Post by: roo_ster on November 01, 2006, 04:30:27 AM
It is a serious problem, IMO.
Kerry, etc. [Michael Ledeen]
It's always interesting to see psychological projection at work. Kerry and his alliesobviously the Dems are defending him, aren't they?are blaming the troops for the Dems' own ignorance and stupidity. I mean, it's hard to imagine anyone stupider than Kerry. Only a total buffoon would attack the troops at a key moment in the campaign. It makes it possible to say that the Dems really are the party of Kerry, Murtha, and the other appeasers. Must be Rove hypnosis at work.
Secondly, it underlines the near-total alienation of the American intellectual elite. I dare say that the leading news and editorial rooms, like the offices of the major universities, are full of people who quite agree with the notion that our troops are stupid and underprivileged. Each time one of our children ships out to the Middle East, we get condolence calls from friends and relatives. They simply cannot fathom it, it is so totally removed from their own experience and from their own narcissistic lives. They do not know uniformed people, they have only a totally misleading stereotype.
Third, I believe that the percentage of veterans in Congress is under fifteen percent. That makes it difficult for them, as a group, to understand military virtue or war. Obviously military service is not a panacea, as Kerry and Murtha have demonstrated. But I do think that in times of war it would help to have more veterans in the legislatures.
Finally, we know lots of military people, from bestarred generals to lance corporals. We've spent plenty of time with them, especially those who have been shot up and blown up. It would help the elite to spend some time in military hospitals, they'd be quite surprised at the intelligence, thoughtfulness, and good character of most of the men and women in uniform nowadays.
Quite aside from the politics of Kerry's buffoonery, this is a serious matter. The war is almost surely going to get worse, and we need leaders with a grasp of what it's about.
It's always interesting to see psychological projection at work. Kerry and his alliesobviously the Dems are defending him, aren't they?are blaming the troops for the Dems' own ignorance and stupidity. I mean, it's hard to imagine anyone stupider than Kerry. Only a total buffoon would attack the troops at a key moment in the campaign. It makes it possible to say that the Dems really are the party of Kerry, Murtha, and the other appeasers. Must be Rove hypnosis at work.
Secondly, it underlines the near-total alienation of the American intellectual elite. I dare say that the leading news and editorial rooms, like the offices of the major universities, are full of people who quite agree with the notion that our troops are stupid and underprivileged. Each time one of our children ships out to the Middle East, we get condolence calls from friends and relatives. They simply cannot fathom it, it is so totally removed from their own experience and from their own narcissistic lives. They do not know uniformed people, they have only a totally misleading stereotype.
Third, I believe that the percentage of veterans in Congress is under fifteen percent. That makes it difficult for them, as a group, to understand military virtue or war. Obviously military service is not a panacea, as Kerry and Murtha have demonstrated. But I do think that in times of war it would help to have more veterans in the legislatures.
Finally, we know lots of military people, from bestarred generals to lance corporals. We've spent plenty of time with them, especially those who have been shot up and blown up. It would help the elite to spend some time in military hospitals, they'd be quite surprised at the intelligence, thoughtfulness, and good character of most of the men and women in uniform nowadays.
Quite aside from the politics of Kerry's buffoonery, this is a serious matter. The war is almost surely going to get worse, and we need leaders with a grasp of what it's about.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 05:06:15 AM
What did anger me, and amuse me, was Kerry's refusal to apologize. Worse is his transparently fake anger at Republicans for "spinning" his comments so that they seem disparaging to the military. What a galling insult to the intelligence of ordinary people. And his attempt to pass off his comments as a slam on the President - as if that would really be an acceptable joke from a Senator when we're at war.
Post by: Iain on November 01, 2006, 05:59:32 AM
Have to say, our politics isn't as nasty as this. It will be, but I'm just thankful that it isn't yet.
Post by: Ben on November 01, 2006, 06:12:15 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 07:01:06 AM
I know plenty of bile is bound to be vented, but actually it really does look like a remark aimed at the President,
In what world? That is completely unbelievable.
The meaning of Kerry's jab is obvious and there is no other reasonable interpretation. He was remarking on the fact that some people join the military out of a lack of other options. But the implication was that anyone in the military is there out of stupidity or laziness. Kerry should have known better than to make such a careless remark, especially when he has a history of accusing American troops of war-crimes.* He should have simply apologized and explained what he was trying to say. He did have a valid point that the military is often an option for those with poor academic records. He would still be attacked for his remarks, but at least then I could agree with some on the left that the whole episode was over-hyped.
*In 1972, John Kerry appeared before Congress to make false charges against soldiers then fighting in Vietnam, accusing them of atrocities and likening them to Ghengis Khan. Just recently, he told a journalist that our troops in Iraq were "terrorizing" inoccents. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a link to this more recent incident, but here is some info on his remarks in 1972.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry#Anti-war_activism_.281970.E2.80.931971.29
Post by: StopTheGrays on November 01, 2006, 07:01:57 AM
Quote
You know, education, if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you -- you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.
...just like president Bush. /intended end of the "joke".I still do not understand what Kerry's point was. The only two I can come up with are
"If you do not do well in school your only choice is to go to Iraq and be stuck there." or "If you do not do well in school you will be stuck in Iraq just like Bush because he did not do well in school."
Is there another meaning I am missing? If not, then the meanings I listed above do not make any sense. Either only under educated soldiers are over there or the military is stuck there because Bush did bad in school.
Both do not hold up because a lot of our troops are not there because of poor academic performance and Bush had slightly better grades than Kerry. Wouldn't that mean Kerry should be struck in Iraq if that is the case?
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 01, 2006, 07:10:48 AM
People like carry are a fine example why aristocracies ultimately always fail, and why the only meaningful system is meritocracy. Kerry is a fine example of half the things that are wrong with dem leadership, Soros is the other half.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 01, 2006, 07:34:04 AM
Frankly, Kerry had a point: the military is the last resort of tens of thousands of erstwhile American losers who just cannot cut it in society. In sum, if you're a dumbass, you end up in Iraq.
"I don't see the issue."
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 07:50:11 AM
Quote
He was remarking on the fact that some people join the military out of a lack of other options. But the implication was that anyone in the military is there out of stupidity or laziness. Kerry should have known better than to make such a careless remark, especially when he has a history of accusing American troops of war-crimes.* He should have simply apologized and explained what he was trying to say. He did have a valid point that the military is often an option for those with poor academic records.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 01, 2006, 07:52:04 AM
It offends the hell out of me. Some of my best friends are active military members who GAVE UP full ride scholarships to good universities to serve their country. They could have graduated with solid degrees that virtually guaranteed them first year salaries in the $50,000 range. But they decided that their country needed them more than they needed the cushy college life and fat paychecks.
Kerry and his ilk just can't fathom these people who put the country ahead of their own self-serving interests. The concept is simply to alien.
Post by: wingnutx on November 01, 2006, 08:29:45 AM
Post by: Ron on November 01, 2006, 08:33:33 AM
Quote
In sum, if you're a dumbass, you end up in Iraq.
"I don't see the issue."
"I don't see the issue."
When you say it it doesn't mean anything other than you are an insensitive asshat. When a US Senator says it it takes on a whole different character.
Senators should show some respect to the men and women protecting us and enforcing our foriegn policy.
It is the condescension and stereotyping that the left engages in that causes the problem.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 01, 2006, 08:50:26 AM
Beat me to it.
One of the funniest pics I've seen. No guessing whether they would have been happier with "Commander-In-Chief John Kerry."
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 08:56:07 AM
I have stated in two other threads that Kerry's spin on his comments was brilliant, and if he made speeches like that two years ago, he might be president today. I might add it could also be called his "Daffy Duck speech," for his repeated use of the word "despicable."
But he could have done better. He should have avoided the laughable lie that he was discussing the president. He should have said something like the following:
"Sometimes the truth hurts. This president and his administration have refused to improve the condition of the poor in this country, blah, blah, blah. For the last five years, disadvantaged youths in this country have had little option but to put their lives on the line in a military that is fighting a useless, hopeless, illegal war in Iraq. A war based on lies and conducted in defiance of informed opinion on the conditions in country, and how many troops would be required, blah, blah, blah. Am I to be blamed for illustrating the sad reality that our young people are sent to war out of their desperation in a nation where the Republican powers-that-be keep them in poverty and use them as cannon-fodder?
Something like that.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 01, 2006, 08:58:02 AM
Quote
It is the condescension and stereotyping that the left engages in that causes the problem.
But it's true.
1. If you cannot cut it in society, you join the Army.
2. If you join the Army, you wind up in Iraq.
3. Folks who join out of uber-patriotism will be judged by their brethren.
I never said it was fair.
Certainly, I am an "insensitive asshat." I am, also, not in Iraq supporting a failed foreign policy designed and implemented by dunces.
Frankly, that makes me a smart insensitive asshat, in my opinion.
Quote
"Sometimes the truth hurts. This president and his administration have refused to improve the condition of the poor in this country, blah, blah, blah. For the last five years, disadvantaged youths in this country have had little option but to put their lives on the line in a military that is fighting a useless, hopeless, illegal war in Iraq. A war based on lies and conducted in defiance of informed opinion on the conditions in country, and how many troops would be required, blah, blah, blah. Am I to be blamed for illustrating the sad reality that our young people are sent to war out of their desperation in a nation where the Republican powers-that-be keep them in poverty and use them as cannon-fodder?
VERY nicely done.
Post by: wingnutx on November 01, 2006, 09:00:35 AM
Bonus points to anyone who can identify that unit or the source of the picture.
Dogfaces all look alike to me.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 09:10:20 AM
Ezekiel, what makes the Army less respectable than other career paths? The last time I checked, the military IS society and there are still standards to meet there. You could just as easily say that if you can't cut it in society, you get a college degree to impress people with. Or, if you can't afford college on your own, you write a cheesy essay in a scholarship competition.
And how do a few losers impeach the respectability of those for whom military service has always been their ambition?
Finally, how dare you use your disagreement with our foreign policy as a reason not to serve? I'm not criticizing you for not serving. I got out myself. But citizenship demands that if your brothers are dying in a failed war, you have all the more obligation to help that war succeed by enlisting yourself. But I think we could hook you up with a commission. A brilliant young lieutenant like yourself should be a great asset to our idiotic troops.
Post by: wingnutx on November 01, 2006, 09:12:16 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 09:14:20 AM
Post by: wingnutx on November 01, 2006, 09:15:50 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on November 01, 2006, 09:21:03 AM
Quote
1. If you cannot cut it in society, you join the Army.
I'll remember to talk slowly next time I see my coworker who was in the Army. He's such a failure that he owns multiple properties in the MetroDC area, is only the lab test portion away from getting his CCIE, and is a major resource on this project. Or there's the guy who got sent to Iraq a couple years ago as a reservist (he's back now). He was our head IT security guy. Plenty more like them around here as well. Military, smart, driven. All failures in life.
Chris
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 01, 2006, 09:22:00 AM
But it's true.
1. If you cannot cut it in society, you join the Army.
But it's NOT true.
Sure, there are some people whocan't cut it in society and therefore join the military. But these types make up a distinct minority in the military. And of those who can't cut it in society, only a minority turn to the military. It is a very small and mostly coincidental correlation.
Most of the people who can't cut it wind up on welfare. Most of the rest end up doing menial labor jobs. County queen or toilet scrubber is the likely fate of those can't hack it in society, NOT the US military.
What's more, those who are in the military are reasonably well-educated in how to perform their job. The military teaches its members how to be halfway competant soldiers, which constitutes a certain level of vocational training and aptitude. Even the dumbest and most loser-ish military men have are a cut above the unskilled laborers out in mainstream society.
Post by: wingnutx on November 01, 2006, 09:29:00 AM
Few of us were doing what we do on the outside.
For example, my friend Steve is an EE who owns a company that makes a machine to reclaim gold and other materials from IC boards and chips. They license the technology to Intel, Motorola, etc. He's a multimillionaire, and he's also an E-5 electrician in the Seabees.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 01, 2006, 09:39:34 AM
A failed foreign policy? What, do you have a crystal ball?
Even if you consider this a long-term event, down 28-0 in the metaphorical 1st quarter implies something, don't you think? To me, it means you're going to lose. (We won't even enter into why we decided to play a road game, against a team without definable uniforms, with nothing significant to gain, in a conference we don't care about.)
Ezekiel, what makes the Army less respectable than other career paths? The last time I checked, the military IS society and there are still standards to meet there.
Nothing, if you had a wide array of choices and are either an uber-patriot or nationalist ninny. Having few choices and deciding the Army is where a lazy loser is least likely to get fired, however, certainly cheapens the "respectability" of said decision. (And, thereby, the Institution.) As for standards, they have been increased to beyond having a pulse. I think, now, you must have a pulse and be able to do simple math before they'll give you a rifle.
You could just as easily say that if you can't cut it in society, you get a college degree to impress people with. Or, if you can't afford college on your own, you write a cheesy essay in a scholarship competition.
Of course, none of those models contain the lowest common American denominator (LCAD) turned loose in a Third World country with a gun and no inhibitions.
And how do a few losers impeach the respectability of those for whom military service has always been their ambition?
Just a few?!! Do I sense Utopianism? We take the LCAD, indoctrinate them into our own brand of Imperialist Nationalism, give them guns, turn them loose without significant oversight, attempt to whitewash any fallout to protect the organization, and you don't think this is systemic? Let me spell it out: this is not "Just a few."
Finally, how dare you use your disagreement with our foreign policy as a reason not to serve?
What? Please tell me you're kidding. Such is the perfect and penultimate reason not to serve: with the ultimate being that you are now dead -- as part of ludicrous policy -- for having done so.
I'm not criticizing you for not serving. I got out myself. But citizenship demands that if your brothers are dying in a failed war, you have all the more obligation to help that war succeed by enlisting yourself.
You could criticize, I would not take offense.
As for citizenship, I vehemently disagree. Citizenship demands that, if your brothers are dying in a failed war, you cease to support the failed war.
But I think we could hook you up with a commission. A brilliant young lieutenant like yourself should be a great asset to our idiotic troops.
I don't think I'd last too long: something about disobeying direct orders and instructing "leadership" to shove it up their rear echelon.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 01, 2006, 09:47:43 AM
A failed foreign policy? What, do you have a crystal ball?
Even if you consider this a long-term event, down 28-0 in the metaphorical 1st quarter implies something, don't you think? To me, it means you're going to lose. (We won't even enter into why we decided to play a road game, against a team without definable uniforms, with nothing significant to gain, in a conference we don't care about.)
What is "down 28-0" mean? Why is a football metaphor a reasonable way to discuss this? What do you think "losing" would entail? What "team" did not have definable uniforms when we entered this war?
Ezekiel, what makes the Army less respectable than other career paths? The last time I checked, the military IS society and there are still standards to meet there.
As for standards, they have been increased to beyond having a pulse. I think, now, you must have a pulse and be able to do simple math before they'll give you a rifle.
I don't think I'd last too long: something about disobeying direct orders and instructing "leadership" to shove it up their rear echelon.
Something tells me you wouldn't last too long in any organization that had more than 3 members that you werent in charge of.
Post by: lumpy on November 01, 2006, 09:48:26 AM
Post by: Ezekiel on November 01, 2006, 09:51:10 AM
Post by: roo_ster on November 01, 2006, 09:56:24 AM
Toss in a bit of ignorance and you get Ezekiel's posts.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 09:58:24 AM
Quote
I don't think I'd last too long: something about disobeying direct orders and instructing "leadership" to shove it up their rear echelon.
Thank you for clarifying that you are too self-centered and arrogant to be of use in the military. Aren't you the one looking for some kind of cushy local government sinecure? That should suit you.If you were interested in reasonable debate, I could further add that your view of the military as a dead-end job is factually incorrect. Like any other job, many just use it as a stepping stone to a situation more to their liking. But nevermind.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 10:00:13 AM
Quote
an already lame joke that was obviously about Bush?
How does Kerry's Kool-Aid taste? I honestly didn't believe anybody would fall for that idiocy.
Post by: lumpy on November 01, 2006, 10:00:37 AM
Quote
And how do a few losers impeach the respectability of those for whom military service has always been their ambition?
Actually the text book has been in production for the past 4 years. the authors... Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield.
Maybe you haven't looked at the 'respect' our leaders have shown the VA lately?
Our heros in service joined to fight to protect their country, how does being in Iraq respect that?
Post by: lumpy on November 01, 2006, 10:03:41 AM
Quote
How does Kerry's Kool-Aid taste? I honestly didn't believe anybody would fall for that idiocy.
See what I mean, focusing on Kerry is a great way to avoid discussing the issues that got neocons in the position they are in.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 10:08:44 AM
So, are you going to keep being distracted, or are you going to start a thread on the Iraq war, the VA, etc.? Why are you in this thread, anyway?
Post by: lumpy on November 01, 2006, 10:12:41 AM
if you have an issue with my post please report me.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 10:16:20 AM
Now, back to the hatred. Where was I?
Post by: The Rabbi on November 01, 2006, 10:24:25 AM
Sorry to interupt your hatefest... but it strikes me that the majority of the bush supporters here are drinking the koolaid that keeps the focus on non-issues and of the real ones. it seems to me that my pointing out the obvious about this Kerry nonsense is on topic here.
if you have an issue with my post please report me.
if you have an issue with my post please report me.
Yes, we are all mindless Bush supporters with no free will.
Welcome back, Blackburn. We missed you. OK, so we didnt.
Post by: lumpy on November 01, 2006, 10:35:21 AM
Post by: mfree on November 01, 2006, 10:44:36 AM
Regardless of your political affiliation it's hard to deny that John "F" Kerry is just an elitist, empty headed blowhard.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 01, 2006, 10:46:57 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 11:01:08 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 01, 2006, 11:18:39 AM
We're being asked to vote for these sorts of Democrats in the upcoming election. Doncha think it would be prudent for the voters to know who these people really are?
Lumpy and the Libs are right to try to divert attention away from this Kerry remark. The remark illustrates just how unsuitable they are to lead the country at this time. Of course they'd try to divert attention away from that.
Post by: lumpy on November 01, 2006, 11:56:11 AM
Quote
What are the actual issues that "the Neo-cons" (whoever they are) are losing on? What are they losing?
for clarification maybe I should refer to them as faux-republicans.
the war in Iraq, ethics, spending, stem cell research ...
Quote
It illustrates that Kerry and his ilk harbor a certain animonisty towards the military, an ignorance about the military, and a complete alienation with the public at large.
First you ignore that I did not support what Kerry said ... nor do I support Kerry, he's a loser and was a weak candidate in 04, but that is pretty much irrelevant. I am a registered independent. but then again that is irrelevant as well.
Ignorance about the Military? hmmm... so, given that you'd vote to support a VP that had 'other priorities'? a president that during a time of war... answered his country's call [we think] in Alabama and Texas? And an admistration that fired the general that suggested that they'd need more troops in Iraq, passed up for promotion the attorney that won the Hamdi case in the Supreme Court, ignored the head of military intelligence that stated that 'no good intelligence ever comes from abusive techniques'
If you need to create strawmen to support your position go ahead it simply makes my point for me.
Again, you folks seem to want to focus on Kerry because he's not running? because he's a loser? because the right loses on the actual issues?
when all else fails, stay the course...
Post by: The Rabbi on November 01, 2006, 12:17:03 PM
Quote
What are the actual issues that "the Neo-cons" (whoever they are) are losing on? What are they losing?
for clarification maybe I should refer to them as faux-republicans.
the war in Iraq, ethics, spending, stem cell research ...
Refer to whom as "faux republicans"??
Who is losing ethics?
Who is losing spending? What does that even mean?
Who is losing stem cell research? What does that mean?
For clarification try explaining what you mean.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 12:24:03 PM
I propose a corrolary to Godwin's law: When neo-cons are brought up, the conversation is usually not worth pursuing further.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 01, 2006, 12:24:13 PM
The fact that other Democrats are chastising him and attempting to distance themselves from his comments can be read as either real moral outrage or political posturing. Either way, it is not some sort of rabbit trail.
It is important to make clear whether the candidates Kerry was planning on supporting agree with his position on not just Iraq policy but on the nature of the men and women in uniform. If they do or do not tells us something about them that voters deserve to know. The reactions of others who aren't running now but will be in 2 more years, potentially for President, are also deserving of note.
Oh, I apologize if the above is unreadable, I'm one of those failures who left college to volunteer for the Marine Corps 15 years ago.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 01, 2006, 12:27:43 PM
I never said that you personally supported Kerry.
Kerry is campaigning for Democrat candidates in the upcoming election, as as such he is their representative to the voters. He slipped up and revealed what he really thinks about the military and the men and women who risk life and limb to protect the country. To my knowledge, none of the Democrats he's capaigning for have repudiated his remarkls, so it's safe to say that they agree with Kerry.
These are NOT the people we need in power right now. Maybe it's safe to give the Democrats some authority when the world is peaceful and safe, but NOT RIGHT NOW!
Yes, given the Democrat's take on the military, on national defense, and on the war on terror, I would absolutely take the Bush Admin. and the Republicans.
As for neo-cons losing on the issues, you couldn't be farther from the truth. Republicans, (neo-cons and conservatives both) win on the biggest issue of the day: national defense. Republicans win on the Iraq war. Republicans win on the economy, which is outstanging right now BTW. Republicans win border security. Republicans win on gun control. Republicans win on taxes. Republicans win on national spending (Republican spending is up, but just imagine what it would be if the Democrats were in power...)
One of the prime reasons so many Republicans are in hard races is because the Republican base is peeved with them for not being Republican enough. The biggest unspoken rule of politics is that you win elections by moving to the right (just look at Bill Clinton in the '90s, and Hillary Clinton in the 2000's - these two really know their stuff). Well, Republicans forgot that rule, and they've moved to the left in recent years. Now they're reaping their just deserts.
But that doesn't invalidate the fact that traditional Republican views are the right views, and are what the country needs and wants.
Keep your blather about strawmans and Buschco tinfoilery and who fired who and why to yourself. We're interested in substance here, so unless you've got any you should move along.
Post by: richyoung on November 01, 2006, 12:27:50 PM
for clarification maybe I should refer to them as faux-republicans.
the war in Iraq,...
you can't destroy a whole country's military, intelligence, and police forces, no matter how necessary it is to do so, and not spend years building replacements, even in the absence of armed violence on the part of desperate individuals who know hte noose is thier inevitable end, shoul dhte new government get on its feet and hold them accountable for their crimes.
Quote
ethics,...
Funny, I thought it was DEMOCRATS that actually have sex with the pages, make millions off of sweetheart land deals, leave woemn to drown in their submerged oldsmobiles... but I'm sure Saint Hillery of hte Cattle Futures miracle will fix all of that as soon as she can find the records, or the statute of limitations runs out, whichever...
Quote
spending,...
A fair charge. i would submit wars are expensive, especially after you gut the military for a "peace dividend". Plus you gotta be CRAZY to think the tax and spend democraats are now suddenly budget hawks!
Quote
stem cell research ...
Plenty of (adult, umbilical cord) stem cell research going on today - without having to chop up little babies to get them, which is the REAL issue - ABORTION, more properly known as "in-uteerine infanticide".
Quote
First you ignore that I did not support what Kerry said ... nor do I support Kerry, he's a loser and was a weak candidate in 04, but that is pretty much irrelevant.
...for a loser and weak party....
Quote
I am a registered independent. but then again that is irrelevant as well.
As are you, in a two party system.
Quote
a president that during a time of war... answered his country's call [we think] in Alabama and Texas?
There is no doubt that George Bush served his country honerably as a fighter pilot - a job that EASILY kills you in peace time, in a Guard unit that could have been mobilized and sent to Vietnam at any time. Ho wmany pilot's funerals have YOU been to? Perhaps it would behoove you to KNOW something about a subject before you opine on it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 12:43:12 PM
Quote
To my knowledge, none of the Democrats he's capaigning for have repudiated his remarkls, so it's safe to say that they agree with Kerry.
Go to the Drudge Report and check out the right side of the page. Quite a few incumbents and candidates are throwing Kerry under the bus.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 01, 2006, 12:47:06 PM
Guys, quit playing Blackburn's game.
Ah, so they are. I stand corrected.
Quote
To my knowledge, none of the Democrats he's capaigning for have repudiated his remarkls, so it's safe to say that they agree with Kerry.
Go to the Drudge Report and check out the right side of the page. Quite a few incumbents and candidates are throwing Kerry under the bus. Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 12:58:12 PM
Did you also see Kerry's fake apology? At least they made him reverse himself, the puke.
Post by: lumpy on November 01, 2006, 01:01:21 PM
Quote
Who is losing ethics?
Who is losing spending? What does that even mean?
Who is losing stem cell research? What does that mean?
Who is losing spending? What does that even mean?
Who is losing stem cell research? What does that mean?
You forgot Iraq...
Ethics... Delay indictment, Ney Guilty, Abramoff and the 437 contacts he 'didn't' have with the White House, Cunnignham, Steven's $250 million dollare bridge to nowhere attached to a defense funding bill, etc...
Spending: the dramtic increase in discretionary spending under the republican legislature, Bush's failure to veto any spending bill, bridge to nowhere... etc.
Stem Cell research: Speaking of vetos, the only bill that Bush felt the need to veto was for fed funding of Stem Cell research... it rings a bit hollow when he claims that he did it to avoid another government program giving his record on approving all the other discretionary spending. What a great concept... let's give away any advantage we could have in stem cell research just like Clinton gave away the DNA mapping... it's short term thinking BS.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 01, 2006, 01:03:54 PM
Which, come to think of it, is exactly what Bush did. Hmm...
Lessee here... Political corruption. Ah yes, that's that thing that ALL corrupt politicians engage in, regardless of their political leanings. Are you trying to suggest that only Republicans are corrupt? 'Cause if so, it might be fun for one of us to point out all the ways in which Democrats have transgressed...
Spending is certainly up, and that's a bad thing. But what would it be if Democrats had control of everything? I seem to remember a some rather grim periods in American politics dishonestly misnamed (as only politician can) as "The Great Society" and the "New Deal". Those were high watermarks in terms of fiscal responsibility, no?
Post by: lumpy on November 01, 2006, 01:06:12 PM
Quote
Funny, I thought it was DEMOCRATS that actually have sex with the pages
typical of the liberal press to leave off the obvious... if you do a google on Jerry Stubbs you will find that Dan Crane, a republican was censured at the same time, for the same thing. There are enough lunatics to go around for all the parties.
You guys seem to have nothing better to do than ad homenin attacks... see ya.
btw: do you label everyone you disagree with as 'blackburn'?
Post by: lumpy on November 01, 2006, 01:08:08 PM
Quote
It ain't the Fed Gov's job to maintain any sort of national advantage in science
Ironically we're debating on the result one of those government programs...
Post by: Ron on November 01, 2006, 01:08:37 PM
Quote
Stem Cell research: Speaking of vetos, the only bill that Bush felt the need to veto was for fed funding of Stem Cell research.
Embryonic stem cell research.
The left is so dishonest they always leave out the distinction between adult (the one with successes) and embryonic (the one without any successes).
Post by: Ron on November 01, 2006, 01:11:23 PM
Quote
You guys seem to have nothing better to do than ad homenin attacks... see ya.
btw: do you label everyone you disagree with as 'blackburn'?
btw: do you label everyone you disagree with as 'blackburn'?
If you dish it out and can handle getting it back you will fit in around here.
Only the strong survive. The weak melt down.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 01, 2006, 01:16:44 PM
Post by: lumpy on November 01, 2006, 01:43:09 PM
btw: my company works in clinical research and FDA regulatory consulting... you are correct there have been no sucesses in Embryonic stem cell research yet... but that is of course why they call it research. You will find very few researchers that feel that there is more long term promise in adult stem cells than embryonic stem cells.
Spending: your argument might hold water if historically it was supported. as a percent of GDP it is dramatically up over divided legislatures.
ron: gee thanks for the supportive remarks ... I will be back later. I have to get back to work at the moment.
Post by: garyk/nm on November 01, 2006, 02:24:46 PM
Good Bye !
If you remain, you have marked yourself as a troll and will be treated as such.
Good Bye!!!!! And don't let the door hit you....
Post by: Ron on November 01, 2006, 02:25:47 PM
Quote
tw: do you label everyone you disagree with as 'blackburn'?
On the assumption you are not blackburn I'll explain.
Simply he is the resident troll who pops up and stirs up trouble and eventually outs himself by increasingly "trollish" posts.
There is plenty of embryonic stem cell research taking place. The contoversy is in using government funds to fund research.
The Christian community pays taxes and believes it should have a say on how that money is spent. Paying to have human embryos created and/or destroyed for the "common good" by tax revenues is to many shockingly appalling.
The government shouldn't be subsidizing research in areas where the morality is at best murky and at worst the planned destruction of human life.
Post by: StopTheGrays on November 01, 2006, 03:14:51 PM
Quote
Funny, I thought it was DEMOCRATS that actually have sex with the pages
typical of the liberal press to leave off the obvious... if you do a google on Jerry Stubbs you will find that Dan Crane, a republican was censured at the same time, for the same thing. There are enough lunatics to go around for all the parties.
Post by: lumpy on November 01, 2006, 04:44:08 PM
"Crane had the decency to at least resign while Gerry Studds thumbed his nose at the censure."
Crane actually failed to get reelected ... Studds got reelected. the difference between then and now was that crane and studds were immediately censured, Foley did not resign until what was already known to the leadership was exposed to ABC.
off to spend time with the missus ... we can pick this up tomorrow. Have a nice day.
Post by: StopTheGrays on November 01, 2006, 05:10:08 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 01, 2006, 05:10:37 PM
Post by: lumpy on November 01, 2006, 06:27:02 PM
Quote
House Majority Leader John Boehner: Wolf, I understand that, but let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld.
Wolf Blitzer: But he's in charge of the military.
House Majority Leader John Boehner: But the fact is the generals on the ground are in charge and he works closely with them and the president. [CNN, 11/1/06]
Wolf Blitzer: But he's in charge of the military.
House Majority Leader John Boehner: But the fact is the generals on the ground are in charge and he works closely with them and the president. [CNN, 11/1/06]
maybe you should consider another change...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 01, 2006, 06:47:48 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2006, 08:41:45 PM
Quote
FYI-I'm not blackburn... apparently I've been marked as a troll though.
Let us examine why you are accused of Blackburnism or trolling.
1. Claiming that Kerry was telling a "joke that was obviously about Bush." There are only two explanations for such a ridiculous claim:
- You telling a lie to stir up controversy.
- You have been completely brainwashed by Kerry (and some of the media's) outright lies. (It's certainly well beyond spin.)
2. Apparently registering to our little chat board just to argue about Kerry, while claiming that the Kerry issue is a distraction. Then making uninformed claims about what we are discussing on the board, along with a trumped-up charge that we are conducting a "hatefest." Then, oddly, asking to be reported. At no point do you make any comments on other threads that discuss issues that might be important. You decline to start another thread to discuss such issues.
Other than the request to be reported on, this is classic Blackburn.
3. Then some talk about neo-cons, usually a sign of paranoid dementia.
One of Blackburn's favorite bits.
4. Complaining of ad hominem attacks when plenty of substantive argument is going on and the personal criticism has been rather mild.
Another favorite tactic of Blackburn.
Post by: Gun Runner on November 01, 2006, 11:26:21 PM
Quote
Republicans, (neo-cons and conservatives both) win on the biggest issue of the day: national defense.
Right, because of course we haven't had any attacks on US soil since 9-11-01.
Hey "Bubba Clinton" was a huge suck-cess too in that case from 1993 on in the case of A-Rab terrorists at least.
Quote
Republicans win on the Iraq war.
Yes by brain washing the masses into believing some nonsense about having to kill Iraqis in Iraq or they'll be here and we'll have to kill them here.
Also calling insurgents "terrorists" and the Iraq war "the war on terror" (terror is a tactic by the way, not a noun) seems to do good for the radical religious righteous right.
Wait, I'm not seeing the winning here.
Quote
Republicans win on the economy, which is outstanging right now BTW.
[f-word!!!] I didn't notice! Well if you and Booshy say it's good, it must be. At least gas prices dropped down to something nearly affordable. I guess the economy is doing great if you're an oil baron/pharmaceutical company/gov't contractor/etc.
Quote
Republicans win border security.
LOL LOL
"You are putting facts in your head"
Yeah the border is like totally secure, dude. And Bush is SUPER concerned about illegal immigration too.
So I guess that's a win?
Quote
Republicans win on gun control.
Hmmm I say both parties LOSE on gun control. Damn.
Quote
Republicans win on taxes.
If you're rich.
Quote
Republicans win on national spending (Republican spending is up, but just imagine what it would be if the Democrats were in power...)
OH YEAH BABAYYY!
National Debt 10/30/2006: $8,562,455,433,495.19
Awesome! Super big WIN in that category!!!
National Debt 09/30/1999: $5,656,270,901,615.43
Imagine if the Democrats were in power?? I remember those days. Is $3 TRILLION more debt winning anything?
Quote from: fistful
1. Claiming that Kerry was telling a "joke that was obviously about Bush." There are only two explanations for such a ridiculous claim:
- You telling a lie to stir up controversy.
- You have been completely brainwashed by Kerry (and some of the media's) outright lies. (It's certainly well beyond spin.)
Okay now YOU are trolling.
I had no idea what this whole crap storm was over, having only heard a snippet about this on NPR about responses to what he said.
I looked up what he said. The first thing that came to my mind was Bush. But maybe my brain engages a little quicker than some folks.
But of course I'm either making this up, or I'm a super die-hard Kerry lover.
No.Post by: The Rabbi on November 02, 2006, 02:25:30 AM
What was the last book on economics you read? Have you ever read any? Can you understand that levels of debt are not important, that the important measure is debt in relation to the whole GDP? Do you comprehend that the deficit is lower as a percentage of GDP now than under Clinton? Do you understand that factors other than Bush affect things like tax revenues? Do you know what the current unemployment rate is? What about job creation?
I realize that if someone is a factory worker who can easily be replaced by either an illiterate illegal alien or a Chinese worker then the economy looks bad. But the reality for better than 94% of Americans is that the economy is doing fine.
You are obviously enthralled to your scrolling sig line and not letting facts get in the way of your emotionalism.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 02, 2006, 03:02:27 AM
Can you please explain your charge that I am trolling? Can you define trolling?
Terror is a noun; see any dictionary. "Insurgents" who use terrorism as a tactic are terrorists by definition. Again, a dictionary will be useful in clarifying.
How does the Iraq war help religious conservatives?
Post by: Ron on November 02, 2006, 05:18:46 AM
Quote
Yes by brain washing the masses into believing some nonsense about having to kill Iraqis in Iraq or they'll be here and we'll have to kill them here.
Also calling insurgents "terrorists" and the Iraq war "the war on terror"
Also calling insurgents "terrorists" and the Iraq war "the war on terror"
Well Bin Laden seems to disagree with your assesment of Iraq.
Quote
"The war against America and its allies will not be confined to Iraq," the voice on the tape said, adding that "Iraq has become a magnet for attracting and training talented fighters."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/19/binladen.tape/index.htmlPost by: client32 on November 02, 2006, 05:32:34 AM
When I first heard the comment, I thought it was intended to be a jab at Bush. I will admit that I only heard the one line. I don't know his intent, but if it was a jab at Bush, Kerry should have phrased it differently. Which has already been discussed.
If I missed a link here to the speech, I'm sorry.
Post by: Iain on November 02, 2006, 05:46:55 AM
Got to admit, to me this is all quite amusing. It's certainly very silly. Thing is, if the Democrats start dropping polling figures, and ultimately underachieve (compared to what was expected up until now) they can probably lay a good bit of the blame at Kerry's door. He failed to make himself understood (at least that's what how it appears to me) and so a good number of his political opponents might just be incensed enough to go and vote.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 02, 2006, 08:26:18 AM
Iain, c32, I don't think you guys would lie to me, but I can't believe Kerry's remark would have any other meaning than, "If you flunk out, you join the Army." Are you sure your perception wasn't influenced by the way others reported it before you heard the comment? I'm really not seeing how anyone would immediately, primarily think of those comments as applying to Bush or his cabinet.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 02, 2006, 08:37:25 AM
It ain't the Fed Gov's job to maintain any sort of national advantage in science. That's something best left up to the private sector.
Advantage in science is the only thing that makes us remain competitive and economically afloat between the hammer of other industrialized nations and the anvil of cheap labor and outsourcing. In addition, advantage in science is crucial in national security and military tech, as has been shown repeatedly throughout history.
The government funding science is one of the most profitable investments ever, because the new technologies produced generate new industries, wealth, employment, and gigantic tax revenue. In addition, it is quite efficient because most of the research is done by severely underpaid gradstudents and postdocs, which, for doing the same work in industry would have to be paid two to four times more per capita, especially when you put in benefits. That is one of the chief reasons why much of R&D is declining in industry and is increasingly outsourced to academia.
Finally, technological developments naturally follow from fundamental developments, and thus corporations research would ultimately stifle itself because it inherently would not target fundamental developments. Corporations are working hard on trying to have at least some of their resources in what they call "long-term high-risk" projects but such are only a small percentage of their total effort and are largely dependent on individual champions, which come and go.
In conclusion, federal funding for fundamental and applied research is just as much a wise choice for a government to do as is national security and maintaining a strong infrastructure in the homeland. Without it, we'll regress into a backwater third-world hellhole faster than you can say "Would you like ketchup with the fries?"
Post by: richyoung on November 02, 2006, 09:03:46 AM
Quote
Funny, I thought it was DEMOCRATS that actually have sex with the pages
typical of the liberal press to leave off the obvious... if you do a google on Jerry Stubbs you will find that Dan Crane, a republican was censured at the same time, for the same thing. There are enough lunatics to go around for all the parties.
For those having trouble GRASPING THE OBVIOUS, your remedial homework is three pages on "Compare And Contrast the Response of the Democratic Party to the Studds Scandal with the Response of the Republican Party to the Foley Scandal"
Quote
You guys seem to have nothing better to do than ad homenin attacks... see ya.
Don't let the screen door ht ya where the Good Lord split ya...
Quote
btw: do you label everyone you disagree with as 'blackburn'?
just Blackburn...
Post by: lumpy on November 02, 2006, 09:07:26 AM
Quote
What was the last book on economics you read? Have you ever read any? Can you understand that levels of debt are not important, that the important measure is debt in relation to the whole GDP? Do you comprehend that the deficit is lower as a percentage of GDP now than under Clinton?
Actually gunrunner... you'd be incorrect and in your koolaid drinking frenzy, you've given support to the argument this administration is failing...
As a percent of GDP the deficit was higher when Clinton took office... but that would ignore the fact when Clinton left office... the percent relative to GDP was about 7% lower. But then again, I'm a troll, wtf do I know.
A simple wikipedia check could have shown you that.
Seems to me that a good definition of a troll might be one that ignores the actual data to prove their point.
Post by: lumpy on November 02, 2006, 09:31:53 AM
Quote
Let us examine why you are accused of Blackburnism or trolling.
1. Claiming that Kerry was telling a "joke that was obviously about Bush." There are only two explanations for such a ridiculous claim:
You telling a lie to stir up controversy.
You have been completely brainwashed by Kerry (and some of the media's) outright lies. (It's certainly well beyond spin.)
Neither trolling nor kool-aid consumption make for good contributions to the board.
2. Apparently registering to our little chat board just to argue about Kerry, while claiming that the Kerry issue is a distraction. Then making uninformed claims about what we are discussing on the board, along with a trumped-up charge that we are conducting a "hatefest." Then, oddly, asking to be reported. At no point do you make any comments on other threads that discuss issues that might be important. You decline to start another thread to discuss such issues.
Other than the request to be reported on, this is classic Blackburn.
3. Then some talk about neo-cons, usually a sign of paranoid dementia.
One of Blackburn's favorite bits.
4. Complaining of ad hominem attacks when plenty of substantive argument is going on and the personal criticism has been rather mild.
Another favorite tactic of Blackburn.
1. Claiming that Kerry was telling a "joke that was obviously about Bush." There are only two explanations for such a ridiculous claim:
You telling a lie to stir up controversy.
You have been completely brainwashed by Kerry (and some of the media's) outright lies. (It's certainly well beyond spin.)
Neither trolling nor kool-aid consumption make for good contributions to the board.
2. Apparently registering to our little chat board just to argue about Kerry, while claiming that the Kerry issue is a distraction. Then making uninformed claims about what we are discussing on the board, along with a trumped-up charge that we are conducting a "hatefest." Then, oddly, asking to be reported. At no point do you make any comments on other threads that discuss issues that might be important. You decline to start another thread to discuss such issues.
Other than the request to be reported on, this is classic Blackburn.
3. Then some talk about neo-cons, usually a sign of paranoid dementia.
One of Blackburn's favorite bits.
4. Complaining of ad hominem attacks when plenty of substantive argument is going on and the personal criticism has been rather mild.
Another favorite tactic of Blackburn.
Actually I quite flattered that you've given this so much thought, unfortunately you'd be incorrect on all counts. I actually came here from THR because I figured that the political chat was better suited for here. If you'd have answers to my jamming problem with CCI standard velocity ammo on my MK2, amybe I'd spend more time here. I have no clue who blackburn is and I could care less. Did you notice the irony about your pointing out of my complaining of an ad hominem in an ad homenin attack?
Back to Kerry... to the poster that was wondering what Boehner has to do with anything, I'd ask where was your outrage when Bush joked about WMD's, when he said that historically Iraq would be a comma, when Boehner implys that the problems in Iraq are not the fault of Rumsfeld they are the result of the generals on the ground... they have a word for that, hypocrite.
In Kerry's prepared text and in the context of his speech... he was obviously talking about the president. Like Jon Stewart says "imagine, Kerry screwed up a joke". If find need to think that Kerry thinks the troops are idiots, feel free.
Post by: lumpy on November 02, 2006, 09:34:18 AM
Quote
For those having trouble GRASPING THE OBVIOUS, your remedial homework is three pages on "Compare And Contrast the Response of the Democratic Party to the Studds Scandal with the Response of the Republican Party to the Foley Scandal"
the democrats immediately censured Studds and Crane. The republican leadership knew about this for at least 1 year... you point is?
Post by: client32 on November 02, 2006, 09:46:30 AM
When I first heard about the comments, it was on local news. The lead in was something like "Is it 2006 or 2004, Bush criticizes Kerry over remarks" Then the next the is the now infamous sentence "Learn or get stuck in Iraq." Then it went to everyone's protest of the remarks. My first reaction was that he was taking a jab at Bush. After following the last Pres election and a few thing Kerry has done afterwards, I just assumed that he was taking another jab at calling Bush stupid.
Now I'm not saying that I totally believe that he just screwed up a joke, just that it was my first reaction. At best, he screwed up a joke, initially refused to apologize and rather blame Republicans for twisting his message and not debating issues while then calling anyone who thought the message was something other than a joke about Bush stupid. At worst, he insulted everyone who was/is in Iraq stupid and then said the same about anyone who caught on to the original intent.
Again, I would like to see the transcript of the speech.
Post by: lumpy on November 02, 2006, 09:47:00 AM
Quote
"I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush
Post by: client32 on November 02, 2006, 09:53:46 AM
the actual prepared text of the speech (it was released prior to the event)
Quote
"I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush
Can you give me a link to this? I am really interested in reading the entire speech. And while attempting to find the text, I did run across the "getting us stuck" thing here:http://incontext.blogmosis.com/archives/033095.html#033095 and here:http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/2006/10/tiny_words_can_.html
Post by: lumpy on November 02, 2006, 10:12:47 AM
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061102/OPINION01/611020370/1008
I will see if I can find all of it.
Post by: lumpy on November 02, 2006, 10:17:58 AM
http://www.vindy.com/more/bertram/kerry-prepared.php
it may help if some of the other people on this thread actually read it.
Post by: lumpy on November 02, 2006, 10:20:38 AM
Quote
Yesterday I was in the state of Texas as you all know, President Bush used to live there now he lived in a state of denial [cheering]. A state of deception.
Im glad to be here with you, I really am, thank you for the privilege of coming here. Were here to talk about education, but I want to say something before that you know education if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart you can do well. If you dont, you get stuck in Iraq [laughter].
Im glad to be here with you, I really am, thank you for the privilege of coming here. Were here to talk about education, but I want to say something before that you know education if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart you can do well. If you dont, you get stuck in Iraq [laughter].
Post by: The Rabbi on November 02, 2006, 10:44:58 AM
Post by: lumpy on November 02, 2006, 12:01:26 PM
Quote
There's a huge difference between "you get stuck in Iraq" and "you get us stuck in Iraq." I wonder if he knows what he said.
I completely agree. Hence the "botched" part of the botched joke.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 02, 2006, 12:25:38 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 02, 2006, 12:27:18 PM
If the laughter occured before he mentioned the President's name, that would imply the audience took it the same way everybody else did - as a joke about those who join the military out of desperation. Post by: lumpy on November 02, 2006, 12:32:00 PM
Just curious... given the claim that we went into Iraq to keep the 'smoking gun from taking the form of a mushroom cloud' do you find Bush's parody of looking for WMD's offensive? How about history referring to the war as a comma?
Do you find Boehner's implication offensive that it's the Generals below Rumsfeld and not Rumsfeld who are to blame for the state of Iraq?
Post by: lumpy on November 02, 2006, 12:39:47 PM
Quote
that would imply the audience took it the same way everybody else did - as a joke about those who join the military out of desperation. \
fortunately the audience had the benefit of context... he was talking about Bush.
If your implication is that democrats think that soldiers are stupid then I would suggest you are full of much of the same stuff being suggested on this thread. but I'm sure it's not.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 02, 2006, 12:54:16 PM
The logical fallacy of ad hominem occurs when one substitutes personal criticism for valid argument. To say that I committed ad hominem assumes that I was somehow required to respond to what you have to say. This is not the case. Others have done plenty of that. If I was focusing on you, it was not to discredit what you say. The validity of your arguments does not depend on who you are or on your motives.
My criticism was meant for an entirely different purpose. Not to discredit your arguments, but to take issue with your constant slandering of this forum and its members. And apparently without sufficient knowledge of us, given your handful of posts. Are you here to contribute to the board, or to be a troll, someone with no other purpose but to anger people?
Some examples:
Quote
Sorry to interupt your hatefest... but it strikes me that the majority of the bush supporters here are drinking the koolaid that keeps the focus on non-issues and of the real ones.
Quote
you focus on this because the neocons are losing on the actual issues.
Quote
Again, you folks seem to want to focus on Kerry because he's not running? because he's a loser? because the right loses on the actual issues?
Quote
It gets boring when the only thing one can do here is respond to those that are attacking someone suggesting that actual issues get discussed.
Post by: richyoung on November 02, 2006, 12:56:12 PM
Quote
For those having trouble GRASPING THE OBVIOUS, your remedial homework is three pages on "Compare And Contrast the Response of the Democratic Party to the Studds Scandal with the Response of the Republican Party to the Foley Scandal"
the democrats immediately censured Studds and Crane. The republican leadership knew about this for at least 1 year... you point is?
The republicans knew about E-MAILS - NOT the INSTANT MESSAGES, which were:
A. A setup, and
B. sat on by DEMOCRATS since JULY, thereby making THEM the ones knowingly putting children at risk for political advantage: their attempt at an 'October Surprise".
Yeah, the Democrats "censured" Studds - then gave him a standing ovation, and re-elected FIVE TIMES! Plus lets talk about how Bill CLinton not only was screwing the help, but commuted Reynolds sentence for... ACTUALLY having sex with underage campaign worker - the same think Foley lost his job for even TALKING about.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 02, 2006, 12:59:15 PM
If your implication is that democrats think that soldiers are stupid then I would suggest you are full of much of the same stuff being suggested on this thread.
Did you happen to read any of Ezekiel's posts to this thread before you started casting aspersions on all of us? I don't know his political affiliation, but I have heard and read many, many similar comments from leftists. I.e., Pat Tillman was stupid to go into the military, etc.
As I said before, if you really want to discuss substantive things, why not respond to some other threads or start your very own?
Post by: lumpy on November 02, 2006, 01:07:13 PM
Quote
A. A setup, and
B. sat on by DEMOCRATS since JULY, thereby making THEM the ones knowingly putting children at risk for political advantage: their attempt at an 'October Surprise".
B. sat on by DEMOCRATS since JULY, thereby making THEM the ones knowingly putting children at risk for political advantage: their attempt at an 'October Surprise".
You got a source for that?
ABC states that the IM's came to them from pages after they posted the emails on their blog. If you'd like to revise history for the sake of argument you might want to look for work at NewMax.
The fact is pages were warning each other about Foley for years. The republican head of the page committee knew about Foley's 'interest' in pages as far back as 2001 (whihc was kept from other members of the committe)... it was brought to Hastert's attention last year... they then of course were so outraged they asked him to run again.
Quote
Did you happen to read any of Ezekiel's posts to this thread before you started casting aspersions on all of us?
it works both ways
Post by: doczinn on November 02, 2006, 01:50:35 PM
Quote
[Bush's] four-year average was 77; Kerry's 76.
Quote
[Kerry] got four Ds in his freshman year, Bush received one D in his four years, in astronomy
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm
Post by: lumpy on November 02, 2006, 02:05:03 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 02, 2006, 02:07:54 PM
Quote
Did you happen to read any of Ezekiel's posts to this thread before you started casting aspersions on all of us?
it works both ways
1. What do you mean?
2. Did you read his posts or not? Will you not admit that a great many people and some of them Democrats most certainly believe that soldiers are stupid?
Post by: Lee on November 02, 2006, 02:19:35 PM
Is that a Foley quote?
Post by: lumpy on November 02, 2006, 02:37:21 PM
Quote
1. What do you mean?
2. Did you read his posts or not? Will you not admit that a great many people and some of them Democrats most certainly believe that soldiers are stupid?
2. Did you read his posts or not? Will you not admit that a great many people and some of them Democrats most certainly believe that soldiers are stupid?
First sorry for my rushed response before I was heading out of the office. What I meant was that from the first moment I posted on this board many of you assumed I was a troll (whatever that means)...
I got responses like
Quote
How does Kerry's Kool-Aid taste? I honestly didn't believe anybody would fall for that idiocy.
Quote
Congratulations, Lumpy. You fooled me. It took me a second to realize that even YOU don't really believe it was "obvious Bush joke."
So, are you going to keep being distracted, or are you going to start a thread on the Iraq war, the VA, etc.? Why are you in this thread, anyway?
So, are you going to keep being distracted, or are you going to start a thread on the Iraq war, the VA, etc.? Why are you in this thread, anyway?
Quote
Ok, Blackburn. Speaking of black, I like your avatar. Did you see my thread on black animals at the Humane Society?
Now, back to the hatred. Where was I?
Now, back to the hatred. Where was I?
Quote
If you dish it out and can handle getting it back you will fit in around here.
Only the strong survive. The weak melt down.
Only the strong survive. The weak melt down.
apparently not.
Quote
If you remain, you have marked yourself as a troll and will be treated as such.
Good Bye!!!!! And don't let the door hit you....
Good Bye!!!!! And don't let the door hit you....
Quote
1. Claiming that Kerry was telling a "joke that was obviously about Bush." There are only two explanations for such a ridiculous claim:
You telling a lie to stir up controversy.
You have been completely brainwashed by Kerry (and some of the media's) outright lies. (It's certainly well beyond spin.)
Neither trolling nor kool-aid consumption make for good contributions to the board.
You telling a lie to stir up controversy.
You have been completely brainwashed by Kerry (and some of the media's) outright lies. (It's certainly well beyond spin.)
Neither trolling nor kool-aid consumption make for good contributions to the board.
Quote
Do you comprehend that the deficit is lower as a percentage of GDP now than under Clinton?
Quote
Don't let the screen door ht ya where the Good Lord split ya...
Quote
Did you happen to read any of Ezekiel's posts to this thread before you started casting aspersions on all of us?
Actually I disagree with much of Ezekiel's postings... While we may fall on the saide side of the center line I am one that believes (to paraphrase) everyone is entitled to the facts, just not their own facts. Regardless, one thing these boards give conclusive evidence of is that there is no monopoly on lunatics on either side.
Quote
"It works both ways"
Is that a Foley quote?
you and Kerry have the lame joke thing nailed. Is that a Foley quote?
I'd point out that I am the guy that posted what Kerry actually said in context and his prepared speech. I do not believe that I've posted anything that is factually incorrect... and if I did I would appreciate knowing about it. If I offended anyone I appologize, but like many of you I am passionate about my position.
btw: Somewhere along the line several you seem to think I'm a Kerry supporter. Actually I think Kerry was the worst candidate that could have run in 04 ... I gave my money to Clark. I thought I made that clear in my first post.
Post by: Ron on November 02, 2006, 02:50:40 PM
Quote
If you dish it out and can handle getting it back you will fit in around here.
Only the strong survive. The weak melt down.
apparently not. rolleyes
Only the strong survive. The weak melt down.
apparently not. rolleyes
Let me clarify my meaning. If you were a troll you would eventually melt down and show who you are.
If you are a sincere leftist then I suspect you will hang around and join the discussions around here.
Sorry if you feel anything I have said to you was an attack, that was not my intention. I enjoy debating leftists and don't believe in name calling usually. Zeke gets special treatment from me for dissing the troops. He seems to have taken it in stride, he is more of a man than John F Kerry, Kerry ran from what he said, Zeke didn't. What Kerry meant and what he said are two different things apparently.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 02, 2006, 03:05:12 PM
I think that he slipped up for a moment. I think the facade slipped away briefly, revealing who and what Kerry really is. I read the transcript of the remarks when the flapp first started, and I think that Kerry meant what he said and said what he meant - it's just that he momentarily forgot that his true beliefs aren't meant for public consumption.
I further think that Kerry's notion that it was a botched joke was a carefully crafted smokescreen developed after the fact. I think some of his PR guys took a hard look at what was said and done, and concluded the "botched joke" cover story would be their best bet for extracting Kerry's foot from his esophagus. His insistence that this was a botched joke is as insincere as his professed love for the troops.
As for lumpy and trolldom... Much of lumpy's speech and behavior has mimicked that which we've come to regard as troll-speak. Right or wrong, he looks at first glance to be one of these trolls. Specifically, his actions resemble those of a troll we had a while back who went by the name Blackburn.
The membership is understandably leery of these trolls, as our loose restrictions and lack of registration makes us an easy target. So lumpy has no right to gripe about being labeled a troll. Whether he is in fact a Blackburn-type troll or not doesn't matter - it's enough that he looks and acts like one.
If you don't want to be called a duck, then you'd better not quack.
If you want to be respected as a member here, lumpy, you have to act like a member here. That means toning down the rhetoric and name-calling.* Ease into this community slowly, get involved in some of the other threads. Quit trying to bash us over the head with your beliefs. Go browse through the forums at democraticunderground.com and get a feel for what kind of dialog they engage in. Then studiously avoid using that sort of speech and behavior here. The ad hominems, personal attacks, one-liners, and shallow sound-bite arguments you find at DU are exactly what we do not tolerate here.
We expect and demand a higher grade of discourse here at APS.
* I respect the fact that we've engaged in a fair bit of name-calling too. Such is uncharacteristic for us, and we'll generally apologize if it turns out we're in the wrong. If you establish yourself as a sincere new member, and not yet another troll, then you'll get your fair share of apologies. Fair enough?
Post by: lumpy on November 02, 2006, 04:00:40 PM
Quote
Let me clarify my meaning. If you were a troll you would eventually melt down and show who you are.
If you are a sincere leftist then I suspect you will hang around and join the discussions around here.
If you are a sincere leftist then I suspect you will hang around and join the discussions around here.
thank you for the clarification. I'm old... and I'm not melted down yet (the glue factory still has the doors open though).
Quote
The membership is understandably leery of these trolls, as our loose restrictions and lack of registration makes us an easy target. So lumpy has no right to gripe about being labeled a troll. Whether he is in fact a Blackburn-type troll or not doesn't matter - it's enough that he looks and acts like one.
If you don't want to be called a duck, then you'd better not quack.
If you want to be respected as a member here, lumpy, you have to act like a member here. That means toning down the rhetoric and name-calling.* Ease into this community slowly, get involved in some of the other threads. Quit trying to bash us over the head with your beliefs. Go browse through the forums at democraticunderground.com and get a feel for what kind of dialog they engage in. Then studiously avoid using that sort of speech and behavior here. The ad hominems, personal attacks, one-liners, and shallow sound-bite arguments you find at DU are exactly what we do not tolerate here.
We expect and demand a higher grade of discourse here at APS.
If you don't want to be called a duck, then you'd better not quack.
If you want to be respected as a member here, lumpy, you have to act like a member here. That means toning down the rhetoric and name-calling.* Ease into this community slowly, get involved in some of the other threads. Quit trying to bash us over the head with your beliefs. Go browse through the forums at democraticunderground.com and get a feel for what kind of dialog they engage in. Then studiously avoid using that sort of speech and behavior here. The ad hominems, personal attacks, one-liners, and shallow sound-bite arguments you find at DU are exactly what we do not tolerate here.
We expect and demand a higher grade of discourse here at APS.
I wasn't aware that disagreement constituted an attack. I'm certainly in favor of a higher grade of discourse. At the same time when you say "Quit trying to bash us over the head with your beliefs." you imply that you have this board so that you can come here and all discuss how awful anyone who to the left of your views is. I'm not trying to bash anyone with my beliefs... Simply to point out fact. If you don't want that ask me to leave this thread.
Quote
* I respect the fact that we've engaged in a fair bit of name-calling too. Such is uncharacteristic for us, and we'll generally apologize if it turns out we're in the wrong. If you establish yourself as a sincere new member, and not yet another troll, then you'll get your fair share of apologies. Fair enough?
fair enough.
Oddly enough... this troll is off to the range to kill some paper.
Have a nice evening.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 02, 2006, 05:25:58 PM
Quote
I wasn't aware that disagreement constituted an attack.
Much of what you call disagreement comes off as antagonism. You'll have to learn the distinction if you want to be welcomed here.Quote
I'm not trying to bash anyone with my beliefs... Simply to point out fact. If you don't want that ask me to leave this thread.
A goodly portion of what you've posted can't be considered fact. Rhetoric and conjecture would be a more accurate description in most instances. You've posted a lot of quick one-liners, which you expect us to accept as gospel truth. Maybe there are some communities where such remarks can be passed off as legitimate fact or sound reasoning. This isn't one of them.We know the difference between fact, conjecture, logic, emotionalism, and sensationalism. We know all about the various logical fallacies, like ad hominems, straw mans, non sequiturs, ad nauseums, and so forth, and we strive to not tolerate them. We hold ourselves to a high standard of rational debate. This is not DU.
Quote
Oddly enough... this troll is off to the range to kill some paper.
Have a nice evening.
Innit a little late for a range trip? It's 10:00 on the east cost, 7:00 on the west. Anyway, enjoy. Post pics of your best groups when you get back. Have a nice evening.
We're overly prickly about trolls here, and with good reason. If we've mischaracterized you, then we look forward to being proven wrong.
Ciao, baby.
Post by: Guest on November 02, 2006, 05:45:38 PM
Quote
Now I'm not saying that I totally believe that he just screwed up a joke, just that it was my first reaction.
Consider for a moment the audience that he was talking to.
He was speaking to students, students who would soon graduate and face decisions about their careers. Would this joke make any sense at all for these regular everyday students if it was about the president?
Think about it, Kerry was telling these kids that if they screw up they will end up as a bad presidents? Does that joke even make any sense at all in that context?
In fact his little joke makes a lot more sense if one takes it to mean exactly what it says. Kerry has little respect for the members of the armed forces, he has demonstrated it time and again. In his mind it is a clear choice; at one end of the spectrum you have proffessional politicians, and at the other you have the sort of mouth breathers that make up the infantry, this is the world as he sees it.
Post by: Silver Bullet on November 02, 2006, 06:10:45 PM
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/07/blue_state_to_reds/
Here are a few quotes from the letter:
Quote
Here in the Blue States, Democrats and Republicans alike generate the lion's share of America's wealth, although it is you Reds who provide the lion's share of the stoop labor. You are our Mexicans, so to speak.
Quote
We do cocaine and smoke fine Canadian buds, not the homebrew crank and cheap Mexican headache reefer you guys are stuck with.
Quote
President Kerry would have helped us to help you, which is all that we ask. It pains us to see you in wage slavery. It pains us to see you so ignorant and uneducated, and so eager to place yourselves in bondage. Yes, we live better; but we wish you to live better too, even if it means sacrifice on our part.
Dont read this on a full stomach.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 02, 2006, 06:17:54 PM
Quote
Zeke gets special treatment from me for dissing the troops. He seems to have taken it in stride, he is more of a man than John F Kerry, Kerry ran from what he said, Zeke didn't. What Kerry meant and what he said are two different things apparently.
You know, it's not too hard to take that as a compliment.
Truthfully? I think most of our troops are mindless, uneducated, boot-camp brainwashed automatons who adhere to a ridiculous foreign policy, regardless of their intelligent observation, based upon outmoded concepts of honoring those who issued the order. (Have you found the order givers to be terribly honorable in recent memory?)
That doesn't make me elitist, it makes me practical.
[sigh] The infantry (and others) ARE "mouth breathers," if they continue to lie down, adhere to a code that has forgotton them, and acquiesce to a concept of leadership that has sold them out. In sum, pawns.
The military is codified Socialism, and the final vestige for those who cannot hack Capitalism.
Folks who volunteer for such are even more lost: they actually think they're helping our needs.
Post by: doczinn on November 02, 2006, 06:22:04 PM
Quote
I think most of our troops are mindless, uneducated, boot-camp brainwashed automatons...That doesn't make me elitist, it makes me practical.
No, it makes you igorant.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 02, 2006, 06:23:52 PM
Quote
Did you happen to read any of Ezekiel's posts to this thread before you started casting aspersions on all of us? I don't know his political affiliation, but I have heard and read many, many similar comments from leftists. I.e., Pat Tillman was stupid to go into the military, etc.
I would certainly say that his death, from friendly fire was, essentially, meaningless.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 02, 2006, 06:25:54 PM
Quote
I think most of our troops are mindless, uneducated, boot-camp brainwashed automatons...That doesn't make me elitist, it makes me practical.
No, it makes you igorant.Not even close, friend.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 02, 2006, 06:27:08 PM
Quote
Did you happen to read any of Ezekiel's posts to this thread before you started casting aspersions on all of us? I don't know his political affiliation, but I have heard and read many, many similar comments from leftists. I.e., Pat Tillman was stupid to go into the military, etc.
I would certainly say that his death, from friendly fire was, essentially, meaningless.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 02, 2006, 06:32:03 PM
Quote
Did you happen to read any of Ezekiel's posts to this thread before you started casting aspersions on all of us? I don't know his political affiliation, but I have heard and read many, many similar comments from leftists. I.e., Pat Tillman was stupid to go into the military, etc.
I would certainly say that his death, from friendly fire was, essentially, meaningless.
Respectfully, that would be called "staying out of land wars in Asia."
I'd quote The Princess Bride, except this has been true for eons.
Same theory for Vietnam, although this is not the same "war."
Post by: doczinn on November 02, 2006, 06:35:23 PM
Military members either agree with the foreign policy or they don't. To you, if they disagree, they should desert, or mutiny. If they don't, they're morons. And if they agree, they're morons, because only morons could disagree with you. Is that about it?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 02, 2006, 06:37:49 PM
Quote
I think most of our troops are mindless, uneducated, boot-camp brainwashed automatons...That doesn't make me elitist, it makes me practical.
No, it makes you igorant.Not even close, friend.
Your premise appears to be that risking your own life for something greater than you is stupid and senseless. It appears that you hold nothing else as being greater or more important than yourself.
All of the soldiers I know are soldiers because they take as their premise the fact that the United States of America is a great and noble thing, and well worth protecting. They believe this so thoroughly that they're willing to place themselves into a position of somewhat increased personal risk, in exchange for ensuring that that great and noble thing is well protected.
Both you and they are acting rationally, but based upon different motives. You might be able to make a point that their motives are skewed, but not that they are behaving stupidly or impractically. Simply put, they aren't.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 02, 2006, 06:38:49 PM
Quote
Did you happen to read any of Ezekiel's posts to this thread before you started casting aspersions on all of us? I don't know his political affiliation, but I have heard and read many, many similar comments from leftists. I.e., Pat Tillman was stupid to go into the military, etc.
I would certainly say that his death, from friendly fire was, essentially, meaningless.
Respectfully, that would be called "staying out of land wars in Asia."
Post by: Ezekiel on November 02, 2006, 06:44:57 PM
Ezekiel, you're showing quite clearly that you know nothing at all about the military, or any of its members.
I used to reside in Leavenworth, KS. My focus group, retired or no, is not terribly impressive. Further, the liquored up Captains I've spoken with who were attending the local "advanced" school were about as intelligent as seaweed. I've seen the supposed "leading class." They're morons.
Military members either agree with the foreign policy or they don't. To you, if they disagree, they should desert, or mutiny. If they don't, they're morons. And if they agree, they're morons, because only morons could disagree with you. Is that about it?
Excellently done twist!
Yes, they're morons, I said it above. I won't be gleeful at their Nationalist, uber-patriotic, short-sighted and naive failure: I'll just suffer from it, as will all Americans.
This job is BOTCHED. It was a poor choice to begin with.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 02, 2006, 06:46:33 PM
Quote
Your premise appears to be that risking your own life for something greater than you is stupid and senseless.
If it is done in a poorly strategized and ineffecient manner -- or is stupid to begin with -- "you bet."
Sorry.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 02, 2006, 06:48:39 PM
Do you consider it stupid or foolish to place yourself at risk for something that truly is greater than yourself?
Post by: Dannyboy on November 02, 2006, 06:48:49 PM
Why the Democrats should have told John Kerry: 'Don't mention the war'
Gerard Baker
In John Frankenheimer's original, electrifying 1962 thriller, The Manchurian Candidate, an American soldier is captured by communists during the Korean War, brainwashed and programmed to return to the United States and, years later, to assassinate a presidential candidate.
There is compelling evidence now that John Kerry is a kind of Manchurian Candidate of Democratic politics. It seems entirely possible that at some point in his career, he was seized by a youthful Karl Rove, brainwashed and programmed to kill off, at crucial moments in American history, the Democratic partys political prospects.
*
The clues were there all along, if wed only looked closely enough. His curious combination of self-satisfied superiority and baffled indecisiveness was obviously too contradictory a mental characteristic to be natural. His ponderous oratorical style and studied condescension suggested something artificial had interfered with the firing of the synapses.
But the plot worked brilliantly. In 2004, as the partys presidential candidate, Mr Kerry contrived to throw away a golden opportunity for a Democratic victory against an increasingly unpopular incumbent fighting an increasingly unpopular war.
Startlingly, this week, with the Democrats on the brink of their first clear victory in congressional elections for 14 years, the Manchurian Candidate seized a rare second chance to assassinate his party. Speaking to a crowd of students in California, Mr Kerry mused on the importance of education: If you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you dont, you get stuck in Iraq.
Now it is entirely plausible that Mr Kerry did not mean to insult the intelligence and diligence of all who serve in the US military, and that he was merely bungling a rather predictable joke about President Bushs supposed intellectual shortcomings.
But the ambiguity of the remark, coupled with the Massachusetts senator having a bit of form when it comes to making demeaning remarks about American soldiers, was unfortunate to say the least. Whatever Americans think of the war in Iraq, they harbour a deep respect for their men and women in uniform. The clumsy gaffe clearly required an urgent clarification and an apology.
But the Republicans most effective secret weapon since Michael Dukakis put on an ill-fitting helmet in a TV commercial and lost an 18-point lead in the 1988 presidential election was not about to let the Democrats off the hook that lightly.
He initially wheedled, refusing to apologise, and rounded instead on his critics. In the process he managed to drag out a no-win story for the Democrats for an improbable two days of news cycles until eventually forced to issue a proper retraction.
Its still not clear how effective the latest Kerry intervention will be. The senator himself is not running for office in Tuesdays elections and so this time, Democrats felt free to walk quickly away from the wreckage of their former leaders self-destruction.
But the incident has shone a rare spotlight, in this critical midterm election campaign, on the Democratic Party. The reason it received so much attention, and so alarmed Democrats, is that it threatened to undermine the partys entire strategy for taking control of Congress.
Since the election battle was joined months ago, the Democratic approach has been to keep the attention on the Republican Party. As long as the election is about the unpopular President Bush and his fellow Republicans in congress, voters are inevitably much more likely to vote against them. When a party has dominated, as the Republicans have done for the past six years, the debate focuses on their shortcomings, which are not in short supply.
But elections also require voters to choose between alternatives, and Democrats have been extremely anxious not to talk about what they will do if they win on Tuesday. Other than a few old commitments to raising the minimum wage and re-examining tax cuts, there is no 2006 Democratic equivalent of the Contract with America that Republicans brought to Washington when they won control of Congress in 1994.
This is partly because the notoriously fractious Democrats cant really agree on much. On Iraq, the issue most likely to persuade voters to choose them, Democrat policies cover the entire spectrum of possible choices. Some want US troops out immediately. Others back Mr Bushs stay the course approach. Some of the partys foreign policy leaders back a plan to partition Iraq into three states. Others have described the idea as suicidal .
More generally on national security the party is split deeply. On the one hand a growing and vociferous band of radical progressives wants to reconnect with their inner peaceniks from the 1960s and join hands with European lefties in calling for an end to the abuses of American power. On the other, hawks such as Hillary Clinton have criticised Mr Bush at times for being too soft on Iran and contracting out US diplomacy to Europe.
Democrats are also unwilling to show their hand because it may scare the voters. They have moved sharply to the left since Bill Clintons new Democrats won in the 1990s. Anger and resentment at Mr Bushs brand of conservatism have curdled inside their party to a point where many of its activists no longer care about reaching the middle ground.
The partys leaders, such as Nancy Pelosi, who will become Speaker of the House is among the most left-wing of House Democrats. On economics, the party has abandoned Clintonian pragmatism for naked populism.
The glimpse of Democratic leadership afforded by Mr Kerrys intervention probably came too late to deprive the party of a majority in at least one and possibly both Houses of Congress next week. But as Democrats prepare the celebrations most of them know that their problems are just beginning.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2435145,00.html
Post by: Ezekiel on November 02, 2006, 06:51:00 PM
Set aside your impressions of the current war for a moment.
Do you consider it stupid or foolish to place yourself at risk for something that truly is greater than yourself?
Do you consider it stupid or foolish to place yourself at risk for something that truly is greater than yourself?
Excellent query, and I shall answer (you have my respect) with absolute honesty.
"Of course not."
But you're trying to set me up for the "if then, how then?' argument and I am not biting.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 02, 2006, 06:56:16 PM
Quote
The partys leaders, such as Nancy Pelosi, who will become Speaker of the House is among the most left-wing of House Democrats. On economics, the party has abandoned Clintonian pragmatism for naked populism.
Speaking of Nancy Pelosi, where's she been for the past few weeks? You'd think that the woman poised to become our next House Speaker would be making public appearances at every available opportunity. By rights, she should have her face plastered on every TV screen cost to cost, and her voice blathering from every radio nationwide. Yet ol' Nancy has been downright shy, nay, antisocial for the past few weeks. Hmm...
Whatever the Democratic leadership did to keep her hidden and quiet, it's working. They should have also done it to Kerry.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 02, 2006, 06:57:04 PM
Set aside your impressions of the current war for a moment.
Do you consider it stupid or foolish to place yourself at risk for something that truly is greater than yourself?
Do you consider it stupid or foolish to place yourself at risk for something that truly is greater than yourself?
Excellent query, and I shall answer (you have my respect) with absolute honesty.
"Of course not."
But you're trying to set me up for the "if then, how then?' argument and I am not biting.
I'm not trying to set you up for anything. I'm genuinely curious, because I find it unusual that there would be nothing at all, ever, that you'd take a risk over. I've never truly met a person like that.
Post by: doczinn on November 02, 2006, 06:59:56 PM
Post by: Ezekiel on November 02, 2006, 07:06:10 PM
Set aside your impressions of the current war for a moment.
Do you consider it stupid or foolish to place yourself at risk for something that truly is greater than yourself?
Do you consider it stupid or foolish to place yourself at risk for something that truly is greater than yourself?
Excellent query, and I shall answer (you have my respect) with absolute honesty.
"Of course not."
But you're trying to set me up for the "if then, how then?' argument and I am not biting.
I'm not trying to set you up for anything. I'm genuinely curious, because I find it unusual that there would be nothing at all, ever, that you'd take a risk over. I've never truly met a person like that.
Certainly there are conditions where you and I would be arm-in-arm against ANYTHING.
Our ongoing cluster in Asia is, decidedly, not it. That's akin to jumping into the North Atlantic after the Titanic because America believes manpower will save the ship. It won't. Failed strategy, clustered mission, asinine adherence.
In addition, mainstream America thinks doing so is idiotic.
Enough reasons yet?
Post by: Ezekiel on November 02, 2006, 07:07:00 PM
Ezekiel, your self-description fits you perfectly.
I try not to hide, friend.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 02, 2006, 07:15:54 PM
That's all I was trying to get at. I had made that inference from the beginning, but I wanted to hear confirmed.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 03, 2006, 02:47:26 AM
I suppose we've established what I wanted to establish. That is, your hold a low opinion of our servicemen because they're in a position where they'll have to fight wars you don't agree with. So be it.
That's all I was trying to get at. I had made that inference from the beginning, but I wanted to hear confirmed.
That's all I was trying to get at. I had made that inference from the beginning, but I wanted to hear confirmed.
And that's all we need to hear of Ezekiel's opinion. I don't think he has anything further to add. His experience with, what, a dozen captains in one military installation tells him that all servicemen are dumb as rocks. He is entitled to that opinion. No need to debate further.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 03, 2006, 02:57:36 AM
Quote
That is, your hold a low opinion of our servicemen because they're in a position where they'll have to fight wars you don't agree with.
Actually, I have issues that they willingly accept such a position. (It's the same thing that created Wounded Knee, Mai Lai and our recent issues in Iraqi prisons.)
If the mission is bad or immoral, have the common decency -- isn't that who these supposed "patriots" are supposed to be? -- to attack the appropriate targets (leadership), not follow orders like automatons (which they do). We didn't allow such a defense at Nurembourg (sp?), nor should we now.
In addition, I hold a, generally, low opinion because the military, often, represents the Lowest Common American Denominator (LCAD) of education, opportunity and success. Indicating that ~88% of personnel have a high school diploma or GED is not comforting.
The obvious counter is, "that's better than open society."
That's crap. When was the last time you held society up as righteous?
Post by: doczinn on November 03, 2006, 05:23:45 AM
Quote
The obvious counter is, "that's better than open society."
That's crap. When was the last time you held society up as righteous?
It's still better than the rest of society, which still makes your characterization of the miitary as the least-educated sector of society just plain wrong.That's crap. When was the last time you held society up as righteous?
There are a few MOS's into which someone with low education and intelligence can enter, eg the infantry, and even in those will never rise very high.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 03, 2006, 06:04:30 AM
Quote
That is, your hold a low opinion of our servicemen because they're in a position where they'll have to fight wars you don't agree with.
Actually, I have issues that they willingly accept such a position. (It's the same thing that created Wounded Knee, Mai Lai and our recent issues in Iraqi prisons.)
If the mission is bad or immoral, have the common decency -- isn't that who these supposed "patriots" are supposed to be? -- to attack the appropriate targets (leadership), not follow orders like automatons (which they do). We didn't allow such a defense at Nurembourg (sp?), nor should we now.
In addition, I hold a, generally, low opinion because the military, often, represents the Lowest Common American Denominator (LCAD) of education, opportunity and success. Indicating that ~88% of personnel have a high school diploma or GED is not comforting.
The obvious counter is, "that's better than open society."
That's crap. When was the last time you held society up as righteous?
The only times when our soldiers have acted illegally (which is statistically infrequent for an organization of this size and scope) is when an individual or very small group of individuals have acted outside their authority and against their orders.
I say it's remarkable that the military exceeds societal averages. I might expect more of the military if the Pentagon had a stockpile of superhuman Americans hidden away somewhere from which to build its armies. But expecting anything of that sort is irrational.
You can't possibly hold up society on average as being inferior. It isn't and it can't be. Inferior compared to what? To itself? Half of society will fall below the average. Faulting society for that inescapable mathematical reality is senseless.
Post by: lumpy on November 03, 2006, 06:21:05 AM
Ezekial :
Quote
Failed strategy, clustered mission
Hmmm... that seems to be about the only thing we'd agree on. that said... I'm a little offended that I got somehow stuck in the same category as you. You certainly prove that there are enough lunatics to go around for everyone.
Your description of our military obviously comes from a position of ignorance. Ironically I come from a military family and most of our circle of friends (retired officers) agree that this is a failed strategy and clustered mission... but unlike you, they actually have the intelligence understand the need for a military that isn't political. Now if only our current administration had the same understanding...
Quote
Indicating that ~88% of personnel have a high school diploma or GED is not comforting.
Of course you ignore that most join the Army at 18.
So... why the hell are you guys even responding to this guy?
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 03, 2006, 07:49:43 AM
Ezekiel,
I don't intend to judge your entire character from my shallow knowledge of you, but it seems you don't understand citizenship. Even in a representative republic with rights and freedoms, we don't get to individually decide whether this nation will or will not fight a war. Those with a higher sense of duty than you or I have enlisted because they want to make that war work. Or because they want to share the burden that others will have to bear, regardless of political opinions. You claim our strategy is failed, and I wonder how you could know. I submit it is a function of who you listen to and how much credibility you grant to them. For the sake of argument, perhaps they're right. But declining to serve in the military due to that belief is like self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course we will lose if no one will fight. Of course we will lose if soldiers desert in droves and other soldiers are influenced by that to do the same.
Intelligence is not something that fits on a linear scale, (IQ measurements notwithstanding) that you can easily measure in a drunken conversation. Whether a few military officers seem intelligent to someone in a completely different line of work is not an indication of how well they can fight or strategize against an enemy. I would guess that, like most people, you don't have much training or experience in military science. Nor do I. So perhaps we should be careful in judging what strategy would have been more successful in Iraq or in the War on Terror in general.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 03, 2006, 08:02:50 AM
So... why the hell are you guys even responding to this guy?
There's always at least one thing I can agree with someone on.
I dont see the point of giving Ezekiel any further platform. He's made his views known. I appreciate the comments that serving in the military does not mean being able to second-guess orders, strategy, or policy.
Is there anything else that needs to be said?
Post by: lumpy on November 03, 2006, 08:23:34 AM
Quote
There's always at least one thing I can agree with someone on.
that deserves a beer.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 03, 2006, 08:32:36 AM
Quote
Of course you ignore that most join the Army at 18.
Typically, they do so because they have no other options, or marketable skills, beyond their youth and naivete. Decidedly not an uplifting picture.Quote
I don't intend to judge your entire character from my shallow knowledge of you, but it seems you don't understand citizenship. Even in a representative republic with rights and freedoms, we don't get to individually decide whether this nation will or will not fight a war.
I have a reasonable understanding of my rights and responsibilities, cannon fodder in the name of Draconian occupation is not one of them. As for deciding individually whether this nation should fight a war, last check indicated to me that -- collectively -- most citizens consider this a bad idea, a botched operation and a raging cluster with no end. I don't think such a position can be marginalized as individual.
Quote
Whether a few military officers seem intelligent to someone in a completely different line of work is not an indication of how well they can fight or strategize against an enemy.
Perhaps true, but said bezerkers certainly have no further standing then any of us as to WHETHER they should be fighting or strategizing against an "enemy." There's, also, the current record of suckage that undermines their supposed intelligence: the best we'll possibly get out of this is a Korea-esque diplomatic stalemate. (Which means we lost.)
Quote
So perhaps we should be careful in judging what strategy would have been more successful in Iraq or in the War on Terror in general.
Beyond, of course, determining whether we should continue down the money pit.Quote
I dont see the point of giving Ezekiel any further platform.
"Sorry."
Quote
I appreciate the comments that serving in the military does not mean being able to second-guess orders, strategy, or policy.
I don't. Frankly, as a leader, I think it is the definitive duty to second guess, point out alternatives, and actually think.
Quote
Is there anything else that needs to be said?
That's up to you.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 03, 2006, 09:15:13 AM
Quote
I have a reasonable understanding of my rights and responsibilities, cannon fodder in the name of Draconian occupation is not one of them. As for deciding individually whether this nation should fight a war, last check indicated to me that -- collectively -- most citizens consider this a bad idea, a botched operation and a raging cluster with no end. I don't think such a position can be marginalized as individual.
I'm not marginalizing it, I'm saying that it has been decided against by the people. Whatever polls may tell you, the people have elected the officials that decided to invade Iraq. The people returned George Bush to office even after people like yourself started calling it a "Draconian occupation" 
and a quagmire. Quote
Perhaps true, but said bezerkers certainly have no further standing then any of us as to WHETHER they should be fighting or strategizing against an "enemy." There's, also, the current record of suckage that undermines their supposed intelligence: the best we'll possibly get out of this is a Korea-esque diplomatic stalemate. (Which means we lost.)
Now, Ezekiel, you're confusing yourself. Captains at Fort Sill are at the third rung of their military careers. They do not decide whether we fight. Further, they do not decide strategy within country. I thought your side of the question were the ones claiming that the top leadership had botched things by refusing to listen to subordinates with good suggestions. Captains would be the subordinates in this case. And just what do you think a berzerker is?Your intelligence isn't shining in this thread, should I make a snap judgement about your wits as you did with these guys relaxing in a bar?
Quote
Truthfully? I think most of our troops are mindless, uneducated, boot-camp brainwashed automatons who adhere to a ridiculous foreign policy, regardless of their intelligent observation, based upon outmoded concepts of honoring those who issued the order. (Have you found the order givers to be terribly honorable in recent memory?)
Mindless? How would you know? Brainwashed? Please. Do you expect anyone to take that seriously? Again, you don't understand citizenship. Soldiers do not adhere to foreign policy, they follow orders, just like you follow orders when you have a civilian job. Do you really think underlings in an organization should individually decide what overall course the organization should follow? And you want to be a city manager, don't you?
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 03, 2006, 09:16:09 AM
You got beef with the system, phone your congressmen. Otherwise, you are suggesting a military coup d'etat against disagreeable policies by the civilian leadership. Just so that we are clear what we are talking about.
Soldiers that are in Iraq now are there for their country and the flag. They are not there because they agree with the policies that sent them there.
Whether you yourself want to serve or not is irrelevant. You certainly do not want to work in all professions out there, but you make use of the products and services others provide through their professions. Why is the military any different?
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 03, 2006, 09:31:27 AM
Quote
[sigh] The infantry (and others) ARE "mouth breathers," if they continue to lie down, adhere to a code that has forgotton them, and acquiesce to a concept of leadership that has sold them out. In sum, pawns.
The military is codified Socialism, and the final vestige for those who cannot hack Capitalism.
The military is codified Socialism, and the final vestige for those who cannot hack Capitalism.
There are military veterans and reservists that own their own companies. The military is a job like any other. It is no more socialist than McDonalds. Would you prefer we employ mercenary companies that fight at their own whim? Come to think of it, that sounds more like Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Sir, I was an infantryman. And I would go right now, if required. My military contract expired last year. I was planning to get married. Just about two months out, I was suddenly faced with a possible stop-loss that would have sent me to Iraq and kept me in the military for at least another 18-24 months. Did I make the slightest effort to beg my way out? No. I would have gone. As it is, I am not much of a soldier, so they are better off without me.
I suppose I was a mouth-breather when I made A's for the past three semesters. I suppose I was a mouth-breather when I was reading The Log From the Sea of Cortez in the driver's seat of my Bradley. I suppose I was a mouth-breather when I was studying Marx and other Communist revolutionaries. I suppose I was a mouth-breather when I was writing poetry in Bosnia, and reading W.E.B. BuBois. Whatever.
Post by: roo_ster on November 03, 2006, 09:55:02 AM
Careful with that broad brush your using, the pigment could slop all over your own self.
Hmm. If I am a mouth breather, with my record of credentials and accomplishments, how might one classify this? Perhaps The Straight Dope can provide a clue.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 03, 2006, 09:58:37 AM
Quote
First sorry for my rushed response before I was heading out of the office. What I meant was that from the first moment I posted on this board many of you assumed I was a troll (whatever that means)...
I'll tell you what it means. It refers to a person who posts to a board merely with the intention of stirring up emotions and personal attacks. The first response to your first post was agreement. You were not called a troll until you behaved trollishly. In your fourth post, you betrayed your misconception that this board is some kind of Bush-loving, conservative echo chamber. You accused us of a kool-aid-drinking hatefest and right away expected to have your post reported. So, you insulted us as a group, baselessly, with the expectation that you would banned. Trolls do that, especially this Blackburn fellow. It was only after that that I called you a troll. I do not retract the accusation, as your behavior has not changed.
As you can see, most of us find Ezekiel's posts far more offensive. Have we called him a troll?
Post by: doczinn on November 03, 2006, 11:02:42 AM
Quote
Typically, they do so because they have no other options, or marketable skills, beyond their youth and naivete.
Completely, objectively wrong.Quote
As for deciding individually whether this nation should fight a war, last check indicated to me that -- collectively -- most citizens consider this a bad idea, a botched operation and a raging cluster with no end.
So you assert that a soldier is a moron for "blindly" following the policy if the government, and want him to blindly (by an individual decision) follow the much-less-coalesced "public opinion?" Public opinion is expressed through the process which elected George Bush. Approval of the war, like it or not, was expressed by reelecting George Bush. You position, then, regardless of how you try to justify it with twisted logic, is that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.Quote
said bezerkers certainly have no further standing then any of us as to WHETHER they should be fighting or strategizing against an "enemy."
Well said, except for the slur. You admit, then, that military members should not get to decide who the enemy is, or when to fight him? It's very big of you to reverse yourself like that.
Post by: JonnyB on November 03, 2006, 11:10:41 AM
Did anyone mention that the troops are from the Minnesota National Guard? 1/34th Infantry - Go Red Bull!
Rumor has it that everyone in the photo has at least one college degree! I can't substantiate that, though.
My son is in Fallujah; he has a degree in Construction Management and was employed as a project manager before being activated.
jb
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 03, 2006, 11:14:22 AM
So, even if you think they've made some bad choices and are misled in certain matters, you must allow the possibility that some of those people wearing the uniform in Iraq are smarter than any of us. And I'm willing to admit there are some hardened, gun-hating leftists who are smarter than I am. Or at least smarter than you.
Post by: lumpy on November 03, 2006, 11:33:54 AM
Quote
You were not called a troll until you behaved trollishly. In your fourth post, you betrayed your misconception that this board is some kind of Bush-loving, conservative echo chamber. You accused us of a kool-aid-drinking hatefest and right away expected to have your post reported.
Hmmm... are you ignoring the context? My third post was about how many of you seem to focus on Kerry because it's politically more expedient than focusing on the actual candidates and issues. Many of you use Kerry to throw a broad blanket on all democrats, as you implied and stated all over this board.
As far as my use of the term neocon... you seem to take that as some sort of slander... the terms roots are conservative, not liberal and the term was coined originally by conservatives. the fact that many neocons run from the term today is a testament to the current state of political discourse. To many on your side the term 'liberal' is a slander to those of us on the left... actually I think much of the problem today is that the democrats are to PC to stand up and proudly accept that term. I am a liberal and I don't have any issues with that. Those that support Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Bush support neo conservative values... the fact that many on the right find it derogatory is unfortunate and very telling.
as far as my fourth post... you ignored what I was responding to...
Quote
Congratulations, Lumpy. You fooled me. It took me a second to realize that even YOU don't really believe it was "obvious Bush joke."
So, are you going to keep being distracted, or are you going to start a thread on the Iraq war, the VA, etc.? Why are you in this thread, anyway?
So, are you going to keep being distracted, or are you going to start a thread on the Iraq war, the VA, etc.? Why are you in this thread, anyway?
I was talking about Kerry and you suggested I leave. I was talking about Kerry and you made the same error I did with you which was to make assumptions about me. I apologized for that and will do so again... but again... I have been on topic thoughout my postings with the ocassional off topic remark to respond to a poster. In fact I was the one that posted Kerry's prepared text... I was the one that posted his comments in context. Again... if I posted anything as fact and am incorrect I would appreciate it being pointed out to me.
If the purpose of this board is to simply tell each other how much you hate Kerry and to not have debate, discussion or facts then let me know and I'm gone. If I make you uncomfortable maybe you need to look at what it is that makes you uncomfortable and address that, not suggest that I leave, or that I'm behaving as a troll.
Post by: lumpy on November 03, 2006, 11:41:41 AM
Quote
In an interview with KABC shortly after he was accused of having an affair with a gay prostitute and using methamphetamines, Evangelical leader Rev. Ted Haggard denied claims about him made by a male prostitute.
During his appearance, which may be heard below, Haggard compares his sex scandal to the calls on Senator Kerry to apologize for "botching" a joke about the Iraq war.
"We live in a crazy world," Rev. Haggard said, "as you know, John Kerry said some things and we all know he didn't mean what they're saying he meant."
On air, Haggard denied knowing accuser Mike Jones, having ever had gay sex or using any type of illegal drug. It has since been reported that he admitted to his overseers at New Life Church that some of the accusations against him were true.
During his appearance, which may be heard below, Haggard compares his sex scandal to the calls on Senator Kerry to apologize for "botching" a joke about the Iraq war.
"We live in a crazy world," Rev. Haggard said, "as you know, John Kerry said some things and we all know he didn't mean what they're saying he meant."
On air, Haggard denied knowing accuser Mike Jones, having ever had gay sex or using any type of illegal drug. It has since been reported that he admitted to his overseers at New Life Church that some of the accusations against him were true.
Apparently even republican anti-gay, allegedly gay, evangelicals understand what Kerry meant.
Post by: Ron on November 03, 2006, 12:27:55 PM
Being a conservative and being familiar with JFKerry over the years it is not a stretch for me to believe he is once again denigrating the troops. He has done it on a regular basis.
The Democrats/progressives/liberals don't want to think the worst of JFKerry, they accept his explanation at face value, they believe the best of him.
I look at what he said. Maybe he didn't mean what he said, I'm not so sure.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 03, 2006, 12:37:21 PM
Zeke, I think you have a bigger problem in that you imply that no intelligent, free-thinking person would believe in the Iraqi war. That is, flatly and objectively, untrue. If you wish to possess any intellectual honesty, you will have to face the fact that intelligent, well-informed people disagree on major issues, such as Iraq. You must further accept that some people much smarter than you or I have done things that completely contradicted their material well-being.
So, even if you think they've made some bad choices and are misled in certain matters, you must allow the possibility that some of those people wearing the uniform in Iraq are smarter than any of us. And I'm willing to admit there are some hardened, gun-hating leftists who are smarter than I am. Or at least smarter than you.
So, even if you think they've made some bad choices and are misled in certain matters, you must allow the possibility that some of those people wearing the uniform in Iraq are smarter than any of us. And I'm willing to admit there are some hardened, gun-hating leftists who are smarter than I am. Or at least smarter than you.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 03, 2006, 12:39:17 PM
Hmm. If I am a mouth breather, with my record of credentials and accomplishments, how might one classify this?
Searching for that opportunity I believe in. That's, actually, quite difficult to do these days. Ugh!
Post by: lumpy on November 03, 2006, 01:59:12 PM
Quote
Being a conservative and being familiar with JFKerry over the years it is not a stretch for me to believe he is once again denigrating the troops.
while, given the evidence, I have to disagree with your position. All that aside, I'd have to ask... even if you think he denigrated the troops, what does that have to do with anything other than Kerry is an idiot. Do you believe that Kerry speaks for me?
My position on this board has consistently been that this has allowed the republicans to focus on a non-issues and keep the focus off their losing issues Iraq, ethics, spending, stem cell... it's apparently worked great for the right to run on the fact that Kerry is an idiot who is not running, rather than their own record.
By the way... on the stem cell issue... the reason researcher are excited about embryonic stem cells is that they can develop into anything. They offer the promise of a more diverse range of health solutions than Adult stem cells.
Quote
Embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells, which come from the inner cell mass of a human embryo, have the potential to develop into all or nearly all of the tissues in the body. The scientific term for this characteristic is "pluripotentiality."
Adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are unspecialized, can renew themselves, and can become specialized to yield all of the cell types of the tissue from which they originate. Although scientists believe that some adult stem cells from one tissue can develop into cells of another tissue, no adult stem cell has been shown in culture to be pluripotent.
The potential of embryonic stem cell research. Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cell research may eventually lead to therapies that could be used to treat diseases that afflict approximately 128 million Americans. Treatments may include replacing destroyed dopamine-secreting neurons in a Parkinson's patient's brain; transplanting insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells in diabetic patients; and infusing cardiac muscle cells in a heart damaged by myocardial infarction. Embryonic stem cells may also be used to understand basic biology and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medicines.
Adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are unspecialized, can renew themselves, and can become specialized to yield all of the cell types of the tissue from which they originate. Although scientists believe that some adult stem cells from one tissue can develop into cells of another tissue, no adult stem cell has been shown in culture to be pluripotent.
The potential of embryonic stem cell research. Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cell research may eventually lead to therapies that could be used to treat diseases that afflict approximately 128 million Americans. Treatments may include replacing destroyed dopamine-secreting neurons in a Parkinson's patient's brain; transplanting insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells in diabetic patients; and infusing cardiac muscle cells in a heart damaged by myocardial infarction. Embryonic stem cells may also be used to understand basic biology and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medicines.
btw; source for the above...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html
Post by: Ron on November 03, 2006, 02:14:50 PM
Quote
what does that have to do with anything other than Kerry is an idiot
Being the most recent Democratic nominee for President he is the standard bearer of the party and a reflection of it also IMHO.
How is that not germane?
Where does he differ with his party on issues concerning the WOT/Iraq?
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 03, 2006, 02:44:44 PM
as far as my fourth post... you ignored what I was responding to...
I was talking about Kerry and you suggested I leave. I was talking about Kerry and you made the same error I did with you which was to make assumptions about me. I apologized for that and will do so again... but again... I have been on topic thoughout my postings with the ocassional off topic remark to respond to a poster. In fact I was the one that posted Kerry's prepared text... I was the one that posted his comments in context. Again... if I posted anything as fact and am incorrect I would appreciate it being pointed out to me.
Quote
Congratulations, Lumpy. You fooled me. It took me a second to realize that even YOU don't really believe it was "obvious Bush joke." So, are you going to keep being distracted, or are you going to start a thread on the Iraq war, the VA, etc.? Why are you in this thread, anyway?
I was talking about Kerry and you suggested I leave. I was talking about Kerry and you made the same error I did with you which was to make assumptions about me. I apologized for that and will do so again... but again... I have been on topic thoughout my postings with the ocassional off topic remark to respond to a poster. In fact I was the one that posted Kerry's prepared text... I was the one that posted his comments in context. Again... if I posted anything as fact and am incorrect I would appreciate it being pointed out to me.
I wasn't telling you to leave the board in that post, I was suggesting that it is silly to complain that Kerry is a distraction, yet continue to post in a thread about Kerry. Are you aware there are other threads on this board where we're discussing more substantive issues? If none of those are to your liking, you should be able to start one of your own, on any subject which pleases you. I don't know what would get in your way. But as it is, you apparently do find the Kerry gaff worthy of discussion, so you will have to stop ascribing ulterior motives to the rest of us.
I wasn't complaing that you were off-topic. I wouldn't complain about it, because I don't see off-topic as a problem. I do it all the time.
Quote
If the purpose of this board is to simply tell each other how much you hate Kerry and to not have debate, discussion or facts then let me know and I'm gone. If I make you uncomfortable maybe you need to look at what it is that makes you uncomfortable and address that, not suggest that I leave, or that I'm behaving as a troll.
I must confess a weakness of mine. I get very angry when confronted with rhetorical tricks like the above. That is, the charge that I am the one with the problem, because I am allegedly "uncomfortable" with what you have said. Lumpy, I ain't uncomfortable. I just have developed a low tolerance for people that come into one of the finer venues for real discussion on the internets and slander it as some kind of amen chorus for the current President or for conservatism in general. And that, apparently, without the slightest effort to see what else is being said around here. If you don't want to be called a troll, please don't act that way.
You don't need to educate me on "neo-con." I often see it as a slander because that is usually how it is used on the net, as another word for far-right-winger. In your case, I saw it is a sign of left-wing paranoia and fear-mongering.
Post by: lumpy on November 03, 2006, 03:53:35 PM
Quote
Being the most recent Democratic nominee for President he is the standard bearer of the party and a reflection of it also IMHO.
Like Kerry, I think Bush is an idiot, but I don't judge republicans as idiots.
Post by: French G. on November 03, 2006, 04:15:52 PM
Quote
If the mission is bad or immoral, have the common decency -- isn't that who these supposed "patriots" are supposed to be? -- to attack the appropriate targets (leadership), not follow orders like automatons (which they do). We didn't allow such a defense at Nurembourg (sp?), nor should we now.
In addition, I hold a, generally, low opinion because the military, often, represents the Lowest Common American Denominator (LCAD) of education, opportunity and success. Indicating that ~88% of personnel have a high school diploma or GED is not comforting.
In addition, I hold a, generally, low opinion because the military, often, represents the Lowest Common American Denominator (LCAD) of education, opportunity and success. Indicating that ~88% of personnel have a high school diploma or GED is not comforting.
Well, this "supposed patriot" (so nice of you to classify me, you who do not know me) thinks in short you have no idea what goes on in the military. I could go on all night, but I type slow; must be that crappy education that will get me stuck in Irak. Suffice it to say that whenever I lose hope in America I feel better when I look at some of the younger guys that serve with me. Yeah, I know they were all purple haired tattooed freaks before boot camp, but they clean up nice. They work hard when called upon, believe in outmoded crap like constitutional rights, and demonstrate genuine concern for their fellow American uniformed and civilian alike. Some of the best Americans I know are young fellows who worked for me on a green card. They came here, signed up, and have fully bought into the concept of America. Maybe we are the LCD of society, I do not know. But I look outside and see what we came from, and I know the military is keeping alive the ideal Americanism that is dead in a lot of our young.
Follow orders like an automaton? Not hardly, I question everything, mainly it is my job, airplanes generally fly better if you insert right and wrong, facts and careful consideration into the equation rather than "Because I told you so" Follow orders I don't like where it doesn't concern keeping aircraft from falling out of the sky? All the time. However, I have a list of orders over which I will ruin my career.
-Get the ID microchip implanted. Not here yet, but by my guess 2015 it will be. They implant, I walk.
-Being used in a combat/enforcement role against Americans, again I refuse.
-Any attempt of the military to regulate my off-duty use and possession of firearms.
-Any combat orders contrary to the Geneva Convention. (Not likely because I am #1 in the navy, #2 our military takes extraordinary measures to safeguard civilian populations and adhere to the laws of armed conflict)
-Any orders that contradict my Oath. (Support and defend the Constitution...)
I could say a lot more, but I am sure it would not seem intelligent. Maybe instead I will start a thread on building submarines. I know nothing about the subject, but I am sure I can tell you everything one needs to know, since the shipyard workers who build them are generally dirty, alcoholic, high school drop-outs, so I must know more than them right?
Goodnight,
-Supposed Patriot
Post by: lumpy on November 04, 2006, 06:05:21 AM
Quote
I must confess a weakness of mine. I get very angry when confronted with rhetorical tricks like the above. That is, the charge that I am the one with the problem, because I am allegedly "uncomfortable" with what you have said. Lumpy, I ain't uncomfortable. I just have developed a low tolerance for people that come into one of the finer venues for real discussion on the internets and slander it as some kind of amen chorus for the current President or for conservatism in general.
I pointed out the obvious. Kerry was talking about Bush... Yet even Bush seems to take this as an issue and run with it. And apparently even Bush fails to grasp that the 'joke' was about how much of a moron he is and now he needs to try to tell everyone else that the morn was not him... it was the troops. And people fall for that nonsense because it keeps them from talking about the 'uncomfortable' crap.
I have given factual evidence that what Kerry said was aimed at the president. I have simply pointed out that many on this board would like to ignore that because it does not fit into their preconceived package of John Kerry. The fact that you argue that Kerry was idiot for attacking the troops and not just simply having a thread that say has the headline that Kerry is an idiot, is very telling. The facts get in the way of your position on this particular statement.
I'll ask the same questions I asked before that no one ever answered...
Are you outraged that Bush jokes about not finding WMDs?
Are you outraged that Boehner suggest that the 'generals on the ground' and not Rumsfeld are responsible for the problems in Iraq?
Are you outraged that the right cut VA spending?
Are you outraged that your party liked a vet who lost 3 limbs to a OBL supporter?
You tell me that you have a weakness...
Quote
I must confess a weakness of mine. I get very angry when confronted with rhetorical tricks like the above. That is, the charge that I am the one with the problem
if you are unwilling to look at the facts or debate the facts on an on topic discussion... you are the problem.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 04, 2006, 07:17:11 AM
Lumpy, when someone on one side puts his foot in his mouth, the other side WILL capitalize on it. That is simply a part of politics. The left gains from this far more because most of the media is on their side. So, they will have to take their lumps when the right does it as well.
The FACT, if the prepared comments are genuine, is that Kerry planned to make a lame, awkward joke about the President.
The FACT is that, through the same kind of oratorical blunders for which Bush is roundly criticized, Kerry appeared to be saying that stupid, lazy people go into the military.
The FACT is IT WAS NOT AT ALL OBVIOUS that Kerry was talking about Bush, even if one heard the entire speech, as delivered. You earlier tried to claim that the context of the remark was Bush. In actuality, Kerry explicitly changed the subject to education before making the remark. According to the quotation you provided earlier:
Quote
Yesterday I was in the state of Texas as you all know, President Bush used to live there now he lived in a state of denial [cheering]. A state of deception.
Im glad to be here with you, I really am, thank you for the privilege of coming here. Were here to talk about education, but I want to say something before that you know education if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart you can do well. If you dont, you get stuck in Iraq [laughter].
Im glad to be here with you, I really am, thank you for the privilege of coming here. Were here to talk about education, but I want to say something before that you know education if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart you can do well. If you dont, you get stuck in Iraq [laughter].
The FACT is that Kerry is very much to blame, given his position as a Senator, for making a careless comment that insulted troops risking their lives in Iraq. We can give him the benefit of the doubt that he really didn't intend to say it, but he said it nonetheless.
The FACT is that this perceived insult was all the more believable because many leftists, and Kerry in particular, have demeaned our troops in recent decades, especially since the Iraq war began.
Our "preconceived package of John Kerry" is entirely the fault of Mr. Kerry. HE went before Congress in 1972 to make false charges of atrocities against our troops. HE recently accused our servicemen of "terrorizing" Iraqi women and children.
Quote
1. Are you outraged that Bush jokes about not finding WMDs?
2. Are you outraged that Boehner suggest that the 'generals on the ground' and not Rumsfeld are responsible for the problems in Iraq?
3. Are you outraged that the right cut VA spending?
4. Are you outraged that your party liked a vet who lost 3 limbs to a OBL supporter?
2. Are you outraged that Boehner suggest that the 'generals on the ground' and not Rumsfeld are responsible for the problems in Iraq?
3. Are you outraged that the right cut VA spending?
4. Are you outraged that your party liked a vet who lost 3 limbs to a OBL supporter?
1. No. Why should I be? Everyone else does. Why is that not funny? Who is insulted thereby?
2. Boehner did not suggest that. He said, "the fact is the generals on the ground are in charge and he works closely with them and the president." Clearly, he was trying to say that Rumsfeld shares responsibility with the President and the generals in Iraq.
3. I don't know a lot about that issue, and I'm certainly not going to take your word for it. I have an uncle and a grandfather that relied on the VA for medical assistance, so it does matter to me.
4. Again, I don't recall that, so you will have to supply some specifics.
Post by: doczinn on November 04, 2006, 09:28:24 AM
Quote
apparently even Bush fails to grasp that the 'joke' was about how much of a moron he is
It may be that Bush is stupid. Kerry, however, is not the person to point it out, seeing as how he got worse grades than Bush in the same school.
Post by: lumpy on November 04, 2006, 10:34:06 AM
Quote
First of all, Lumpy, you will remain non-credible
Whether I'm credible or not to you does not change the facts of this issue. Obviously if you think I'm a troll... the fact is that in your subjective opinion you think I'm a troll. I could care less.
Quote
The FACT, if the prepared comments are genuine, is that Kerry planned to make a lame, awkward joke about the President.
Hey! we agree on something! does that make you a troll too?
Quote
The FACT is that, through the same kind of oratorical blunders for which Bush is roundly criticized, Kerry appeared to be saying that stupid, lazy people go into the military.
If you only look at that one sentence, then I'd agree again!
Quote
The FACT is IT WAS NOT AT ALL OBVIOUS that Kerry was talking about Bush, even if one heard the entire speech, as delivered. You earlier tried to claim that the context of the remark was Bush. In actuality, Kerry explicitly changed the subject to education before making the remark. According to the quotation you provided earlier:
if you fail to grasp the obvious then of course, you are right... it's not obvious to you. I also provided the actual speech he was trying to read from.
Quote
The FACT is that Kerry is very much to blame, given his position as a Senator, for making a careless comment that insulted troops risking their lives in Iraq. We can give him the benefit of the doubt that he really didn't intend to say it, but he said it nonetheless
Again we agree! trolls unite!
Quote
The FACT is that this perceived insult was all the more believable because many leftists, and Kerry in particular, have demeaned our troops in recent decades, especially since the Iraq war began.
frankly your position is based on the words of a few people but ignores the actions of the right. Let me ask you this... is it honoring our troops to send them to war based on false pretenses? Is it honoring our troops to ask for over $8 billion in cuts to the VA? Is it honoring our troops to send them to war without the best equipment? Is it honoring our troops to make them protect companies that are charging them $45 for a 6pack of coke? Is it honoring olur troops to have no bid contracts to companies which take money away from our military and are making huge profits off this war? Is it honoring our troops when a Senator adds a $250 Million bridge for 50 people in Alaska to a defense appropriation? I could go on with the questions... but I have no credibility, right?
It appears to me that based on everything you've said that it's a FACT to me that you feel that honoring our troops simply means sending them into combat.
Quote
Our "preconceived package of John Kerry" is entirely the fault of Mr. Kerry. HE went before Congress in 1972 to make false charges of atrocities against our troops. HE recently accused our servicemen of "terrorizing" Iraqi women and children.
of course that ignores that he was referring to a specific incidents in which troops were "terrorising" women and children. It is documented by the International Red Cross. If you'd like to read the "offending" transcript for context, you will find it here. It actually gives some great incite into how much Kerry 'hates' our troops.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_120405.pdf
(FYI - edited this section, I had said that the soldiers had been charged with busting into homes... I confused it with a different group of soldiers, my mistake)
Quote
Quote
1. Are you outraged that Bush jokes about not finding WMDs?
2. Are you outraged that Boehner suggest that the 'generals on the ground' and not Rumsfeld are responsible for the problems in Iraq?
3. Are you outraged that the right cut VA spending?
4. Are you outraged that your party likened a vet who lost 3 limbs to a OBL supporter?
1. No. Why should I be? Everyone else does. Why is that not funny? Who is insulted thereby?
2. Boehner did not suggest that. He said, "the fact is the generals on the ground are in charge and he works closely with them and the president." Clearly, he was trying to say that Rumsfeld shares responsibility with the President and the generals in Iraq.
3. I don't know a lot about that issue, and I'm certainly not going to take your word for it. I have an uncle and a grandfather that relied on the VA for medical assistance, so it does matter to me.
4. Again, I don't recall that, so you will have to supply some specifics.
1. Are you outraged that Bush jokes about not finding WMDs?
2. Are you outraged that Boehner suggest that the 'generals on the ground' and not Rumsfeld are responsible for the problems in Iraq?
3. Are you outraged that the right cut VA spending?
4. Are you outraged that your party likened a vet who lost 3 limbs to a OBL supporter?
1. No. Why should I be? Everyone else does. Why is that not funny? Who is insulted thereby?
2. Boehner did not suggest that. He said, "the fact is the generals on the ground are in charge and he works closely with them and the president." Clearly, he was trying to say that Rumsfeld shares responsibility with the President and the generals in Iraq.
3. I don't know a lot about that issue, and I'm certainly not going to take your word for it. I have an uncle and a grandfather that relied on the VA for medical assistance, so it does matter to me.
4. Again, I don't recall that, so you will have to supply some specifics.
I would suggest some light reading might help you, but that aside...
1.) maybe because we sent our troops to Iraq so that the "smoking cloud would not come in the form of a mushroom cloud", because we now have over 2800 dead, who finds it insulting? I'd say about 70% of the american population that thinks the war is a failure and a large percentage of the troops on the ground.
2.) You left off the first line "Rumsfeld is not to blame"
more on that issue...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=10582
3.) here ya go: http://veterans.house.gov/democratic/press/109th/3-17-05budget.htm
more: http://usa.mediamonitors.net/layout/set/print/content/view/full/12861
-----------------
from the WSJ:
The Wall Street Journal reports that "the House Republican leadership took the unusual step of stripping New Jersey Rep. Christopher Smith of his chairmanship of the Veterans Affairs Committee" for pushing "so aggressively for veterans benefits that he at times threatened to oppose their spending plans – and President Bush’s – unless more retiree benefits were included."
The Wall Street Journal attributes the fact that the Republicans haven’t been able to cut more from the VA budget to the work of large veterans’ lobby groups such as the Military Officers Association of America and other veterans groups like American Legion and Vietnam Veterans of America who have consistently blocked cuts and have pushed for expanded programs and spending. Veterans groups have called for expanded VA hospital usage, larger retiree, disability, and survivor benefits, equitable pay for service members and better access to health care and health insurance for retirees and survivors.
------------
of course many of the cuts are a result of the cost of the war, the increase in discretionary spending and the reduction in revenue from the tax breaks asked of the rich for their sacrifice in a "time of war". Just for fun... why don't you give me a list of all the tax cuts that happened during wartime in the history of this country. Given your assumptions that "all the more believable because many leftists, and Kerry in particular, have demeaned our troops in recent decades" One must assume that the leftists are the reason we've had to do these cuts, and increase discretionary spending, right?
Speaking of the cost of the war... I vaguely remember the state department in 3/06 suggesting that the total cost of the war would be $1.5 Billion and "certainly" wouldn't exceed $3B. I could be wrong... but I don't think so.
4.) 2 words, Max Cleland
more words...
from wikipedia...
He was defeated while running for a second term in 2002 by Representative Saxby Chambliss. Voters were perhaps influenced by Chambliss ads which featured Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, ads that Cleland's supporters claim questioned his patriotism.
from Salon.com...
Republicans say the partisan flavor of Cleland's anti-Bush broadsides are easy to explain; he's still stinging from his surprise reelection loss last November. Cleland denies it, but if he were still bitter, it would be easy to see why, considering he was the victim of a now-infamous attack ad, which even some Republicans objected to.
Cleland's opponent, Saxby Chambliss, who sat out Vietnam with a bad knee, aired a spot featuring unflattering pictures of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein ... and Max Cleland. Chambliss charged Cleland, the Vietnam vet amputee, was soft on national security because he'd voted against creating the Homeland Security Act. In truth, Cleland co-wrote the legislation to create the Homeland Security Department, but objected to repeated attempts by the White House to deprive future Homeland Security employees of traditional civil service protection.
Again... I ask you to point out where I've been "factually incorrect" in anything I've posted.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 04, 2006, 01:16:39 PM
Quote
Again... I ask you to point out where I've been "factually incorrect" in anything I've posted.
Factually incorrect with quotation marks? Are you quoting me or someone else? I don't know why you are asking the question, but I will oblige you.My very first response to you was about a factual inaccuracy, and I have repeatedly explained this one. Kerry's remarks may have been intended toward President Bush, but that was by no means obvious. This is an objective fact. You have contradicted it repeatedly. You claim it was obvious, yet your proof is Kerry's prepared speech, which only a few journalists would have already seen when the speech was made. Therefore, the obvious meaning was a jab at the military.
Further, you claim that "neo-cons" are "losing" with regard to spending. The last I knew, neo-conservativism is a foreign policy position which may or may not call for greater spending on domestic social programs. There, you are factually wrong. As you have noted, spending is up.
Quote
The FACT is that, through the same kind of oratorical blunders for which Bush is roundly criticized, Kerry appeared to be saying that stupid, lazy people go into the military.
Quote
If you only look at that one sentence, then I'd agree again!
Again, you're factually wrong. Anyone listening to the whole speech would have thought he was speaking of the troops. The notes for the speech are not as important as the speech itself, and were not as readily available.
Another factual innacuracy would be your statements calling this thread a hatefest. As you were not referring to Ezekiel's posts, you have made a factual error.
Quote
Whether I'm credible or not to you does not change the facts of this issue.
Oooh, profound. Did I claim it did? In fact, I think you're repeating what I've already stated.I'll finish you off when I get to it.
Post by: lumpy on November 04, 2006, 03:40:37 PM
Quote
A particular member remains non-credible due to his own hypocrisy.
actually I agree with you completely although I guess we'd disagree on the member.
Quote
The last I knew, neo-conservativism is a foreign policy position which may or may not call for greater spending on domestic social programs. There, you are factually wrong. As you have noted, spending is up.
If you struggle with definitions might I suggest the dictionary or encylopedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
btw: thank you for acknowledging that spending is up.
on that same subject you might enjoy this article on neoconservatives bailing from bush policy...
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612
Quote
Anyone listening to the whole speech would have thought he was speaking of the troops.
Yes you are absolutely correct I was factually incorrect if you assume my opinion is fact (but thanks for the props anyway). To refresh: I assumed that an intelligent person would look at the all the facts and then conclude the obvious... because anyone that would claim to have any objective view of the speech would see that he clearly screwed up his reference to the president. but that's just my opinion, not your fact.
Quote
Another factual innacuracy would be your statements calling this thread a hatefest.
Again, you are factually wrong... my reference to this as a hatefest is obviously my opinion.
Quote
I'll finish you off when I get to it.
huh? does that mean you're off to study and you'll get back to me later or does that mean you don't want to answer the rest of my post? Maybe the better question is... Is that a factual statement or a figurative statement?
Just a add to the "does it honor our troops when" list...
does it honor our troops when the president posts nuke building info online to prove a political point?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061104/ts_nm/security_internet_iraq_dc
Post by: lumpy on November 04, 2006, 04:06:53 PM
Naked man arrested for concealed weapon
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/04/ap/strange/mainD8L62G1G0.shtml
Post by: gunsmith on November 04, 2006, 04:19:31 PM
& I will not bother to debate them.
If the S really hits the fan, before they die, they will wish they had the training and mind set you can only get if you have been in the military.
When I served in the 1970's I met some morons and I met some really brilliant, motivated , talented professionals.
When I was a young condescending intellectual, I was smarter then every one else too.
I grew up eventually
Post by: lumpy on November 04, 2006, 06:48:45 PM
Quote
Condescending asshats will always believe they are right
& I will not bother to debate them.
& I will not bother to debate them.
Given that Zeke hasn't posted in a bit was that a reference to me?
There's a great quote out there, I think it's Mark Twain... "I'm not young enough to know everything"
Quote
I grew up eventually
really? "asshats"?
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 04, 2006, 09:31:17 PM
to lighten the subject... something completely off topic but funnier than hell...
Naked man arrested for concealed weapon
Naked man arrested for concealed weapon
Lumpy, seriously, all arguments aside. I'm not complaining that you are off-topic; I'm just telling you this in case you are confused about the site. This is a forum. It consists of threads about various subjects. This is but one thread; the Kerrygate thread. Click on "Home" or "Roundtable" if you would like to start a thread on something else, or see threads on other subjects.
Back to the topic, I'm guessing gunsmith's comments were directed at Kerry or the condescending liberals that he may or may not represent according to one's view of things. I agree "a**hat" is a really embarassing term for an adult to use. You must be over-thirty.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 04, 2006, 10:49:21 PM
Quote
frankly your position is based on the words of a few people but ignores the actions of the right. Let me ask you this... is it honoring our troops to send them to war based on false pretenses? Is it honoring our troops to ask for over $8 billion in cuts to the VA? Is it honoring our troops to send them to war without the best equipment? Is it honoring our troops to make them protect companies that are charging them $45 for a 6pack of coke? Is it honoring olur troops to have no bid contracts to companies which take money away from our military and are making huge profits off this war? Is it honoring our troops when a Senator adds a $250 Million bridge for 50 people in Alaska to a defense appropriation?
If you believe all of the above, it wouldn't be surprising that you feel that way. I don't believe the things you have said, and it would be foolish of me to adopt your point of view just from this thread and a few links of your choosing. Nor will I deny that you may be right when I don't know the facts. I'm sure those things have been discussed to death here and/or on THR, from various points of view. You can start new threads on these items, if you'd like. I hope you will forgive me if I don't read every news story or have a set opinion on every current event or issue. I don't feel obliged to have read everything that you happen to have read.
I doubt you have the experience or training to judge the quality, quantity or sufficiency of our troop's equipment. I don't think I do. Militaries rarely receive the best equipment - they're govt. employees, remember? It's very funny to me that the Bush administration is castigated for failing to personally dress every soldier head-to-toe in body armor, when they are probably the first to even attempt it. Especially considering that many troops would rather do without it. I never saw much more than a flak vest when I was in the military. In case you're not savvy, flak vests do not even stop pistol rounds.
I don't recall stating my position on the Iraq war in this thread. Kerry's comments (whatever he planned to say) were outrageous regardless of one's view on Iraq. "The actions of the right" have no bearing on Kerry's blunder. Even if Iraq were peaceful, and Kerry were the most ardent of hawks, his remarks would still have been taken as an insult. Can you imagine the fallout if Lieberman or a Republican hawk had said that? The outcry would have been, "He's sending them to Iraq and insulting them!"
My position is based on more than a few people, and the fact that Kerry is very prominent among that group makes it all the more cogent, especially considering the very heinous accusations of his testimony in 1972.
Re: Face The Nation
Quote
Sen. KERRY: You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there
is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night,terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs,
religious customs. Whether you like it or not...
SCHIEFFER: Yeah.
Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of
210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.
Whatever "terrors" Kerry was talking about, he clearly believed they were good and necessary things to do. He said, "Iraqis should be doing that." But in the current climate, the use of the word "terror" was very unfortunate. When one has a pattern of such slips-of-the-tongue, one begins to look suspicious. He would not be the first leftist to equate terrorism with legal, normal military tactics.is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night,terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs,
religious customs. Whether you like it or not...
SCHIEFFER: Yeah.
Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of
210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.
Re: Neo-cons. I looked up that same Wiki article a few weeks ago. The following supports my point that more spending is certainly not a defeat for them, and may be a victory.
Quote
Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism, tolerated more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives,
I'm going to go to bed now.
Post by: lumpy on November 05, 2006, 06:22:51 AM
Quote
Lumpy, seriously, all arguments aside. I'm not complaining that you are off-topic; I'm just telling you this in case you are confused about the site. This is a forum. It consists of threads about various subjects.
My apologies. thank you for that information.
Quote
If you believe all of the above, it wouldn't be surprising that you feel that way. I don't believe the things you have said, and it would be foolish of me to adopt your point of view just from this thread and a few links of your choosing.
My beliefs are based upon the factual evidence. Before the recent advent of Iraq war revisionist history, the number 1 reason we went to war was to keep Saddam from using the WMDs that he had and the nukes he was attempting to develop, the stated by product of that was to bring democracy to the middle east. What would be foolish of you is to ignore the factual evidence. btw: I have never asked anyone to adopt my point of view... I have simply presented factual evidence that supports my position and I have consistently challenged anyone to refute the evidence. Much like how the scientific process works. I am open to changing my position if the factual evidence supports the position that Kerry gives less support to the troops than the current legislature.
reading material:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2948068.stm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Quote
I doubt you have the experience or training to judge the quality, quantity or sufficiency of our troop's equipment.
Actually you'd be factually correct there. That is why I rely on one of my dearest friend's advice... he's a retired Colonel and a vet of 2 wars, who happens to be a republican the funny thing is that his bleeding heart liberal wife also happens to be a retired Colonel. My father was a retired Major, and my youngest brother was a Gulf vet.
Quote
In case you're not savvy, flak vests do not even stop pistol rounds.
again you're absolutely correct... that is why they call those vests FLAK vests. I was referring to Body armor, and up armered humvees among other things.
Quote
I don't recall stating my position on the Iraq war in this thread.
I don't think I ever asked you your position on Iraq... I asked you a series of questions to try to determine if you in truely support the troops or are just being hyopcritical when it comes to democrats.
$45 6-packs: actually I was wrong. did some more checking and found that they were $45 cases of coke which Haliburtion was charging for. Regardless my point was that it's great to see that when were at war profits are still the name of the game.
Quote
My position is based on more than a few people, and the fact that Kerry is very prominent among that group makes it all the more cogent, especially considering the very heinous accusations of his testimony in 1972.
Using your logic one could conclude that Bush is a drunk cheerleader. I let Kerry's testimony slide because in 1972 I was probably stoned. He was talking before congress.
Quote
Even if Iraq were peaceful, and Kerry were the most ardent of hawks, his remarks would still have been taken as an insult.
Again you are right... but, the evidence does not support you. First Kerry's record by comparison to those accuing him of insulting the troops does nto display that position. Next, he came out within hours and said it was a botched joke about the president. Next, he released a copy of his speech prior to the event which had the unbotched joke.
I point out all these thing because I believe that many on this thread are just being hyopcrites because Kerry is a democrat and the standards you seem to set for democrats are much higher than those you set for republicans or neocons.
Quote
Re: Neo-cons. I looked up that same Wiki article a few weeks ago. The following supports my point that more spending is certainly not a defeat for them, and may be a victory.
Your point was that neoconservative is a foriegn policy position. I never said the increased discretionary spending was a victory for anyone... I actually think it's bad. what do you think?
Quote
Whatever "terrors" Kerry was talking about, he clearly believed they were good and necessary things to do. He said, "Iraqis should be doing that."
Regardless of the 'words' he used you obviously understand the context, Let me ask you a simple question do you think it helps our plan, whatever it may be, for americans to break into the homes of Iraqis and hold civilans at gunpoint or do you think it serves us better if they police themselves? in other words, do you agree with Kerry?
thanks for the clarification on the a**hats thing.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 05, 2006, 06:06:46 PM
Post by: lumpy on November 05, 2006, 06:18:34 PM
What I've supplied here are the facts which support my position. sorry if it's too lengthy for you.
But again... given that you've haven't really responded to my questions about the hypocracy of the position taken on this board I can only assume the following:
1.) you have higher standards for those on the left
2.) you have low standards for fact
3.) you have high standards for fact but don't have the time to actually look into it
4.) you don't care what the facts are, you don't want them getting in the way
One last try... do you find this more offensive to our troops than Kerry's botched joke?
http://www.dav.org/news/news_20060123.html
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 05, 2006, 07:19:56 PM
Much of what you claim is fact, isn't. Your "evidence" usually comes from questionable internet sources, biased media reports, other opinion-talkers, and other subjective sources. That an idea comes from such a source does not make it inherently factual.
Much of what you believe is persuasive, isn't. We've heard most of your arguments before from other leftists, and those of us who disagree have found them lacking. They aren't improved any when they come from your mouth.
Much of what you think is polite and civil, isn't. Antagonism and overbearing rhetoric make up the bulk of your discourse. You need to crank up your signal to noise ratio. Your more interesting comments tend to be lost amid your emotionalism and veiled personal attacks.
You will continue to wear the label "troll" for as long as you act like one.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 05, 2006, 07:33:58 PM
One last try... do you find this more offensive to our troops than Kerry's botched joke?
http://www.dav.org/news/news_20060123.html
No, I find Kerry's remarks far more offensive. The VA cutbacks and testimony is a non-issue, whereas Kerry's insult to our troops is a very big deal, especially right before an election. Here's why:http://www.dav.org/news/news_20060123.html
Most people who have experienced government from the inside, know that there is an obscene amount of waste and inefficiency. Most government services could be provided at higher quality and dramatically lower cost by a private, for-profit company. Most government spending could be cut by half or more without decreasing the benefits to the recipients of the service. Cutting back on any government spending program doesn't necessarily decrease the level of service provided, because most of the cutback could come out of the fluff and pork.
In the private sector, we call these sorts of cutbacks "good business practice." We reward managers who can make them happen.
Congressional testimony has no influence on policy-making whatsoever. Most politicians make their decisions based on lobyists, political deal-making, personal benifit, the influence of their constituents, pressure from their party, and a hundred and one other reasons that have nothing to do with the actual issue at hand. The only real purpose of congressional hearings and testimony is to generate sound-bites for the evening news, which the politicians hope can be used to sway the public towards whatever position they've already decided on.
Eliminating the VA testimony doesn't do diddlysquat to reduce their influence on public policy, because their testimony never did a darn thing to begin with.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 06, 2006, 04:16:01 AM
Quote from: French G
Follow orders like an automaton? Not hardly, I question everything, mainly it is my job, airplanes generally fly better if you insert right and wrong, facts and careful consideration into the equation rather than "Because I told you so" Follow orders I don't like where it doesn't concern keeping aircraft from falling out of the sky? All the time. However, I have a list of orders over which I will ruin my career.
-Get the ID microchip implanted. Not here yet, but by my guess 2015 it will be. They implant, I walk.
-Being used in a combat/enforcement role against Americans, again I refuse.
-Any attempt of the military to regulate my off-duty use and possession of firearms.
-Any combat orders contrary to the Geneva Convention. (Not likely because I am #1 in the navy, #2 our military takes extraordinary measures to safeguard civilian populations and adhere to the laws of armed conflict)
-Any orders that contradict my Oath. (Support and defend the Constitution...)
-Get the ID microchip implanted. Not here yet, but by my guess 2015 it will be. They implant, I walk.
-Being used in a combat/enforcement role against Americans, again I refuse.
-Any attempt of the military to regulate my off-duty use and possession of firearms.
-Any combat orders contrary to the Geneva Convention. (Not likely because I am #1 in the navy, #2 our military takes extraordinary measures to safeguard civilian populations and adhere to the laws of armed conflict)
-Any orders that contradict my Oath. (Support and defend the Constitution...)
Absolutely fabulously, wonderfully stated: but I'd bet your enlightenment is the minority.
I've been gone for a bit and, for me, the thread has run its course.
I always learn something from these things! Much appreciated.
Post by: doczinn on November 06, 2006, 04:55:47 AM
Quote
Quote from: French G
Follow orders like an automaton? Not hardly, I question everything, mainly it is my job, airplanes generally fly better if you insert right and wrong, facts and careful consideration into the equation rather than "Because I told you so" Follow orders I don't like where it doesn't concern keeping aircraft from falling out of the sky? All the time. However, I have a list of orders over which I will ruin my career.
-Get the ID microchip implanted. Not here yet, but by my guess 2015 it will be. They implant, I walk.
-Being used in a combat/enforcement role against Americans, again I refuse.
-Any attempt of the military to regulate my off-duty use and possession of firearms.
-Any combat orders contrary to the Geneva Convention. (Not likely because I am #1 in the navy, #2 our military takes extraordinary measures to safeguard civilian populations and adhere to the laws of armed conflict)
-Any orders that contradict my Oath. (Support and defend the Constitution...)
Absolutely fabulously, wonderfully stated: but I'd bet your enlightenment is the minority. Sad-Get the ID microchip implanted. Not here yet, but by my guess 2015 it will be. They implant, I walk.
-Being used in a combat/enforcement role against Americans, again I refuse.
-Any attempt of the military to regulate my off-duty use and possession of firearms.
-Any combat orders contrary to the Geneva Convention. (Not likely because I am #1 in the navy, #2 our military takes extraordinary measures to safeguard civilian populations and adhere to the laws of armed conflict)
-Any orders that contradict my Oath. (Support and defend the Constitution...)
That's where you're wrong. Again. 90+% of the people in the military think just like that. Maybe if you make blanket statements about the military without ever having served, and a few people who have pop up to tell you you're wrong, ya might listen.
Post by: lumpy on November 06, 2006, 06:42:41 AM
Quote
In the private sector, we call these sorts of cutbacks "good business practice."
Great let's privatize the are and make it a for profit business... Maybe you're right... the Disabled American Vets are a non-issue, their issues are a non-issue. Why should we care.
Quote
Most politicians make their decisions based on lobyists, political deal-making, personal benifit, the influence of their constituents, pressure from their party, and a hundred and one other reasons that have nothing to do with the actual issue at hand. The only real purpose of congressional hearings and testimony is to generate sound-bites for the evening news, which the politicians hope can be used to sway the public towards whatever position they've already decided on.
you're right... they wouldn't want to public to see that testimony because then the cuts might look bad too.
Quote
Much of what you claim is fact, isn't. Your "evidence" usually comes from questionable internet sources, biased media reports, other opinion-talkers, and other subjective sources. That an idea comes from such a source does not make it inherently factual.
What a great way to get out of this... 'media bias', 'questionable' sources, opinion talkers...
I gave you the actual prepared Kerry speech. my sources include the White House, the BBC, the Diabled American Vets, CBS News transcripts, veterans.house.gov, among others... maybe you're right, we can't trust the info coming from vets, and the white house... what's your suggestion for unbiased news? Newsmax? Limbaugh?
after all that, you've still not challenged any fact that I've presented. Did Ted Stevens not attach a $250,000,000 bridge for 50 people to the defense appropriation bill? Did Bush not joke about not finding WMDs? Did the right not cut VA sending? Did the right not run political attack adds on a vet that lost three limbs claiming that voting for him would support OBL? Did a republican not get censured at the same time for screwing pages as Gerry Studds?
Your post implies that you may have a hard telling telling the difference between fact and opinion. Again, I'll ask you to challenge my facts (please ntoe the difference between that and my opinion), if they are incorrect I would appreciate the information.
Quote
questionable internet sources, biased media reports, other opinion-talkers, and other subjective source
for reference... the above quote is not fact, it's your opinion... obviously you have actual evidence to counter anything I've said right?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 06, 2006, 07:27:04 AM
Quote
Great let's privatize the are and make it a for profit business... Maybe you're right... the Disabled American Vets are a non-issue, their issues are a non-issue. Why should we care.
If you truly cared about the level of care provided to the veterans, as well as it's cost to the taxpayers, then you wouldn't summarily dismiss my idea. There is a reason the mean level of private-sector health care is several cuts above the VA health-care. The leftists claim that it's a lack of funding and evil Republicannery that cause these disparities. Those of us who know better realize that private enterprise is superior precisely because it's private and for-profit. But a lesson in economics is beyond the scope of this thread...Quote
you're right... they wouldn't want to public to see that testimony because then the cuts might look bad too.
Yes, that's precisely the reason. The sole and exclusive purpose of congressional testimony is for some politicians to try to make other politicians look bad. Testimony has no bearing whatsoever on the formation of public policy. As such, there's no real reason for this testimony to take place. Testimony is literally pointless. Why would anyone want to waste the time, money, and effort? (The obvious answer is that Democrats do not want to give up this particular platform which they try to leverage into petty, partisan soundbites?)
Quote
I gave you the actual prepared Kerry speech.
You gave me what someone asserted is the prepared text of Kerry's speech. I remain unconvinced that it was in fact the actual prepared text, due to lack of credible evidence. Ultimately it is up to each of us individually to weigh the quality of the evidence and support, and form our on conclusions thereon. And even if your assertion is correct, Kerry is responsible for what he actually said, not what he intended to say. None of us are mind readers. The fact that he wanted to say something else doesn't change the fact that he really did cast a grave insult at our troops.
Quote
my sources include the White House, the BBC, the Diabled American Vets, CBS News transcripts, veterans.house.gov, among others... maybe you're right, we can't trust the info coming from vets, and the white house... what's your suggestion for unbiased news? Newsmax? Limbaugh?
The white house, DAV, and veterans.house.gov are politically motivated sources. There is no guarantee that what they report is fact.CBS News has been famously caught reporting "fact" that they knew to be false, in a bid to support Democratic Party candidates running for high-level national offices. They are hardly objective or reliable. They may be right much of the time, but one certainly cannot count on them to be right ALL of the time.
The BBC is notorious for pushing extreme leftism and socialism. I've not heard of them ever falsifying any reports, as CBS has, but they remain nonetheless highly biased.
Limbaugh is just as biased as just as CBS and BBC are. At least Limbaugh has the integrity to admit it.
I have no personal knowledge of the veracity of Newsmax' reporting.
Two conclusions can be drawn. First, each of these sources is questionable, and we all must question they're reportings. That doesn't mean that they are automatically wrong, just that we must each weigh their motivations, agendas, and self-interests against their assertions and supporting evidence.
Second, much of your discourse is your own personal interpretation of the "fact" that these sources report. Even if the sources are sound and the facts they report are true, your own personal opinions, interpretations, and conclusions based on those facts don't carry an weight of fact. Your arguements are frequently non sequitors - even when you start start from a position of sound fact, your conclusions don't follow rationally from those facts.
Quote
...Ted Stevens... ...$250,000,000 bridge... ...joke about not finding WMDs... ...cut VA sending... ...political attack adds... ...Gerry Studds...
Red herrings, all of them. Even if true (I make no assertions one way or the other as to the validity of these statements) they have no bearing on Kerry's remarks. They appear on the surface to be nothing but a cheap attempt to confound the discussion with useless and unrelated distractions. Early in this thread you chastised all of us for trying to divert attention away from Republicans and onto this Kerry comment. Well surprise! You're now guilty of the very same sort of diversion.Quote
for reference... the above quote is not fact, it's your opinion... obviously you have actual evidence to counter anything I've said right?
You are correct. What I've asserted is my own opinion. But don't forget that what you've asserted is equally your own personal opinion. Deciding whom to believe and agree with remains, as always, an exercise for the reader.I've laid down ample reasoning and logic to counter what you've said, as well as a smattering of verifiable fact (for instance, what I've asserted about CBS News deliberately falsifying stories to support partisan politics is objective, verifiable fact - go look it up). I admit that I don't often cite my sources, for no better reason than that it's more work than I wish to undertake. I rely upon the reader's general knowledge of current events to evaluate the truthfulness of my remarks.
If I'm wrong you're free to prove it (if you can).
Post by: lumpy on November 06, 2006, 01:35:30 PM
So just to be clear... you challenge all my sources, yet you refuse to give any samples of what you might consider unbiased sources, so what you're saying is that you are challenging everything without giving yourself the benefit of the facts from any source. If you don't believe mine in this particular argument supply me with your unbiased fatcs that support that Kerry disrespects the troops any more than the right. Now you have me curious as to what you actually do believe in.
While you may challenge points as "red herrings" I think they are very relevant to this argument... if you think Kerry is disrespecting the troops you need to establish what your standards for disrespect are. If you refuse to look at any case where the right disrespects the troops and then at the same time you go after the left for that, regardless of what Kerry meant, you have higher standards for those on the opposite side of the debate than you apparently have for yourself.
I believe they call that, hypocritical...
By the way... I think that all public servants should be held to higher standards... thanks for being half way there with me.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 06, 2006, 02:20:58 PM
Instead of looking for an unbiased political news source (which I don't believe exists), one must turn to biased sources and attempt to gauge the agendas and biases of the source against the supporting evidence they provide. Having evaluated some of your sources in this manor, and especially having evaluated your usage and conclusion drawn from your sources, I find many of your arguments lacking. This has more to do with your own personal interpretations of the news reports than from the reports themselves.
Now, as to Kerry and what my standards are for respecting the troops...
What I expect from a prominent political leader is to NOT make statements that give aid and comfort to the enemy. If a politician has a personal dislike for the men and women that defend our country, I expect that politician to keep this particular view to himself. I expect a politician to recognize and respect the fact that our servicemen/women are making great personal sacrifices, sacrifices far greater than anything a wealthy, priviledged elitist like Kerry will ever make for his country.
If a Republican were to get on the air and say the soldiers fighting this war were only doing it because they were too stupid to do anything else, I'd demand his resignation. Nobody in MY part will be allowed to get away with what Kerry got away with last week. You called me a hypocrite, and I suppose you're correct, but not in the way you might think.
Budget wranglings, pork barrel politics, and personal corruption may not be desirable, but they are a fact of life. This sort of politics-as-usual drivel do not represent disrespect for our troops. Kerry's remarks do.
Post by: lumpy on November 06, 2006, 05:15:57 PM
Quote
If a Republican were to get on the air and say the soldiers fighting this war were only doing it because they were too stupid to do anything else, I'd demand his resignation. Nobody in MY part will be allowed to get away with what Kerry got away with last week. You called me a hypocrite, and I suppose you're correct, but not in the way you might think.
Budget wranglings, pork barrel politics, and personal corruption may not be desirable, but they are a fact of life. This sort of politics-as-usual drivel do not represent disrespect for our troops. Kerry's remarks do.
Budget wranglings, pork barrel politics, and personal corruption may not be desirable, but they are a fact of life. This sort of politics-as-usual drivel do not represent disrespect for our troops. Kerry's remarks do.
ok... I think we've beat the dead horse to a pile of pulp on the floor...
I'll just leave it that I completely disagree with you and cannot understand how you'd come to that position, which is probably a result of my thought process on this subject. given your position I'll withdrawl my hypocrite statement... and apologize for that one.
thanks for you thoughts.