Kerry & the Troops

[Perd Hapley]

as far as my fourth post... you ignored what I was responding to...

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.  

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.  

[lumpy]

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.

[French G.]

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.

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

 

[lumpy]

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...

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.

[Perd Hapley]

First of all, Lumpy, you will remain non-credible and trollish until you make some effort to contribute to threads that discuss "real issues."  You should see the words "Round Table" at the top and bottom of the page.  Click them. 

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:

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].

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.

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?

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. 

[doczinn]

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.

[lumpy]

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.

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?

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!

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.

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!

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.

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
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.

[Perd Hapley]

This forum's software makes it quite easy to see any member's recent posts.  A particular member remains non-credible due to his own hypocrisy. 

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.

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!

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. 

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. 

[lumpy]

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. 

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

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.

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.

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

[lumpy]

to lighten the subject... something completely off topic but funnier than hell...

Naked man arrested for concealed weapon

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/04/ap/strange/mainD8L62G1G0.shtml

[gunsmith]

Condescending asshats will always believe they are right
& 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

[lumpy]

Condescending asshats will always believe they are right
& 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"

I grew up eventually

really? "asshats"?

[Perd Hapley]

to lighten the subject... something completely off topic but funnier than hell...

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. 

[Perd Hapley]

"I'll finish you off later" means I have other things to do. 

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

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.


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. 

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.

[lumpy]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Perd Hapley]

Lumpy, you are a quite a talkative fellow, and I'm not sure I have time to keep up with you.  I see you have finally branched out into some other threads.  At first, I was happy for you.  Unfortunately, you exhibit the same tendency in all of them.  You seem to think this is a conservative, Republican, Bush-worshipping site, and see yourself as some dashing lone-leftist, taking us all on and doing your best to annoy us and crush our pretty little world-view.  Actually, we tend to have just as many libertarians around here.  We tend to have plenty of conservatives who are only slightly less disillusioned with Bush than you are.  So calm down a bit, and stop flailing wildly at the Bush cult you imagine yourself to be surrounded by.  We'll all learn a lot more that way. 

[lumpy]

Gee thanks for the advice... you've been so helpful.

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

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I've tried to explain this before, lumpy, but it looks like I'll have to try again.

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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:

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.

[Ezekiel]

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. 

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.

[doczinn]

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

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.

[lumpy]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Sigh...  Ok, looks like I'm going to have to wade even deeper into this steaming pile of BS.

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...

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?)

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.

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.

...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.

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).

[lumpy]

Wow you sure wrote alot without giving much information.

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

When it comes to political reporting, I don't trust any source as truly unbiased.  I think any source will be tainted to some degree by the personal views and opinions of the people who produce the reports.

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.