoys.

Beyond that, even conservative icon President Ronald Reagan himself “negotiated with terrorists” during the Iran-Contra Scandal of 1985-86, trading arms for hostages with the rogue state of Iran.

In that case, the convoluted and ultimately botched deal only got us half our hostages back and sent “patriot” Lt. Col. Oliver North to the slammer.

The truth is conservatives would’ve attacked President Obama no matter what he did.

You think if he refused to trade Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl and left a U.S. soldier in the hands of the enemy to be exploited in propaganda videos and potentially executed, the G.O.P. would be lauding Obama for his strategic savvy and nerves of steel?

The bottom line is that it is shocking and disgraceful for any American to suggest that we should’ve left Bergdahl as a captive of the Taliban because he annoyed some of his fellow soldiers and possibly lost his zeal for the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.

The truth is, we’re still in the dark about the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl’s disappearance, capture, and long torturous years in captivity, and until we conduct a thorough investigation it would be living up to America’s noblest principles to give this P.O.W. the benefit of a doubt.

Charlie Vignola is a former college Republican turned liberal Democrat. He lives in Fair Oaks Ranch, works in the motion picture industry and loves his wife and kids.

 

Comments

Nitesho: Posted: June 10, 2014 5:41 a.m.

When did Feintstien and Hillary Clinton become a republican?....they both have said they didn't want to exchange prisoners for him.


CaptGene: Posted: June 10, 2014 6:54 a.m.

So, reporting what his fellow soldiers have said is smearing him?

Ah Chuckles, you never fail to deliver a laugh!


OldReliable: Posted: June 10, 2014 7:04 a.m.

The truth is Vignola, YOU are still in the dark about the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl's desertion.


OldReliable: Posted: June 10, 2014 7:10 a.m.

This just in: Now the White House says Hagel made final call on Bergdahl as criticism of Obama over prisoner swap mounts.


ricketzz: Posted: June 10, 2014 7:15 a.m.

It seems we are blessed with presence of soothsayers and clairvoyants.

What if Bergdahl's platoon had a discipline problem, specifically bullying and piling-on the sensitive hillbilly, and they are the reason he needed to get away long enough to move his bowels? I get bully vibes from his team leader; alpha male sociopaths and autistic people can spot each other in a crowd pretty easily.


tech: Posted: June 10, 2014 7:30 a.m.

"I get bully vibes from his team leader…" - ricketzz

You get bully vibes from everyone, sweetheart.


17trillion: Posted: June 10, 2014 7:34 a.m.

Chuckles! That's a good one. I was going to comment on the facts of this column but I couldn't find any.


tech: Posted: June 10, 2014 7:39 a.m.

We know the talking points, Mr. Vignola.

'I've Had Enough': When Democrats Quit on Obama

The email hit my in-box at 9:41 p.m. last Wednesday. From one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, a close adviser to the White House, the missive amounted to an electronic eye roll. "Even I have had enough."

Another Democrat had quit on President Obama.

The tipping point for this person was the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl case—not the soldier-for-Taliban swap itself as much as how the White House mishandled its obligation to communicate effectively and honestly to Congress and the public. More than that, Obama's team had failed once again to acknowledge its mistakes, preferring to cast blame and seek cover behind talking points.


"DC is hard, and depressing," the Democrat wrote. "I still believe good comes from government (e.g. 8 million in ACA). But that Politico story is a cautionary one: good reminder that you can't go so in the bunker [and] no longer identify legitimate criticism." That day, Politico had posted a story channeling the White House communications team's response to the Bergdahl backlash.

White House aides were aware Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had been tagged a deserter, and that they would be grilled over not keeping Congress in the loop. But they figured people would be most outraged over the national security implications.

The White House has been surprised by how much attention has remained on the questions about Bergdahl, from the circumstances of his disappearance to the wild beard his father grew while he was being held that's even led to Bergdahl's hometown canceling a celebration. All this, Obama aides say, is in their minds a proxy for the hatred toward the president.

The new approach: Frame the criticism as another example of Republicans complaining about something just because Obama was the one to do it.

To this senior Democrat, the Politico story showed the White House to be both tone-deaf and arrogant, two vices that are undermining what could have been a great presidency.

I share this email to make the broader point and to offer a disclosure: In the 18 months since I began writing columns focused on the presidency, virtually every post critical of Obama has originated from conversations with Democrats. Members of Congress, consultants, pollsters, lobbyists, and executives at think tanks, these Democrats are my Obama-whispers. They respect and admire Obama but believe that his presidency has been damaged by his shortcomings as a leader; his inattention to details of governing; his disengagement from the political process and from the public; his unwillingness to learn on the job; and his failure to surround himself with top-shelf advisers who are willing to challenge their boss as well as their own preconceived notions.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/i-ve-had-enough-when-democrats-quit-on-obama-20140609


therightstuff: Posted: June 10, 2014 8:28 a.m.

Notice that Charlie Vignola in his Democratic Voices column does not offer a single line to defend Barack Obama's decision? Instead, he chooses to "wallow in a new level of filth that just boggles the mind." When you don't have the facts, "you turn to gossip, innuendo and slander", right Charlie? You’re such a hypocrite.


projalice11: Posted: June 10, 2014 8:39 a.m.

BINGO CHARLIE..


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 8:43 a.m.

Vignola's usual nonsense.

"American P.O.W."?

How about "American deserter"?

If a soldier's missing from his post, wasn't captured in action, left a letter behind saying he was leaving, did so in a combat zone...... Well, he's a damned deserter!

"... until we conduct a thorough investigation it would be living up to America’s noblest principles to give this P.O.W. the benefit of a doubt."

Yeah, in order for society to impose a penalty, the "due process" of law must be rightfully observed. But that DOESN'T mean we should suspend our own powers of critical thinking in the meantime.

If I'm doing the speed limit on the freeway and someone zips past me at 30 MPH faster than I'm already doing, I think I can safely say he's speeding, whether he ever gets a ticket for it or not.

Hey, Vignola, do you think OJ Simpson's not a murderer?

He was never convicted of murder. But Ron and Nicole are still very dead, and SOMEONE did that.


chefgirl358: Posted: June 10, 2014 8:45 a.m.

The father DOES look like a taliban, it IS weird that the son can't remember English well, and he IS a deserter and traitor...and NOT a hero now or ever.

I'm ashamed he was an American and I wish they would have left him there. The only change I would have made was that I would have shipped his taliban sympathizer parents and Jane Fonda over there to keep the little creep company. The taliban can keep all of them as far as I'm concerned.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 8:50 a.m.

Hey, Vignola, did you see PMSNBC's Chris Matthews's meltdown over Obama's reclaiming the traitor?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnIHOUNFbr4&feature=player_embedded

Whoa! If Obama's even lost Matthews, Obama's biggest media sycophant, what's next? They handing out snowshoes in Hell?


projalice11: Posted: June 10, 2014 8:52 a.m.

AGAIN CHARLIE BINGO ..


philellis: Posted: June 10, 2014 9:04 a.m.

I am not sure which is more surprising - the lack of critical thinking from Charlie or the lack of critical think from Lois


AlwaysRight: Posted: June 10, 2014 9:15 a.m.

I am 99% sure that these pieces are written just to be entertaining. In fact, I no longer believe that there is a Charlie Vignola. This is an intern at the Signal offices that has been tasked to write evocative and mildly humorous left-wing rants that are entirely ungrounded in fact or critical thinking.

Because, no one can actually think like this. If so, we are in deep trouble as a nation and society.


therightstuff: Posted: June 10, 2014 9:45 a.m.

This is such a typical reaction from the DNC/mainstream media War Room when they KNOW their leader has royally screwed up.

When he lies about a terrorist attack in Benghazi...blame it on a video and if anyone questions this lie, say: "You're just politicizing four dead Americans!"

When he lies that you can 'keep your health care coverage, period, I guarantee it, end of story' and anyone questions these lies, say, "You don't want poor people to have health insurance!"

Now when Obama has negotiated with terrorists for an alleged deserter and anyone questions it, say "You're smearing a P.O.W.!"

That's how Democrats play the game. Reason #2,995 why I would never be a Democrat.


tech: Posted: June 10, 2014 10:10 a.m.

Andrea Mitchell of the "GOP" </sarcasm>:

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


therightstuff: Posted: June 10, 2014 10:28 a.m.

TROUBLING QUESTIONS FOR VIGNOLA AND OTHER OBAMA LOYALISTS

You claimed that Bergdahl is a P.O.W. Why has the Pentagon never listed Bergdahl as a P.O.W.?

You said that Bergdahl “disappeared” in 2009. We know he left a note saying he was going to start a new life. How do you think he disappeared?

You said Bill O’Reilly claimed Bergdahl’s father looked like a Taliban. Watch the actual video and he says he looks like a Muslim. Charlie, did you tell a lie or do you automatically equate all Muslims as Taliban?

You said the Taliban aren’t technically considered terrorists but if you want to be technical, Bergdahl was held by the Haqqanis. Did you know Hillary Clinton named the Haqqanis as an official *terrorist* organization in 2012?

You asked if we should have left Bergdahl in the hands of the enemy to be exploited in propaganda videos. Wasn’t he already being exploited in propaganda videos? How else did Barack Obama determine that Bergdahl’s health was in serious condition which he used to justify not telling Congress?

You suggested that Bergdahl “possibly lost his zeal for the U.S. Mission in Afghanistan.” You mean when he wrote that “America is a horror” and that he was “ashamed to be an American”? This is how you define “possibly losing his zeal”?

You talked about tweets from Republicans that were deleted but you failed to mention a deleted tweet by Bergdahl’s father, four days after news of his son’s release. He tweeted, “I am still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners,” Why didn’t you mention this one, Charlie?

You condemn smearing Bergdahl, so why are you so comfortable describing all of his fellow soldiers as “disgruntled” and exploited by the Republican Party?

Everyone who thinks Charlie Vignola is a useless partisan hypocrite, say BINGO!


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 10:31 a.m.

I'll BINGO that one.


17trillion: Posted: June 10, 2014 10:47 a.m.

BINGO! Actually, "useless partisan hypocrite" is not only redundant, but too nice a description for Chuckles.


therightstuff: Posted: June 10, 2014 11:06 a.m.

projalice11: """BINGO CHARLIE"" """AGAIN CHARLIE BINGO"""

I'll count that as two votes to my question.


philellis: Posted: June 10, 2014 11:06 a.m.

BINGO!!


supportourtroops: Posted: June 10, 2014 11:19 a.m.

Great column!

Left and right just have a simple difference of opinion. The Dems and President Obama, believe in supporting our troops and never leaving a man behind. The GOP doesn't. The GOP believes in opposing the president at every turn, even if it means abandoning a US soldier to the hands of the enemy. Have fun with that position, GOP. I love you guys, but, like the president, I love our soldiers more.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 11:29 a.m.

"The Dems and President Obama, believe in supporting our troops and never leaving a man behind."

Uh huh.


Does the word "Benghazi" ring any bells there for ya?


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 11:30 a.m.

Oh yeah, and I forgot.

While the Prez and his minions are so concerned about "supporting our troops", they're perfectly happy to let the vets die on secret VA waiting lists.


I'm underwhelmed.


17trillion: Posted: June 10, 2014 11:32 a.m.

Then why isn't that worthless POS doing anything about our soldier in Mexico? If Obama loves our troops, why are they dying trying to get VA assistance? Obama loves our troops in the same way that I love a nice case of genital warts.

I would have got Bergdahl back too so I could turn around and put him before a firing squad.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 11:36 a.m.

LOL!


Quit holding back, 17trill. Tell us how you REALLY feel.


therightstuff: Posted: June 10, 2014 11:37 a.m.

supportourtroops: """The Dems and President Obama, believe in supporting our troops and never leaving a man behind."""

Then explain why your president and the Dems left four Americans to die in Benghazi - and then lied about it by blaming the terrorist attack on a video? In fact, while the fires were still smoldering in Benghazi, your president went on a cash junket to Las Vegas for his campaign. Is this how Obama shows how much he loves our soldiers?

Yesterday a devastating report was released about tens of thousands of veterans not being served at the V.A. even though your president has been warned over and over again about this tragedy. Oh yes, Obama truly loves our soldiers.

And explain to us how your president can negotiate with terrorists for the release of an alleged deserter but can't make a phone call to Mexico for the release of U.S. Marine Andrew Tahmooressi...if they don't believe in leaving any man behind?

Your president just put a target on every soldier's back because now the terrorist know he will negotiate for their release. And he did it all for his own political posturing. Yep, that's true love.


supportourtroops: Posted: June 10, 2014 11:39 a.m.

17 Trillion, "I would have got Bergdahl back too so I could turn around and put him before a firing squad."

If by firing squad, you mean due process in the military justice system, than we are all in agreement. Thanks for supporting President Obama's position. Now if only you were smart enough to realize that's what your position means.


supportourtroops: Posted: June 10, 2014 11:50 a.m.

Once again guys, the rule is "never leave a man behind." Not, "Never leave a man behind unless his dad's got a scary beard." Or "Never leave a man behind unless a black democrat is President." Or "Never leave a man behind, unless Limbaugh's ratings are flagging." Or "Never leave a man behind, unless doing so makes armchair chickenhawks feel manly." Frankly, your opinions are transparently based on a naked opposition to any Obama policy, so much so that you would oppose kittens if Obama was in favor of them. I'm pretty sure that even if Obama had personally parachuted into Benghazi to save the embassy, you guys would be arguing today that he should have let those Americans die and save them the dishonor of having been rescued by the Muslim socialist Kenyan usurper. --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:05 p.m.

"Once again guys, the rule is 'never leave a man behind.'"


As I wrote on another thread, you and Obama have been watching too many war movies.


We've left men behind in every war. That's just a fact.

We keep hearing this nonsense rationalization from the Obama worshippers that "we leave no man behind", which -- speaking as a vet -- is also complete horsepuckey. We've "left men behind" in just about every war of which I'm aware. Where do you think the term "MIA" comes from?

"We leave no man behind" is just a line from countless war movies, usually just before the hero manages to slaughter about a thousand "enemies" who are too stupid to fire from behind effective cover, running headlong into the hero's blazing machine gun.

Nice slogan, though.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:09 p.m.

Incidentally, "supportourtroops", how come you can't respond to the questions about Benghazi and the vets dying at the VA?

No pat answer for that? Doesn't fit your meme about how much Obama "cares", and "we leave no man behind"? Unless, I guess, it's inconvenient to the campaign fundraising effort, or might be an embarrassing admission that al Quaida's not actually "on the run" after all, or hey, they're only VETERANS! Who cares about THEM?

That what you mean?


supportourtroops: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:10 p.m.

Okay, BrianBaker, so you agree that the President feels more strongly than you about not leaving US soldiers in the hands of the enemy. Glad to see you agree with my original position. Now if only all republicans could be so honest.


17trillion: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:12 p.m.

I'm smart enough to know the definition of "too". What's your excuse?


supportourtroops: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:14 p.m.

Oops, sorry, 17 Trillion, I missed that typo, I must have been too busy laughing at you.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:17 p.m.

No, "supportourtroops", I think your president is a lying, worthless, conniving, incompetent poseur who'll say and do anything he thinks will make him look good.

I don't think he cares one whit about the troops other than if he thinks it can make him look good for the moment, and in this particular case, I believe he was hoping his big "rescue" of this deserter would take the VA scandal off the front pages, a scandal that reveals his REAL opinions of the military: that they're an annoying aspect of his job that he has to contend with, in spite of his utter ignorance of and contempt for them.

If you think that's an agreement with you, well... fine.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:19 p.m.

BTW, "support", when you gonna respond to the questions about Benghazi and the vets dying at the VA?


Hmmmmmmm, Mr. "Obama loves the troops".......?


supportourtroops: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:19 p.m.

BB, I'm not talking about those other issues because I don't want you to change the subject. I'm not going to let you distract everyone from the issue at hand, namely that you guys could give a fig about a US POW if Rush tells you so. Why do you always want to change the subject when someone points out how completely ridiculous your positions are? I know it must be embarrassing to have to face these issues, but you came here to whine about Berghdal. I mean I know you guys are cowards, you can at least have the courage of you convictions for one thread, can't you?

Was that answer pat enough for you?


therightstuff: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:19 p.m.

Nice partisan speech supportouttroops but why didn't you answer any of my questions? Want to try again or just give shallow accusations that we don't like Obama's policies because he's black?


therightstuff: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:31 p.m.

Got it Brian? SOT refuses to answer any of our questions or address the accusations but then calls us cowards. What can you expect from a Democrat where the standard for honesty, integrity, and transparency is Barack Obama?


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:36 p.m.

"BB, I'm not talking about those other issues because I don't want you to change the subject."

Hahahahahahaha!

That IS the subject, bubba. Your claim that Obama "cares" about the troops. Sorry, bud, but whether or not YOU like it, Benghazi and the VA scandal are VERY MUCH part of that claim, and prove what a moronic lie it really is.

Then there was this little gem: "... that you guys could give a fig about a US POW if Rush tells you so."

"You guys"? You mean like we vets? Because yes, bubba, I am one.

Here's a little fact for ya.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/09/obama-bergdahl-opinion-poll/10234425/

USA Today poll released today. In it:

"Only 6% of veterans who responded say they sympathized with him, while 33% say they were angry. By 68%-16%, veterans say Obama made the wrong decision."

So it looks like those of us who actually put on the uniform don't agree with you, bud. Oh..... are you trying to say we're all getting our opinions from Limbaugh?

The ONLY thing you guys learned from the Vietnam War -- my war -- was it's political foolishness to blame the guys who actually wear the uniforms and carry the guns. So ever since then, we've been subjected to a sickening and phony "support" from leftists everywhere.

I liked it better when you people were spitting at us. At least THAT was honest.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:40 p.m.

Yeah, TRS, the usual lefty attempts at diversion and obfuscation, except he's even more inept at it than our usual attendees here.


tech: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:52 p.m.

Q: What's more hilarious than a troll, SOT?

A: An inept troll. --edited.


supportourtroops: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:52 p.m.

BB, Frankly, I'm just ignoring everything you said after you agreed with my statement that you were cool with leaving soldiers in the hands of the enemy. I don't need to keep arguing with you, I already won. Isn't that why you keep trying to change the subject?

But maybe, if you type some really long screed, I'll address your points. Better still, do it in all caps. Just remember, if I don't talk about Benghazi, it's just because you didn't make the post long enough or all caps enough.

Cool to hear you were a vet, though. What was it like to fight for the confederacy?


supportourtroops: Posted: June 10, 2014 12:59 p.m.

TRS, I said above that I'm not going to change the subject or get distracted. When Charlie writes a column about the VA or whatever, I'll talk about that. Let's keep to the topic at hand, namely your desire to outsource military justice to barbarians living in caves. We could save a lot of money in future wars by replacing our MP's with the enemy. I bet you guys would love that. Our new policy is not "Never leave a man behind," but is instead "Hang 'em high Ho-Chi-Minh"


supportourtroops: Posted: June 10, 2014 1:01 p.m.

How is it you guys have all this time for posting? Don't you have some death threats to make to the Berghdal family?


BrianBaker: Posted: June 10, 2014 1:05 p.m.

Gotta love it:

"BB, Frankly, I'm just ignoring everything you said after you agreed with my statement that you were cool with leaving soldiers in the hands of the enemy."


Yep. Ignoring things is the only way you guys can ever address actual issues. Pretend they don't exist. Hide your head in the sand.

And I somehow "agreed" with what you said? What's your native language? It surely can't be American English.

"I don't need to keep arguing with you..."


Does that mean you'll be going away now? Back to Momma's basement or whatever other "sanctuary" you snuck out of?

Excellent.


CaptGene: Posted: June 10, 2014 1:33 p.m.

cricketzz: "It seems we are blessed with presence of soothsayers and clairvoyants."

Followed by, cricketzz: "I get bully vibes from his team leader"

Why yes cricketzz, it seems we are blessed with some soothsayers!

What a loon!


therightstuff: Posted: June 10, 2014 1:35 p.m.

supportourtroops: """Don't you have some death threats to make to the Berghdal family?"""

Your own words sum up your idiocy more than anything I can say in response.


gmcolvin: Posted: June 10, 2014 2:02 p.m.

Keep drinking the "Kool-Aid" Charles!


OldReliable: Posted: June 10, 2014 4:01 p.m.

Hey Vignola, when are you ever going to learn to stop writing such dopey opinion pieces? You've had the snot knocked out of you today...


AlwaysRight: Posted: June 10, 2014 4:41 p.m.

He's not real. I'm telling you.


CaptGene: Posted: June 10, 2014 4:45 p.m.

Chuckles: "... President Ronald Reagan himself “negotiated with terrorists” during the Iran-Contra Scandal ..."

And the lib/dems all looked the other way, right?

What a freaking hypocrite.


stevehw: Posted: June 10, 2014 8:55 p.m.

"Your president just put a target on every soldier's back because now the terrorist know he will negotiate for their release."

You mean terrorists would have just let our soldiers go before, but *now* they're going to keep them hostage? Or is it that before this, they would have just killed them outright, but now they'll let them live?


ricketzz: Posted: June 11, 2014 6:45 a.m.

Capt.Gene; You are probably lacking an objective viewpoint regarding bullying, but I guarantee you that a special needs kid who suffered constant harassment for 10 years in public schools develops a sixth sense re: psychopathological males. Bullies must be culled from the gene pool.


CaptGene: Posted: June 11, 2014 10:24 a.m.

cricketzz, you know nothing about what I have faced in my life. As much as depicting me as a bully would fit your narrative, it's not the reality, in fact it's just the opposite. But don't let facts get in the way of your fantasy.

As much as you wish it weren't so, all the evidence we've seen portrays your boy Bergdahl as a deserter, and possibly a defector, regardless of whether his team leader is a bully or not.


Socalguy: Posted: June 11, 2014 10:37 a.m.

Never leave a man behind, no matter who that man is.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 11, 2014 2:54 p.m.

Another watcher of late-night war movies on basic cable.


Indy: Posted: June 11, 2014 2:56 p.m.

Ricketzz wrote: It seems we are blessed with presence of soothsayers and clairvoyants.

What if Bergdahl's platoon had a discipline problem, specifically bullying and piling-on the sensitive hillbilly, and they are the reason he needed to get away long enough to move his bowels? I get bully vibes from his team leader; alpha male sociopaths and autistic people can spot each other in a crowd pretty easily.

Indy: It matters little to the hard core conservatives here that ignore the facts but feel empowered to recite endlessly their ‘innuendo and speculation’ as presented by the mindless commentators on Fox.

I do think this recent release is important as Americans realize that electing republican politicians now means that your ‘son or daughter’ will be pre-judged in the media for partisan political purposes if captured while in combat.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 11, 2014 5:16 p.m.

Care to recite your own vast military experience, Indy?


Oh, wait... I almost forgot. You're the guy who "knows" everything about everything, no experience, training nor research required.

Somehow magically endowed with the gift of omniscience. A legend in his own mind!

H-e-e-e-re's INDY!




ricketzz: Posted: June 12, 2014 6:21 a.m.

CaptGene: I never called you a bully, but if you want to confess we'll be kind.


Nitesho: Posted: June 12, 2014 8:59 a.m.

<scarcasm button on>

Dude...we still talking about this? wasn't this like 5 years ago?

<scarcasm button off>


projalice11: Posted: June 12, 2014 12:24 p.m.

Yeah to supportourtroops you hit some funny bones..

Your posts are right on keep them coming ..

You have the old boys clubs on the ropes ..


Indy: Posted: June 12, 2014 5:07 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Care to recite your own vast military experience, Indy?

Indy: Yes, none . . . I was in the lottery for Viet Nam but decided my ‘engineering’ expertise was more important that fighting a war that today is considered just as bad as it was back then.

We lost over 55,000 kids in Viet Nam with another 250,000 wounded and for what?

Their loss still bothers me . . . my only regret is not protesting harder to end that war sooner.

And it burns my insides to have to swallow that Kennedy got us in there and Johnson escalated the effort when he knew that there was no chance of winning, none.

BrianBaker wrote: Oh, wait... I almost forgot. You're the guy who "knows" everything about everything, no experience, training nor research required. Somehow magically endowed with the gift of omniscience.

Indy: I’m going to have to go with the Founding Fathers on this one . . . can you guess why?


BrianBaker: Posted: June 13, 2014 8:49 a.m.

I don't care what your reasons were for not going into the military, nor even that you didn't.

I'm merely pointing out the obvious -- or at least obvious to anyone who actually knows how to think -- that you're commenting on a culture of which you have not one minute's personal experience. In plain English, you don't know what the hell you're babbling about. As usual.

When I was in the Army, Fox News hadn't even been invented yet, so it's pretty hard to get my opinions from them. But, of course, you're only writing what HuffPo and MoveOn use as their SOP talking points for Dem/socialists.

And make no mistake about it, bud, the military IS a different culture.

You're slamming guys who actually DID "serve honorably" in order to try to defend your ObaMessiah in yet another of his endless stream of scandals. Jeez, that must get pretty tiring...


ricketzz: Posted: June 13, 2014 9:42 a.m.

Apparently PFC Bergdahl was odd man out for talking about his platoon running over a civilian child, in an incident that wasn't officially reported. It was in his letters. This should be an interesting weekend in San Antonio. Go Spurs!

(ATT Center & Ft. Sam Houston very near each other. Brooke AMS is very visible from the roof of the ATT. Maybe ABC will do a beauty shot.)


tech: Posted: June 13, 2014 1:20 p.m.

Jesse Lemon @JesseLemon
Obama called out Iraqi troops for abandoning their posts. Questioned their commitment. #Iraq #Mosul

Jonah Goldberg ✔ @JonahNRO
Obama says it's a big problem when Iraqi soldiers abandon their posts. Bergdahl's comrades think it's a problem when Americans do it too.


Indy: Posted: June 13, 2014 6:15 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: I don't care what your reasons were for not going into the military, nor even that you didn't.

Indy: Then why bring it up?

BrianBaker wrote: I'm merely pointing out the obvious -- or at least obvious to anyone who actually knows how to think -- that you're commenting on a culture of which you have not one minute's personal experience. In plain English, you don't know what the hell you're babbling about. As usual.

Indy: Here you display the pompous and condescending rhetoric of a conservative that ignores everything but their own babbling . . .

BrianBaker wrote: When I was in the Army, Fox News hadn't even been invented yet, so it's pretty hard to get my opinions from them. But, of course, you're only writing what HuffPo and MoveOn use as their SOP talking points for Dem/socialists.

Indy: I don’t read those sites . . . so how did you come to the conclusion that I did? Innuendo and speculation . . . the hallmarks of Fox?

BrianBaker wrote: And make no mistake about it, bud, the military IS a different culture.

Indy: You infer that I can’t grasp anything by not being in the military as if I’ve never met anyone in same . . . where did you pull that comment out of?

BrianBaker wrote: You're slamming guys who actually DID "serve honorably" in order to try to defend your ObaMessiah in yet another of his endless stream of scandals. Jeez, that must get pretty tiring...

Indy: Anytime anyone disagrees with a conservative, the first babble is that you are ‘hating’ or using your word ‘slamming’ when the reality is just ‘debating’.

And your dislike of the President is your choice . . . but the phony made up scandals that emanate and grow at ‘Innendo and Speculation Central’ aka Fox are recited and parroted by you all the time . . . almost in every post.

Hmmmm . . .


BrianBaker: Posted: June 13, 2014 6:57 p.m.

"Indy: You infer that I can’t grasp anything by not being in the military as if I’ve never met anyone in same . . . where did you pull that comment out of?"


I've known a lot of women who gave birth, but that doesn't mean I know what it feels like. Do YOU, Mr. "I'm An Expert On Everything In Existence, Though I've Never Done Anything"?

What a tool. Everything you write is just plain moronic.

We're done. I don't have any more time to waste on your absurdities on this thread.


tech: Posted: June 13, 2014 8:40 p.m.

"That’s one of the reasons why it appears I know all the answers since I have the MBA plus the years of experience running a business." - Indy Posted: February 11, 2014 7:20 p.m.

http://www.signalscv.com/section/33/article/113798/

Narcissism personified. :-D


BrianBaker: Posted: June 14, 2014 10:37 p.m.

To say the least.

Gassbaggery personified, too.


projalice11: Posted: June 14, 2014 9:01 a.m.

YEAH FOR INDY ..


tech: Posted: June 14, 2014 9:27 a.m.

Desperate for any affirmation of his outsized ego, I'm sure Indy treasures your substantive endorsement, projalice11.


therightstuff: Posted: June 14, 2014 11:00 a.m.

Indy: """I don’t read those sites . . . so how did you come to the conclusion that I did? Innuendo and speculation . . . the hallmarks of Fox?"""

Considering how this poster regurgitates the exact same talking points of those sites, I think any normal person would conclude that he is just passing along what he hears. Lying and partisanship...the hallmarks of Indy.

And yes, I can think of few things more embarrassing than having the crazy BINGO lady seeing eye to eye with me on the issues.


ricketzz: Posted: June 16, 2014 6:44 a.m.

I read all the sites. Sun Tzu says to know your enemy, learn to think what enemy thinks.


tech: Posted: June 17, 2014 9:22 p.m.

Your fellow citizens living their lives as they see fit doesn't make them your enemy, ricketzz.


ricketzz: Posted: June 17, 2014 6:35 a.m.

If their detachment from reality causes an existential threat to the rational majority they are indeed the enemy. This is war.


tech: Posted: June 17, 2014 5:25 p.m.

You just described yourself as the enemy, ricketzz. :-D


ricketzz: Posted: June 18, 2014 7:00 a.m.

Whatever. People who want to preserve the status quo must be thieves, or people who support thieves. The system is a full-on kleptocracy. Everybody thinks everybody else is cheating so they cheat too. Everyone in office in government is guilty of theft or looking the other way or both.

Theft is why propaganda is now legal. Theft (and theocracy) is [are] the reason[s] the Supreme Court is overturning laws not even before them. Theft of the commons is why you don't know any better. 400 people, most of whom have never worked a day in their lives, have stolen so much wealth and are so powerful the country's laws are now written to benefit them, to the detriment of everyone else. We are a propaganda driven quasi-republic, at best.

"We the People". Not "We the Special People"


tech: Posted: June 18, 2014 9:55 a.m.

If that is truly your view, why do you continually advocate policies that aggregate MORE power to the corrupt state?

“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone.”
― Frédéric Bastiat


ricketzz: Posted: June 19, 2014 7:42 a.m.

"Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" — in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers

The USA was founded so we could all be rich. That is the facts.


tech: Posted: June 19, 2014 1:12 p.m.

Fact: The opinion blog you linked to lists sentiments of some of the Founders that were not what was enacted into law. See: English Common Law, property rights.

The USA provides the *opportunity* to prosper. No one has a right to the product of labor/genius of another. Taxation for land use and infrastructure is already extant.


tech: Posted: June 19, 2014 2:17 p.m.

Again, you demonstrate and inability to answer a simple, direct inquiry.

I repeat: "If that is truly your view, why do you continually advocate policies that aggregate MORE power to the corrupt state?"


ricketzz: Posted: June 20, 2014 7:19 a.m.

Define "power", "advocate", "state" and maybe I can reply. I want our collective strength to exceed that of The Corporation. I want secret trade deals where globalists and Senators sign away our national sovereignty exposed and stopped and reversed. I want executives in handcuffs. I want a death penalty for serial murdering corporations.

I'm sure your reasons for supporting fascism make sense in the world as you see it; this country was founded for the very reasons I repeatedly remind us of. Corporations are tyrannical. Religions are tyrannical. Empires are tyrannical. Rich people, many who have never felt real want once in their lives, are controlling the dominant conventional mass media message, and they are misleading you so they can make more money. They have bought the majority of the courts and the legislatures, not for some noble political goal; no, just to make money. The power seeking for power's sake megalomaniacs of history are no match for the modern CEO.


tech: Posted: June 20, 2014 2:49 p.m.

You have access to a dictionary and don't require my assistance in that regard. Why do you continue to deflect rather than answering my question?


ricketzz: Posted: June 22, 2014 8:10 a.m.

You are trying to create the impression I believe in big countries, I do not. I do believe we need a central mechanism to keep the various states from screwing people over. I think a country designed for 30 million farmers might need some tweaking when it morphs into a country of 313,000,000 consumers. I am proven correct by the complete collapse of democratic institutions like journalism and education and the pacification of the masses with shiny objects. It has already happened. I didn't have to advocate for it. You and Reagan and Bill Clinton and the 2 idiot Bushes did it for me.

Counterculture is a beautiful word. Question authority. (lose the Bircher talk, it's positively quaint).


tech: Posted: June 22, 2014 10:47 a.m.

I'm not "trying to create an impression". In your own words, you advocate "totalitarian methods".

ricketzz: Posted: June 7, 2014 7:06 a.m.

"Tech has no faith in this country nor its Founding Principles. He accuses me of being antisocial while condemning one of humanity's greatest experiments. Perhaps we are more alike than it seems. I don't think Jeffersonian Democracy scales infinitely. What worked for 30,000,000 farmers is not working for 300,000,000 service sector slaves. Totalitarian methods must be used, in lieu of an objective press and an educated electorate, to maintain order.

A New World Order is what they called it, as I recall. I call it The Bubble."


ricketzz: Posted: June 23, 2014 8:07 a.m.

I distrust your ability to define "advocate". I am "lamenting" the fact that since we don't have good civics education or competent news coverage by the mass media, the People are at the mercy of bloody corporations who learned how to control our wants and needs since before we were born. The cops on the beat have been replaced with Imperial Storm Troopers. A half million people in the street goes unreported because their concerns threaten the Corporations that control the news. Emotion, rather than reason, rules the day. If you want The Constitution to work, we need a lot more Americans working together to repair the Republic. John Galt fell into a sinkhole.


tech: Posted: June 23, 2014 1:01 p.m.

"Totalitarian methods must be used…" - ricketzz

advocate
verb |-ˌkāt | [ with obj. ]
publicly recommend or support: they advocated an ethical foreign policy.


ricketzz: Posted: June 25, 2014 6:26 a.m.

The statement above is an observation. The systemic dysfunction from council chambers to the Supreme Court bench is serving to make people hate government, voting, caring. That void is filled by a world of misdirection and shiny objects. People are in a daze. Mass hypnosis is hip.

Somewhere the Baby Jesus is weeping.


tech: Posted: June 25, 2014 9:29 a.m.

You can't walk away from your words with nonsensical dissembling, ricketzz. The right action would be repudiation of your shocking position.


reason1: Posted: June 28, 2014 9:29 p.m.

I am late to the party but just stumbled upon this Charlie Vignola post. He was silent for some time so I thought he had given up writing his delusional liberal diatribes. Apparently not. Looks like he went back to the kool-aid, drank a keg and is back at it, more factless than ever.


ricketzz: Posted: July 2, 2014 6:44 a.m.

Tech is refusing to admit that we live in the Dystopian Future predicted by science fiction. He thinks all this is "normal". I double down. All the checks and balances on information dissemination were systematically removed by Reagan, Clinton. The News has become Infotainment. There is no way a person can know what is going on without actively pursuing truth in a sea of junk information. You have chosen the easy path; get on the anger train and go along with whatever insane distraction that provides; anything to delay that Come to Jesus moment when you realize this is all a giant con job; nothing is as it seems.

My "Totalitarian Methods" are today's S.O.P. Corporations have assumed control. Government will more and more be "democracy theater". Just like the TSA provides "security theater".

Rather than me repudiate this, why don't you tell me where I'm wrong?


tech: Posted: July 6, 2014 9:30 a.m.

"Tech is refusing to admit that we live in the Dystopian Future predicted by science fiction." - ricketzz

We don't but people who believe as you do are struggling mightily to bring it about. What you're whingeing about is a free media, one you wish was heavily regulated by those who think as you do. And that is why you advocate "totalitarian methods".

The answer to speech you don't agree with is more speech, not less or a restriction to one perspective.

By almost any measure, life is rapidly improving for more people in more places.

Example: According to the UN, since 1990 2 billion people have gained access to clean water.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...