Gee, I suppose it was when you referred to poor Mr. Blumenthal’s “possible slips of the tongue in a speech” - a construction that ranks among the most pathetic attempts at obfuscation I’ve seen on this board. Almost as lame as those of Blumenthal himself:
*"In an attempt at damage control, the attorney general called a news conference at which he cynically surrounded himself with supportive vets, the way cheating pols like to haul their suffering spouses before the cameras. Blumenthal conceded he had “misspoken” on “a few occasions” but insisted it was “totally unintentional.” He defiantly said he would “not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country.”
Give us a break. He lied, and those “few misplaced words” are a grievous insult to those who did serve and fight in Vietnam."* (USA Today editorial, 5/20).
Uh-huh. Quick, let’s forget about Blumenthal since others have similarly lied about their military prowess, and whatever we do, don’t hold him accountable.
By that logic we shouldn’t laugh and point fingers at Mark Souder, the Indiana Republican Mr. Family Values congressman who committed adultery with a staffer (hilariously, the same one with whom he shot an abstinence video), because after all, lots of other politicians have gotten embroiled in embarassing and hypocritical sexcapades.
As I said, I’m happy to not vote for any politician who lies and dishonors the contributions of other veterans. Connecticut voters should consider whether or not they want this liar as their next Senator, regardless of attempted tu quoque distractions.
Nobody, least of all public figures/politicians, should ever lie about their military service. Not only is it disrespectful to those that actually served and didn’t lie about it, but its just stupid. There are records! It isn’t like some joe schmoe hanging out at his local Legion bar getting hammered and lying about his exploits (although that’s pretty shitty too)…you’re a person in the limelight, you will get found out!
When stacked up against other guys who made their similar statements on their websites and in their official literature - things that can’t be a momentary goof - what’s so 'pathetic here? I know that I’ve misspoke myself plenty of times when speaking with my mouth. I also know it’s a lot harder to misspeak even in a post like this one, even though I’m not reviewing my own words in detail before I hit the ‘Submit Reply’ button. And I assume it’s considerably harder to misspeak oneself in one’s official literature.
That’s not pathetic; that’s perfectly reasonable. Do you have a better set of standards? Not that I can see. In fact, all you seem to have is this:
How do you conclude that I’m saying that? My point, AGAIN, is that persons guilty of essentially the same offense should be judged by the same standard.
Picking one out of the pack and saying, “Let’s jump on HIM, talking about all those others is irrelevant” is simply a license to judge the one, and never get around to the others.
And Illinois and South Carolina voters? Or is Blumenthal so unique that he must be considered strictly on his own?
Please say, “Mark Kirk is a lying sack of shit who has no business running for the U.S. Senate. And Lindsey Graham is a lying sack of shit as well, and it’s a miscarriage of morals that he was elected in the first place.”
I served in the United States Army from August 1966, until August of 1969. I volunteered to serve in Vietnam, upon enlistment, and listed Vietnam as my preferred assignment, also upon enlistment.
I was stationed in Germany after training.
I have never answered the question “Were you a Vietnam Veteran?” yes. I have always stated, No, I was in the army, but was sent to Europe.
Every veteran knows what the question means. Every single one. You get a ribbon for the Campaign if you are entitled to say yes to the question. Some few who are entitled to the ribbon never actually see a combat field. That’s cool, they get to say yes, because their ass was still in theater, and qualified for deployment to the places where things go boom, wheeet, and thwap. Being lucky is part of being a soldier. But, lucky works both ways.
I knew two guys who died from weapons fire (flak) while flying offshore near Vietnam. They didn’t get their names on The Wall. They were not deployed to units involved in actions in country. They were just unlucky. The answer to the question for them was still no.
Oh yeah, a few more “momentary goofs” by Blumenthal.
*"The report in The Times was followed by a report in The Advocate of Stamford that described Mr. Blumenthal’s speaking about his military service at the Stamford Veterans Day parade on Nov. 9, 2008.
“I wore the uniform in Vietnam,” he said, “and many came back to all kinds of disrespect. Whatever we think of war, we owe the men and women of the armed forces our unconditional support.”*
The guy sure had a bunch of goofy moments.
As opposed to your pristine record when speaking out of your ass? :dubious:
You know, Jackmannii, we’ve got another thread specifically about Blumenthal. If you want to debate Blumenthal in a vacuum, feel free to post to that thread - and good luck even there.
This thread’s about the fact that this particular political sin seems to be fairly widespread, and asking the question: are you willing to judge people who’ve committed essentially the same political sin in the same manner?
It’s a question you seem desperate to avoid. I’m sorry you don’t have the courage to answer a very simple question.
And by the way, about tu quoque:
From Wikipedia: “Tu quoque is only a fallacy when one uses it so as to divert attention from the issue at hand, or to avoid or fail to respond to an argument that non-fallaciously gave one the burden of proof.”
The issue of the other thread was Blumenthal’s conduct alone. I dealt with the issue there, and would welcome rebuttal in that thread.
This thread, however, is about the need to judge similarly the class of similarly situated people. So here, going on about the latest juicy Blumenthal quotes, absent any use of them to distinguish Blumenthal from the class in question, is “divert[ing] attention from the issue at hand, or [avoiding] or fail[ing] to respond to an argument.”
When you wish to speak to the topic of this thread, I’ll look forward to replying in this thread. Otherwise, seeya.
I’ve answered your “very simple question” twice already.
Blumenthal “misspeaks”, you “misread”.
And yes, you’re using a tu quoque fallacy to distract attention from Blumenthal, even as evidence of his lying continues to mount.
Discussing evidence of other politicians’ past misdeeds in the same vein is fine. Except Blumenthal is the one who just got caught and naturally is the current focus. And your pitiful attempts to excuse his serial lying about his non-Vietnam service as “possible slips of the tongue in a speech” and “a momentary goof” make it clear that a major intent of this thread was to try to minimize and distract attention from Blumenthal’s sleazebaggery for partisan purposes*.
He’s fair game here, like it or not.
*While this may be difficult for you to comprehend, as to partisanship I’m an independent who almost always votes Democratic, and have never voted for a Republican for national office, whether or not they are grotesque liars.
I’d like to bring something to the table here. I believe the issue to be, not specifically to Blumenthal or Graham, that the voters of this nation are fed up with lying politicians in general.
The subject simply doesn’t matter, although, I will agree that lying about whether you were in country or no is a pretty large breaking of a previously honor bound boundary.
It is amazing to me personally, that I saw Marine Vets stand with Blumenthal as if honor no longer mattered. You see, I could take that as a given if it were the Army or the Air Force. I can’t take it from a Marine.
I’m not sure I’d call that “more” or even “MORE” as you do.
Jackmanni quoted one, but he skipped the first one in your link. I wonder why that was?
Anyway, the first quote is: “In Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said, according to the article, “we had to endure taunts and insults, and no one said, ‘Welcome home.’ I say welcome home.”
What does that even mean? It doesn’t make sense. "In Vietnam, we had to endure taunts and insults and no one said “Welcome home”? WTF? The Vietnamese didn’t welcome us home? Clearly either he misspoke or the reporter wrote it down wrong. If this is the quote that the NYT wants to feature, it sure looks like they have an agenda, because this one doesn’t really sell the point to me - and instead looks more like mushmouth.
I lived in Connecticut in the 1990’s. Blumenthal was very well regarded then, and seems to have done nothing but improve his reputation since then. I sure could be wrong, but I think these “MORE” quotes are really making the arugment against Blumenthal look worse and not better, and I suspect they’re ultimatlely not going to change things too much.
Ummm, no. Pity you are unable to read the definition at the Wikipedia page I linked to.
Except that, well, other pols who got caught doing the same thing seem to have been given either much less media attention, or a complete pass. For instance, Mark Kirk is NOW “the one who just got caught and naturally is the current focus” except he’s not the current focus.
So pardon me if I point out that something’s fishy here - that the members of this class are in fact being treated very differently, in a way that goes beyond your sad attempt to distinguish Blumenthal from the class.
Oh, they do? I’m glad you can read my mind, though I’ve got to say “through a glass darkly” comes to mind.
BTW, I’m not sure how things that Blumenthal has said that have come to light since my OP make that argument. I’m willing to grant NOW that there’s a pattern of things he’s said on this issue that make “possible slips of the tongue in a speech” and “a momentary goof” out of the question. If I were saying those things NOW, you’d have a solid argument that I was inappropriately minimizing Blumenthal’s transgressions. And you’ve dumped all sorts of things into this thread to build that argument.
Unfortunately for you, clown, I said those things several days ago, when they were hardly an outlandish view of what Blumenthal was known to have said at the time.
Most definitely. And??
I can also comprehend that, regardless of how you vote, you’re a frickin’ idiot, and debating you is a waste of time. The fact that you’ve voted the same way I would doesn’t change that. Frickin’ idiots on one’s own side are still frickin’ idiots.
Oooo! It’s a conspiwacy!! And the Evul Right-Wing Minions of the New York Times are in on it!!!
Meh. There was plenty of evidence of his lying before; the additional quotes are icing on the cake. But congrats on belatedly acknowledging that he’s a serial liar - apparently it got too painfully obvious for even a [del]partisan whore[/del] inept pompous windbag like you.
Oh, gimme a fucking break. Double standards happen all the time, and it never takes a conspiracy, just stupidity, groupthink, and inevitable human bias. (You might read the link at the last post in the other thread.)
Pretending that I’m alleging a conspiracy is a pretty strong indication of your intellectual bankruptcy.
Yeah: “plenty of evidence” was a single quote, plus a few others that weren’t actually inaccurate. You were sure ready to jump to conclusions right away, weren’t you?
I’m sorry that admitting the possibility of that one quote’s being a case of misspeaking, as compared to similar statements in other candidates’ and officeholders’ official literature and websites being a bit harder to explain in those terms, disturbs you.
And I’m sorry that the obvious question, “how does this compare with what other people have done in a similar vein, and what was the reaction then” troubles you so, and that you somehow confuse that quite legitimate question with a tu quoque fallacy. Because it’s further evidence that you lack anything worthwhile in that skull of yours.
I’m not surprised by this.