I’d just like to briefly thank Sam Stone for providing me with countless hours of entertainment. Watching Sam cling desperately to the Swifties’ account of events – despite the total lack of evidence for their claims, and the preponderence of evidence against them – is the kind of tenacity you only get with the truly zealous. His mind’s hammered shut so hard, the Branch Davidians could take tips from him.
Such devotion would almost be considered admirable, if there actually was anything admirable about it. As it is, it’s merely pathetic … just as he is.
It’s more than a bit funny that a shit-monkey like rjung has the cheek to Pit someone. Hey, I know that I am not the most eloquent poster here, but you don’t catch me Pitting people, either. And if I did, it wouldn’t be such a pathetic Pitting.
The subject matter has a lot to do with it, Brutus. Its hard to really Pit Sam because he’s so…so…Canadian. Pretty much polite, usually, and he doesn’t post abominations in limerick. That’s worth a lot, right there.
Some guys inspire real rip-snorting Pittings. Scylla, Wildest Bill, guys like that, bring out the righteous zeal for a Pitting, shish-ke-bob the heretic stuff.
But Sam has got this Tucker Carlson earnestness about him, half Bill Buckley, half Opie. Can’t get up the black energy, you know, just want to swat him with the paper and shout “Bad Sam! Bad! On the paper! Now go lay down by your dish!”
Yeah, what elucidator said. Sam doesn’t have a leg to stand on in that thread, but at least he’s been unfailingly polite about it. I don’t think he deserves to be pitted just for refusing to admit he’s wrong.
Besides, it’s a damned good debate. I’d be sorry if he gave in now.
Well, if being a dick is consistent with spouting off in a factual basis about history, Kerry’s personal statements, and the content of action reports when in reality you have one source (the Swiffers)… You make the call.
How come when questions were raised about President Bush’s service in the National Guard there were howls and cries for investigations?
But when questions are raised about Kerry’s service (which, btw, he made a point of all during the campaign) there are howls and cries for investigations into those making the allegations?
Do you not see an inconsistency here? Kerry brought up his Vietnam service as reason why he should be elected president. Is there no room for the other side, the Vietnam vets opposing him, to express their views and opinions?
And don’t give me crap about a wealthy Texas GOP being behind the Swift Vets. George Soros has sworn to spend his entire fortune to defeat Bush, and no one’s questioning his motives.
Can you tell us a *better * reason? How about his decision to call Kerry’s men, those who were there and risked their lives in a way he can only imagine, *liars * for no apparent reason other than political convenience? Is that worth pitting?
I also marvel at his attempts, reiterated here by ivylass, to equate allegations with fact. Ain’t the same, o’course - the Bush AWOL allegations turned out to be fact, the SBV"T" stories turned out to be partisan bullcrap. Many of us do think that facts matter, but not predictable ol’ Sammy. How about that? Is that Pitworthy?
It’s been said before, and I’ll steal it now: **Sam ** has clearly decided to fill the much-needed void here left by the departure of december.
Obviously different people will have different answers, but since I posted in related threads, here’s my perspective:
I didn’t howl or cry for investigation about Bush’s being AWOL. It wasn’t my place, and if it were, I doubt I could actually muster much outrage even if my opinion were relevant or the charges were proven true.(won’t happen)
I don’t howl and cry for investigation of Swifties for Bush, because a)Again, it’s not my place and b) I think everything about the situation is as clear as it will be, which is bloody clear.
However, if we’re talking about extreme irritation bordering on outrage at those making the charges, which I do feel in this case, and don’t feel when the AWOL allegation are discussed, I don’t feel I’m being inconsistent at all, because with the former we have people lying* to smear a person, whereas in the latter we have people explicitly speculating in order to smear a person.
It is the God-given of anyone to choose to form their opinion on whether Kerry did the right thing after he came back from Vietnam based on the views of Republican Vietnam veterans. It’s not very reasonable, but there’s no law saying you have to be reasonable.
There is absolutely no room for anyone to make assertions that they don’t know to be true or that they know to be not true, even if they’re a veteran of five wars, and conceal the fact that that’s what they’re doing. Not all “views and opinions” are equal. The opinion of a man who was pulled out of the water by Kerry under fire is more worthwhile than the opinion of somebody who wasn’t there at the time of the incident, or even the opinion of someone who was nearby.
Also I wonder at the often-repeated assertion that Kerry’s service is fair game because he brought it up. It would be fair game even if he didn’t bring it up, IMHO. But it’s only fair game if you play fair.
*There’s a possibility, apparently favoured by Sam Stone, that Swifties for Bush are so angry at Kerry for his anti-war activities they don’t realize they’re not being (entirely) truthful. Possibly some are, but I don’t believe that for a second about their leaders. There’s also the possibility that part of what they’re saying is true, but it is remote, in my estimation, having read a sample chapter from the forthcoming book and watched the ad.
Well it’s becoming more and more obvious that rjung is not interested in debate at all, since the mere possible presence of a person with another view is enough to send him raving. Like here for instance , where he even acted with proactive indignation – flying off the handle gibbering at Sam Stone before even he showed up. By all reason rjung should welcome Sam Stone with open arms since they disagree on so many things, giving him endless opportunity for discussions on all kinds of subjects – instead all he do is thrash and rave. I would love to thank rjung for providing me with countless hours of entertainment but to be honest I’ve been ignoring him for a long time so I really can’t, but what he is doing on a debating board when all he’s looking for is a place to hear himself speak and clap people with whom he already agree with only the gods may know.
I think Brutus is great fun – the last one with Albania cracked me up. Admittedly I have a sick and perverted sense of humour. Calm Kiwi, liberals are such bores, you should come and join us on the dark side, it’s much more fun over here - and I promise I’ll never mention your former infatuation with your Prime Twat.
Gah! You idiots are so fucking predictable. Soon we’ll have rjung whining on “tell me why Sam Stones hasn’t been banned yet” yada yada yada. rjung, reeder and ElvisL1ves the one-trick bore-me-to-death triumvirate. In the name of Cecil I cast thee out! Begone! Spawn-of-Satan, leave this place and go back to depths of hell! Go torture the damned with your never ending threads of “7 minutes” or “Haliburton” or something.
)