The inaugural pitting of you, Sam Stone? Hardly. This thread from just a few weeks ago most certainly counts, even if you started it yourself.
duffer, does that mean you can’t come up with anything either, but you can’t face the implications of that? Apparently. Let’s be glad that the “sense” you and **US ** represent is “uncommon”.
He’s been pointedly asked for his reasons multiple times, but refuses to do so. He leaves us no remaining way to impute honesty to his thought processes, does he?
Except to refuse to even mention the accounts told by the people who were actually there, that is? Or the statements made by members of this group about things we know they could not have seen (even by dint of their not even arriving on the scene until Kerry left Vietnam)? Sure he has. Typical approach for him, as was typical of december, too. You can object to even exploring the comparisons if you like, but that doesn’t help anyone. Read the very recent thread linked above for much more discussion - educate yourself.
That’s wrong, too. He chooses to continue to assert statements after he’s been shown they’re false or unsupported, even if he didn’t make the initial assertion he’s parroting. How is that different from lying, either factually or morally?
Except for, as stated, the “side” of the people who really were there. The Kerry-bashing result is inescapable.
You, like him, are defending the indefensible. How, for instance, would you tell John McCain that this statement he made about it is wrong?
[[Link](http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/ nation/president/2004-08-05-mcain-ad_x.htm)