Actually, I’ve got the fact the Kerry isn’t in The White House. And never will be.
But let’s say that half the men are telling the truth. Does that make this war different than any other in regards to horrors. I’m sure every war has contorted some men to commit heinous acts. But for Lurch to portray the atrocities of Vietnam as being routine is dishonest (what a surprise?).
Did you watch the videos? Do you think all those men are lying? Do you thiink there all wrong? Fine. Do youacknowledge that they might know more :eek: than you about the subject.? Do you think they are dishonorable? Are you ata ll impressed by the degree to which they are decorated? If you are, what would cause such honorable men to spew what you see as dishonorable shit? What is it about Lurch that would make these honorable men change so much?
Did you read the chapter of the book?
Now, if you would have read my most recent posts for content, you wold have noticed where I said that this exercise is pointless, as both sides will look down upon the cites offered by the other. If I give you a cite from a right-leaning cite, does that help us? No. It just wastes my time. Which I’m not inclined to do. I’d say the same would be true from your side. That’s just the way it is on issues like this. Do you really think that we’re going to resolve this here? We’re not. Even if I gave you ten cites that I thought were good. That should be evident. But if you want to insist to portray it as some grand failing on my part, :rolleyes:.
Now let me write a letter to President Ker—oops. Sorry, wrong guy. I mean the guy who the American people trusted more than the Dishonorable, Self-Important Lying Sack of Shit. Now THAT"S saying something!
You know, just based on that realization, today’s gonna be a good day. Have a lovely one, Sunshine.
Actually, the thread is about pitting you—again—but we can talk about Bud Day if you want. I mean, they’ll be another pitting of you soon enough.
Now all I know of Bud Day is his service record. Take a peek at Wiki. Holy shit! Medals up the butt, most earned in combat. But if The medal of Honor doesn’t impress you, how about 4 Purple Hearts. That’s one more (at least) than Kerry! That’s it—he wins!!!
If you hold it against him that he is a lawyer, that I can see. Other than that, what evidence do you offer that he is not an honorable, honest man? What’s that? You offer that he “has a political agenda”. Unnecessary use of the loaded word “agenda” aside, are you of the opinion that a person shouldn’t have a political leaning? Should we all then ignore everything you’ve ever said about Obama, every verbal slurpie you’ve given him? The man has a political ideology. Some would think he has a right to one, even if he wasn’t one of the most decorated soldiers in U.S. history and served time as a POW. Do you have ANY evidence that his political leanings have caused him to subvert his honor? Is there some book he wrote or some argument he gave in court that leads you to believe that he at least deserves the benefit of the doubt? Or does disagreeing with you political agenda strip him of that little courtesy?
I suggest you read that chapter I provided a link to. If you read that and still want to go with Kerry and AGAINST every other person involved. That is your right. I don’t see how you can, but I’m sure you’ll find a way.
[Check OP] Just as it is your right to be such a douchebag. You know, I never had a real problem with you in the past. I even stuck up for you a few times. But this Liberal of late is not the same Liberal. Get the splinterry two-by-four out of your ass.
You again, Sunshine? Ooooooo, widdiw Wucy doesn’t like it when someone throws shit back her face. That’s okay. I’m in too a good a mood today thanks to you. You can have a good day, too, you know. Just remember, your President, George Bush, loves you and is working hard for you. To be fair, Kerry might have, as well. But I guess we’ll never know, will we?
Yeah, I mean like you haven’t been pitted lately. :rolleyes:
Well, then, there’s your problem. You are not aware of his participation in the Swift Boat sliminess from 2004 or these latest attacks on the former Supreme Allied Commander of US forces in Europe. If you knew more about him than his service record, you wouldn’t be so ignorant.
Actually, no. It was an honest mistake, as I went to a play on “Lucy”. Odd that you would think that being mistaken for a female based on “Elucidator” should be construed as an insult.
But I do think you are a pussy. A sniping bully overtly. But a pussy deep down.
But smile, President Bush LOVES you as he loves all his peoples that he has the honor to lead after having been chosen over the Lying Sack of Dishonorable Shit.
Kinda. It pretty much backfired, though. Much like a previous one a long time ago. But I think that’s it. Maybe one more. And you?
I don’t know what you mean by the “Swift Boat sliminess”. Surely you don’t mean the honorable Swifties who revealed Kerry to be the Dishonorable Lying Sack of Shit that he is, do you? Those Swift Vets? And Clark has been criticized by more than just Day. Not that Day cannot criticize anyone he wants. Kinda like you or me. Except for all the extraordinary service to his country, heroism, etc. that is his baggage.
But most important, you didn’t respond to my last post to you.
So . . . you’re urging us to remember always to keep these discussions thoroughly ad hominem? You realize, Moto, that your entire position here is unalloyedly fallacious? Whether Lib is right or wrong–whether Day is right or wrong–is utterly irrelevant: *you *are 100% wrong.
Do you realize this doesn’t makes sense and is self contradicting, and …it doesn’t make sense?
If there was no fraud then Kerry’s statement was true. Even if half were frauds and half were accurate Kerry’s statement is true. Just in case you’re interested in hearing what you’re criticizing you can see clips from the winter soldier testimony on you tube. The text of the testimony is here
You’ve offered zero evidence that what Kerry said isn’t true and none of your sources have refuted the testimony at the Winter soldier event. Until you can do that with some credibility you aren’t able to convincingly claim Kerry lied or acted dishonorably in that incident.
I read part of the chapter you linked to. I read the end. Is there any reason to accept it as factual. It certainly isn’t an objective presentation is it? I’d like to see if you can represent any evidence that doesn’t come from a source with obvious bias and agenda. So far you haven’t. It’s not that I reject it completely. When the bias from either side is obvious I want some more objective verification of relevant facts. Logic, reason, evidence, remember?
Which means nothing in this discussion. The fact that Bush narrowly beat Kerry doesn’t give any Bush supporters bragging rights under the circumstances.
Once more, You’ve presented zero evidence that Kerry was dishonest and the testimony at the WS event indicates he wasn’t. Day to day doesn’t mean every soldier or every platoon was guilty of war crimes.
I repeat, {although I’m wondering why I have to} those men in the video links were offering opinions with very little relevant** facts**. So no, they weren’t lying. It simply doesn’t apply. Yes, their medals are impressive. Irrelevant when it comes to an examination of the facts vs their opinion.
Do you know why? I assume because you’ve been here a while you have a decent grasp of facts rather than opinion. If you can offer some evidence from any less biased source I’d be glad to examine it. That fact that you don’t suggests , you can’t. If cites with obvious bias are your only source of support then your assertions lack credibility, Just as anybody else’s assertions would.
This is just diversionary tactics. Logic, reason, evidence. Got any?
I’m sorry but are you fucking kidding me? I’ve asked you several direct questions about Day’s comments and what that means about his character and you’ve avoided them every time.
Here’s the facts. Day was quoted as saying
Is this true or isn’t it? The WS event indicates that it is false. What does that make Day? You indicated Kerry had some obligation to check his facts? It appears he did just that. Did Day have the same moral obligation to check his facts before he came out to attack Kerry {also a decorated combat vet} It appears he didn’t.
Once again, his medals, while admirable, say nothing about the truthfulness of his statements. The *evidence *indicates he was lying.
I can’t use the word “lying” in his case because I think he believes what he says. And he doesn’t believe Kerry is wrong, he believes Kerry is a Judas, an apostate, a traitor, his hatred is visceral and unreasoning, you can’t argue a man out of a position he didn’t reason himself into in the first place.
For his accusations to be true, there must have been an enormous and complex symphony of interwoven conspiracies: stories to be made up, stories to be fit to existing facts (deployments, records, etc.), and so on and so forth. A vast and evil conspiracy to besmirch the honor of America. But instead of Satan, or Xenu, you got Jane Fonda.
magellan, keep in mind that in just four years’ time the term swift boating is now a term that has come to mean “to smear.” Even the man who was the head of communications for the Swift Boat Vets has used the term to mean that. He accused the New York Times of trying to “swift boat” McCain. That has been several month ago – around the first of the year.
That is not the only interpretation. If you can provide an actual cite we can parse it. I doubt very much that he is using it in a way that the process has the negative taint you assume.
Unfortunately, there is no simple answer. You will take the position that if any of the atrocities he claimed actually happened, he was justified in his comments. and that “how do we know those other things didn’t happen too?” Day’s (my) position will be that unless he can prove that all of the accusations are true, then he either lied or acted dishonorably. Or both. Also, the passage I quoted earlier about these atrocities being routine is highly problematic for him. Because even if each of the accusations were correct, his projecting it out is him jut making stuff up. And if I have to assess who is telling the truth about what went down in Vietnam and choose between Bud Day who saw lots of combat and who has demonstrated extremely honorable action time and again and Kerry, who 1) spent about 3 months in combat and has a record that is questionable at best and 2) gathered stories in a process that has revealed that people—some of whom had never even been in combat in Vietnam— completely fabricated stories and 3) had a clear political agenda he was pursuing, and 4) lied to the senate saying his remarks were impromptu when the speech had been written for him, I have to go with Day. Especially since so many Swift Boat Vets and other HIGHLY decorated servicemen who were in Vietnam agree with him.
Do you really think all those people I mentioned are wrong and kerry and a few others are right? I had read Unfit for Command and that is what sealed the deal for me against Kerry. This new book has even more information. And from the one chapter online, I was impressed with the degree to which they included all the facts known, even those that would, in isolation, help Kerry.
As a cite I offer that book. Seriously. I haven’t read it yet, but I think it will have the most complete presentation of the facts. yes, it has the taint of bias. But do you really expect there to be an 100% unbiased recitation of the facts. Maybe there will be a counter to this book, which I will red also. But from the one chapter I read, it appears the that the worst one thought about Kerry are true.
Other than that, what evidence do you offer that he is not an honorable, honest man? What’s that? You offer that he “has a political agenda”. Unnecessary use of the loaded word “agenda” aside, are you of the opinion that a person shouldn’t have a political leaning? Should we all then ignore everything you’ve ever said about Obama, every verbal slurpie you’ve given him? The man has a political ideology. Some would think he has a right to one, even if he wasn’t one of the most decorated soldiers in U.S. history and served time as a POW. Do you have ANY evidence that his political leanings have caused him to subvert his honor? Is there some book he wrote or some argument he gave in court that leads you to believe that he at least deserves the benefit of the doubt? Or does disagreeing with you political agenda strip him of that little courtesy?
And to think I used to criticize your zingers.