# OT: Kerry's disgrace in Vietnam?



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Is John Kerry the war hero he portrays himself to be? Not according to a new book called _Unfit to Serve_. The book contains the stories of several soldiers who fought alongside Kerry during the 4 months he was in Vietnam. One of those soldiers was George Bates, an officer in Coastal Division 11 who participated in several operations with Kerry. He recalls a particular patrol with Kerry on the Song Bo De River that still "haunts" him. 



> With Kerry in the lead, the boats approached a small hamlet with three or four grass huts. Pigs and chickens were milling around peacefully. As the boats drew closer, the villagers fled. There were no political symbols or flags in evidence in the tiny village. It was obvious to Bates that existing policies, decency, and good sense required the boats to simply move on.
> 
> Instead, Kerry beached his boat directly in the small settlement. Upon his command, the numerous small animals were slaughtered by heavy-caliber machine guns. Acting more like a pirate than a naval officer, Kerry disembarked and ran around with a Zippo lighter, burning up the entire hamlet.
> 
> Bates has never forgotten Kerry's actions.


I submit this as only one part of the story about John Kerry. Those who enjoy digging into George Bush's past and pointing out his "failures" will no doubt see the value in examining Kerry's failures as well.

http://www.drudgereport.com/ufd1.htm


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Thats story is just seeping with :cthread:.

BFreak.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Freak</b>!
> Thats story is just seeping with :cthread:.
> 
> BFreak.


if it was such bs wouldnt kerry sue him for slander? 

Or is it that Kerry cant ..because maybe it did happen


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I think that most of this is backlash from his testimony.

There are guys who back his stories of incredible courage under fire and guys who claim that it was at the complete opposite of the spectrum.

Like all things, I imagine it falls somewhere in the middle. I think it's entirely possible that he wasn't as heroic as advertised, but I would guess that he was still a competent military commander.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerfan024</b>!
> if it was such bs wouldnt kerry sue him for slander?


If you had clicked on the link, you'd realize that the book hasn't even come out yet.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../08/05/politics1020EDT0544.DTL&type=printable



> Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.





> The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. Three veterans on Kerry's boat that day -- Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life, Gene Thorson and Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, said the group was lying on all fronts.
> 
> They say Kerry was injured, and Rassmann called the group's account "pure fabrication."


So here we go... people in Kerry's boat say he's a hero. People in other boats say he wasn't. Either way, I agree with McCain.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

Here's teh McCain link:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../08/05/politics1020EDT0544.DTL&type=printable

It is also important to remember that many of these guys hated the fact that Kerry became an anti-war protester. I think much of their resentment of him, and negativity towards him, stems from that.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

When asked for comment on this story, President Bush remarked, "Geez, that's much worse than the illegal abortion I procured for my girlfriend back in the day."


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.


McCain is a decent guy and a genuine war hero. But he is also a very close friend of John Kerry. They go way back. There was even talk that Kerry would pick McCain as his Veep. So of course McCain is going to defend him. 

Not to say that these charges against Kerry are accurate. Who knows the truth, except the guys who were there? But it would be McCain's first instinct to defend his old friend.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

The Swift Boat Veterans for truth, the organization pushing all these allegations against Kerry' war service, is a 
highly orchestrated Republican Party smear campaign. 

It's founder, John O'Neil is a total GOP hack job. 

He was first trotted out by Richard Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP; yes, the guys responsible for Watergate!) to do a hatchet job on Kerry after his moving 1971 testimony to Congress criticizing the war. Nixon feared that Kerry was an effective antiwar spokesman and thus sought to discredit him.

John O'Neill did not serve with Kerry. Neither did the vast majority of the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They served on *other* boats. They hate Kerry for his 1971 testimony agains the war, and they are highly partisan GOP activists. 

I'm not saying that it's impossible that their claims are true, but I'd sure take everything they say with a giant grain of salt.

Stepping Razor


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I'm not saying that it's impossible that their claims are true, but I'd sure take everything they say with a giant grain of salt.


Right. And the same goes for the military guys that Kerry trotted out during his convention speech. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet most or all of them are Democrats. So when they praise his war record, we need to take that with a grain of salt, too.

Hard to know what the truth is. 

I did read somewhere that only 1 or 2 of the guys who actually served on Kerry's swift boat are supporting his campaign. Most of them are opposing him. Anybody know if that is true?


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

TH - 

I like this... it looks like we're coming to a sort of middle ground finally on this Kerry Vietnam thing.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

sort of OT:

Kerry voted for the war, but then voted to not fund our troops (that sure makes sense!!). Leading up to the war he supported it, during the Democratic primaries he said he was against it (typical Kerry), now he is saying he is for it, but wants to bring in the French and Germans... can this guy ever make up his mind on key issues?? 

After watching watching parts of Kerry's speech at the convention, I believe his war record is open game. He is running on his military service and hiding from his senate record. Did you watch his speech at the convention? All he talked about was Vietnam and had some of his old war buddies up on stage with him. He has also used a picture in some of his campaign adds that show Kerry with 22 other guys that were over there. Only 1 of those guys support Kerry and the others have filed a complaint asking him not to use that picture because they support Bush. 

This really makes Kerry look bad. Of course it is okay for the Democrats to questions Bush's National Guard records, but not okay for Republicans to question Kerry's Vietnam record... go figure!!







The United Nations is involved in a scandal involving Iraq concerning the Oil for food program. They were making billions off of Iraq and starving the children in the country. That is one of the reasons they refused to support the war. This stuff is all going to come out. The French and Russians were the key members benefiting from this scandal. Neither of them wanted to go into Iraq. I wonder why? Kerry says he wanted to bring in the UN for the Iraq war. France and Russia are security council members and can veto any UN action. There is no way the UN was ever going to approve going into Iraq. France and Russia were making way too much money from Saddam and did not want to see him removed. 


http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1772.cfm



http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Well, they might have gone in if we had used any sort of diplomacy and/or non fabricated evidence.

Either way, they weren't against our actions in Afghanistan which we proceded to dump in favor of a curious war. 

Maybe if we had settled the Afghanistan situation (imminent threat) and been patient with the Iraq situation (no imminent threat), things would look a lot better for our international relations and national deficit.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> [Kerry] is running on his military service . . . Did you watch his speech at the convention? All he talked about was Vietnam and had some of his old war buddies up on stage with him. He has also used a picture in some of his campaign adds that show Kerry with 22 other guys that were over there.


Liberals are always saying that Vietnam was a "national nightmare, a tragedy, a horrible turning point in American history," etc. But they have no problem with Kerry featuring Vietnam in his convention movie.

So why are those same liberals all upset that Bush used a 2-second shot of Ground Zero in a campaign ad? Bush was also "on duty" for the country during that terrible time, and helped us get through it. He has just as much right to use Ground Zero footage as Kerry does to use his old 8-millimeter Vietnam movies.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> I did read somewhere that only 1 or 2 of the guys who actually served on Kerry's swift boat are supporting his campaign. Most of them are opposing him. Anybody know if that is true?


9 out of 10 of the soldiers who actually served *with* Kerry, on the same boat, have enthusiastically endorsed him and said he was a great leader.

All of the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" participants were soliders from other boats, who didn't serve with Kerry...and that whole group has a clear political motivation, as the man behind it is the same man behind Nixon's artificial "Vietnam Veterans for Justice" Kerry-attacking group, that a top Nixon aide recently said was formed simply because Kerry was a charismatic, credible opponent of the administration and a thorn in their side.

All of this has been documented in previous threads.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> 
> 
> If you had clicked on the link, you'd realize that the book hasn't even come out yet.


um ok, thats why before clintons book EVEN CAME OUT the ladys in the book were already talking civil suit against him. Dont matter if the book is out or not. If it was "slander" Kerry could do something about it.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> So why are those same liberals all upset that Bush used a 2-second shot of Ground Zero in a campaign ad? Bush was also "on duty" for the country during that terrible time, and helped us get through it. He has just as much right to use Ground Zero footage as Kerry does to use his old 8-millimeter Vietnam movies.


I don't feel that way, and I'm a liberal. 

Bush has a right to run on his record, and one of the biggest parts of it is the aftermath of 911. now, I may focus more on "My Pet Goat" and the mistake of invading the wrong country, but conservatives have every right to focus on the good things he did right after 911, and that includes his most (only?) charismatic moments in office. 

so much for your theory.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

The most fascinating thing in all of this, for me anyway, is that Bush won't condemn this disgusting tactic.

John McCain has already called the ads 'dishonest and dishonorable.' And McCain is a guy who suffered the same sorts of attacks by Dubya, Karl Rove and company. He's clearly taking a higher road than Dubya. 

Dubya, and his new press secratary, remain silent. I take it they agree with this type of underhanded attack? If Dubya had any moral fiber, or even common sense, he'd denounce this ad. 

I guess he figured thrashing John McCain's war record worked in 2000, so why not try it again?


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerfan024</b>!
> um ok, thats why before clintons book EVEN CAME OUT the ladys in the book were already talking civil suit against him. Dont matter if the book is out or not. If it was "slander" Kerry could do something about it.


Well, he's a busy guy right now. But I'm sure he'll do his best to refute the arguments once the book comes out. He may file suit as well... 

Just because he hasn't done so is hardly an admission of guilt. His shipmates tell a completely different tale. Pointing to their testimony alone is enough to raise serious doubts in the book's arguments. I'm not so sure a lawsuit is necessary... he has bigger things to worry about.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I don't feel that way, and I'm a liberal . . . So much for your theory.


There are exceptions to every rule. Did you actually think I meant every single liberal on the face of the earth? Hard to imagine.

I'm talking about the liberals you see on TV talk shows, and the pundits who write newspaper columns. They are the most visible liberals, and the ones whose voices get heard. And I heard several of them say that Bush was using the collapsed WTC in his campaign ad to exploit a national tragedy for his own political gain.

I'm glad to hear you don't agree.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Lord I can't wait till the election is over.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> The most fascinating thing in all of this, for me anyway, is that Bush won't condemn this disgusting tactic.


It's not a disgusting tactic if the charges are true. If Kerry actually slaughtered farm animals and burned a village without cause, or conned military leaders into giving him medals that he didn't deserve, then it's entirely legitimate to bring it up. After all, this guy is running for leader of the free world. 

His actions in Vietnam are especially relevant, since he gained fame by bashing the behavior of American soldiers in that war. If he himself is guilty of outrageous behavior, it's very telling, isn't it? 

It makes no sense for Bush to condemn charges which, for all he knows, may be true. Besides, when has Kerry apologized for his own campaign tactics? Just yesterday he accused hecklers at a rally in Iowa of being "goons sent by President Bush." I'm sure he had no evidence for this, but he said it anyway just to get a reaction from the crowd.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Lord I can't wait till the election is over.


me too. 

then we get to spend a month arguing again over dangling chads!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> It's not a disgusting tactic if the charges are true. If Kerry actually slaughtered farm animals and burned a village without cause, or conned military leaders into giving him medals that he didn't deserve, then it's entirely legitimate to bring it up. After all, this guy is running for leader of the free world.
> 
> His actions in Vietnam are especially relevant, since he gained fame by bashing the behavior of American soldiers in that war. If he himself is guilty of outrageous behavior, it's very telling, isn't it?


Jim Rassman has stated, repeatedly over the last 35 years, that they WERE under enemy fire. That John Kerry WAS injured. That the official account IS accurate. That NO villages were burned. And thay anyone who says otherwise IS lying. 

I'll take the word of the man John Kerry pulled out of the Mekong River Delta that day.

You take the word of a guy who is trying to sell books.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

> I'll take the word of the man John Kerry pulled out of the Mekong River Delta that day.


word


seriously Talkhard, what good has bush done, what has he given you. all he has given me is the pain of 2 of my friends getting killed in iraq. 

he can go to hell.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> me too.
> ...


You can dangle you chad all you want...I was think more like the glory days of Wells or Stackhouse.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

The Swift Boat group responds to McCain:



> Retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, head of the Swift Boat group, said they respected McCain's "right to express his opinion and we hope he extends to us the same respect and courtesy, particularly since we served with John Kerry, we knew him well and Sen. McCain did not."


And about that charge that none of the Swift Boat Group actually served on the same boat with Kerry . . .



> Hoffmann said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's. The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river in the Mekong Delta and that Kerry's arm was not wounded, as he has claimed.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

The Swift Boat group responds to McCain:



> Retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, head of the Swift Boat group, said they respected McCain's "right to express his opinion and we hope he extends to us the same respect and courtesy, particularly since we served with John Kerry, we knew him well and Sen. McCain did not."


And about that charge that none of the Swift Boat Group actually served on the same boat with Kerry . . .



> Hoffmann said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's. The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river in the Mekong Delta and that Kerry's arm was not wounded, as he has claimed.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../08/05/politics1020EDT0544.DTL&type=printable


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> And about that charge that none of the Swift Boat Group actually served on the same boat with Kerry . . .


*laugh* About that charge...they agree that its true.

And they "...hope [McCain] extends to us the same respect and courtesy [to express their opinion], particularly since we served with John Kerry, we knew him well and Sen. McCain did not."

McCain did not serve with Kerry...and neither did these veterans with their political agenda. But they sometimes came within 50 yards of Kerry!


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> McCain did not serve with Kerry...and neither did these veterans with their political agenda. But they sometimes came within 50 yards of Kerry!


You're missing the point. These guys didn't serve on the same boat with Kerry, but they were part of the same squadron. They patrolled together, they fought together, and they obviously knew each other. Many of them probably ate in the same mess hall, went on R&R together, and swapped war stories.

I suppose if a guy in Squadron A drove a tank, and another guy in Squadron A drove a humvee, you would say there is no way they could have known each other!


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> The most fascinating thing in all of this, for me anyway, is that Bush won't condemn this disgusting tactic.



i'm sure he's just waiting for Kerry to condemn Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11


:chirp:
:chirp:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OT: Tommyboy we need to hit the links brotha! CHeck your Pm's once in a while!


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

i gave up on hoops man, i hardly visit the site anymore. THe nba is rigged.


anywhoo, i'm going to be at Summerfield teeing off in about 30 minutes, I have a spot avail.

show up!


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

Why not just be done with it and call Kerry a babykiller? If you don't support the cause he represents, just vilify him the same way it used to be done.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> i'm sure he's just waiting for Kerry to condemn Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11
> 
> ...


Fahrenheit 9/11

One of the most memorable scenes from that film is Dubya's reaction to being told that a second plane had hit the world trade center. Dubya gives us 11 minutes of befuddled silence.

Why should John Kerry condemn that scene? It is what it is. Documenting an important moment in time and showing the president's confused and indecisive reaction. 

Another memorable set of scenes is of a woman, from Flint, Michigan, who reccomends the poor kids she deals with in her job as a counselor join the military as a great way out of the poverty cycle they are stuck in. Later, her own son is killed in Iraq. 

Her heart breaks on screen. It's one of the most moving scenes I've ever seen on film, and I've seen a lot. Why would John Kerry condemn that scene?

What, exactly, should John Kerry condemn in this movie?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Has this link been posted yet?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408050007

A small section:



> Swift Boat Veterans for Truth doctor did not sign Kerry's medical record
> 
> Neither Hannity nor Scarborough bothered to note that Dr. Louis Letson, who is featured in the ad claiming to have treated Kerry for the wound that earned him his first Purple Heart and claiming that it was undeserved, was not the medical official who signed Kerry's medical records for the wound. The Kerry campaign noted this fact in a report in The New York Times and a report in the Los Angeles Times that surfaced when Letson first unleashed this attack in May.
> 
> ...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. These guys didn't serve on the same boat with Kerry, but they were part of the same squadron. They patrolled together, they fought together, and they obviously knew each other.


I'd trust more in those who Kerry actually commanded for evaluations of Kerry's efforts and leadership, rather than some politically-motivated veterans who saw Kerry in the distance a lot.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Did you used to be JohnnyCash?



> Originally posted by <b>BEER&BASKETBALL</b>:
> sort of OT:
> 
> Kerry voted for the war, but then voted to not fund our troops (that sure makes sense!!).


Prove it. You can't, can you? Because you're just spouting RNC propaganda, and you can't even get it right. I love all these Republicans who suddenly decide they "know" John Kerry and that he's a flip-flopper. They wouldn't be at all influenced by the fact that it's a meme the RNC has spent millions getting out there? Oh no, they're all avid Senate watchers and have decided this all by themselves. The actual claim is that he MISSED a vote, and here's the response from Factcheck.org:



> It’s also true, as the Bush ad claims, that Kerry missed a vote to authorize defense spending and thereby "fund our troops in combat." In fact, he missed two votes. He missed one vote on an amendment (S. Amdt 3260) to authorize an extra $25 billion as a "contingent emergency reserve fund" for possible use to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry also missed the vote on the overall $420 billion Pentagon authorization bill (S. 2400).
> However, Kerry’s absence had no practical effect. The larger authorization bill (S. 2400) passed 97-0 on June 23. Kerry was one of three senators who missed the vote. The other two were Republicans. Kerry was one of five senators who missed the 95-0 vote on June 2 to authorize the extra $25 billion "reserve fund." The missing five included two Republicans.


Ooh, that TRAITOR.



> Leading up to the war he supported it, during the Democratic primaries he said he was against it (typical Kerry), now he is saying he is for it, but wants to bring in the French and Germans... can this guy ever make up his mind on key issues??


Is the world entirely black and white to you? You do know that even Republicans have had second thoughts about voting to authorise *use of force to combat terrorism* (which, strain your brain for this one, is not the same as authorising *a war that a bipartisan commission insists has nothing to do with the war on terror*)? You probably don't - I doubt that gets mentioned much on Fox news.



> Of course it is okay for the Democrats to questions Bush's National Guard records, but not okay for Republicans to question Kerry's Vietnam record... go figure!!


Of course it's okay to QUESTION both of them. That's not illegal yet, despite John Ashcroft's best efforts. What's not okay is to spout unsubstantiated bullcrap and pretend it's the truth. Funny how Kerry can produce several people who substantiate his account (one of whom, a Republican, came forward unbidden) but Bush can't find a single person who will go on the record substantiating his claims to have served his full tour of duty in the National Guard.

Yes, Kerry harping on his war record gets mighty tiresome. He wouldn't have to do it if Bush weren't pushing his supposed accompishments in the War on Terra to the max.



> http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm


Did you know the Washington Times is a huge money-loser that is propped up by its owner, the Rev. Moon? Who got himself crowned "Messiah" by elected members of congress recently? And has been on a tour across the country getting churches to get rid of their crosses? Just makes you have absolute faith in everything it says, doesn't it?


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

It seems that today Larry Thurlow, one of the Swift Vote Veterans for "Truth," went on CNN and claimed that Kerry's boat was under no fire when it rescued Jim Rassmann -- in other words, when Kerry won his Bronze Star and one of his Purple Hearts. In other words, Kerry is a phony.

Unfortunately, it turns out that Thurlow himself won a Broze Star. For gallantry under fire. For the same mission!!! 

These guys are just a bunch of anti-Kerry Republicans, getting huge funding from a bunch of GOP partisan hacks, throwing around a bunch of lies, hoping they will somehow stick to Kerry like **** on a wall.

This whole thing is just pathetic. I'm with McCain: "Dishonest and disreputable."

The Bush campaign should at least have the decency to go back to just spreading lies about Kerry's record in the Senate, like his voting 350 times to raise taxes. 

Stepping Razor


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> Did you know the Washington Times is a huge money-loser that is propped up by its owner, the Rev. Moon? Who got himself crowned "Messiah" by elected members of congress recently? And has been on a tour across the country getting churches to get rid of their crosses? Just makes you have absolute faith in everything it says, doesn't it?


Can we stop with the ad hominem attacks?

Seriously: it is impossible to have a conversation if instead of dealing with facts and logic, we are spending our time attacking those who make a claim.

If you disagree with the Washtimes, then say so, and give your source. But attacking its owner does not mean that what the paper is reporting is incorrect.

This goes for all sides. "Don't listen to Bush, because he is a moron" is no more sophisticated or correct than "the NY Times is a Commie-Pinko Rag dominated by Liberal Elites." Both may be true, but NEITHER obviates a statement they make. 

Attack the *argument*, not the speaker. Otherwise this descends to a playground argument.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

I am on the record as saying that Kerry's war record should not be important. He has many years in the Senate.

The problem is that Kerry is standing on his four whole months in Vietnam as a reason why he is qualified to be President - and he has shied away from his Senate record.

To me, what Kerry did or did nor do in Vietnam is irrelevant. Heck, I'd say anything more than 20 years old is not relevant to this campaign, from either candidate.

But if Kerry *insists* on making Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign, then surely it makes sense to research it? If *he* says it is important and relevant, then that would seem to make it expressly in-bounds?

Bush is in a totally different situation. As a self-declared drunk and screwball for the middle twenty years of his life, he seems to have a defense for that period in his life. So he is being criticized for his National Guard record and *not* for what he was when he was on the bottle. Is this fair? I'd say that since he has shown himself, in office, NOT to be a drunk, then bringing up the past is not productive. I'd say his National Guard days are also not relevant. After all, we HAVE seen him as Commander-in-Chief for almost 4 years. Love it or hate it, that is key 100% to whether we want him there for another 4 years. 

Kerry is the other way around. He does not want to point to his Senate record, one of nuance and compromise. So he points to his 120 days in Vietnam, which he filmed at length for posterity, to show that he is, in fact, decisive and manly. 

Kerry's war record is 30 years old, and lasted 4 months. Bush's is in the present, and has lasted, in wartime, almost 3 years. 

It is a strange race.... I'd rather see the candidates "go negative" and duke it out.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> Kerry's war record is 30 years old, and lasted 4 months. Bush's is in the present, and has lasted, in wartime, almost 3 years.
> 
> It is a strange race.... I'd rather see the candidates "go negative" and duke it out.


If you think sitting at your desk and playing human chess is comparable to 'just' 120 days in Vietnam, you go with it. I know which one takes more courage and starting a war that won't endanger a single person in your bloodline does not take an act of courage IMO.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> If you think sitting at your desk and playing human chess is comparable to 'just' 120 days in Vietnam, you go with it. I know which one takes more courage and starting a war that won't endanger a single person in your bloodline does not take an act of courage IMO.


That's something else that amazes me. 

People seem to assume it's just a flippant pastime for President Bush to ask our soldiers to put their lives on the line and die. I guess it comes down to conviction and belief in why we are there. We've discussed this to all ends and never will agree whether or not we should be in Iraq. Just because you view it as unjustified doesn't mean that your viewpoint is true or popular with voters. 


It's a shame that Bush had to be the one to go order troops into Iraq and fix what should have been done by the UN in 1998. 

I guess you'd never see a democratic president making that same mistake. 

By their plan we should have just passed resolution after resolution. All the while boning interns and shaking hands with the food for oil profiteers. 

Waiting for the next 9/11. 

But then again if Sadaam was smart and didn't announce his involvement he'd still be killing his own people and getting rich off that same oil for food crowd. 

I say the decision to liberate Iraq was not taken lightly. I believe Bush to be very compassionate about the taking of human life. 

I believe Kerry to be the same reactive photo op leader as Clinton was. I see him as much as a puppet to the vocal minority liberal apperatus as any democrat. His 120 day photo op tour in Vietnam is water under the bridge. It's the now Kerry that we should focus on. I do find it interesting that he and the media is focusing on 30 year old news and ignoring his more recent life which reveals him to be somewhat less daring and valiant. 

The resolute him to hell strategy with Iraq cost us more lives now than it would of in 1998. If you have a problem with our losses in Iraq look to the UN as the reason. 

Bush is doing the right thing that should have been done 6 years ago. That's why he will get my vote.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>:
> 
> Can we stop with the ad hominem attacks?
> 
> Seriously: it is impossible to have a conversation if instead of dealing with facts and logic, we are spending our time attacking those who make a claim.


Okay, let's have a little logic lesson then. "Ad hominem" simply means "to the man" - it refers to cases where someone (in this case, me) makes an attack on the source of an argument or claim (in this case the Washington Times) rather than directly addressing what the source said. Are ad hominem attacks always fallacious? No, of course not. They're used quite legitimately in law courts, for example: if you bring up a witness who claims he saw my client commit the crime, it's perfectly legitimate for me to point out that your witness has a history of testifying in cases like this and is in fact criminally insane. It's all very well for you to act like you're above the fray - that's a great conservative tactic: the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post and CNN report one thing, the conservatives point to the Washington Times and NY Post saying another and say "see, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other". But of course the NY Post and Washington Times are rags owned by bozos with blatant agendas, so it *isn't* six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. To quote Matt Labash, editor of the supposedly respectable conservative Weekly Standard:



> We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually.


Back to you:



> If you disagree with the Washtimes, then say so, and give your source. But attacking its owner does not mean that what the paper is reporting is incorrect.


But if what the paper is "reporting" is bogus, then it's practically impossible for me to disprove it, especially if it's "unnamed sources". Same for a witness in court. That's why ad hominem attacks that show that a source is biased are legitimate. Now, granted I didn't go into enough detail on Rev. Moon, but there's plenty of stuff out there if you're interested.



> This goes for all sides. "Don't listen to Bush, because he is a moron"


Who said that? Actually, however much it's fun to point out his Bushisms, the left has moved from "he's a moron" to "he's dangerous and ideological."



> is no more sophisticated or correct than "the NY Times is a Commie-Pinko Rag dominated by Liberal Elites."


Now this has been said by the right, and it's an ad hominem attack. Is it legitimate? Only if it's an attack that they can prove. And the fact that NY Times publishes screeds by people like David Brooks and William Safire, largely supported the Iraq war (thanks to "star" reporters like Judith Miller), makes that a hard charge to make stick.



> Both may be true, but NEITHER obviates a statement they make.


Certainly neither undermines an *argument* either makes, and as neither is substantiated, they don't even undermine claims.



> Attack the *argument*, not the speaker. Otherwise this descends to a playground argument.


The trouble is, it's pretty rare that an *argument* is being given. The reason ad hominems are fallacies when directed against arguments is because the support for the conclusion of the argument is the premises and not the credibility of the source. This is not the case when simple claims are being made. That's why it's perfectly legitimate to point out the background of the SwiftBoat gang, because we've just got their word to go on. (Of course, even better is if we can find evidence to show that they're lying, but in a case of "he said/she said", the right kind of ad hominems are perfectly warranted.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>:
> 
> To me, what Kerry did or did nor do in Vietnam is irrelevant. Heck, I'd say anything more than 20 years old is not relevant to this campaign, from either candidate.


This reminds me of that time Bush was asked if he could say he'd been drug-free for the past X number of years, and he paused, and to the reporter it seemed evident he was doing a quick calculation, his face cleared, and he said with conviction "Yes!"

Just out of interest, why 20 years? 



> But if Kerry *insists* on making Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign, then surely it makes sense to research it? If *he* says it is important and relevant, then that would seem to make it expressly in-bounds?


Funny, but I hear Kerry talking about a lot more than Vietnam. Of course the Dems are playing it up because they've got a decorated veteran and they want to undercut the standard Republican smear of "Dems are cowardly traitorous softies", which was even used against a man who lost 3 limbs while taking part in a major offensive in Vietnam. But do you really want to change the subject to how well things are going in Iraq or Afghanistan? I don't think it's any accident that all these right-wing sources are obsessing about the Swift Boat people - it's the same reason we get a warning of a terrorist attack every time some bad news for the Bushies comes out.



> Bush is in a totally different situation. As a self-declared drunk and screwball for the middle twenty years of his life, he seems to have a defense for that period in his life.


Huh? I don't follow this part. Can he use that same defense for all the screwups he's had since taking office? I never believed he passed out because of a pretzel...



> So he is being criticized for his National Guard record and *not* for what he was when he was on the bottle. Is this fair? I'd say that since he has shown himself, in office, NOT to be a drunk, then bringing up the past is not productive.


You really have lost me here. Why do you keep bringing up the drunk part? How is that relevant to the fact that he skipped out of Vietnam by jumping the queue to get in the Texas ANG, then skipped out of even serving his time in that? Oh, and don't forget the cocaine use, if we're dredging up the past.



> I'd say his National Guard days are also not relevant.


Of course you would. Now if he'd stop dressing up like he was actually in the armed forces (unlike people like, oh, you know, Eisenhower and Kennedy), maybe it wouldn't've come up.



> After all, we HAVE seen him as Commander-in-Chief for almost 4 years. Love it or hate it, that is key 100% to whether we want him there for another 4 years.


This would be relevant if all anybody EVER talked about was the ANG stuff. In fact, it's pretty much limited to a few left-wing Blogs.



> Kerry is the other way around. He does not want to point to his Senate record, one of nuance and compromise.


"Nuance and compromise"? In a legislator? OH MY GOD! Unheard of! We want absolutes and gridlock like that wonderful "Contract with America" time. 

Yeah, I think it's TERRIBLE the way Kerry's people have done everything in their power to destroy all records of his votes in the senate. Oh wait. They haven't. So what's your evidence that "he does not want us to point to his Senate record"?



> So he points to his 120 days in Vietnam, which he filmed at length for posterity, to show that he is, in fact, decisive and manly.


You're just sore because he's so decisive and manly. Never mind, your boy Dubya once challenged his dad to a fight when Daddy got pissed off at him driving his brother home drunk. Pretty manly too, I'd say.



> Kerry's war record is 30 years old, and lasted 4 months. Bush's is in the present, and has lasted, in wartime, almost 3 years.


Oh this is just priceless. Yes, those two "war records" are just completely comparable. It reminds me of that Onion piece that had Bush leading the first wave into battle against the pleadings of his advisors.

Don't forget Reagan's war record: he had the US invade an even more helpless country in Grenada. Hey, maybe that's how all these Republican presidents get over the fact they never served: they get their generals to invade countries while they're in office, and *voila*, suddenly they can be war heroes!



> It is a strange race.... I'd rather see the candidates "go negative" and duke it out.


So... you're saying you think the Republicans have been running a _positive_ campaign so far? Uh... right...


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry:



> yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.
> 
> Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."
> 
> ...


There's more. Check the link.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Meru, you're a giggle. You have reduced the argument, precisely as rabid partisans have in this race, to *only* ad hominem attacks. 

If soldiers claim Kerry cheated to get his medals, then we can probably establish whether they are correct or not. But to just call it "The Republican Attack Machine" is to close your mind and refuse to admit anything which does not agree with you.

What I am trying to explain, but clearly doing a poor job of it, is that if one side says "New York Times" and thinks that proves their argument, and the other side says "Fox News" and thinks that proves *their* argument, then there is no place we can go. Because I know the Times to be every bit as partisan as you know Fox news to be. But that is not an argument.


Which is why instead of flinging names and stupid accusations where we are unable to discuss anything properly, I suggested we try to stick to discussions about facts and logic, and not attacking the speaker. 

But if you'd rather not question what you know, then we're stuck, yet again, and I'll bow out.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>:
> 
> Meru, you're a giggle.


Ain't I though? Just precious.



> You have reduced the argument, precisely as rabid partisans have in this race, to *only* ad hominem attacks.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the above an ad hominem attack? Or am I missing the part where you respond with detailed arguments to the points raised?


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the above an ad hominem attack? Or am I missing the part where you respond with detailed arguments to the points raised?


Logic, Meru, logic. I attacked your *argument*, saying that defending ad hominem attacks is unproductive and illogical. 

Your specific points were not dealing with the arguments and facts -- you were making up "his daddy got my daddy mad 'cause someone did sumpin" kinds of name-calling. 

I am happy to have a real conversation. But you need to discuss *facts* and *logic*.

BTW, you quoted the veteran who backed down on attacking Kerry, but failed to note the followup:



> ... quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.
> 
> "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents concerning John Kerry’s military service record.


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

Now, I hope we can discuss this without attacking people's motives or backgrounds. That is a legitimate and proper argument. 

Good luck!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> 
> Logic, Meru, logic. I attacked your *argument*, saying that defending ad hominem attacks is unproductive and illogical.
> ...


Sorry, Iwatas. Your "logic" is the one that's lacking. You remind me of someone who's recently heard of "ad hominem" fallacy and is determined to use it as much as possible, even if it's misapplied.

Logical fallacies are valid _in logical debates_. This isn't a logical debate. The form of no one's post is premises leading inescapably to a conclusion. It's one *claim* after another, like this from you: _"Kerry is the other way around. He does not want to point to his Senate record, one of nuance and compromise."_ Or this one: _As a self-declared drunk and screwball for the middle twenty years of his life, [Bush] seems to have a defense for that period in his life._

Those aren't isolated cases. Pretty much every statement of yours is an opinion claim. Which is fine...that's how most unprovable debates, like political debates, go. But it's not a *logical* debate. If you were laying out one premise after another, all of which led *deductively* to an inescapable conclusion, *then* we'd be in a logical debate. And all the logical fallacies you find on many internet sites would apply. But you're not.

So, respond to meru's points if you can, but stop complaining about whether they violate "logical fallacies." Logical fallacies don't apply to this.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>:
> 
> I am happy to have a real conversation. But you need to discuss *facts* and *logic*.
> BTW, you quoted the veteran who backed down on attacking Kerry, but failed to note the followup:
> http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm


*Fact*: The Drudge Report is the internet equivalent of the National Enquirer. Drudge was the guy who "broke" the non-story of the Kerry Intern and got all pissed off because nobody bought it.

*Logic* dictates that if that is your source, you got nothin'.



> Now, I hope we can discuss this without attacking people's motives or backgrounds.


I don't know anything about Drudge's background OR motives, I just know he's hopelessly unreliable and rabidly right wing.



> Good luck!


I fear I may have failed you already...


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Kevin McCullough 

Here is another transcript from an interview with one of Kerries superior officers. It has some detail on his military career that non rabid right wing zealots don't consider news.

Kerry's threw down his war record and called out Bush's military service to question. He shouldn't jump in the fire if he can't stand the heat. 

I'd rather see him defend his congressional voting record myself. 

Either way he's not electable this year or any. 

I want to say I feel sorry for you Bush bashin liberals but I can't do it honestly.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry, Iwatas. Your "logic" is the one that's lacking. You remind me of someone who's recently heard of "ad hominem" fallacy and is determined to use it as much as possible, even if it's misapplied.


I am sorry you have that impression. Actually I was raised by a logician, so I have known about logical fallacies such as this one since before you were born.



> Logical fallacies are valid _in logical debates_. This isn't a logical debate.


You are correct. Because everyone wants to call names and find emotional triggers, there is no logic. There is also no attempt to actually find a reasonable facsimile of the truth.

Sorry, without logical consistency, nothing posted relates to the truth. It is all just touchy-feely nonsense. 

You are incorrect that my assertions do not relate to the truth. It is easily determined how often Kerry refers to Vietnam and his military service in comparison to his senate record. It is visible for all to see that Kerry plays up one while playing down the other. Is this really such an outrageous claim for you?


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> Drudge was the guy who "broke" the non-story of the Kerry Intern and got all pissed off because nobody bought it.


He also broke Monica Lewinsky and the blue dress. Do you deny that occurred?



> *Logic* dictates that if that is your source, you got nothin'.


You'd be more correct if Drudge was actually the source. But he's not -- he quoting hundreds of veterans in a book which is number 1 in the queued bestseller list. Try to get your facts straight.



> I just know he's hopelessly unreliable and rabidly right wing.



Is it productive to dehumanize those you disagree with by associating them with a disease most commonly associated with dogs? Why does it seem normal for left-wingers to attach such strong metaphors to the right, but it is not commonly done the other way around? Are right-wing folks just more civil? That'd be my guess.

iWatas


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> Is it productive to dehumanize those you disagree with by associating them with a disease most commonly associated with dogs?


Squirrels.

barfo


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> Why does it seem normal for left-wingers to attach such strong metaphors to the right, but it is not commonly done the other way around? Are right-wing folks just more civil? That'd be my guess.


Oh geez, you're right... I've never heard anyone call left wing people communists, tree huggers or bleeding heart liberals. 

Honestly, do you take yourself seriously? Can you honestly take a step back and not realize that both parties are throwing out BS and slinging mud.

The difference is that you happen to agree with the right wing. This isn't some good/evil thing, it's a personal preference that splits the country pretty evenly.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>:
> 
> He also broke Monica Lewinsky and the blue dress. Do you deny that occurred?


Hey, you throw out enough ****, some of it'll stick.
Clearly he's lost his touch.



> You'd be more correct if Drudge was actually the source.


Fine - then give a more reliable citation. If I was going to point out that E=MC squared, and I heard it from Einstein and Dribbley Pete who hangs around the bus stop, I wouldn't attribute it to Dribbley Pete.



> But he's not -- he quoting hundreds of veterans


So they all chorused in unison? Who says military discipline is slipping. Him hard worker.



> in a book which is number 1 in the queued bestseller list.


Um, Mom or Pops ever explain the Appeal to Popularity fallacy to you? Or maybe they had the diaper pins in their mouth at the time and you couldn't understand them.



> Try to get your facts straight.


I do, I do, but you just can't trust stuff you read on the internet.

Now, what was the quote again:



> "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents concerning John Kerry’s military service record.


Not exactly informative, is it? For one thing, it sounds like they have eyewitness accounts of his *record*. Must make riveting reading: "I saw it with my own eyes! It was a binder almost THREE INCHES THICK! And I'm pretty certain it looked French." For another, it's perfectly consistent with them saying positive things about it.



> Is it productive to dehumanize those you disagree with by associating them with a disease most commonly associated with dogs?


Well, barfo said squirrels, but I've heard that's a malicious rumour spread by squirrel-haters. But I fear you're under some misapprehension. I said that Drudge is "rabidly right wing". Clearly, if I had to *add* rabid to that list of adjectives, then I can't be suggesting it's already included in "right wing". It's as if I said "this is a disgusting Pizza" and you said, "how dare you impugn Pizzas!"



> Why does it seem normal for left-wingers to attach such strong metaphors to the right, but it is not commonly done the other way around?


Oh that ironic humour gets me every time. Like when Ann Coulter suggests that it's the liberals that indulge in slander. It's that little touch of self-deprecating humour that humanizes you rabid dogs on the right.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>:
> Kevin McCullough
> 
> Here is another transcript from an interview with one of Kerries superior officers. It has some detail on his military career that non rabid right wing zealots don't consider news.


I've read that last sentence about five times, and I'm still none the wiser. You are indeed gnomic, Target.

I checked out the article - loved the kicker:



> John Kerry was barely able to endure four months on SWIFT boat detail. Since I am sure the War on Terror will endure a bit longer than that, the idea of him commanding our troops with his unsteady hand is making me ... well ... seasick.


That's when you know you have a non-partisan old-fashioned newshound just reportin' the facts. And clearly a war hero himself, otherwise he'd look a bit silly making fun of "SWIFT boat detail".

I also checked out the august journal "WorldNetDaily" that published this astute commetator's work. Apparently another of their commentators is one Rev. Jerry Falwell. It's good to see they give men of God a chance to speak out and spread their gospel of love to all peoples. I didn't avail myself of their "Special Offer" on two new Anti-Kerry books, though. Perhaps later.



> Kerry's threw down his war record and called out Bush's military service to question. He shouldn't jump in the fire if he can't stand the heat.


And that heat would be? A smear job?



> I'd rather see him defend his congressional voting record myself.


Again, why does it need defending? Nobody's shown anything wrong with it. Sure, a lot of people have used suspiciously familiar terminology to describe it (it's almost as if they're reading from the same script! But of course they would _never_ do that - in fact everybody uses the term "flip flopper" all the time in daily life) but nobody really takes them _seriously_ do they?



> Either way he's not electable this year or any.


You mean he *cheated* his way into the Senate!? NOW you've got a STORY! Let's see him defend himself against THOSE charges!



> I want to say I feel sorry for you Bush bashin liberals but I can't do it honestly.


You're a hard-hearted man, Target. But hey, we're liberals! We've GOT to forgive you.


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

See? This is exactly why I stay away from politically-based discussions. I don't vote. Never have, never will. Why must people get so riled up about politics?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>4-For-Snapper</b>!
> See? This is exactly why I stay away from politically-based discussions. I don't vote. Never have, never will. Why must people get so riled up about politics?


Why must people get so riled up about basketball? Religion? Sex? Sex with farm animals? Sex with dead, decaying, smelly farm animals? Sex with dead, decaying, smelly farm animals in the Oval Office while Dick Cheney watches? 

barfo


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>4-For-Snapper</b>!
> See? This is exactly why I stay away from politically-based discussions. I don't vote. Never have, never will. Why must people get so riled up about politics?


Yeah. It's only the future of our friends, family and country that's at stake.

No big deal.


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah. It's only the future of our friends, family and country that's at stake.
> ...


So I ask again...what does getting all worked up about it do? Nothing. 

It certainly doesn't hurt to discuss issues (that's why we post here), but politics is one of those things that you can't change people's minds about, and is the one forum of discussion where the common person's opinion on the situation doesn't matter one bit. 

People can talk about "Bush this" and Kerry that," but in the end, one of those two men will be our president. And there's not a thing anyone can do about it. So you see...getting oneself worked up about it will solve nothing. It will only raise blood pressure and promote aneurysms.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>4-For-Snapper</b>:
> 
> People can talk about "Bush this" and Kerry that," but in the end, one of those two men will be our president. And there's not a thing anyone can do about it. So you see...getting oneself worked up about it will solve nothing. It will only raise blood pressure and promote aneurysms.


So... presumably you post about the Blazers because you are in fact John Nash?


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> So... presumably you post about the Blazers because you are in fact John Nash?


 

Was that supposed to make sense or something?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

*Flip-floppers*

From ABCNews's The Note:



> Tapper looked at the ad for "Good Morning America" in a piece that included McCain's comments and called into question the credibility of *George Elliott*, a Vietnam veteran who appears in the new anti-Kerry ad.
> 
> Elliott says in the ad, "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam." But back in 1996, when Kerry was running for re-election in Massachusetts, Elliott came to Kerry's defense, saying at a press conference, "The fact that he chased armed enemies down is not something to be looked down on."
> 
> ...


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Did you happen to notice who wrote that article and maybe researched on what else he has written lately? If you did you might have found something interesting. I find it interesting though you likely would consider it trivial.



> Elliott, according to Kranish, said he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star.
> 
> But the veterans group says the article is "particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish's own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around."
> 
> Kranish, who is covering the Kerry campaign, wrote the foreword to the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book and is listed as the lead author.


Of course there is some question about that as well so here a liberal website offering the book shown....

Before

and

After

Interesting isn't it?

And then there is always the denial of retraction in the form of a legal document that is displayed....Here

seems farcely suspicious to me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Is John Kerry the war hero he portrays himself to be? Not according to a new book called _Unfit to Serve_. The book contains the stories of several soldiers who fought alongside Kerry during the 4 months he was in Vietnam. One of those soldiers was George Bates, an officer in Coastal Division 11 who participated in several operations with Kerry. He recalls a particular patrol with Kerry on the Song Bo De River that still "haunts" him.
> 
> 
> ...


Just a thought for ya, but if you really knew what you were "talking hard" about, you'd speak differently. Ditch the politics buddy. It doesn't belong here, on a basketball website, especially with you sounding so insecure and all.

Give it a rest dude. Please?


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Oregon Electrical Workers support John Kerry for President!
> 
> IBEW local 48.


LOL


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> 
> LOL


Is this funny to you? May I ask why?


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

So full of yourself you can tell Talk what he should post and what he shouldn't with a signature that proves your motive?

Are you sure it's ok? Better ask your comrades.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> So full of yourself you can tell Talk what he should post and what he shouldn't with a signature that proves your motive?
> 
> Are you sure it's ok? Better ask your comrades.


What are you talking about? WTF?


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Ditch the politics buddy. It doesn't belong here, on a basketball website,


and then...



> Oregon Electrical Workers support John Kerry for President!
> 
> IBEW local 48.


Could you be any more superficial?

It's ok to be political as long as we agree? Is that it?


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> 
> and then...
> ...


What are you talking about? Maybe step off of my balls, and we can discuss this? Before I take the "nice" gloves off?


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Someone's wearing out their welcome awfully quickly I'm afraid. You sound just like the hosts on your favorite station, AA, obnoxious and full of yourself.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

geez..how can I be more clear?

You can advertise but we can't discuss? 

Par for a democrat.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: OT: Kerry's disgrace in Vietnam?*



> Originally posted by <b>Air America</b>!
> 
> Just a thought for ya, but if you really knew what you were "talking hard" about, you'd speak differently. Ditch the politics buddy. It doesn't belong here, on a basketball website, especially with you sounding so insecure and all.
> 
> Give it a rest dude. Please?


You're new and all, but you're entirely wrong that politics aren't a part of this board.

We label off-topic (off-basketball topic, that is) threads "OT" and people who aren't interested in politics (which is understandable, absolutely) at this site don't have to participate.

Ed O.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh geez, you're right... I've never heard anyone call left wing people communists, tree huggers or bleeding heart liberals.


Sure. And in my opinion, these are far more acceptable than calling someone "rabid". Communism is a belief system -- what is wrong with criticizng someone for their ideas? 

Tree huggers literally do exist, as a number of people make a point of hugging trees in demonstrations. Have you ever seen an actually rabid Republican?

Seriously, the Bush supporters are a heck of a lot more civil than the Kerry supporters (or, more accurately, the bush haters). I don't hate Kerry, and I don't think many people do. 

If you review just the posts on this board, you'll see that this is so. Bush haters are seemingly incapable of having a logical argument because they hate the man so very much. Those of us who prefer Bush to Kerry don't hate Kerry, and so we can ask questions and question assumptions in a far more civil manner.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> If you review just the posts on this board, you'll see that this is so. Bush haters are seemingly incapable of having a logical argument because they hate the man so very much. Those of us who prefer Bush to Kerry don't hate Kerry, and so we can ask questions and question assumptions in a far more civil manner.


So I guess a few posts ago when TP3 said



> You sound just like the hosts on your favorite station, AA, obnoxious and full of yourself.


that would be an example of the right wing civility you are trumpeting?

barfo


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> Seriously, the Bush supporters are a heck of a lot more civil than the Kerry supporters (or, more accurately, the bush haters).


It strikes me as ironic that on one hand you're pleading for civility, but then you're labeling the side you disagree with as "haters," and characterizing them as so full of hate that they are "incapable of having a logical argument" with the other.

Hate and hater are about as inflamatory and loaded words as there are and accusing others of being incapable of having a logical argument sure seems like vitriol to me. In multiple past threads, many here have expressed taking personal offense to the term "hater" being used in any context. 

STOMP


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> geez..how can I be more clear?
> 
> You can advertise but we can't discuss?
> ...


Par for a DEM? What about your FOX NEWS,and CNN and stuff?

Par for a DEM? WTF are you talking about? Dems don't have a platform anymore, you pos! You scrubs bought the channels, and all the airtime! Don't tell me about the "liberal media", because it simply does not exist.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> 
> I am sorry you have that impression. Actually I was raised by a logician, so I have known about logical fallacies such as this one since before you were born.


If you've been taught logic for more than 26 years, you should know better when it's applicable.



> You are correct. Because everyone wants to call names and find emotional triggers, there is no logic. There is also no attempt to actually find a reasonable facsimile of the truth.
> 
> Sorry, without logical consistency, nothing posted relates to the truth. It is all just touchy-feely nonsense.


Including your posts on every political thread you've responded to. None of your posts are in the form of one premise after another that leads logically to only one conclusion. Politics is not a subject that lends itself to that form because who's correct is very much a matter of opinion.



> You are incorrect that my assertions do not relate to the truth.


Your posts are nothing more than opinions of the truth, like everyone else's. You can talk all you want about "logical fallacies," buy you haven't utilized logic at all. All you've done is make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that sum up your opinion on Kerry.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Hate and hater are about as inflamatory and loaded words as there are and accusing others of being incapable of having a logical argument sure seems like vitriol to me.
> STOMP


Well, lessee. Is there a group of Republicans who call themselves Kerry haters? Perhaps. Google shows 351 hits for this phrase.

"Bush Hater" has 14,500. 

Now, maybe the labelling is done by members of the opposite side, but the first bunch of hits are stories with names like "Call me a Bush Hater". 

It seems to me that the left-wing called THEMSELVES Bush-Haters before anyone else did.

Indeed, Googling "I hate Bush" yields 14,200 pages. "I hate Kerry" has 1,250. That is over ten to one!!! 

So is it wrong to describe a group with the label they give themselves, in public? Who is doing the hating here?


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Your posts are nothing more than opinions of the truth, like everyone else's. You can talk all you want about "logical fallacies," buy you haven't utilized logic at all. All you've done is make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that sum up your opinion on Kerry.


Actually, no.

Take some of what I have said: Is it unsubstantiated that Kerry spent 120 days in Vitenam? Is it unsubstantiated that people tend to hate Bush more than they hate Kerry? (see my other post on Google-hits). 


My opinions on Kerry have not been posted here -- yet. I first wanted to see if folks were able to actually have a logical argument, to break down the issues and try to resolve differences. I wondered if America were truly so polarized that even civil conversation was impossible.

I think it is pretty clear that this conversation will not happen. There is no common ground between the two sides -- not about Bush, or Kerry, or even what America is supposed to be about. 

We do not seem to be able to discuss anything without descending into rude and personal attacks. I do believe that this is primarily because those who oppose Bush do so on a visceral, and not logical level, and so they are unable or unwilling to engage logically on any specific point. This is, of course, just my opinion.

Even this thread, which was originally about whether or not Kerry's war record is correct, was never discussed properly. Kerry supporters on this Board have dropped the ball. 

Allegations were made by a group of soldiers who served in Vietnam and knew Kerry. Did the left respond with medical records of Kerry's injuries, for example, to prove that in fact he did NOT gain a purple heart from a simple scratch as is alleged? No. Instead, motives were attacked. Allegations were made about the accusers as part of the Republican Attack Machine. The whole thing is blamed on Bush. But for some reason, nobody is addressing or even TRYING to address the facts, except for the Right.

I am befuddled as to why the Left think this is smart. To someone sitting on the fence, maybe it matters whether Kerry is a war hero or not (Kerry seems to think so). The Left does itself no credit by just calling names and refusing to have a proper discussion. Because if the Left refuses to engage on this issue, it will become accepted wisdom that in fact Kerry shot a kid in the back to earn his Silver Star. And if Kerry wants it any other way, the Left need to fight it -- with facts.


A pundit noted last year that Bush and Clinton had the same gift: both men made their opponents act in a totally unhinged manner. Right-wing moralizing on Clinton, no matter how deeply felt, did the Right no good whatosever. People in the middle are not persuaded by those who do not even try to have a logical discussion. An emotional response, no matter how sincere, is no replacement for a proper discussion.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, lessee. Is there a group of Republicans who call themselves Kerry haters? Perhaps. Google shows 351 hits for this phrase.
> ...


 Way to muddy the water with irrelevant data. You've specifically called those you've disagreed with within this thread as *"haters"* and as "incapable of having a logical argument because they *hate* the man so very much" while claiming you're keeping things civil. You're not.

As I pointed out before, there are some posters in this very thread that have expressed in past threads that they are offended by the term "hater" being used here on BBB.net in *any* context... in fact, I was under the impression that that term isn't even aloud. If your intention is to offend posters and not to civilly discuss matters, you're doing a great job :greatjob: 

STOMP


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> My opinions on Kerry have not been posted here -- yet. I first wanted to see if folks were able to actually have a logical argument, to break down the issues and try to resolve differences. I wondered if America were truly so polarized that even civil conversation was impossible.
> 
> I think it is pretty clear that this conversation will not happen.


Oh, what a shame.



> Even this thread, which was originally about whether or not Kerry's war record is correct, was never discussed properly. Kerry supporters on this Board have dropped the ball.


Oh no! We've discussed improperly. We've dropped the ball. Where's the ball? Get the ball! Get the ball! Goooood Iwatas.



> Because if the Left refuses to engage on this issue, it will become accepted wisdom that in fact Kerry shot a kid in the back to earn his Silver Star. And if Kerry wants it any other way, the Left need to fight it -- with facts.


Allegations have been made that Bush is a pedophile, yet you've done nothing to refute this, Iwatas. Without action on your part, America is certainly going to conclude that Bush is indeed a pedophile. Oh, and remember to fight it -- with facts.

barfo


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

I think Barfo has beautifully demonstrated my conclusion. I rest my case.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

I understand what your saying Iwatas but I'm not sure they are capable of reasoning logical. 

If anyone wants to present evidence that President Bush is a pedophile it would be our obligation to argue with our evidence saying he isn't.

But when we accuse Kerry of fabricating his war record they can't dispute the facts They can only point the finger at the motives of the accusers. 

See it's okay for them to be a blatent supporter of liberal beliefs and motives but we don't stand a chance if we stand up for what we believe in because we don't share their vision of enlightenment.

It's pathetic. Same people who claim to think so liberally work so hard to stop someone from speaking out. 

It's more of a holier than thou thing IMO.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> I think Barfo has beautifully demonstrated my conclusion. I rest my case.


Excellent on all counts. Bush is a pedophile, and Iwatas will ride away on his high horse. It just doesn't get any better than this.

barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> If anyone wants to present evidence that President Bush is a pedophile it would be our obligation to argue with our evidence saying he isn't.


Well, then you better get cracking on that. Where's your evidence he isn't a pedophile? 

barfo


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, then you better get cracking on that. Where's your evidence he isn't a pedophile?
> ...


Judging by the lack of reaction, they're all but admitting it's true.

Why doesn't Dubya just come out and refute these allegations? Is it because he's hiding something?


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

how can one argue with logic about kerry's military record without considering the sources that are saying these things? how can anything be proven as a fact about those days, I mean, how can you prove without a doubt that kerry didn't shoot some kid in the back? 

some people say he was a great soldier and some say that he wasn't. if the medals don't mean anything, I don't think there is any other way to discuss this than trying to guess which side (kerry supporters or his detractors from his days in the army) is more reliable.

the supporters are probably his friends, if they served in the same boat, and that could influence their opinion.

and the detractors could be still angry with kerry because of what he did after he had served in vietnam.

myself, I'm just tired with this all. it's no wonder that people don't vote, when only real alternatives are these two. I guess I would vote kerry if I could, but that just because bush is everything I wouldn't want my president to be.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> Well, then you better get cracking on that. Where's your evidence he isn't a pedophile?


Prove a negative? He's not. How's that? 

Let's hear your evidence. Your word is not good enough for me. 

I'll have to have some corroboration from sources that have personal knowledge and not heresay from bleeding hearts who would have happy thoughts about it being true.

We've got 250+ veterans that say Kerry is unfit for command. They have official government documents proving they were in the same area at the same time as Kerry.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

Tommy Franks says the critisicm is BS

"
WASHINGTON (AP) - Retired Gen. Tommy Franks, producer of the early military successes in Afghanistan and Iraq, said Sunday that criticism of John Kerry's war record is political hyperbole and Kerry is "absolutely" qualified to be commander in chief.

Franks, whose hometown is Midland, Texas - where the president and first lady Laura Bush grew up - has been making television appearances in recent days to publicize his just-published memoirs, "American Soldier."

"Do you think Senator Kerry is qualified to be commander in chief?" Franks was asked.

"Absolutely!" he said."

What now, Talkhard?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Prove a negative? He's not. How's that?
> 
> Let's hear your evidence. Your word is not good enough for me.
> ...


Iwatas says my word should be good enough, and that you aren't to attack the messenger or his credibility. Rather, you must present -- facts -- that disprove the allegation. 

Hey, I don't make the rules around here, Iwatas does.

So... Bush is a pedophile. Disprove it if you can, otherwise we must assume it to be true. So sayeth Iwatas.

barfo


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> 
> 
> Iwatas says my word should be good enough, and that you aren't to attack the messenger or his credibility. Rather, you must present -- facts -- that disprove the allegation.
> ...


I'm going to have to back barfo up on this one.

Sources close to barfo have indicated that it's true. 

I'm afraid that unless somebody can post some real, credible evidence to the contrary...it's a fact.

The silence from the Bush camp on this matter is deafening.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

It's already been proven as a falsehood. If you look up to my last post I said he wasn't. Right there, see? Incontrovertible evidence. You can't dispute the allegation now because I called my statement incontrovertible. You can only dispute my incontrovertibleness.

Besides. Who you going to believe? Some Bush Bashers or a good ol' boy like me?


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> 
> 
> Iwatas says my word should be good enough, and that you aren't to attack the messenger or his credibility. Rather, you must present -- facts -- that disprove the allegation.


Nice try. But I said no such thing. I never said your word should be good enough. 

If you bring evidence, that evidence must, of course, be examined to determine its veracity. This is not an attack on the messenger; it is an attack on the evidence itself. To what degree can it be established? How much can be known, etc.

Since you have no evidence, and unlike veterans of Vietnam, you are not relating information which is first hand, the charge is baseless and not worth considering. 

Do you see the difference? I am not saying that all allegations are equally true -- far from it! But I am saying that one does not disprove an allegation by accusing the speaker of being a member of the Right Wing Conpsiracy (not my words: Hillary Clinton's). 

In this case, the Kerry camnpaign can refute the charges being made if they show that the officers in question had not way of knowing what they claim to know. Or, if they can show that the military veterans themselves, on whom the allegations are standing right now, are men who have a history of lying. Again, this is a way of attacking the evidence. Before you can use a fact in in argument, you need to establish whether it is, or is not, a fact. And so far the Left have had a very hard time even being willing to do that.

BTW, in case you should be tempted to say that calling the accusers part of the Republican Attack Machine *is* a legitimate attack on the evidence itself, then you would be right, up to a point. But you would also have to be willing to say that Republicans are liars -- because that is the sum of your attack on the evidence itself. So then we would ask the question: Is the statement that Republicans are liars true or not? And we could examine this in turn.

And again: if we cannot believe the other side is acting in good faith, then we cannot have a logical conversation.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Let me try to simplify:

There are normal Rules of Evidence, and standard ways to determine whether something is valid or not. And few things are 100% in any direction.

My point is that saying that a speaker is not telling the truth because he is a Republican is saying that those who disagree with you are not wrong, but rather that they are deceitful.

The naval officers quoted in this book may well be wrong. And some of them may be dishonorable. But are you folks on the left so eager to claim that they are indeed deceitful merely because they may vote the republican ticket?


If this election is about the "undecided 5%" then what is the best way to convince that 5%? Is it really to demonize the other guy, to say that all who disagree with you are liars?

IMO, no. It also is not a good way to have a conversation. I don't even talk to people whom I believe are acting in bad faith. Do you?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> Let me try to simplify:


Ah, good, I was having trouble following you as you avoided providing any evidence against the charge that George Bush is a pedophile.



> My point is that saying that a speaker is not telling the truth because he is a Republican is saying that those who disagree with you are not wrong, but rather that they are deceitful.


Well, that's simple enough for me to grasp. So if I were to say that George Bush is a lying pedophile, what I'd really mean is that he's a deceitful pedophile?



> The naval officers quoted in this book may well be wrong. And some of them may be dishonorable. But are you folks on the left so eager to claim that they are indeed deceitful merely because they may vote the republican ticket?


Not at all, not at all. That would be illogical. Some of them may instead be republicans because they are deceitful. Some may be coincidentally deceitful and republicans. And some of them without a doubt are deceitful republican pedophiles like George Bush.




> If this election is about the "undecided 5%" then what is the best way to convince that 5%? Is it really to demonize the other guy, to say that all who disagree with you are liars?


No, the best way is to throw out a bunch of phony charges and hope that people believe you. At least, that's what George Bush told me when I caught him smoking crack and raping babies.



> IMO, no. It also is not a good way to have a conversation. I don't even talk to people whom I believe are acting in bad faith. Do you?


I think we both do.

barfo


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

re: my early comment on bad faith:

Can anyone tell me how to not see posts from certain individuals? Is it possible?

thanks

iWatas


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> re: my early comment on bad faith:
> 
> Can anyone tell me how to not see posts from certain individuals? Is it possible?
> ...


It's easy... just click where it says 'barfo' in the sidebar, and
in the middle of the profile screen there is a check for "add barfo to your ignore list".

bye-bye 

barfo


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

To revisit the beginning of this thread:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040808-110052-1938r.htm



> All the Massachusetts senator had to do was talk about his four months in Vietnam for two years and somehow tootle along to victory, untroubled and untouchable. Now some guy's marred it, by declaring in this ad that "John Kerry has not been honest" about his time in Vietnam.
> ____Oh, yeah? Sez who? Some neoconservative chickenhawk dilettante National Guardsman?
> ____No. It's an admiral. He also was on a Swift boat in Vietnam, as were the other fellows in the ad, and they're all saying things like "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with."





> But hang on, most of these fellows in the anti-Kerry ad — the ones talking about how he can't be trusted, etc — are also Swift boat commanders? If being a Swiftee is the most important thing in American life, why are all these "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" less entitled to be heard than John Kerry?
> ____Well, because they're part of the "Republican smear machine". Apparently, it's the GOP's fault that only one of the 22 surviving Swift boat officers who served with Mr. Kerry is willing to support him, and that a big bunch of the remaining Swiftees feel strongly enough about his conduct 35 years ago to appear in one of the most remarkable political ads ever seen.
> ____Had enough of Vietnam yet?


To my surprise, this has touched a nerve on this board.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

I've been reading along and shaking my head. When children argue...


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I think the Right has really dropped the ball on this Bush pedophile discussion...


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Proof that George Bush is a pedophile...

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." 

- George W. Bush


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> No, the best way is to throw out a bunch of phony charges and hope that people believe you. At least, that's what George Bush told me when I caught him smoking crack and raping babies.


that is about the funniest damn thing I've read all summer. 



btw--I generally view using the "ignore" feature as an act of cowardice. IMO, the idea of these forums is to expose yourself to alternative viewpoints, not to just read the guys who agree with you. 

just like people who only watch FOX news or only read the NYT editorial page, you are deliberately censoring the spectrum of information you receive. this is cowardly.

I ignore only one person on this forum, and it's only because of his penchant for starting completely irrelevant and redundant threads that waste too much time.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> btw--I generally view using the "ignore" feature as an act of cowardice. IMO, the idea of these forums is to expose yourself to alternative viewpoints, not to just read the guys who agree with you.


Fair enough. I had explained that I did not waste time on people who dealt in bad faith. A poster replied in an entirely bad-faith manner, seeking only to offend. If the conversation has descended in tone so much that there is no longer anything to be gained by it, then Ignore seems like a prudent option. It is not about viewpoints -- it is about common civility.

Or to put it another way: If you choose to wrestle with a pig, even if you win, you still get covered in (mud). We all have too much to do with our time to waste it in slinging (mud). At least I do.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Do you think Senator Kerry is qualified to be commander in chief?" Franks was asked.
> 
> "Absolutely!" he said."
> 
> What now, Talkhard?


That's hardly a ringing endorsement from Franks. Did you see him on David Letterman the other night? He never mentioned Bush's name, but he spent most of his time defending what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. He said he was glad that Saddam was gone, and that going in and removing him was the right thing to do. He talked about all the good things that are happening in both countries as a result of our military action, and spoke in glowing terms about the role of the U.S. in the middle east, and the fight against terrorism.

You can slice that anyway you want, but in an election year that is a very strong endorsement of President Bush.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> If the conversation has descended in tone so much that there is no longer anything to be gained by it, then Ignore seems like a prudent option. It is not about viewpoints -- it is about common civility.


Apparently, it's about taking yourself way too seriously...

Lighten up.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Why must people get so riled up about basketball? Religion? Sex? Sex with farm animals? Sex with dead, decaying, smelly farm animals? *Sex with dead, decaying, smelly farm animals in the Oval Office while Dick Cheney watches? . . .*
> 
> No, the best way is to throw out a bunch of phony charges and hope that people believe you. At least, *that's what George Bush told me when I caught him smoking crack and raping babies.*


I'm all for freedom of speech, but isn't this crossing the line? It's nothing but vile hateful invective about our president and vice president that emanates from a very sick mind.

Please, moderators, don't allow these kinds of comments to be posted on this board! Even if they are being made in a satirical way, or to be funny, they have no place on a respectable board.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> I'm all for freedom of speech, but isn't this crossing the line? It's nothing but vile hateful invective about our president and vice president that emanates from a very sick mind.


A very sick mind! I'm so terribly offended by this completely unprovoked and unexpected insult. Why, I do believe such comments violate the harassment clause of the terms of service here.

Please, moderators, don't allow these kinds of comments to be posted on this board! Even if they are being made in a humorless way, or without any sense of irony whatsoever, they have no place on a respectable board. 

barfo


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Listen, everyone: we have these OT political threads to let everyone stretch their non-basketball minds a bit. These threads are NOT universally supported by mods or other administrators on this site.

We treat these threads much like the Wild West insofar as people can blend political and personal comments much more than we allow personal and basketball ones.

It's *impossible*, though, for me or the other moderators to maintain order on these types of threads if you guys aren't going to practice some self-restraint--try to refrain from acting in an over-the-top manner and try to understand that sometimes people get emotional about very serious issues and say stuff that they shouldn't say.

As I said, if we can't police our own posts in these political threads, it's hopeless to moderate them.

And if they can't be moderated, they'll simply be disallowed, and speaking as one who's gained a lot from these threads (even as I've disagreed on various things with just about everyone here), I would hate to see that happen.

Please PM me if you have any particular or general concerns and we can hammer them out, but in the mean time let's try to be decent to one another. 

Thanks.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm not sure I can be less over-the-top, but I'll try to be nicer. Sorry!

barfo


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> And if they can't be moderated, they'll simply be disallowed, and speaking as one who's gained a lot from these threads (even as I've disagreed on various things with just about everyone here), I would hate to see that happen.


Chalk up one for for disallowing them. I'll join the thread and start insulting everyone if it means these things will go away. 

And save the "The topic reads 'OT'" reply, I understand. Dem vs Rep and the blindness behind it is what ruins our country more than anything. These threads just add fuel to the fire.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tince</b>!
> Dem vs Rep and the blindness behind it is what ruins our country more than anything.


Could you elaborate on that a bit? Are you against the two-party system, or just discussion of it? Are you in favor of one party, or 3 or more parties? Or two parties but not these two parties? Or some other form of government entirely?

barfo


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> Could you elaborate on that a bit? Are you against the two-party system, or just discussion of it? Are you in favor of one party, or 3 or more parties? Or two parties but not these two parties? Or some other form of government entirely?


You're sucking me into this thread and making me a hypocrite, so I'll try to keep it short. I don't think a two or more party system does much more than split the country. I feel many people vote based on what party a person is running for and not what the person actually stands for. I think people in this country are educated enough that they should have to make an attempt to get to know who they are voting for, rather than look at if a "D" or "R" is next to their name. Sadly, this will probably never happen. I understand there are pros to party systems, I just think the cons out weigh them.

My main point was that often debates between Rep and Dem's turn into name calling and hate, which I feel will eventually split our country in two. Don't get me wrong, I love our country, and I'm thankful to be living here, I just wish politics didn't have to be this way.

And now I've got sucked into this thread...the last thing I wanted. Hopefully that answered your question.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tince</b>!
> 
> Chalk up one for for disallowing them. I'll join the thread and start insulting everyone if it means these things will go away.


This isn't a democracy. It's not up for a vote. Sorry.

I don't know how long you've been a part of this community, but you can take my word for it that many of us find great value in these threads, even accounting for their warts.

Quite frankly, I think that it's a very selfish perspective for you to take and I'm disappointed that someone from this community would think that way.

I hope that I can prevent you and people like you from diminishing the value of these threads, but there are only so many hours in the day and if people *really* want to derail a train moderators can only do so much.



> And save the "The topic reads 'OT'" reply, I understand. Dem vs Rep and the blindness behind it is what ruins our country more than anything. These threads just add fuel to the fire.


These are not Democrat vs. Republican threads. I, for one, don't closely associate with either party. On many issues, I swing close to the Republican perspective and on some others I go more Democratic. And some I disagree with both or just don't care.

I've read a lot of these threads and know that I'm not alone.

If you see it as simply a party backer vs. party backer matter, then you're missing out on many complexities of the discussions and painting them with the very brush that you claim voters do with their voting options.

Ed O.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

First off, let me say that I was kidding about ruining these threads so they would go away. I would never do that, and if I were, I wouldn't make my plan public.



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> This isn't a democracy. It's not up for a vote. Sorry.
> 
> I don't know how long you've been a part of this community, but you can take my word for it that many of us find great value in these threads, even accounting for their warts.


I realize this place isn't a democracy, I knew that when I joined. The vote thing was a joke, but after reading your post, you can see how serious and wrapped up people get into this thread (which isn't always bad). 



> Quite frankly, I think that it's a very selfish perspective for you to take and I'm disappointed that someone from this community would think that way.
> 
> I hope that I can prevent you and people like you from diminishing the value of these threads, but there are only so many hours in the day and if people *really* want to derail a train moderators can only do so much.


No need to make this personal Ed. I have no hate/anger towards anyone in this thread. It's sad that me pointing out the negatives of threads like these make me "selfish" and I'm deminishing the value of the thread.



> These are not Democrat vs. Republican threads. I, for one, don't closely associate with either party. On many issues, I swing close to the Republican perspective and on some others I go more Democratic. And some I disagree with both or just don't care.
> 
> I've read a lot of these threads and know that I'm not alone.


That's great, if everyone were that way, I wouldn't have posted int he first place.



> If you see it as simply a party backer vs. party backer matter, then you're missing out on many complexities of the discussions and painting them with the very brush that you claim voters do with their voting options.
> 
> Ed O.


You are spinning what I said. If I implied that everyone who is talking about politics doesn't know what they are talking about, then my post was just poorly written, nothing more. Again, I gave my opinion and it's more than fair that you don't agree with me.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> I hope that I can prevent you and people like you from diminishing the value of these threads, but there are only so many hours in the day and if people *really* want to derail a train moderators can only do so much.
> 
> Ed O.


Oh great, does this mean that a *"Post Terror Alert"* has been issued? 

I mostly stay away from these kind of threads, but I take them for what they are........kinda like going to the grocery store, you don't buy everything......you basically just buy what you need. :grinning:


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh great, does this mean that a *"Post Terror Alert"* has been issued?
> ...


Well put...I hope everyone is as light-hearted as you Howie. Great post.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tince</b>!
> You're sucking me into this thread and making me a hypocrite


Just as I intended...my evil knows no bounds :evil:

barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> I mostly stay away from these kind of threads, but I take them for what they are........kinda like going to the grocery store, you don't buy everything......you basically just buy what you need. :grinning:


I guess we can say with some assurance that Howie is not a pot smoker 

I say these threads are like going to the barnyard, you don't wrestle with all the animals... you basically just wrestle with the pigs. No, wait, what I mean is...

Oink!

barfo


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tince</b>!
> 
> You are spinning what I said. If I implied that everyone who is talking about politics doesn't know what they are talking about, then my post was just poorly written, nothing more. Again, I gave my opinion and it's more than fair that you don't agree with me.


My apologies if I read too much into what you wrote or misinterpreted it in any way. Thanks for clarifying what you meant.

Ed O.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> 
> I say these threads are like going to the barnyard, you don't wrestle with all the animals... you basically just wrestle with the pigs. No, wait, what I mean is...
> 
> ...


Interesting twist to my analogy there barfo, but that is what makes you the pig wrestling champion isn't it barfo!


----------

