Powered by TypePad

« The NSA Eavesdropping Briefings - Too Exclusive To Be Legal? | Main | More Legal Rationales For The NSA Program »

January 20, 2006

Comments

maryrose

Kim
You are back in real time and with an excellent post.

kim

What lies, and who caught them? The Swifties have not been debunked, quite the contrary.

Move on, forsooth.
============================

Rider

Of course I honor their service. Then last year they started lying their asses off, some of them having made statements supporting Kerry only a year before. I don't honor the lies and smears. What they did last year was absolutely despicable. They hated his guts from when he returned and they let the hate run away with their own honor.

Sue

All 250 of them. That, in and of itself, was a feat. To get 250 various individuals to tell the same lie. I told you, most of them would have let John Kerry's memory stayed seared in his mind if John Kerry hadn't helped author a book that portrayed him as the hero and them as just guys along for the ride.

Rider

I'm surprised they couldn't get more Kerry haters to sign on. Get paid and get to spit on John Kerry too? What's not to like? Paybacks are hell.

Rider

caught (scroll down) and debunked

Too many links to follow? Sorry. So many lies to debunk, so little time.

Read them or don't. Their book doesn't pass the smell test. But if you are happy snuggled up with the SBV lies, so be it.

maryrose

It comes down to whom you chose to believe : I choose the Swift Boat Veterans, you choose Flip Flop Kerry and TERAYSUH.

Rider

Fair enough.

Cecil Turner

But he's no liar in my book. I can't stand him, but I do honor his military service. As to the SBV, they've been caught in way too many lies for my comfort.

You "honor" the military service of the guy who shares your political persuasion, and dishonor a couple hundred guys who don't. And the SwiftVets' story held up a lot better than Kerry's, yet you have no trouble smearing them. Can you say "hypocrisy"?

Too many links to follow? Sorry. So many lies to debunk, so little time.

Heh. And not one that'll stand up under scrutiny. Pick one, and we can go over it in detail. You like "Christmas in Cambodia"? Who's lying there? Wanna go double or nothing on "enemy fire" on Bay Hap river? First or third Purple Hearts?

Gary Maxwell

My point was that you cannot govern from the middle if you adopt majoritarian rules or procedures, i.e. winner takes all

You know if I was the minority in both bodies,with no real prospect of becoming the majority I might want to change the rules too.

You might want to consider where the Republicans learn how to act when your the majority party. You see they saw the Democrats ingor them completely for about 40 years. As Kim said in regard to a different matter but just as apt here "paybacks are hell."

Now when you get a majority of the electoral votes and a majority of the House seats and a majority of the Senate seats and increase your majority holdings in an off Presidential year are you the majority and haven't you demonstrated that you have the middle voting for you.

But it does suck being in the minority Rider. I feel your pain. I wont even call your winner take all comment chickenshit.

Rider

I do honor their military service. I have nothing but respect for their service and his during the war. They are the ones who are dishonoring a fellow vet's military record. They hated his political activism after the war, and so they chose to attack his military service during the war. I hate their smear campaign attacking his military service, but I am grateful for their military service, which was honorable and heroic.

Rider

You know if I was the minority in both bodies,with no real prospect of becoming the majority I might want to change the rules too.

The filibuster rule has been used many times by the Republicans. It's for the benefit of the whichever party is in the minority to prevent what de Tocqueville and John Adams called a "tyranny of the majority." The founders wanted our senators to be under some pressure to persuade and convince those on the other side of the aisle and to meet in the middle for the good of all. Without the filibuster, with just "a straight up or down vote," there would be no meeting in the middle, no moderation of majority views and, in effect, only the majority would be represented. The founders really were quite repelled by the idea of straight democracy.

boris

They hated his political activism after the war, and so they chose to attack his military service during the war.

With the truth. His political activism dishonored all VN vets with lies and false accusations.

Gary Maxwell

Oh I get Hillary was misquoted. She was not talking about the House being run like a plantation, she meant the Senate as you clearly do.

You might want to do your homework on how many times Senate rules have been modified on a majority vote on a point of order. Its sometimes called the "Byrd Rule." That should give you a hint on where to look for several recent incidents. Its again the school that Dems took them to for so many years. But they were very good students.

Filibuster cloture used to require more than 60 votes. But then things change.

And your implication that the founders wanted to provide for a filibuster? WTF. Show where this is in the Constitution.

Like Kim said "Paybacks are hell". And whining does not look good on you.

TM

It's hard to pick a favorite, but since Rider offered the link, let's pick the reporting when ABC Nightline went to Vietnam - the results were hysterical.

The ABC story - the local witnesses backed the Kerry version of the Silver Star incident (when he beached his boat and shot someone with a rocket launcher) as told by his citation, thereby debunking the Swift Boat Vets version.

Apparently ABC had done no research at all - the Swift Boat "version" was simply based on Kerry's account as told to the Boston Globe, or printed in Brinkley's "Tour of Duty" (there were no Swifties present at the Silver Star incident).

So ABC "proved" that Kerry's version as told to Brinkley and the Globe was nonsense, and that made the Swifties out to be liars. Uh huh.

I had some coverage here.

Gary Maxwell

As I am felling charitable and it feels like a teachable moment here is a free and cut and paste for ya:

Changing Senate precedents by majority vote would be nothing new to Mr. Byrd, who used the tactic to change Senate precedents on filibusters and other delaying tactics when he was Majority Leader in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987. This history is detailed by Martin Gold and Dimple Gupta in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.

Gary Maxwell

So just who is repelled by the idea of straight democracy? elitist liberals?

Sue

I remember the night I first heard of John Kerry's amazing heroism. Fire all around, racing back, hand reaching in to pull him aboard, all at great peril to John Kerry. Risking life and limb to save someone in his charge. I remember thinking the story would have made a great movie of the week. Especially if he wound up winning the presidency. Then, the rest of the story came out. The only boat that fled the scene. The others couldn't or wouldn't. Sort of changed the tone of Kerry's heroism. I still give him kudos for coming back. Kind of ruined my idea for a movie of the week, though. Unless it was about the Swifties that stayed. It was that night John Kerry lost any chance of winning the presidency. He might have pulled it off had he left the theatrics at home.

Rick Ballard

"He might have pulled it off had he left the theatrics at home."

Don't you know it's bedtime? You've ruined a good nights sleep for any number of people. Now I have to warn my wife that if I wake up screaming she shouldn't worry.

clarice

I believe it was John Calhoun , a supporter of slavery, who coined "Tyranny of the majority".

clarice

In fact, Rider, I am being unaccountably polite. It was John Calhoun, not Adams or Toqueville. And once again I have to wonder where you were educated?

Harry Arthur

I really don't want to beat this dead horse much more but I'm still left wondering what possessed John Kerry and his election campaign to make Viet Nam an issue at all. It was at best a serious distraction from any real debate about either the war or most domestic policies.

Even if absolutely everything Kerry ever said about Viet Nam was 100% true, his honorable service as a Naval LT prepares him for the presidency exactly how? Running a swift boat has exactly what to do with running the entire military? And Bush's "failure" to make it to Viet Nam as a fighter pilot precludes him from the presidency how?

As I've asserted many times before, we should all be very careful of the "chickenhawk" argument or its reverse. It suggests election of men like Grant and Carter (nice man, but ...), but precludes the election of men like FDR, or Clinton (Mr or Mrs).

Is there some magic to military service, no matter how short, that uniquely qualifies military men or women for the presidency? I categorically reject the idea that to be an effective commander in chief one must have worn a uniform.

Harry Arthur

As for the filibuster, perhaps I'm wrong but I don't recall seeing the concept in the constitution. My understanding is that senate rules alone determine the limits on debate.

Of course the house limits debate so the founders certainly had no concept of a filibuster at the closest point of "direct" representation of the people.

clarice

Well, if Hillary! gets the nomination you can be sure the chicken hawk argument will not be an issue this time around.

Of course, the people making that argument are really saying that those opposed to the war who lack military service are free to express their views. It's only those who are for war who must prove they served.

Utter foolish argument, but considering the source, why should we be surprised?

Rider

clarice - No, it's what Aristotle called the ethical argument. There are three forms of persuasion: emotional, logical, and ethical. Ethical persuasion is when the speaker's personal background adds to or detracts from his argument, which may be logical or emotional or both.

When your physician tells you to quit smoking but has a pack of cigarettes and an ashtray and lighter sitting on his desk, the ethical aspect of his argument undermines the logical and emotional side.

In the same way, chickenhawks automatically lack a certain credibility when they beat the drum for war and set about sending young men and women into war. You want your recruiter to have a chest full of ribbons, right? It doesn't mean the chickenhawk doesn't have the right to speak or that his argument isn't solid, it's just that he's got his own background to overcome in order to be convincing.

This problem is exacerbated when the chickenhawks establish a pattern of trashing, bashing, and smearing veterans who oppose their policies.

As Webb points out, at some point young people considering volunteering for duty in Iraq will begin to wonder if 20 years from now their own service will be dishonored by the next generation of spinmeisters:

It's Tommy this, an'Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

-- Rudyard Kipling

Rider

Don't blame the error on my poor, frustrated teachers. Also, did I say my memory was perfect? James Madison. The concept, if not the term, though he did speak of "oppressive combinations of a majority":

(in Federalist 51)

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure...In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful."

As for de Tocqueville, look in Book I, Chapter XV:

"EFFECTS OF THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY UPON THE NATIONAL CHARACTER OF THE AMERICANS--THE COURTIER SPIRIT IN THE UNITED STATES."

de Tocqueville was a contemporary of Calhoun. Was Calhoun first? I don't know. Calhoun certainly made use of the argument, as you so graciously pointed out.

Rider

Gary - on straight democracy and the founders read Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) the article I posted above. He's a libertarian; not a liberal. He's a small government Republican; not a big government Republican like you neocons.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012306Y.shtml

kim

Rider, Kipling would be celebrating Red-Staters today, and would probably be a neocon. So Tommy that.
============================================

Cecil Turner

In the same way, chickenhawks automatically lack a certain credibility . . .

In the first place, this is not an "ethical symmetry" argument. There is no attempt to treat someone else equally, nor is there any rational basis for the principle. The last possible rationalization (i.e., "you're forcing someone else to do what you won't") went away with the draft. This is a standard "inconsistency tu quoque" form of the ad hominem fallacy.

In the second place, the charge is itself stunningly hypocritical. It relies on the fact that our professional military makes up only .5% of the population; and allows opponents to draw on 99.5% of the population to find opposition to the .5% whose argument they allow as legitimate. It's particularly egregious when viewed against the backdrop of the Democrats' indefensible (yet successful) efforts to disenfranchise overseas military voters in close elections. The related talking points about "trashing veterans" are beneath contempt.

kim

Lest we forget, Tommies made marvelous volunteers.

So it's Tommy this and Tommy that is it? Perhaps you are spinning Kipling in his grave.

You are to dream tonight about being drafted into a war that was nation-building, yet anti-nationalist; that tyranically opposed vicious autocracy, and that you tragically let slip away. Sweet Dreams.
=============================================

Extraneus

Here's an interesting example of the "inconsistency tu quoque" form of the ad hominem fallacy from Cecil's link:

"US Democrats say that we shouldn't participate in war in Iraq, but they supported it after 9/11."

Is this a good example?

Gary Maxwell

Rider

You are so full of stuff it literally falls out your ears. You said the filibuster was given by the "Founders". Its not in the constitution and did not find its way into Senate rules for somewhere around 60 years later.

Now you change the subject to Ron Paul, or is it that Ron Paul is a Founder? Its ludicrous either way but disingenuous on your part.

Ron Paul is a kook. He is from Texas and I se him up close and personal a lot more than you. He votes with Cynthia McKinney sometimes ( you will no doubt note her party affiation and her socialist beliefs). He once ran on the Libertarian Party ticket for President. Why the GOP allows him to even caucus with them is beyond me.

You have selected the wackiest member of the GOP caucus as your standard bearer. If you would like to have him in your caucus we can trade. Got any ballast?

Gary Maxwell

Rider

If you read what you post it would help a bunch. James Madison was clearing arguing for a minority in society to protect their civil rights. Its nothing about Democrats filibustering qualified judges or anything else they dont like. It is an argument for the Bill of Rights.

the guy you are looking so frantically ( that wy it took you so long to respond ) is Alexander Hamilton. He really did not trust the "rabble" at all. Of course he was the first elitist and the founder so many of your Democrats now ape.

Gary Maxwell

Rider

If you read what you post it would help a bunch. James Madison was clearing arguing for a minority in society to protect their civil rights. Its nothing about Democrats filibustering qualified judges or anything else they dont like. It is an argument for the Bill of Rights. Like a lot of the Federalist papers.

the guy you are looking so frantically ( thats why it took you so long to respond ) is Alexander Hamilton. He really did not trust the "rabble" at all. Of course he was the first elitist and the founder so many of your Democrats now ape.

Gary Maxwell

Rider

If you read what you post it would help a bunch. James Madison was clearing arguing for a minority in society to protect their civil rights. Its nothing about Democrats filibustering qualified judges or anything else they dont like. It is an argument for the Bill of Rights. Like a lot of the Federalist papers.

the guy you are looking so frantically ( thats why it took you so long to respond ) is Alexander Hamilton. He really did not trust the "rabble" at all. Of course he was the first elitist and the founder so many of your Democrats now ape.

Gary Maxwell

Rider

If you read what you post it would help a bunch. James Madison was clearing arguing for a minority in society to protect their civil rights. Its nothing about Democrats filibustering qualified judges or anything else they dont like. It is an argument for the Bill of Rights. Like a lot of the Federalist papers.

the guy you are looking so frantically ( thats why it took you so long to respond ) is Alexander Hamilton. He really did not trust the "rabble" at all. Of course he was the first elitist and the founder so many of your Democrats now ape.

Gary Maxwell

Rider

If you read what you post it would help a bunch. James Madison was clearing arguing for a minority in society to protect their civil rights. Its nothing about Democrats filibustering qualified judges or anything else they dont like. It is an argument for the Bill of Rights. Like a lot of the Federalist papers.

the guy you are looking so frantically ( thats why it took you so long to respond ) is Alexander Hamilton. He really did not trust the "rabble" at all. Of course he was the first elitist and the founder so many of your Democrats now ape.

Gary Maxwell

Rider

If you read what you post it would help a bunch. James Madison was clearing arguing for a minority in society to protect their civil rights. Its nothing about Democrats filibustering qualified judges or anything else they dont like. It is an argument for the Bill of Rights. Like a lot of the Federalist papers.

the guy you are looking so frantically ( thats why it took you so long to respond ) is Alexander Hamilton. He really did not trust the "rabble" at all. Of course he was the first elitist and the founder so many of your Democrats now ape.

Gary Maxwell

Rider

If you read what you post it would help a bunch. James Madison was clearing arguing for a minority in society to protect their civil rights. Its nothing about Democrats filibustering qualified judges or anything else they dont like. It is an argument for the Bill of Rights. Like a lot of the Federalist papers.

the guy you are looking so frantically ( thats why it took you so long to respond ) is Alexander Hamilton. He really did not trust the "rabble" at all. Of course he was the first elitist and the founder so many of your Democrats now ape.

Gary Maxwell

Rider

If you read what you post it would help a bunch. James Madison was clearing arguing for a minority in society to protect their civil rights. Its nothing about Democrats filibustering qualified judges or anything else they dont like. It is an argument for the Bill of Rights. Like a lot of the Federalist papers.

the guy you are looking so frantically ( thats why it took you so long to respond ) is Alexander Hamilton. He really did not trust the "rabble" at all. Of course he was the first elitist and the founder so many of your Democrats now ape.

clarice

Toqueville's remarks were to explain, as I recall, why the American system of government was able to survive without mobocracy which had impelled the French Revolution, and not an endorsement of filibusters.Having been through that it was much on Toqueville's mind. (BTW, I think he is the one authentic genius of political sociology in centuries--maybe it was because like Tacitus he was just a very shrewd observer and not hampered by the gibberish and methodological hamstrings of our time or the prejudices of his.)

John Calhoun first invoked the filibuster. That was in 1841 and it was in support of slavery.As there were a number of heated issues in Congress from the adoption of the Constitution until 1841, I think it unlikely that is was in the thoughts of the Founders.

clarice

Toqueville's remarks were to explain, as I recall, why the American system of government was able to survive without mobocracy which had impelled the French Revolution, and not an endorsement of filibusters.Having been through that it was much on Toqueville's mind. (BTW, I think he is the one authentic genius of political sociology in centuries--maybe it was because like Tacitus he was just a very shrewd observer and not hampered by the gibberish and methodological hamstrings of our time or the prejudices of his.)

John Calhoun first invoked the filibuster. That was in 1841 and it was in support of slavery.As there were a number of heated issues in Congress from the adoption of the Constitution until 1841, I think it unlikely that it was in the thoughts of the Founders.

boris

Wow Gary you hit the jackpot !!!

Gary Maxwell

Rider

If you read what you post it would help a bunch. James Madison was clearing arguing for a minority in society to protect their civil rights. Its nothing about Democrats filibustering qualified judges or anything else they dont like. It is an argument for the Bill of Rights. Like a lot of the Federalist papers.

the guy you are looking so frantically ( thats why it took you so long to respond ) is Alexander Hamilton. He really did not trust the "rabble" at all. Of course he was the first elitist and the founder so many of your Democrats now ape.

Gary Maxwell

I dont ssssttutter!

Gary Maxwell

I dont ssssttutter!

Rider

kim - Kipling's poem "Tommy" was about hypocritical treatment of soldiers. It was about lip service paid to Tommy. But Tommy sees through it.

Rider

Cecil, You don't have the fallacy ad hominem tu quoque down straight. Your entire second paragraph is an example of that particular type of fallacy. What you are arguing there is that Republicans should be allowed to bash veterans because your opponents have "disenfranchised" overseas military voters (actually they have just advocated procedures to eliminate unfair electioneering with overseas absentee ballots). Fallacious.

Rider

"Ron Paul is a kook."

Gary, this is called ad hominem abusive (argumentum ad personam). If it weren't for ad hominem arguments, you wouldn't have any arguments at all. All fallacious, of course.

Rider

I never said the filibuster was in the Constitution. If you will read my posts before frothing at the mouth and chewing the rug, it would help. I was arguing that the filibuster was consistent with the principles of the founders, e.g., Madison (I wrongly said Adams).

Gary Maxwell

this is called ad hominem abusive

I am sure you are right as you are an expert in the technique. For example, when you called George Bush the village idiot in this thread? Kook is quite mid in comparison and is actually quite descriptive of this guy.

If it werent for changing the subject you might have to admit how high the number of times you are wrong on facts really is too. Nearly 0 for January you putz.

Rider

Cecil - the chickenhawk argument is an appeal to consistency ("ethical symmetry").

BTW, "chickenhawk" does NOT refer to politicians who have not had professional military careers (your 0.5%). It refers to politicians like the Vice President who, when they were young, "had other priorities" and avoided serving altogether, yet whose priority now is advocating wars for other young people to go fight. In other words, they encourage or even glorify military service, service which they chose to avoid personally.

The chickenhawk argument is not an argument from logic. It is an ethical argument, i.e., it has to do with perceived credibility or the lack thereof. Since it is not about logic, but about human nature, it is neither fallacious nor valid; it simply is.

An ad hominem tu quoque argument is a type of logical fallacy. An example would be if your antiwar opponents said, "Your advocacy of geostrategic war policy is logically invalid, because in college you actively advocated against the War in VN." That argument is fallacious. Ad hominem tu quoque

Instead, your opponents are saying, "The geostrategic policies you advocate have sent many young people off to fight and die in Iraq, yet when you were a young man you "had other priorities" or actively avoided military service yourself." That is an ethical argument, a legitimate appeal to "ethical symmetry," to consistency. It makes no logical claim against the chickenhawks; only an ethical one. It's not about logical validity but about perceived credibility.

Rider

"you putz"

ad hominem abusive

Ad hominem arguments are always fallacious.

Rider

"US Democrats say that we shouldn't participate in war in Iraq, but they supported it after 9/11."

Yes, that is a particularly good example of the fallacy of ad hominem tu quoque.

It works as an ethical argument politically. But it is in fact a logical fallacy. The fact that someone changed his mind does not make his position logically invalid. The trouble with being in that position (having voted for the IWR) is that even if you have very good reasons for taking an antiwar position now, from an ethical perspective you are not taken seriously. The power of the ethical argument is that it can trump both logical and emotional appeals.

Rider

"He is from Texas and I se[e] him up close and personal a lot more than you."

Argument from authority. Another example of ad hominem abusive. Fallacious.

Rider

Because the fallacy ad hominem tu quoque mimics or resembles legitimate ethical agument, it is often used politically even though logically it is fallacious.

Cecil Turner

What you are arguing there is that Republicans should be allowed to bash veterans because your opponents have "disenfranchised" overseas military voters (actually they have just advocated procedures to eliminate unfair electioneering with overseas absentee ballots).

"Bash veterans"? Sorry, Rider, that's your nonsensical, hypocritical formulation. I didn't say bashing veterans was okay . . . I said you were full of crap, and they were just telling the truth. (And that you were a hypocrite as well, as you bashed far more vets in the process . . . "Swiftbuck Vets" ring a bell?) And counting serving servicemembers' votes is "unfair electioneering"? Precious.

Cecil - the chickenhawk argument is an appeal to consistency ("ethical symmetry").

Nonsense. Even if it were perfectly analogous ("you support it now, but you didn't then"), it'd be an ad-hominem. A "you support it now, but you didn't serve then" isn't event consistent on its own terms.

BTW, "chickenhawk" does NOT refer to politicians who have not had professional military careers (your 0.5%).

No. We have 1.4 million people in uniform out of a population of ~300 million. That's less than .5% at any one time, and the majority are not careerists.

It's not about logical validity but about perceived credibility.

It's politically convenient bunkum. But feel free to continue . . . I like it when political opponents discredit themselves.

kim

Today's Tommies, mostly Red-State Volunteers are tired of having only lip service paid to them by the left and the media. I'm glad you brought them up.

Possibly the most interesting musical event I've heard was two wedding bands crossing an intersection in old Delhi, sensing each other a block away, and jamming most intensely with each other just as they intersected, marching like at halftime, perfectly in rhythm and in tune with each other, then diverging into their own themes again, slowly, as they moved away.
===========================================
=========================================

Rider

Smearboat Vets. Slimeboat Vets. Swiftbuck Vets. More if I can think of it.

You really don't get it. Bush's flying monkeys trash and bash the veterans' service record. They denigrate their military service. They smear the veterans for their decorations. They turn them from heroes into Viet Cong.

Smearboat Vets. Smirchboat Vets. Swiftbuck Vets. Those are attacks on their venal political tactics. They are lying bilgescum. And if I can think of any more ad hominem attacks on these vermin I'll post them right here for you. As far as their political tactics, they are the slimiest dirty tricksters since Donald Segretti and Lucianne Goldberg.

Rider

Cecil - Take five, man. You're not making any sense.

Extraneus

Cool, kim.

Sue

Holy moley...it's a good thing Rider honored their service. I can only imagine what he would say about them had he not honored their service.

Rider

I can only imagine what he would say about them had he not honored their service.

Gosh. Let's see, now. I probably would have challenged all their Purple Hearts, Bronze and Silver Stars, and Navy Crosses. I'd have accused the amputees of having fragged themselves. I'd have spread whispers that they had gone over the edge from being upriver too long in the jungle heat. I'd have called them all cowards and medal-hogs and accused them of never having done anything recorded on their citations.

boris

They are lying bilgescum

Kerry lied about running off downriver. Lied about Cambodia. Lied about war crimes.

Should anybody believe that somehow rider rider pants on fire knows the real actual truth? Such certainty, such vehemence, such bile against a group that cross checked and presented their own recollections of the facts and their opinions of the man.

If they were going to cook up personal destruction don't you think they might have concocted something worse than scamming a purple heart with a splinter?

No it's not the ferocity of their accusations that gets the rider foaming and spitting, it's the audacity of besmirching such a GREAT AMERICAN ANTI WAR WAR HERO !!!!

HOW DARE THEY !!! HOW DARE THEY !!!

Gary Maxwell

Rider here is a ad hom for you. You think of yourself as an educated man, but you are bloviating old fool. You remind me quite strongly one that came before you. Never ever own up to any of a plethora of mistakes in facts, throw out plenty of insults at politicians that you dont like or posters who disagree with you( or just point out your numerous errors in facts and in logic or your own inconsistencies) and change the subject when it gets inconvenient to defend your woeful posts.

But I am still laughing as your are a small part of an electorate that has more common sense than you do and thus you will remain in the minority cursing the darkness but unable to light a candle.

boris

Never ever own up to any of a plethora of mistakes in facts

Aint that the truth.

Cecil Turner

You really don't get it.

Oh, I think I do. But continue . . . please.

Sue

Ron Paul may not be a kook, but he sure says some kooky things.

Gary Maxwell

"The founders wanted our senators to be under some pressure to persuade and convince those on the other side of the aisle and to meet in the middle for the good of all. Without the filibuster, with just "a straight up or down vote,..."

I never said the filibuster was in the Constitution.

On top of all of it you are not even a very good liar. Quite fallacious actually.

But you are good for giggle.

Rider

Should anybody believe that somehow rider rider pants on fire knows the real actual truth?

boris - Classic example of the fallacious argument ad hominem abusive (argumentum ad personam)Check your CapsLock. Appears to be stuck.

Rave on, Gary. Me, change the subject? LOL. When I've got six posters coming straight at me and all of them all over the ballpark, I'll pick and choose, thankee. Get over it. Yep, I am a bloviating old fool. One day, I'll be dead and cease bloviating. But you'll still be meaner than a snake. Too nasty by half. A piece of work, I suspect.

Rider

Your wit and charm are matched only by your reading comprehensions skills.

boris

your reading comprehensions skills

lol

Gary Maxwell

You want to set yourself up to be the hall monitor here. Classic. And note again that you changed the subject and resorted to the dreaded ad hom attack that you thought was so dreadful for others. I dont suspect though, its quite obvious what a piece of work you are.

kim

So who has debunked the Swifties? Just say it, don't link or refer.
===================================

Sue

My goodness Rider, you certainly have enough ammunition to use against them the next time they run for president on the basis of their service in Vietnam.

Reporting for duty...he just couldn't resist, could he? ::grin::

Rider

you certainly have enough ammunition to use against them

Nah, that's all been used before against Senators McCain, Cleland, and Kerry. Still being used, right here.

Purple Heartbreakers

kim

If Kerry had even a shred of a sense of duty he might have pulled that off. But even the effen salute was phoney. And that Man of God, David Alston? I'd like to duty him a little. That guy and Kerry have a little answering to do for that little bit of deviltry. They have eternity to come up with some acceptable ones.
========================================

kim

Hey, who built a billion dollar harbor in Vietnam. How did he get the contract?

You are misreading the modern Tommies to think they are not loyal to the Queen, er I mean Condi, or is it George. And you are foolish to try to spread the meme that Bush or this administration doesn't support the troops. The left's protestations of concern for the troops is so much lip service, and Tommy sees it that way.
==========================================

Rider

BTW, Gary have you been able to dig up any dirt on James Webb, or have you figured out it was a different James Webb but haven't told us?

Rider

They support the troops; it's the vets who disagree with or oppose them they bash, trash, and smear...NOT just politically but going right after their service records.

Gary Maxwell

I have a call into a former investigator. When we speak, if my memory is correct I may have something to share.

Rider

I may have something to share.

And if it's not correct, you'll keep it to yourself. After all, Webb has gone over to the other side and keeps pointing out that Bush is incompetent and a vet-basher. No need to embarrass yourself by un-besmirching his name. 'Sides, damage is done.

Gary Maxwell

Yeah you and Boris and I over here on an already archived post. Lots of potential to me posting a " I think I remember" post.

While you are concentrating on this "unbesmirching" ( is that even a word?) I am sure you will want to wander through the post up above ( you must be at least 1/2 of them so take your time) and correct all your smears and falsehood. Funny how that does not trouble you nearly as much however.

Rider

"unbesmirching"

No, it's not. Good point. There's no such thing, so no need for a word for it. Anyway, wait till the thread hasn't been touched for three or four days and then blog your retraction. You've made my point: that you guys will smear a vet in a heartbeat, if he opposes Bush or so much as says Bush fell off his bike.

Rider

correct all your smears and falsehood.

What, just one? Thanks, but you are changing the subject again. Were you able to dig up any dirt on James Webb, the highly decorated Marine combat veteran of the War in Vietnam? Be sure to let us know as soon as you hear something, OK?

kim

Hey, what about David Alston, the Man of God. I'm calling into question his service record as he and Kerry characterized it.
==============================================

Gary Maxwell

You've made my point

And you keep making mine. Over and over and over and over.... ZZZZZZ

Facts mean nothing to a liberal. If caught in a misrepresentation - ignor, deny, mumble or change the subject. Smear the hell out of anyone and everyone that has the slightest bit of disagreement with you but then take umbrage if any so much as calls you a hypocrite.

You are ignorant of the Constitution and mostly just mad that your team is on the sidelines, shrinking in size and about to be moved to a place in the stands that you cant even be heard. How could this be happening when you are so smart and we are so so very stupid? Meanwhile the guy you think is not even competent keeps making progress and moving the first down marker.

What does it say about the true intelligence level of your side when the ignorant incompetent one keeps outflanking your best and brightest? I know I know the American people are just ignorant too...sigh. That is sure to win you friends and influence so keep making it - vociferiously and in that condescending tone that is so so the mark of many lefties ( especially you ).

Cecil Turner

I probably would have challenged all their Purple Hearts, Bronze and Silver Stars, and Navy Crosses. I'd have accused the amputees of having fragged themselves.

If they were using their medals as a prop for an argument from authority, I think you'd be on safe ground, as long as you were accurate. (And here's a news flash for ya: medals are given for lots of reasons, many of which have little or nothing to do with the martial macho of the recipient.)

Nah, that's all been used before against Senators McCain, Cleland, and Kerry. Still being used, right here.

Most of the charges are undisputed. Sen McCain admitted cooperating with the enemy in a self-promotional book. (And there were less complimentary versions circulating amongst A-4 drivers.) Cleland admitted fragging himself in another (later changing the story to a newbie putting that grenade there--okay that's possible--yeah, it could happen). Kerry's own story (first in his suppressed version pandering to the anti-war crowd; and later in his "reporting for duty" edition) is self-contradictory. These guys don't deserve some special pass because they have medals. (Though as long as they don't try to use them to score debating points, I agree it's inappropriate to bring it up. But when they do, it isn't.)

Now, contrast that with James Webb (who is not using his record for political self-promotion). Bringing his up would be off-base. But it's not off-base to point out that he knows the SwiftVets weren't a creation of the Bush campaign, nor that comments like this undercut his case:

But against this backdrop we are measuring a sitting President who avoided service in Vietnam altogether, using family strings to gain a spot in the National Guard at a time when the Guard was an undeniable safe haven from war.
At best, "avoided," "strings," and "undeniable safe haven" are incomplete and unproven. But that sort of "trashing veterans" (yes, Guard duty makes one a "veteran"), and the more egregious and demonstrably false "deserter" and "AWOL" is perfectly acceptable? Can't have it both ways, chum. And I'm having a hard time working up any sympathy for those who light a bonfire and then complain about the heat.

Harry Arthur

Cecil, thank you for your precise, well balanced and rational argument. I agree completely. You have clearly detailed the bounds within which this subject ought to be discussed.

Speaking as a veteran, I would add that neither medals nor military service give the recipient a free pass from having their ideas criticized. Nor does the solitary fact of having honorably served in the military necessarily impart insightful judgement on how the military ought to be employed or its use as an instrument of American foreign policy.

The fact is that sometimes, though we respect each others' service we simply choose to disagree with each others' ideas.

I am happy to learn through these discussions, however, that the almost visceral dislike of things and persons military that I have seen so often in the past coming from the left side of the isle has now been repudiated.

Rider

Facts mean nothing to a liberal.

Gary - Pure ad hominem. Obviously fallacious by definition. Why would you even post something so childish and obviously false?

I would add that neither medals nor military service give the recipient a free pass from having their ideas criticized.

Harry - This is disingenuous, if you are talking about McCain, Kerry, Cleland. The outrage is not that their ideas were criticized. Of course their ideas should be criticized. That's what the founders intended when they started this free society. Political discourse is supposed to be a place where ideas are talked about and tested. But that's not what happened at all.

Bush operatives attacked these veterans' service records. They smeared these veterans with regard to their military service and denigrated and dishonored it. Why in the name of God are you unable to see that?

I don't care if Bush attacks their ideas and talking points. I am disgusted that he has a pattern of going after the service records of distinguished, decorated American veterans. That should be off-limits.

So Kerry was emphasizing his distinguished service as a counter to the canard that he was weak on national defense. Big deal. That doesn't entitle you to go after his medals forgodssake. That's just wrong. Go after what he's done since he got BACK from Vietnam, if you want.

Cleland lost three fricking limbs. You know what? It doesn't matter whether it was the enemy or an accident. Have some decency. The man's a triple amputee. Criticize what he's done since he got BACK from Vietnam if you like. But leave his honored service alone out of respect, no matter what you think of it.

And John McCain? Jesus Christ, the man spent five years as a POW. So what does Bush do (through operatives so he doesn't get any mud on himself)? He uses that against the man by spreading rumors that the experience drove him around the bend. That is lower than low. It's despicable. Respect the man's service to country. Criticize what he's done since he got BACK from Vietnam if you like. The man's service record is supposed to be off limits. Why shouldn't he be proud of his service and put it in his resume in campaign ads? Be decent enough to let him do it and criticize him for something else, for his ideas.

Why in the name of God is a liberal Democrat like me having to explain to a bunch of Republicans, some of you even veterans yourselves, why you ought to show respect to the military service of veterans? We live in a strange, strange world. This is a situation which George W. Bush turned upside down. It used to be a given that the military service of veterans, particularly decorated veterans, was honored; not challenged. That's the way it's supposed to be.

My criticism of the SBV guys was about what they did long after they got back from VN. I respect and honor the service of each and every one of them and consider them all heroes and would get in anybody's face that tried to go after their military service, even though I find their recent actions reprehensible.

And no, I don't think people should go after Bush's military service either. But I do think that his pattern of smearing veterans' records backfired on him there. He created the atmosphere in which that kind of attack became acceptable when it used to be unthinkable.

Rider

"Facts mean nothing to a liberal...You are ignorant of the Constitution and mostly just mad that your team is on the sidelines...How could this be happening when you are so smart and we are so so very stupid?...What does it say about the true intelligence level of your side when the ignorant incompetent one keeps outflanking your best and brightest? I know I know the American people are just ignorant too...sigh. That is sure to win you friends and influence so keep making it - vociferiously and in that condescending tone that is so so the mark of many lefties (especially you)."

I'm rubber. You're glue. Your words bounce off me and stick on you. :o)

cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold

So simple the cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold is.

Atlantica online Gold

I like your written, but I also like Atlantica online Gold.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame