Larry Thurlow - Liar?
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10121
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Will,
I know you didn't pick his platform, but you and everyone else are playing into his and Bush's hands by discussing their respective military records.
I am of the opinion that military records don't matter. They are not necessarily a good judge of future Presidential performance. The ability to take quick, decisive action that is so important on the battlefield is less important in the oval office. While quick action may need to be taken from time to time, more often it is the slower, well thought out plan that is more important.
Anyway, I digress. My only point was that there are many more important matters in this country right now than how Kerry really won his purple hearts or whether Bush really showed up for duty.
I believe this country is on the verge of a crisis. The education system is not working very well and Social Security is a joke. What this means to me is that at the same time you have the largest work force in history retiring and starting to draw on social security, which is a ponze scheme by the way and like all such schemes it is doomed to collapse, you have one of the smallest work forces having to support those that are retiring. It doesnâ??t take Lothar or Drakona to do the math on that one.
I am making the assumption that the education level of the current generation is roughly equivalent to that of past generations. I am making that assumption only because I donâ??t want to do the research. Feel free to correct me. In the past a high school graduate could get a fairly good paying union job and therefore contribute more to Social Security. But, with those jobs rapidly disappearing most of what is left are lower paying service sector jobs. With less money flowing in than flowing out, Social Security in my opinion will be gone by the time I reach retirement age in the next 25 years or so.
This is just one of the issues that are facing our Country right now. I donâ??t hear anyone talking about that. I donâ??t hear anyone asking the candidates why we spend more money on keeping felons behind bars than we spend on kids in school. I donâ??t hear anyone asking why we are not doing more to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I donâ??t hear anyone asking the candidates any tough questions. All I hear is people questioning events that happened over 30 years ago.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I donâ??t think itâ??s a coincidence that both sides are making this election about military records. They would rather us talk about that instead of asking the hard questions because I donâ??t think either side has a clue.
I know you didn't pick his platform, but you and everyone else are playing into his and Bush's hands by discussing their respective military records.
I am of the opinion that military records don't matter. They are not necessarily a good judge of future Presidential performance. The ability to take quick, decisive action that is so important on the battlefield is less important in the oval office. While quick action may need to be taken from time to time, more often it is the slower, well thought out plan that is more important.
Anyway, I digress. My only point was that there are many more important matters in this country right now than how Kerry really won his purple hearts or whether Bush really showed up for duty.
I believe this country is on the verge of a crisis. The education system is not working very well and Social Security is a joke. What this means to me is that at the same time you have the largest work force in history retiring and starting to draw on social security, which is a ponze scheme by the way and like all such schemes it is doomed to collapse, you have one of the smallest work forces having to support those that are retiring. It doesnâ??t take Lothar or Drakona to do the math on that one.
I am making the assumption that the education level of the current generation is roughly equivalent to that of past generations. I am making that assumption only because I donâ??t want to do the research. Feel free to correct me. In the past a high school graduate could get a fairly good paying union job and therefore contribute more to Social Security. But, with those jobs rapidly disappearing most of what is left are lower paying service sector jobs. With less money flowing in than flowing out, Social Security in my opinion will be gone by the time I reach retirement age in the next 25 years or so.
This is just one of the issues that are facing our Country right now. I donâ??t hear anyone talking about that. I donâ??t hear anyone asking the candidates why we spend more money on keeping felons behind bars than we spend on kids in school. I donâ??t hear anyone asking why we are not doing more to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I donâ??t hear anyone asking the candidates any tough questions. All I hear is people questioning events that happened over 30 years ago.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I donâ??t think itâ??s a coincidence that both sides are making this election about military records. They would rather us talk about that instead of asking the hard questions because I donâ??t think either side has a clue.
Dedman, I think it's that way because neither side has said anything about issues. It's still mudslinging time and the general public believes apparently what they see on TV. I think the military is a good thing for a president to have for the mere fact that it shows his dedication. In the event of a war, his life would be put on the line. Regardless of what medals he might win, if he wanted to or not, he went to war. Bush really tried to go to war in Vietnam but he got stuck with National Guard service. I'm sure he was heart broken that he didn't serve his country.
I like how the right is so quick to believe this group when it seems that everything they have has fallen apart. Did Kerry deserve those medals? I don't know, I wasn't there, I don't care at all. My only thought on Kerry with respect for the war is that he went. Will tells me that he thought he was going to Europe so he joined. Well, if he came from money why didn't he try to get out of it. He went to Vietnam and fought. Did he run and hide? I don't know. But he was in that country in combat zones. But I would like to hear them actually discuss issues. I can't wait for the first debate, Kerry telling Bush to quit smirking and actually answering a question. And Bush telling Kerry to quit changing stories. Would be funny, I wish those things weren't scripted though. It bothers me.
I like how the right is so quick to believe this group when it seems that everything they have has fallen apart. Did Kerry deserve those medals? I don't know, I wasn't there, I don't care at all. My only thought on Kerry with respect for the war is that he went. Will tells me that he thought he was going to Europe so he joined. Well, if he came from money why didn't he try to get out of it. He went to Vietnam and fought. Did he run and hide? I don't know. But he was in that country in combat zones. But I would like to hear them actually discuss issues. I can't wait for the first debate, Kerry telling Bush to quit smirking and actually answering a question. And Bush telling Kerry to quit changing stories. Would be funny, I wish those things weren't scripted though. It bothers me.
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4688
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
"I donâ??t hear anyone talking about that. I donâ??t hear anyone asking the candidates why we spend more money on keeping felons behind bars than we spend on kids in school. I donâ??t hear anyone asking why we are not doing more to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I donâ??t hear anyone asking the candidates any tough questions."
We're not allowed to ask those questions.
We're not allowed to ask those questions.
One thing that bothers me about kerry's record: he won more medals in a 3-month period of service than any other US serviceman in history. That alone is worthy of investigation. If kerry legitimately won all of his medals, that makes him out to be a greater war hero than such famous men as Alvin York, who led 7 men to the attack of an entrenched German machine gun nest in WWI, taking 132 prisoners. I somehow don't see kerry as the type of man that would charge a VC machine gun nest with 7 men. Strangely enough, York was also a pacifist who had to be convinved to go to war because he thought it was wrong, and became a pacifist after the war, desperately trying to keep the US from entering WWII. Yet when the US did go into WWII, he attempted to re-enlist, so he could continue serving his country.
Is kerry somehow a greater hero than York? He certainly earned more medals and more honors than York ever did. In fact, for York's service, he was only rewarded one medal: the medal of honor. Kerry, in the 3 short months he served as a boat captain, could not possibly have matched the bravery shown by York. Yet why was he inundated in medals, while York received *1* medal for his efforts and bravery?
Is kerry somehow a greater hero than York? He certainly earned more medals and more honors than York ever did. In fact, for York's service, he was only rewarded one medal: the medal of honor. Kerry, in the 3 short months he served as a boat captain, could not possibly have matched the bravery shown by York. Yet why was he inundated in medals, while York received *1* medal for his efforts and bravery?
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10121
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
You are right Dedman but to discuss domestic issues the press would have to focus on Kerry's 20+ year record in the congress. Neither Kerry nor the press want to go there...
Hell he had to go back almost 30 years to find a period in his life that he thought made him look good!
I know I'm not helping america by playing along but it's too funny to not point at and laugh.
I won't vote for Bush but it's fun to see him beating that spoiled-brat-smacktard Kerry.
Vote for Nader...it pisses off both sides so it must be the right thing to do!
EDIT: I just read that Kerry now admits his first purple heart may have been for a self inflicted wound...hmmm....where did we hear that story before?
Hell he had to go back almost 30 years to find a period in his life that he thought made him look good!
I know I'm not helping america by playing along but it's too funny to not point at and laugh.
I won't vote for Bush but it's fun to see him beating that spoiled-brat-smacktard Kerry.
Vote for Nader...it pisses off both sides so it must be the right thing to do!
EDIT: I just read that Kerry now admits his first purple heart may have been for a self inflicted wound...hmmm....where did we hear that story before?
-
Herculosis
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: USA
EDIT: Sorry Will, I missed your last post before I posted this.
Let's just review a bit...
1. Democrats (especially liberal ones) are generally not seen as strong on defense. Mr. Kerry has the MOST liberal voting record of any US Senator.
2. Our current situation regarding terrorism is generally seen as a HUGE issue to consider when choosing a commander in chief. Granted, domestic issues are big, but the terrorism thing could trump them all.
3. Kerry's voting record on defense and intelligence issues looks weak, so the democrats purposely try to portray him as tough based on his Viet Nam record. They then attempt to smear Bush with the AWOL charges, and try to belittle his pansy-assed Guard service in comparison to Kerry's 'distinguished' combat service.
4. Bush's service record isn't really all that important, since he already has a record of dealing with terrorism as president. Whether you like what he's done in that regard or not, you know what you're getting. Still, hes forced to waste time dispelling the charges brought on DIRECTLY BY THE DNC.
5. It's Kerry's service record that's relavant, since he's using it as demonstrated PROOF that he's the best men to be commander in chief.
I'll give you that, under normal circumstances, 30-year-old service records shouldn't be considered. So, let's forget about them. Now we're back to Kerry's direct voting record... weak on defense.
By the way, I don't agree that Bush is a complete Bozo... he just plays one on TV.
Let's just review a bit...
1. Democrats (especially liberal ones) are generally not seen as strong on defense. Mr. Kerry has the MOST liberal voting record of any US Senator.
2. Our current situation regarding terrorism is generally seen as a HUGE issue to consider when choosing a commander in chief. Granted, domestic issues are big, but the terrorism thing could trump them all.
3. Kerry's voting record on defense and intelligence issues looks weak, so the democrats purposely try to portray him as tough based on his Viet Nam record. They then attempt to smear Bush with the AWOL charges, and try to belittle his pansy-assed Guard service in comparison to Kerry's 'distinguished' combat service.
4. Bush's service record isn't really all that important, since he already has a record of dealing with terrorism as president. Whether you like what he's done in that regard or not, you know what you're getting. Still, hes forced to waste time dispelling the charges brought on DIRECTLY BY THE DNC.
5. It's Kerry's service record that's relavant, since he's using it as demonstrated PROOF that he's the best men to be commander in chief.
I'll give you that, under normal circumstances, 30-year-old service records shouldn't be considered. So, let's forget about them. Now we're back to Kerry's direct voting record... weak on defense.
By the way, I don't agree that Bush is a complete Bozo... he just plays one on TV.
-
Fusion pimp
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1618
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 2:01 am
My whole point wasnâ??t to defend Kerry. I canâ??t stand the guy. My only point was that we (the American citizenry) shouldnâ??t have to wait for Bush, Kerry, or the media to address important issues. I think it is a crime that there isnâ??t a better way to directly engage the candidates about matters that actually mean something.
I look at it this way. Bush, Kerry, Nader, et al are applying for a job as the President. We are the employers. Now, when I interview someone for a job, I donâ??t let the interviewee dictate the terms of the interview. I as the interviewer dictate the pace, content, and the tone of the interview. It is a real shame that our political system doesnâ??t allow for that.
Hell, I know itâ??s a pipedream but it sure would be better than being force fed fluff all day. And the politicos wonder why so many folks have tuned out.
I look at it this way. Bush, Kerry, Nader, et al are applying for a job as the President. We are the employers. Now, when I interview someone for a job, I donâ??t let the interviewee dictate the terms of the interview. I as the interviewer dictate the pace, content, and the tone of the interview. It is a real shame that our political system doesnâ??t allow for that.
Hell, I know itâ??s a pipedream but it sure would be better than being force fed fluff all day. And the politicos wonder why so many folks have tuned out.
"1. Democrats (especially liberal ones) are generally not seen as strong on defense. Mr. Kerry has the MOST liberal voting record of any US Senator. "
Not really.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072904.shtml
Not really.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072904.shtml
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10121
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
I like the job interview analogy but in this case Bush and Kerry have their friends mugging Nader in the parking lot so he can't get inside for the interview.
The more I think about the big picture the more I despise what we've turned the process into.
The inmates are running the asylum and we gather for a few 15 second commercials every 4 years to decide if we prefer our insanity to 'Taste Great' or be 'Less Filling'.
The more I think about the big picture the more I despise what we've turned the process into.
The inmates are running the asylum and we gather for a few 15 second commercials every 4 years to decide if we prefer our insanity to 'Taste Great' or be 'Less Filling'.
-
Herculosis
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: USA
Interesting read. It still puts Kerry on the left end of the Democrats though. It also ONLY address the second sentence that you quoted above. Liberal democrats ARE generally seen as weak on defense.Vander wrote:"1. Democrats (especially liberal ones) are generally not seen as strong on defense. Mr. Kerry has the MOST liberal voting record of any US Senator. "
Not really.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072904.shtml
I was just knocking down a piece of spin that has had wide play, not challenging whatever point you were trying to make.
On topic, the whole Swift Boat Veterans flap is a non-starter for me. From what I've seen, I don't believe what these guys are saying, and when they do bring up a believable point, the point doesn't effect my opinion of Kerry. I mean, these guys claim, with varying levels of veracity, that almost every citation/medal Kerry recieved was undeserved, when the closest eyewitnesses and historical documents say otherwise.
I've seen nothing that would make me think he served dishonorably. I mean, I don't think he was Rambo, just that he volunteered for dangerous duty to serve his country, and did so seemingly exceptionally. Perhaps I'm just too biased, or haven't examined the flap in full?
It seems to be a lot of rehashed old hatred of Kerry's style and/or politics, mixed with the motivation and funding of an election year.
On topic, the whole Swift Boat Veterans flap is a non-starter for me. From what I've seen, I don't believe what these guys are saying, and when they do bring up a believable point, the point doesn't effect my opinion of Kerry. I mean, these guys claim, with varying levels of veracity, that almost every citation/medal Kerry recieved was undeserved, when the closest eyewitnesses and historical documents say otherwise.
I've seen nothing that would make me think he served dishonorably. I mean, I don't think he was Rambo, just that he volunteered for dangerous duty to serve his country, and did so seemingly exceptionally. Perhaps I'm just too biased, or haven't examined the flap in full?
It seems to be a lot of rehashed old hatred of Kerry's style and/or politics, mixed with the motivation and funding of an election year.
I couldn't possibly agree with you more. The question then becomes, what can we do about it? To that I have no answer.Will Robinson wrote:I like the job interview analogy but in this case Bush and Kerry have their friends mugging Nader in the parking lot so he can't get inside for the interview.
The more I think about the big picture the more I despise what we've turned the process into.
The inmates are running the asylum and we gather for a few 15 second commercials every 4 years to decide if we prefer our insanity to 'Taste Great' or be 'Less Filling'.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10121
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Well the guys who built this place gave up their lives and/or the lives of their children...their fortunes and homes etc. etc.Dedman wrote:The question then becomes, what can we do about it? To that I have no answer.
A bloody revolution was what it took to get us here so I think the least we could do is throw a little bloodless revolution of our own.
So I'm suggesting we give up whatever we *think* our favorite party was getting for us and refuse to vote for their two-party-status quo-stranglehold-system.
Take a chance that, by sacrificing whatever prize 'your party' was supposedly going to secure for you, is worth losing temporarily in order to send a message that becomes a ripple...that becomes a shock wave...that becomes the re-birth of the peoples representative republic.
Your sacrifice will be nothing compared to those that went before you. After all, how much do the current bozo's really deliver anyway?
Vote for a third party and tell people why you are doing it! Tell them you are throwing out the party politicians and seeking to empower statesmen who exhibit honor, vision and integrity.
"Mr. Kerry has the MOST liberal voting record of any US Senator. "
Hey, haven't heard that one trumpted constantly on right wing ads and commentators or anything! Did you come up with that one yourself?
"To restate, in case you still think I'm dodging, I think that Thurlow's explanation of the contradiction is plausible. Moreover, I think its honest, and I believe him. So, to reply to the subject directly, I DO NOT believe he is lying. "
Believe him based on what? A purely he said-she said argument. Let me guess, you are republican! No bias there, right
Can you *SPECIFICALLY* address my point: Larry Thurlow's own medal citation. So far I've heard his story, then that it is "believeable and honest." Nice proof.
"I believe that the "real" purpose of this thread is an attempt to blow holes in Thurlow, thus tarnishing the believability of all of the SVs, their ad, and the book. "
The real purpose of this thread is to talk about how the SBV debacle is essentially a he-said she-said argument. Do you think Rassman is lying? His events sound believable. Nobody knows what happened, there isn't a shred of clear evidence.
Did John Kerry earn all his medals rightfully? Nobody will ever definitively know. Many veterans have some tall tales, padded records, whatever (don't take that statement the wrong way).
But to believe the SBV tales word for word is downright partisanly silly.
Hey, haven't heard that one trumpted constantly on right wing ads and commentators or anything! Did you come up with that one yourself?
"To restate, in case you still think I'm dodging, I think that Thurlow's explanation of the contradiction is plausible. Moreover, I think its honest, and I believe him. So, to reply to the subject directly, I DO NOT believe he is lying. "
Believe him based on what? A purely he said-she said argument. Let me guess, you are republican! No bias there, right
Can you *SPECIFICALLY* address my point: Larry Thurlow's own medal citation. So far I've heard his story, then that it is "believeable and honest." Nice proof.
"I believe that the "real" purpose of this thread is an attempt to blow holes in Thurlow, thus tarnishing the believability of all of the SVs, their ad, and the book. "
The real purpose of this thread is to talk about how the SBV debacle is essentially a he-said she-said argument. Do you think Rassman is lying? His events sound believable. Nobody knows what happened, there isn't a shred of clear evidence.
Did John Kerry earn all his medals rightfully? Nobody will ever definitively know. Many veterans have some tall tales, padded records, whatever (don't take that statement the wrong way).
But to believe the SBV tales word for word is downright partisanly silly.
-
Herculosis
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: USA
The record is public knowledge. I WAS unaware that it was from 2003 only. But, as I pointed out after reading the article Vander linked, he's still on the left (Liberal) end of the spectrum. My point isn't that being liberal or conservative is necessarily a good or bad thing, just that historically "Liberal Democrats" haven't been taken seriously as far as defense issues go.Birdseye wrote:"Mr. Kerry has the MOST liberal voting record of any US Senator. "
Hey, haven't heard that one trumpted constantly on right wing ads and commentators or anything! Did you come up with that one yourself?
Note that "I" carefully inserted the word "I" several times in my statement. Yes, the result is purely "he said-she said", as are many things in life. We have to weigh all the evidence we're given, and make our decisions.Birdseye wrote:"To restate, in case you still think I'm dodging, I think that Thurlow's explanation of the contradiction is plausible. Moreover, I think its honest, and I believe him. So, to reply to the subject directly, I DO NOT believe he is lying. "
Believe him based on what? A purely he said-she said argument. Let me guess, you are republican! No bias there, right
Oh, and yes, I am conservative, and generally vote republican. I DO look at positions on issues, but conservative candidate positions generally align better with my own. It's funny, although not really suprising, that you'd bring that up. I suppose you think you're a centrist, and that that somehow makes YOU completely unbiased eh? Well, maybe as Chomski would define it.
There IS no incontrolvertible proof, OK? I never said anything about my conclusion being proof, just my opinion after seeing both sides. The article's attempt, though, was to PROVE that he was lying, and I think it failed to do so.Birdseye wrote:Can you *SPECIFICALLY* address my point: Larry Thurlow's own medal citation. So far I've heard his story, then that it is "believeable and honest." Nice proof.
I already gave one possible explanation of how Rassmann thinks he's telling the truth, but the SBVs are still perhaps correct. So, whether he's lying becomes moot. Still, until someone can PROVE that the SBVs are full of crap, they should be able to tell their story. This is America, remember?Birdseye wrote:"I believe that the "real" purpose of this thread is an attempt to blow holes in Thurlow, thus tarnishing the believability of all of the SVs, their ad, and the book. "
The real purpose of this thread is to talk about how the SBV debacle is essentially a he-said she-said argument. Do you think Rassman is lying? His events sound believable. Nobody knows what happened, there isn't a shred of clear evidence.
Hey, I never said anything about believing every word. Even if they're trying to be completely honest, memory can't be completely accurate after this many years. Given who they are, what they did, and how many of them there are though, you better be able to come up with something better than the Thurlow citation as reason for saying they should be completely discounted.Birdseye wrote:Did John Kerry earn all his medals rightfully? Nobody will ever definitively know. Many veterans have some tall tales, padded records, whatever (don't take that statement the wrong way).
But to believe the SBV tales word for word is downright partisanly silly.
Oh, and as far as the medals go, it sure looks now like the first Purple Heart wasn't legitimate, at least if you're going to believe Kerry's own diary.
"My point isn't that being liberal or conservative is necessarily a good or bad thing, just that historically "Liberal Democrats" haven't been taken seriously as far as defense issues go. "
A generalization that has no merit in regards to criticizing any actual stance by Mr. Kerry. So far your claims against Mr. Kerry's fitness for leadership are belief in a republican led effort in a he-said she-said argument, and a generalization about liberals being bad on defense. I have no problems with someone disagreeing in a substanitive nature, but you have not attempted to discount Mr. Kerry in such a manner.
"Still, until someone can PROVE that the SBVs are full of crap, they should be able to tell their story. This is America, remember? "
Never said they shouldn't be allowed to speak. Again, all I am emphasizing is the he-said she-said nature of this arugment.
"The article's attempt, though, was to PROVE that he was lying, and I think it failed to do so. "
There is a difference between the article's attempt and my viewpoint. What I believe is that the latest revelations further cast *doubt* on the SBV stories--not prove squat. Again, we don't know either way, so I'm baffled how you can side with the SBV.
"Yes, the result is purely "he said-she said", as are many things in life. "
Glad you agree. It baffles me that you can't see past your party lines though on this one--clearly it's giving weight against Mr. Kerry because you're a republican, and he's a democrat. If Bush was the veteran and Kerry was the one attacking, you'd be all over the SBV and trumpeting how it was an unfair argument.
"you better be able to come up with something better than the Thurlow citation as reason for saying they should be completely discounted. "
Again, I never said he should be discounted. Rather the issue is so muddy and proofless that believing either argument, especially so close to an election, is downright silly.
"I DO look at positions on issues, but conservative candidate positions generally align better with my own. It's funny, although not really suprising, that you'd bring that up. I suppose you think you're a centrist, and that that somehow makes YOU completely unbiased eh?"
Hey, I'm not saying you can't have your conservative viewpoints. Just back them up with some substance. Believing in the SBV stuff verbatim shows your partisan colors.
No, I don't think I'm unbiased. That's impossible. I do admit to some bias against Bush, as exampled by my extreme suspicions about his national guard records being lost, which were later found. However, I am not voting for Kerry who is a wishy-washy liberal who has repeatadly kow-towed (Sp?) to the republicans on issues.
As far as my political alignment goes, I voted for Nader in 2000, republican schwarz in 2003 for governor in CA (though in retrospect republican McClintock would have been a far better choice). Actually, I've NEVER voted for a democrat in any major political race, though I think there have been some situations where no third options existed on the ballot in local races. I will be voting Libertarian in the 2004 presidential election, and for house & senate when they come up.
Sorry if I'm coming off as patronizing, I'm just a fired up college student and all, you know
Birds
A generalization that has no merit in regards to criticizing any actual stance by Mr. Kerry. So far your claims against Mr. Kerry's fitness for leadership are belief in a republican led effort in a he-said she-said argument, and a generalization about liberals being bad on defense. I have no problems with someone disagreeing in a substanitive nature, but you have not attempted to discount Mr. Kerry in such a manner.
"Still, until someone can PROVE that the SBVs are full of crap, they should be able to tell their story. This is America, remember? "
Never said they shouldn't be allowed to speak. Again, all I am emphasizing is the he-said she-said nature of this arugment.
"The article's attempt, though, was to PROVE that he was lying, and I think it failed to do so. "
There is a difference between the article's attempt and my viewpoint. What I believe is that the latest revelations further cast *doubt* on the SBV stories--not prove squat. Again, we don't know either way, so I'm baffled how you can side with the SBV.
"Yes, the result is purely "he said-she said", as are many things in life. "
Glad you agree. It baffles me that you can't see past your party lines though on this one--clearly it's giving weight against Mr. Kerry because you're a republican, and he's a democrat. If Bush was the veteran and Kerry was the one attacking, you'd be all over the SBV and trumpeting how it was an unfair argument.
"you better be able to come up with something better than the Thurlow citation as reason for saying they should be completely discounted. "
Again, I never said he should be discounted. Rather the issue is so muddy and proofless that believing either argument, especially so close to an election, is downright silly.
"I DO look at positions on issues, but conservative candidate positions generally align better with my own. It's funny, although not really suprising, that you'd bring that up. I suppose you think you're a centrist, and that that somehow makes YOU completely unbiased eh?"
Hey, I'm not saying you can't have your conservative viewpoints. Just back them up with some substance. Believing in the SBV stuff verbatim shows your partisan colors.
No, I don't think I'm unbiased. That's impossible. I do admit to some bias against Bush, as exampled by my extreme suspicions about his national guard records being lost, which were later found. However, I am not voting for Kerry who is a wishy-washy liberal who has repeatadly kow-towed (Sp?) to the republicans on issues.
As far as my political alignment goes, I voted for Nader in 2000, republican schwarz in 2003 for governor in CA (though in retrospect republican McClintock would have been a far better choice). Actually, I've NEVER voted for a democrat in any major political race, though I think there have been some situations where no third options existed on the ballot in local races. I will be voting Libertarian in the 2004 presidential election, and for house & senate when they come up.
Sorry if I'm coming off as patronizing, I'm just a fired up college student and all, you know
Birds
Even I have never said that the group lied. I have said with all my posts, what is it going to take to show doubt on the Swift Boat's claims. Every claim they make is being refuted by someone else that was there, the Navy reports, the new guy that actually saved Thurlow's life, everything, and you guys wont stop and think about it.
The way I'm seeing the issue is this. Kerry says "I'm a decorated Vet"...the SBV comes in and says "You lied and cheated your way to medals and are unfit to command"...Navy reports and other vets that aren't tied to any political stance come out and say "Kerry didn't lie, he and everyone else was under fire"....I don't readily belive Kerry, I tend to believe the Special Forces officer, official Navy reports, and the soldiers that aren't Democrat backed political machines. Sorry if I don't feed from the bottom like the right likes to.
The way I'm seeing the issue is this. Kerry says "I'm a decorated Vet"...the SBV comes in and says "You lied and cheated your way to medals and are unfit to command"...Navy reports and other vets that aren't tied to any political stance come out and say "Kerry didn't lie, he and everyone else was under fire"....I don't readily belive Kerry, I tend to believe the Special Forces officer, official Navy reports, and the soldiers that aren't Democrat backed political machines. Sorry if I don't feed from the bottom like the right likes to.
Who was feeding from the bottom when Bush's military records were in question? You may not have, but I'm guessing it was mostly Liberals. Quite frankly, I think we should get on with the issues (this is never going to really be resolved) and watch Bush blow away Kerry's "plans" for everything under the sun.
FYI, the economy is on the upturn, the nation is no more divided than it has ever been (party lines, which we all seem to be following quite nicely), and--news flash--the world already hates the US for being the only major superpower. They are simply SHOWING their hate of us more, now that we've decided to actually get off our duffs and do something. 
I second that. Look around more closely and you'll see that it's the worst it's ever been, and it's not getting any better. I've even heard more than once how the Liberals and Conservatives are currently engaged in a psychological civil war.Gooberman wrote:I think even most conservatives would disagree. Bill O'reilly even made the comment the other night that "the nation hasn't been this divided since the civil war."the nation is no more divided than it has ever been (party lines, which we all seem to be following quite nicely),
The economy is slowly swinging back up, but no thanks to the bush tax cuts. Bring me some studies showing me that tax cuts for rich people = economic upturn for the whole country.
The world hatred against the US has never been as it is now. When I was in eastern europe a few years ago people asked about our recent florida flub, but that was about it. My friend just got back from the same countries, and another from turkey and all everyone instantly asked when they found out they were american was "do you support that idiot bush" or "I hate bush how could you stand having him in power"
The world hatred against the US has never been as it is now. When I was in eastern europe a few years ago people asked about our recent florida flub, but that was about it. My friend just got back from the same countries, and another from turkey and all everyone instantly asked when they found out they were american was "do you support that idiot bush" or "I hate bush how could you stand having him in power"
They are in a way, but hasn't the hate always been kind of smoldering? Liberals and conservatives are enemies--the difference in America is that they usually don't attack each other physically. I think the nation HAS been this divided before, and we just weren't noticing it because nothing was being done, so we couldn't get mad about it. People aren't becoming any more hateful of each other than they already are; rather, they are simply showing it more and more.
In the Declaration of Independence, there was originally a clause that condemned slavery in strong language. Two states didn't like the clause, and they fought hard enough to get the clause removed in the final copy. They didn't physically fight, but they hated that clause like poison, because it would disrupt their states' economies.
Later, the Civil War occured. Did the slave states still want slavery upheld? Certainly. Did the Northern states still want slavery dead? Certainly. So what caused the civil war?
Abraham Lincoln was a president that most people knew would actually DO something. So, the Southern states pre-empted him. They seceded before Lincoln even gave his inaugural address.
The South thought Lincoln would be likely to abolish slavery (though there were other reasons for the war too). They didn't like his record of actions. Therefore, they seceded from the Union. They didn't like the way things were going because an action-oriented president had entered office.
Actions tend to estrange people, or at least to make people consider themselves estranged (more than they were before). Having a president that acts on his beliefs and the facts he is given is not a thing that is comfortable to most people. Therefore, they show their beliefs too. They protest. In reaction to the things that the person who disagrees with them is doing, they perform their own actions, and appear to most people as being less tolerant than they could be.
I may be out on a limb, but I think that any president who is going to actively do things is going to make vehement enemies. Conservatives suffered through 8 years of Clinton, but they weren't going to the levels of anti-Bushism that the Liberals are today, mostly because Clinton didn't really do much of anything. Bush, on the other hand, is doing things. He responded to the attack on America, he attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, and he's cut taxes--dramatically. As a result of his action, people start reacting to him. If Clinton had started actively giving nuclear weapons to the Chinese, wouldn't people have been up in arms trying to prevent him and impeach him? The point is, actions produce reactions. Bush has DONE things. Therefore, people are actively DOING anti-Bush things. It's not that they hate Bush any more than Conservatives hated Clinton, it's just that Bush is actively doing things, and doing things provokes reactions in the people the action effects.
In the Declaration of Independence, there was originally a clause that condemned slavery in strong language. Two states didn't like the clause, and they fought hard enough to get the clause removed in the final copy. They didn't physically fight, but they hated that clause like poison, because it would disrupt their states' economies.
Later, the Civil War occured. Did the slave states still want slavery upheld? Certainly. Did the Northern states still want slavery dead? Certainly. So what caused the civil war?
Abraham Lincoln was a president that most people knew would actually DO something. So, the Southern states pre-empted him. They seceded before Lincoln even gave his inaugural address.
The South thought Lincoln would be likely to abolish slavery (though there were other reasons for the war too). They didn't like his record of actions. Therefore, they seceded from the Union. They didn't like the way things were going because an action-oriented president had entered office.
Actions tend to estrange people, or at least to make people consider themselves estranged (more than they were before). Having a president that acts on his beliefs and the facts he is given is not a thing that is comfortable to most people. Therefore, they show their beliefs too. They protest. In reaction to the things that the person who disagrees with them is doing, they perform their own actions, and appear to most people as being less tolerant than they could be.
I may be out on a limb, but I think that any president who is going to actively do things is going to make vehement enemies. Conservatives suffered through 8 years of Clinton, but they weren't going to the levels of anti-Bushism that the Liberals are today, mostly because Clinton didn't really do much of anything. Bush, on the other hand, is doing things. He responded to the attack on America, he attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, and he's cut taxes--dramatically. As a result of his action, people start reacting to him. If Clinton had started actively giving nuclear weapons to the Chinese, wouldn't people have been up in arms trying to prevent him and impeach him? The point is, actions produce reactions. Bush has DONE things. Therefore, people are actively DOING anti-Bush things. It's not that they hate Bush any more than Conservatives hated Clinton, it's just that Bush is actively doing things, and doing things provokes reactions in the people the action effects.
Stryker's got a good point. I've noticed the same thing, that there are two important types of people on each side: the believers and the reactionaries. The reactionaries (including on the right such people as Sean Hannity and my father, and on the left such people as Michael Moore) are prone to say whatever they want to believe is true in an effort to put down the other side for its actions. I'd classify most politicians as partisan (not idealogical) reactionaries. It's the tried-and-true method of politics.
I consider myself more of a believer, and I typically think of the believers as the thinkers of the group. These are the policymakers and judges in government, who aren't afraid to cross lines drawn in the political stand in defense of their beliefs. There are quite a few believers, but their voices get drowned out by the screaming, kicking reactionaries.
The difference between the two is simple to illustrate. To use a liberal example: left-wing reactionaries will be complaining about Bush going to war until election day. Left-wing believers will be deal with the situation as it stands instead of playing a game of "what if we weren't at war".
I consider myself more of a believer, and I typically think of the believers as the thinkers of the group. These are the policymakers and judges in government, who aren't afraid to cross lines drawn in the political stand in defense of their beliefs. There are quite a few believers, but their voices get drowned out by the screaming, kicking reactionaries.
The difference between the two is simple to illustrate. To use a liberal example: left-wing reactionaries will be complaining about Bush going to war until election day. Left-wing believers will be deal with the situation as it stands instead of playing a game of "what if we weren't at war".
heh, Lincoln did not divide the nation. The nation was already divided. All he wanted to do was bring it together. Good presidents don't divide, they unite. Lincoln didn't divide, he is even quoted as saying that if he thought he could preserve the union and keep slavery he would have.
Comparing Clinton and Bush can't be done either. Everyone agrees that Clinton was a moderate democrate. Bush is not a moderate conservative. Having four years of Malcolm X in office would be a good comparison.
Comparing Clinton and Bush can't be done either. Everyone agrees that Clinton was a moderate democrate. Bush is not a moderate conservative. Having four years of Malcolm X in office would be a good comparison.
Sheesh, if you think Bush is a radical, try a REAL conservative. Bush is WAY more moderate than most conservatives I've known.
Lincoln did not MEAN to divide the nation. The nation was already divided. However, it probably wouldn't have come to outright war had Lincoln not been elected. Is that Lincoln's fault? I don't think so.
On the topic of extreme conservatism, if you had an extreme conservative in office, you would no longer have social security, "welfare" programs that keep people in government-paid housing with government-paid sattelite TV, Medicare would be out the window, and programs like Medishare more dominant. You would also see the death penalty brought back in a big way, people in prisons forced to work for a living instead of living in a government-provided asylum (complete with cable TV), no NEA, no abortion, basically no government departments except for the military, constitution, president, congress, and the senate.
Bush is, by no one's standards, an extreme conservative (unless you're an extreme liberal).
Lincoln did not MEAN to divide the nation. The nation was already divided. However, it probably wouldn't have come to outright war had Lincoln not been elected. Is that Lincoln's fault? I don't think so.
On the topic of extreme conservatism, if you had an extreme conservative in office, you would no longer have social security, "welfare" programs that keep people in government-paid housing with government-paid sattelite TV, Medicare would be out the window, and programs like Medishare more dominant. You would also see the death penalty brought back in a big way, people in prisons forced to work for a living instead of living in a government-provided asylum (complete with cable TV), no NEA, no abortion, basically no government departments except for the military, constitution, president, congress, and the senate.
Bush is, by no one's standards, an extreme conservative (unless you're an extreme liberal).
None of what you wrote after that would be true. Kennedy is an extreme liberal, and if he got into office I doubt he could do much. The president is not King.On the topic of extreme conservatism, if you had an extreme conservative in office...
Bush is a huge proponent of the death penalty, check the Texas record when he was in office! He killed everyone. He wanted a consitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. How could you be anymore anti-gay marriage short of executing them on the spot? He is as pro-life as they come, to the point of limiting valuable stem cell research. Bush is no where near moderate. I, and many other liberals, had no where near the problems with Bush Sr, then we do with little jr.
.-
Herculosis
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: USA
Well, like Goob said, you haven't had many votes yet, but yes it did surprise me a bit. Your apparent hatred of Bush and all things Republican led me to the wrong conclusion. Now I see that it's just an overall cynical attitude toward conventional politics.Birdseye wrote:Herculosis, where is the response? I thought we were getting into a decent argument. Or was the revelation that I've never voted for a democrat in a major political race too earth shattering for your world view of me?
As far as the argument goes, I guess I just thought that it had pretty much stalemated, and I've moved on from the whole SBV thing.
The only real substance of argument you had in your last post was about my generalizing that Liberals were weak on defense. My whole point there was NOT to automatically paint Kerry as weak on defense by that generalization. He has enough other problems in that area all on his own. But, it is a FACT that the majority of Americans THINK that liberals are weaker on defense issues than conservatives. To counter that, the Kerry campaign strategically put forth his Viet Nam service as THE reason that the common perception should NOT apply to HIM.
Contrary to what you probably think, I am NOT blinded by party rhetoric. I think I'm smart enough to see a lot of what goes on politically on both sides for what it is. On principal, though, as I said, I rarely come down left of center on issues. Plus, the most visible attitude from the left these days, that of hate Bush and do anything necessary to defeat him, is certainly not in the slightest bit enticing to me.