Posted on 11/05/2011 8:12:43 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
Andy Rooney, whose prickly wit was long a mainstay of CBS News and whose homespun commentary on “60 Minutes,” delivered every week from 1978 until 2011, made him a household name, died Friday in New York City.
He was 92 and lived in Manhattan, though he kept a family vacation home in Rensselaerville, N.Y., and the first home he ever purchased, in Rowayton, Conn.
CBS News said in a statement that Mr. Rooney died after complications following minor surgery.
In late September, CBS announced that Mr. Rooney would be making his last regular weekly appearance on “60 Minutes” on Oct. 2. After that, said Jeff Fager, the chairman of CBS News and the program’s executive producer, he would “always have the ability to speak his mind on ‘60 Minutes’ when the urge hits him.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Oh. That foul-mouth personal attack on me. I chose to ignore those types of posts. Thank you.
“He is probably complaining its to hot in heaven right now!”
LOL!
And citation is your responsibility. What is the source you are citing?
I did. (Answer my question about Murrow and Pyle)
No, you didn't. I asked two questions in that post; you responded to one. Murrow got in an RAF plane just to get a good story (he wasn't fighting the Germans) and Pyle went to the front just to get a good story (he wasn't there to fight Axis troops) so why is it a problem that Rooney, a correspondent, flew a mission "just to get a good story?" Or is it that Murrow and Pyle are traitorous wimps who don't meet your lofty standards?
No misrepresentation. I stated that he never said he had any motivation to fight. That also means he had no motivation to fight Hitler.
Yet you keep nattering on about how socialists changed their minds about fighting Hitler when he attacked the Soviet Union. How is it relevant if he didn't have that motivation?
Oh. That foul-mouth personal attack on me. I chose to ignore those types of posts. Thank you.
There was no foul language in that post, and what I described you as is what you are. If you're not, prove it by answering my question.
Why is this relevant. You don't have any combat time. Why is this important to you?
It has nothing to do with my combat time or lack thereof. It's relevant because you're a loudmouth talking about how a guy with B-17 combat time is a traitorous wimp who doesn't even get to be called a veteran. It's relevant because you're dishonoring the service of millions and making veterans look bad. Let's see what your record is like, shall we?
Let's hear it, Mr. Truth: When and where did you serve combat time?
Lately I am getting tired of trying to respond to posters who seem to want to do nothing more than attack other posters.
Lately I have been posting nothing more than articles from news reports and not including any comments from me on the articles one way or the other. However it never fails to amaze me that some freepers will flame me and others in order to kill the messenger rather than intelligently rebutting the author of the articles. :(
Yeah, know what you mean.
As I said before, I ignore foul-mouth personal attacks. When you can act civilized I will respond to you.
But I'll repost it and we'll see what you do.
Why is this relevant. You don't have any combat time. Why is this important to you?
It has nothing to do with my combat time or lack thereof. It's relevant because you're talking about how a guy with B-17 combat time is a traitorous wimp who doesn't even get to be called a veteran. It's relevant because you're dishonoring the service of millions who never saw real combat and you're making veterans look bad. Let's see what your record is like, shall we?
When and where did you serve combat time?
I never said he was a traitorous wimp and I never said he doesn't even get to be called a veteran.
It's relevant because you're dishonoring the service of millions who never saw real combat and you're making veterans look bad.
For the life of me, I don't understand how you can say that my saying that AR was a draftee war correspondent dishonors veterans that never saw combat so I do not find my previous military service to be relevant to this conversation.
As mentioned before, you don't have the ability to say that the only way you've advanced an accusation is if you typed the exact phrase I used to describe that accusation.
In other words, you lie:
There are more, but that's enough for now. For those folloing along, note that the second one is a lie in and of itself, and I debunked it in that thread.
I never said he doesn't even get to be called a veteran.
This conversation with morping libertarian beginning in post 77 of this thread shows that you lie again:
You: I hope you are not referring to AR as a vet ...Morphing: I guess I am. Unless you can explain how he is not.
” He was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1941, and began writing for the Stars and Stripes in London a year later. In 1943, he was one of seven correspondents who flew on the second American bombing raid over Germany, and later was one of the first American journalists to visit and write about the German concentration camps.”
You: He was an anti-war socialist correspondent. Tell it like it is.
As for the fact that you have said he was not a soldier, here's the proof of that:
Bless him for his service to socialism. He was a socialist anti-war propagandist, NOT a soldier.
In short, you lie.
For the life of me, I don't understand how you can say that my saying that AR was a draftee war correspondent dishonors veterans
If you had stopped at saying he was a draftee war correspondent, you would have been correct, honorable and not having this discussion with me. Instead, you portrayed the man as a traitor and denied he had been a soldier or deserved to be called a veteran. Dishonorable!
Moreover, you dishonor us all by portraying us as people who will reject proper and honorable service based on some irrelevant concern, or even based on lies. Real veterans (combat or otherwise) don't compare this sort of thing, they just realize that everybody who raised their right hand and took the oath offered their blood if necessary. One of my greatest honors was having a Pearl Harbor survivor thank me for my service. This was a guy who had, after pulling body parts out of the water at Pearl, gone on 8 war patrols in Gato class subs. If he honored me for turning wrenches on a flightline, what business would anyone have dishonoring Rooney for putting his life on the line over Germany in '43?
So you dishonor us. And you'd better have a fantastic war record before you get to take potshots.
Let's hear it: When and where did you serve combat time?
Let’s look at my posts that you recited one by one:
If I remember, you were giving kudos to him for “serving”. He was a pacifist, socialist-loving correspondent. Most pacifist, socialist-loving correspondents aren’t exactly known for accurate reporting. (True)
He said yes there were artillery but when the order to “move out” came, they moved back away from the action. (True)
I never said he doesn’t even get to be called a veteran. (True)
You: I hope you are not referring to AR as a vet ... (Context was that the other poster was putting AR in the same statement with Patton. AR hated Patton and wrote multiple times demeaning Pattons career. The poster also said we needed more people with the spirit (of AR) in DC. I don’t need anymore socialists in D.C.)
You: He was an anti-war socialist correspondent. (True)
Bless him for his service to socialism. He was a socialist anti-war propagandist, NOT a soldier. (True).
Somewhere you have never been and probably will never go to.
That is a lie as I pointed out, and the lie was proved by one of your own posts. Now you're a liar lying about lies.
I never said he doesn’t even get to be called a veteran. (True)
Your quote: I hope you are not referring to AR as a vet.
So, since you never actually typed, "He should not be called a veteran" you didn't actually say that he wasn't a veteran, right? Sure...I guess if I said "I hope you aren't calling NewinTexsas a normal heterosexual who has never humped a dog" that would mean I never actually called you a sexual deviant. Right...these are the sorts of weasel games honorable combat veteran warriors like you play, right? Baloney.
(Context was that the other poster was putting AR in the same statement with Patton.
The context does not change the fact that you lied. If you had said, "You shouldn't praise a guy who hated Patton" or "I hope you aren't comparing him to Patton" that would have been honest and accurate. But you said he shouldn't be called a veteran. That's a lie.
Bless him for his service to socialism. He was a socialist anti-war propagandist, NOT a soldier. (True).
1. Not true. He was a member of the United States Army. That makes him a soldier. Thats what people in the Army are called. Either you're lying or you have so little grasp on military matters that your claim to be a veteran becomes suspect.
2. Not true. Unless you can document him providing false information or reports that aided the enemy, he was not an "anti-war propagandist." His Wilhelmshaven report detailing the bravery of 8th AF crews could be called pro-Allied propaganda.
You lie and then lie about lying. Dishonorable.
When and where did you serve combat time?
That is a lie as I pointed out, and the lie was proved by one of your own posts. Now you're a liar lying about lies.
I never said he doesn’t even get to be called a veteran. (True)
Your quote: I hope you are not referring to AR as a vet.
So, since you never actually typed, "He should not be called a veteran" you didn't actually say that he wasn't a veteran, right? Sure...I guess if I said "I hope you aren't calling NewinTexsas a normal heterosexual who has never humped a dog" that would mean I never actually called you a sexual deviant. Right...these are the sorts of weasel games honorable combat veteran warriors like you play, right? Baloney.
(Context was that the other poster was putting AR in the same statement with Patton.
The context does not change the fact that you lied. If you had said, "You shouldn't praise a guy who hated Patton" or "I hope you aren't comparing him to Patton" that would have been honest and accurate. But you said he shouldn't be called a veteran. That's a lie.
Bless him for his service to socialism. He was a socialist anti-war propagandist, NOT a soldier. (True).
1. Not true. He was a member of the United States Army. That makes him a soldier. Thats what people in the Army are called. Either you're lying or you have so little grasp on military matters that your claim to be a veteran becomes suspect.
2. Not true. Unless you can document him providing false information or reports that aided the enemy, he was not an "anti-war propagandist." His Wilhelmshaven report detailing the bravery of 8th AF crews could be called pro-Allied propaganda.
You lie and then lie about lying. Dishonorable.
When and where did you serve combat time?
Wow, you must be a big awesome hero.
When and where did you serve combat time?
I really don’t get it. Why are you spending so much time defending an anti-war pacifist socialist bag of hot air? As to my prior service, it is not relevant to this discussion. You keep trying to make it so but it really isn’t. You can go to larger fonts or even colors or cool fonts but you already have my answer.
That is what makes me doubt you served at all. You have no understanding of honor.
I don't get why you are willing to lie about him just because he's a socialist bag of hot air. Lying besmirches you and your fellows, not the person you're lying about. Had you not lied, I would not be defending him.
As to my prior service, it is not relevant to this discussion. You keep trying to make it so but it really isn’t.
If you really served in combat in a way that makes it clear you were a real soldier/sailor/airman or Marine, you would be proud to compare your record to that of "an anti-war pacifist socialist bag of hot air" who you have accused of cowardly and traitorous behavior. My Vietnam Vet friends don't ever beat their chests about how awesome they are, but in 2004 they were glad to compare their service to John Francois Kerry. Yet you aren't willing to compare your record to a guy who (in your view) "rode" on a B-17 and ran away from combat.
If you are a truth-telling warrior, why are you not willing to tell such a truth, and shame a traitorous coward?
That is what makes me doubt you served at all. You have no understanding of honor.
I don't get why you are willing to lie about him just because he's a socialist bag of hot air. Lying besmirches you and your fellows, not the person you're lying about. Had you not lied, I would not be defending him.
As to my prior service, it is not relevant to this discussion. You keep trying to make it so but it really isn’t.
If you really served in combat in a way that makes it clear you were a real soldier/sailor/airman or Marine, you would be proud to compare your record to that of "an anti-war pacifist socialist bag of hot air" who you have accused of cowardly and traitorous behavior. My Vietnam Vet friends don't ever beat their chests about how awesome they are, but in 2004 they were glad to compare their service to John Francois Kerry. Yet you aren't willing to compare your record to a guy who (in your view) "rode" on a B-17 and ran away from combat.
If you are a truth-telling warrior, why are you not willing to tell such a truth, and shame a traitorous coward?
Whatever. I know what I did and I did it honorably. It is not relevant to this discussion. I have witnessed decades of CBS/NBC/ABC/Newsweek/Time socialist propaganda. Rooney was an anti-war socialist blowhard. Bottom line.
Interesting. You mean that those that served but not in combat were not REAL soldiers? You have totally demeaned millions of those that have served the country honorably.
You are the one who demeaned millions of non-combat WWII vets (and all the non-combat vets since) by saying Rooney was not a veteran or a soldier. Nice try.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.