Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, February 5, 2007
Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, February 5, 2007 at about 11pm CST
DON'T FORGET TO GET RECORDER.
KEOS 89.1 FM College Station.
And you have aRandomTexan. You can call me "a". In
the weather tonight, we have a temperature of _______
outside our studios at 202 E. Carson in Bryan.
Tonight, we could have Showers with 20% chance of rain in the
forecast with a low of 41.
Tomorrow, Tuesday, we are supposed to have a high of 68 and a low of 47 with
showers and 20% chance of rain.
Wednesday we can expect a high of 72 and a low of 52 with
mostly sunny skies and 10% chance of rain.
Thursday maybe we can expect coudly skies and 10% chance of rain.
Look for a high of 58 and a low of 43.
Segment 1:
KEOS 89.1 FM College Station.
You are listening to the
Master CraftsMon, a program of debate and then
social activism from the Right. On this program we
will be exploring how to use the Internet as a means
of gathering resources to affect positive social
change in a community. If you want to follow along,
you need to boot up your computer and
go to mastercraftsmon.blogspot.com
MasterCraftsMon is one word with an "o" at the end
instead of an "a".
For I am but a voice from the velvet black calling to you across the
gulf of our mutual incomprehension.
***EXPOUND ON why anyone would listen to this program ***
The left and the right in this country see the world differently. I wanted to
get real dialog between the two camps. ***Light bulb joke***
---
Hanoi Jane become Jihad Jane
She was going to have a tour in a bus powered by vegetable oil. The tour fell
apart.
---
When Fonda says things like that, the Right goes nuts, because it absolved all
the members on the Left of any responsibility for the deaths in southeast
asia. Responsibility... The Left has always been short on that topic. I was
always struck in the 1960's how incensed the protesters who were arrested got.
They felt that what they were doing was above reproach and the very IDEA that
anyone would arrest them was just inconceivable.
To the people on the Right this was a retreat to childhood, where every bad
behavior was excused as caused by something other than the person involved.
---
Darfur vs Iraq
---
Where was the outrage on the Left when Saddam was slaughtering people left and
right? It is now known that CNN cut a deal with Saddam. CNN got to sit in
Bagdaghd and chronicle all the awful things that the US was doing to Saddam's
people during the embargoes as long as CNN ignored the mass graves, the rape
rooms and the various other barbarous behavior of Saddam. If CNN and the other
Mainstream meadia was covering Saddam as they cover Darfur, what would the
outcome have been. Think this through, people, what is the difference between
the behavior of Saddam and the nutjobs in the Sudan? I can't see it, but maybe
I am not nuanced enough.
Again, think this through why would we be going into Sudan?
*** REad the demands above and talk about them ***
---
Warriors and wusses
By JOEL STEIN
January 24, 2006
---
When this came out a year ago, people on the Left jumped back and quickly
tried to distance themselves from this guy's position... except those on
DailyKos, Democratic Underground and Moveon.org. All of these sites applauded
JOEL STEIN's courage.
You have to understand, to the Right what Stein said is just what every person
on the Right has assumed was true, but we assumed that the Left was lying
about. Take a deep breath. I am quite certain, you yourself do not want to be
thought of as someone who lies. The problem is that the Right assumes the Left
is lying because of the actions of your leaders. Too many of the leaders on
the Left are calling our soldiers, Nazis, torturers and various other names.
*** EXPOUND read back through the article. ***
---
Blackfive's Take on Arkin (***ADULT CONTENT****)
By William M. Arkin | January 30, 2007; 8:51 AM ET
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
The Troops Also Need to Support the American People
---
Arkin is saying that he believes that the United States military is saying to
the Amercian people, "Shut up." AND he is stating that the U.S. military has
no right to do that at all. I look at the remarks he quotes and draw a
different conclusion. The soldiers are stating as fact that the news media is
reporting all the destruction which the U.S. military is perpetrating without
reporting on the rebuilding efforts they are perpetrating.
Have you ever seen a shouting match between protesters? I mean, picture this
one group of people with signs opposing the war and another set of people
in favor of the war. In between the two groups is the police. If one side
starts screaming, "Shut Up!", Shut Up,Shut UP!" Does it mean anything with the
police standing there? Nope. Neither side can shut the other side up.
When the Dixie Chick started saying that their 1st Amendment rights were
infringed by people screaming "Shut Up!", Shut Up,Shut UP!", the Right was
unable to understand her position. The people shouting "Shut Up!", Shut Up,
Shut UP!" had no power to shut her up. People, cognitive dissonence... She
screamed her head off at people who gave her a hard time. It went on forever.
It even became a marketing tool. How were her 1st Amendment rights infringed.
Freedom of speech does in insulate you from getting your feelings hurt. It
just doesn't. Freedom of speech does not make it possible to duck all
responsibility for your words.
Look at Arkin. He is stating the same case as the Dixie Chicks. He is saying
that the military is in fact attempting to stop debate by saying that they
believe in what they are doing... Even IF the miliary was shouting, "Shut
Up!", Shut Up,Shut UP!", what good does it do without physcially stopping
people from talking. Are you stating that having your emotions hurt because
someone verbally abused you entitles you to some type of sympathy?
*** EXPOUND by going over text ***
---
By William M. Arkin | February 1, 2007; 9:39 AM ET
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out
*** EXPOUND Go back through the above and comment ***
---
By William M. Arkin | February 1, 2007; 5:31 PM ET
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops
----
Sophistry
1.a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
*** EXPOUND on the above and show how it is Sophistry by the standards of the Right. ***
The Europeans handled terror in Europe by attacking it as a criminal activity.
They accepted that a certain number of people would die each year through
terrorist attacks. By staying on top of it, they could cut down the terrorist
attacks.
We are up against a foe who truly believes they can kill off our civilization
and replace it with a Muslim run civilization. Are you on the Left so sure
that they can't do it? WHY!? That's what we on the Right cannot understand.
Why do you feel that the Irreconcilables of radical Islam can be placated or
even ignored or treated as a criminal enterprise?
If you could come up with something that made sense to us, we on the Right
would welcome the debate. The problem is that we cannot understand your
position. It's like this, you and I are standing there doing something and I
suddenly notice a fella running toward us with a sword. You say to me that we
should do nothing, because obviously the guy can't hurt us with a sword. If
you try to keep me there without making any preparations to meet the guy, then
I would not be a happy camper. At that point, in fact, I would have to doubt
your sanity. IF I try to prepare for the guy with the sword and you try to
stop me, why do you think I should thank you? You see the guy running toward
us with the sword, I see the guy running toward us with his sword. You
absolutely refuse to tell me how you are going to handle the guy with the
sword. Why should I be happy about that?
Look... Iraq is about Friction. Karl von Clauwitz made the point that little
bitty things can throw the plans of the enemy off just because there is so
much confusion. **** ON WAR Napoleonic wars... What he learned....***
The reason we have not had a subsequent attack like 9/11 is
because we have introduced friction into the enemy's logistic train. The
police could not do that. We fight a strategic war. A war where we protect
ourselves by causing the enemy to make mistakes. If the noise of this war
stops, the enemy will have time to plan without anyone noticing what they are
doing and just as with 9/11, the strike will be out of the blue.
---
A little something to think about. Not all three of these statements be true.
We live in a fascist state
George Bush is a Nazi
Jane Fonda is alive
If all three of the above statements are true, please explain to me HOW!?
Something to think about.
---
On congressional opposition:
WSJ: There's a lot of discussion in Congress about putting caps on troop
levels or defunding or saying you can't deploy, as commander in chief, troops
in Baghdad. Do you think Congress has the constitutional authority . . .
GWB: I think they have the authority to defund, use their funding power . . .
WSJ: You do?
GWB: Oh yeah, they can say 'We won't fund.' That is a constitutional
authority of Congress. I find it interesting, however, that on the one hand
the Senate listens to the testimony of David Petraeus, who said, send me over
with some additional reinforcements and this is the best chance to succeed.
And they vote for him 81 to nothing. In other words, they listened to his
testimony, appreciated what he had to say, and then they forgot the part about
how he said I need the help. There's a contradiction there. . . .
WSJ: Can they put caps on total deployments in Iraq?
GWB: They can . . . through the purse. In others, I don't know if they're
going to. And I don't want to predict. But they have the right to try to use
the power of the purse to determine policy.
WSJ: But can they put conditions on those funds? Can they say we're only
gonna give you the money if you don't send troops to Anbar province?
GWB: They put conditions on funds all the time. Some of those are called
earmarks.
WSJ: Would you veto . . .
GWB: Well, . . . I have put forth a plan that will succeed and it needs to be
given a chance. So I'll wait and see what they try to do. But I have said
[to] the American people I've analyzed every plan and I think this one has the
best chance of success. If you think failure is a disaster, then you have an
obligation to come up with a plan for success and this is the one that I think
will work.
DON'T FORGET TO GET RECORDER.
KEOS 89.1 FM College Station.
And you have aRandomTexan. You can call me "a". In
the weather tonight, we have a temperature of _______
outside our studios at 202 E. Carson in Bryan.
Tonight, we could have Showers with 20% chance of rain in the
forecast with a low of 41.
Tomorrow, Tuesday, we are supposed to have a high of 68 and a low of 47 with
showers and 20% chance of rain.
Wednesday we can expect a high of 72 and a low of 52 with
mostly sunny skies and 10% chance of rain.
Thursday maybe we can expect coudly skies and 10% chance of rain.
Look for a high of 58 and a low of 43.
Segment 1:
KEOS 89.1 FM College Station.
You are listening to the
Master CraftsMon, a program of debate and then
social activism from the Right. On this program we
will be exploring how to use the Internet as a means
of gathering resources to affect positive social
change in a community. If you want to follow along,
you need to boot up your computer and
go to mastercraftsmon.blogspot.com
MasterCraftsMon is one word with an "o" at the end
instead of an "a".
For I am but a voice from the velvet black calling to you across the
gulf of our mutual incomprehension.
***EXPOUND ON why anyone would listen to this program ***
The left and the right in this country see the world differently. I wanted to
get real dialog between the two camps. ***Light bulb joke***
---
Hanoi Jane become Jihad Jane
She was going to have a tour in a bus powered by vegetable oil. The tour fell
apart.
---
When Fonda says things like that, the Right goes nuts, because it absolved all
the members on the Left of any responsibility for the deaths in southeast
asia. Responsibility... The Left has always been short on that topic. I was
always struck in the 1960's how incensed the protesters who were arrested got.
They felt that what they were doing was above reproach and the very IDEA that
anyone would arrest them was just inconceivable.
To the people on the Right this was a retreat to childhood, where every bad
behavior was excused as caused by something other than the person involved.
---
Darfur vs Iraq
---
Where was the outrage on the Left when Saddam was slaughtering people left and
right? It is now known that CNN cut a deal with Saddam. CNN got to sit in
Bagdaghd and chronicle all the awful things that the US was doing to Saddam's
people during the embargoes as long as CNN ignored the mass graves, the rape
rooms and the various other barbarous behavior of Saddam. If CNN and the other
Mainstream meadia was covering Saddam as they cover Darfur, what would the
outcome have been. Think this through, people, what is the difference between
the behavior of Saddam and the nutjobs in the Sudan? I can't see it, but maybe
I am not nuanced enough.
Again, think this through why would we be going into Sudan?
*** REad the demands above and talk about them ***
---
Warriors and wusses
By JOEL STEIN
January 24, 2006
---
When this came out a year ago, people on the Left jumped back and quickly
tried to distance themselves from this guy's position... except those on
DailyKos, Democratic Underground and Moveon.org. All of these sites applauded
JOEL STEIN's courage.
You have to understand, to the Right what Stein said is just what every person
on the Right has assumed was true, but we assumed that the Left was lying
about. Take a deep breath. I am quite certain, you yourself do not want to be
thought of as someone who lies. The problem is that the Right assumes the Left
is lying because of the actions of your leaders. Too many of the leaders on
the Left are calling our soldiers, Nazis, torturers and various other names.
*** EXPOUND read back through the article. ***
---
Blackfive's Take on Arkin (***ADULT CONTENT****)
By William M. Arkin | January 30, 2007; 8:51 AM ET
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
The Troops Also Need to Support the American People
---
Arkin is saying that he believes that the United States military is saying to
the Amercian people, "Shut up." AND he is stating that the U.S. military has
no right to do that at all. I look at the remarks he quotes and draw a
different conclusion. The soldiers are stating as fact that the news media is
reporting all the destruction which the U.S. military is perpetrating without
reporting on the rebuilding efforts they are perpetrating.
Have you ever seen a shouting match between protesters? I mean, picture this
one group of people with signs opposing the war and another set of people
in favor of the war. In between the two groups is the police. If one side
starts screaming, "Shut Up!", Shut Up,Shut UP!" Does it mean anything with the
police standing there? Nope. Neither side can shut the other side up.
When the Dixie Chick started saying that their 1st Amendment rights were
infringed by people screaming "Shut Up!", Shut Up,Shut UP!", the Right was
unable to understand her position. The people shouting "Shut Up!", Shut Up,
Shut UP!" had no power to shut her up. People, cognitive dissonence... She
screamed her head off at people who gave her a hard time. It went on forever.
It even became a marketing tool. How were her 1st Amendment rights infringed.
Freedom of speech does in insulate you from getting your feelings hurt. It
just doesn't. Freedom of speech does not make it possible to duck all
responsibility for your words.
Look at Arkin. He is stating the same case as the Dixie Chicks. He is saying
that the military is in fact attempting to stop debate by saying that they
believe in what they are doing... Even IF the miliary was shouting, "Shut
Up!", Shut Up,Shut UP!", what good does it do without physcially stopping
people from talking. Are you stating that having your emotions hurt because
someone verbally abused you entitles you to some type of sympathy?
*** EXPOUND by going over text ***
---
By William M. Arkin | February 1, 2007; 9:39 AM ET
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out
*** EXPOUND Go back through the above and comment ***
---
By William M. Arkin | February 1, 2007; 5:31 PM ET
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops
----
Sophistry
1.a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
*** EXPOUND on the above and show how it is Sophistry by the standards of the Right. ***
The Europeans handled terror in Europe by attacking it as a criminal activity.
They accepted that a certain number of people would die each year through
terrorist attacks. By staying on top of it, they could cut down the terrorist
attacks.
We are up against a foe who truly believes they can kill off our civilization
and replace it with a Muslim run civilization. Are you on the Left so sure
that they can't do it? WHY!? That's what we on the Right cannot understand.
Why do you feel that the Irreconcilables of radical Islam can be placated or
even ignored or treated as a criminal enterprise?
If you could come up with something that made sense to us, we on the Right
would welcome the debate. The problem is that we cannot understand your
position. It's like this, you and I are standing there doing something and I
suddenly notice a fella running toward us with a sword. You say to me that we
should do nothing, because obviously the guy can't hurt us with a sword. If
you try to keep me there without making any preparations to meet the guy, then
I would not be a happy camper. At that point, in fact, I would have to doubt
your sanity. IF I try to prepare for the guy with the sword and you try to
stop me, why do you think I should thank you? You see the guy running toward
us with the sword, I see the guy running toward us with his sword. You
absolutely refuse to tell me how you are going to handle the guy with the
sword. Why should I be happy about that?
Look... Iraq is about Friction. Karl von Clauwitz made the point that little
bitty things can throw the plans of the enemy off just because there is so
much confusion. **** ON WAR Napoleonic wars... What he learned....***
The reason we have not had a subsequent attack like 9/11 is
because we have introduced friction into the enemy's logistic train. The
police could not do that. We fight a strategic war. A war where we protect
ourselves by causing the enemy to make mistakes. If the noise of this war
stops, the enemy will have time to plan without anyone noticing what they are
doing and just as with 9/11, the strike will be out of the blue.
---
A little something to think about. Not all three of these statements be true.
We live in a fascist state
George Bush is a Nazi
Jane Fonda is alive
If all three of the above statements are true, please explain to me HOW!?
Something to think about.
---
On congressional opposition:
WSJ: There's a lot of discussion in Congress about putting caps on troop
levels or defunding or saying you can't deploy, as commander in chief, troops
in Baghdad. Do you think Congress has the constitutional authority . . .
GWB: I think they have the authority to defund, use their funding power . . .
WSJ: You do?
GWB: Oh yeah, they can say 'We won't fund.' That is a constitutional
authority of Congress. I find it interesting, however, that on the one hand
the Senate listens to the testimony of David Petraeus, who said, send me over
with some additional reinforcements and this is the best chance to succeed.
And they vote for him 81 to nothing. In other words, they listened to his
testimony, appreciated what he had to say, and then they forgot the part about
how he said I need the help. There's a contradiction there. . . .
WSJ: Can they put caps on total deployments in Iraq?
GWB: They can . . . through the purse. In others, I don't know if they're
going to. And I don't want to predict. But they have the right to try to use
the power of the purse to determine policy.
WSJ: But can they put conditions on those funds? Can they say we're only
gonna give you the money if you don't send troops to Anbar province?
GWB: They put conditions on funds all the time. Some of those are called
earmarks.
WSJ: Would you veto . . .
GWB: Well, . . . I have put forth a plan that will succeed and it needs to be
given a chance. So I'll wait and see what they try to do. But I have said
[to] the American people I've analyzed every plan and I think this one has the
best chance of success. If you think failure is a disaster, then you have an
obligation to come up with a plan for success and this is the one that I think
will work.
posted by aRandomTexan at
5:18 AM
|
1 comments
