"Equal opportunity editorial"

Open discussion on general Baptist-related topics of interest to Baptists around the world.

Moderator: Dave Roberts

"Equal opportunity editorial"

Postby mlovell » Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:54 pm

On new anti-Kerry ads, Bush misses opportunity to walk high road of 'uniter'
USA Today -- . . . A "uniter, not a divider" could have immediately said: "As Americans, the Vietnam War is something we cannot avoid. Americans have heartfelt opinions on the war, and not all agree. But as your president, I do not believe it is fair, nor wise, to question the integrity or courage of any American who served in that war — under any circumstance. And therefore, I denounce the ads and would hope that people who vote for me or for Senator Kerry this year do so on the basis of our views."

Instead, Bush sent press secretary Scott McClellan out to rip into the so-called independent groups that have been polluting the airwaves with millions of dollars in negative advertising this year.

McClellan had a point. In the name of campaign reform, millions of dollars of "soft money" donations are being funneled through these groups, and Bush has been the target of many of their negative ads. But with the integrity of his opponent under attack, Bush missed an opportunity to summon everyone to a higher ground.

This is a bipartisan scold. This column previously denounced a New York fund-raiser for Kerry in which various singers and actors profanely labeled Bush a dullard willing to sacrifice young Americans for his own political purposes. It took Kerry some time, but after saying these entertainers represented the "heart and soul of America," he distanced himself from the left-wingers' invective.


It IS possible for opponents to protest negativity and slime. There is no tougher fight for office going on now than the Congressional race between Democrat Martin Frost and Republican Pete Sessions, who in April agreed to ask all outside groups to refrain from advertising aimed at their race unless the ad was approved by one of the campaigns. Last week they followed through. (After the Texas Legislature redrew districts, Frost was forced to run in a majority Republican district against incumbent Sessions.) They'll argue each other into tomorrow -- but both resent outside parties coming in to slime one of them -- and both have publicly said so. Good for both of them!
mlovell
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Beautiful East Texas

Re: "Equal opportunity editorial"

Postby Keith » Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:59 pm

mlovell wrote:On new anti-Kerry ads, Bush misses opportunity to walk high road of 'uniter'
USA Today -- . . . A "uniter, not a divider" could have immediately said: "As Americans, the Vietnam War is something we cannot avoid. Americans have heartfelt opinions on the war, and not all agree. But as your president, I do not believe it is fair, nor wise, to question the integrity or courage of any American who served in that war — under any circumstance. And therefore, I denounce the ads and would hope that people who vote for me or for Senator Kerry this year do so on the basis of our views."

Keith--- Sorry, but this is ridiculous. A man's integrity is certainly part of who the person is. One cannot just vote for a man on his views because a person can lie about his views. The person's record must be looked at to some degree.

Instead, Bush sent press secretary Scott McClellan out to rip into the so-called independent groups that have been polluting the airwaves with millions of dollars in negative advertising this year.

McClellan had a point. In the name of campaign reform, millions of dollars of "soft money" donations are being funneled through these groups, and Bush has been the target of many of their negative ads. But with the integrity of his opponent under attack, Bush missed an opportunity to summon everyone to a higher ground.


Keith--- So, this writer calls this higher ground. That would be making some large assimptions about the ads and about what higher ground is. People had the right to look at Bush's records and they have the right to look at what Kerry has said and done.

This is a bipartisan scold. This column previously denounced a New York fund-raiser for Kerry in which various singers and actors profanely labeled Bush a dullard willing to sacrifice young Americans for his own political purposes. It took Kerry some time, but after saying these entertainers represented the "heart and soul of America," he distanced himself from the left-wingers' invective.


Keith--- The group that is running the ad about Kerry claim to have information that Kerry has not told the truth. That is different than what the group did in calling Bush names.

It IS possible for opponents to protest negativity and slime. There is no tougher fight for office going on now than the Congressional race between Democrat Martin Frost and Republican Pete Sessions, who in April agreed to ask all outside groups to refrain from advertising aimed at their race unless the ad was approved by one of the campaigns. Last week they followed through. (After the Texas Legislature redrew districts, Frost was forced to run in a majority Republican district against incumbent Sessions.) They'll argue each other into tomorrow -- but both resent outside parties coming in to slime one of them -- and both have publicly said so. Good for both of them!


Keith--- Why do you think that the group of swiftboat veterans are trying to slime Kerry? Perhaps they know what they are saying is true and that the media would not listen. Perhaps they just wanted to get their voices out where it would be heard.
It is only in Christ that the glory of God can be seen and loved.
Keith
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:27 pm

Postby Sandy » Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:45 pm

Or it could simply be that since Bush can't even think about coming close to directly challenging Kerry on personal military service records, lacking one of his own that compares in any way to that of Kerry, he is using a renegade group of disgruntled (or paid off) veterans to keep making an issue out of it.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9454
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby William Thornton » Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:48 pm

Yeah, I suppose they could all be better boys.

I was happy to accept that Kerry was a VV that served honorably...but, now...seems to me...honest questions are raised. I don't know that it matters much but Kerry has puffed his three PHs out so much even the editorial cartoonists are having fun with it. Looks like he made it a legitimate issue. The demo response has been rather tepid in content.
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12406
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Postby Sandy » Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:56 pm

I don't know what's going on up in your neck of the woods, MLovell, but this redistricting gerrymander that old Tom Delay kicked off is making politics quite interesting around here.

It forced Nick Lampson, the Democratic imcumbent, to run in a new Republican majority district. He had the option of running directly against Tom, but chose to remain in the district where his hometown of Beaumont is located. The Republican who is running against him was so confident that the election would be decided in the primary that he spent most of his money running against other Republicans. The Democratic turnout was huge, and now it looks like Lampson will hold on to that seat. Also, over here in the heart of the Texas Republican Paradise in Fort Bend County, Tom is in a pretty tight horserace. His Republican primary opponent, who got almost 40 percent of the vote, is running as an independent in the general election. The hope is that the Republicans who don't like Delay, but who wouldn't vote for a Democrat will vote for the independent and give the Democrat, Richard Morrison, the majority. The Democratic party "get out the vote effort" here has been absolutely phenominal. The two party gatherings I've attended in the past six weeks have drawn record turnouts and from all the yard signs and bumper stickers that are out, you'd think this was a Democratic dominated area instead of one that's gone Republican since the 70's. Driving through my neighborhood this evening, I counted no less than 20 Kerry-Edwards and Morrison yard signs, and as of yet, not a single Bush sign. Perhaps his supporters are out there, but afraid to show it. Our precinct's Democratic primary turnout set a record this past spring, it was more than double that of the Republicans, who usually out-poll us four to one in this precinct. That redistricting has folks as mad as hornets.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9454
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby mlovell » Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:03 pm

Keith -- People had the right to look at Bush's records and they have the right to look at what Kerry has said and done.

Unfortunately, by some strange quirk of fate, most of Bush's records seem to have been destroyed -- or be otherwise unavailable. Odd, that.

Keith--- The group that is running the ad about Kerry claim to have information that Kerry has not told the truth. That is different than what the group did in calling Bush names.

Let's see, oh unbiased one. :D

You suppose that the group sliming Kerry has "information that Kerry has not told the truth" in calling Kerry a liar and a coward, but that "calling Bush names" is different. Your supposition assumes that the names Bush was called were wholly inaccurate, and that Bush has always told the truth. :roll:

Keith--- Why do you think that the group of swiftboat veterans are trying to slime Kerry? Perhaps they know what they are saying is true and that the media would not listen. Perhaps they just wanted to get their voices out where it would be heard.

The more relevant question would be, "Why do you think that group is telling the truth?" Just one of them served with Kerry -- and at least a dozen others who served with him rebut his story.

Given that "the group of veterans" wasn't there, how can they "know what they are saying is true"?

You ignore the fact that many, if not most, of that group have been Republican activists for some time -- so they are trying to slime Kerry because they want Bush to win -- and evidently believe anything is fair. Their primary organizer was also involved with the South Carolina slime on McCain, remember.

If they choose to fight Kerry on the issues, fine -- that's fair game. If they choose to oppose him because he opposed the war in Vietnam when he came home -- fine, that's understandable. But impugning his record and his service on the basis of their suppositions is pretty cheap, and a stellar display of the very absence of honor they accuse Kerry of.

Here's a letter to the editor of the Dallas Morning News which makes it rather clear why their smear campaign is offending even Republicans.
Is nothing sacred in this country anymore? When our young men put their lives on the line in war and are commended for it by the military, do they have to worry that 30 years from now someone can attack their credibility on the subject?

John Kerry didn't award himself these medals. I hope that the soldiers in Iraq today will never have their courage questioned.

President Bush has given the wrong message to our military by not condemning the ads.

Mary Rauschuber, Plano
mlovell
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Beautiful East Texas

Postby mlovell » Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:19 pm

William -- I don't know that it matters much but Kerry has puffed his three PHs out so much even the editorial cartoonists are having fun with it. Looks like he made it a legitimate issue.

And in his last campaign for president, W talked so much about "being a uniter and not a divider" I figure he made THAT a legitimate issue. :D

He had a fine opportunity to demonstrate some of that integrity and decency he keeps telling us he has, but chose not to. We could discuss THAT legitimate issue, if you'd like.
mlovell
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Beautiful East Texas

Postby Sandy » Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:33 pm

William wrote:Yeah, I suppose they could all be better boys.

I was happy to accept that Kerry was a VV that served honorably...but, now...seems to me...honest questions are raised. I don't know that it matters much but Kerry has puffed his three PHs out so much even the editorial cartoonists are having fun with it. Looks like he made it a legitimate issue. The demo response has been rather tepid in content.


The key words here are, "...seems to me...honest questions are raised." To you, a relatively hard core, committed Bush supporter, it might seem that way. If I were in your shoes, I'd be happy with anything that would distract attention away from the personal military service record battle at any cost. Even if GWB's military service were fully legitimate, a record that can't be established as a result of mysteriously lost paperwork, it isn't comparable to Kerry's Vietnam Service record. With the Gallup and Zogby polls showing that veteran support is 2 to 1 in Kerry's favor, and growing, I'd be concerned too. Adding to the negative on Bush's side was Senator McKain's immediate rebuke, which, whether he intended it to or not, weight heavily on the side of Kerry's credibility and to many people appears to be a virtual, if not an out and out, endorsement.

The fact that a small group of renegade veterans managed to come up with the kind of money they are spending is also suspect. I'd say their support is either a back door, "soft money" corporate donation that can't legally be made directly to Bush, or the Bush campaign "loaned" or simply "re-directed" some of its own funds to this group to avoid the rules that govern the use of campaign funds.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9454
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby Keith » Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:21 pm

mlovell wrote:
Keith -- People had the right to look at Bush's records and they have the right to look at what Kerry has said and done.


ML:
Unfortunately, by some strange quirk of fate, most of Bush's records seem to have been destroyed -- or be otherwise unavailable. Odd, that.


Keith--- Interestingly enough, I thought that those lost records had turned up a few weeks ago.

Keith--- The group that is running the ad about Kerry claim to have information that Kerry has not told the truth. That is different than what the group did in calling Bush names.

Let's see, oh unbiased one. :D

ML:
You suppose that the group sliming Kerry has "information that Kerry has not told the truth" in calling Kerry a liar and a coward, but that "calling Bush names" is different. Your supposition assumes that the names Bush was called were wholly inaccurate, and that Bush has always told the truth. :roll:


Keith--- You can roll your eyes all you wish, ML, but that is not an argument. The group of men are claiming that Kerry has lied and are trying to give evidence to prove it. If they were just running around calling names, that would be a different story. My suppositions are quite different here than you are representing. I would say that there is no evidence that they are sliming Kerry. So far, as you most likely know, Kerry has been caught in one lie regarding his taking men from the CIA into Cambodia.

Keith--- Why do you think that the group of swiftboat veterans are trying to slime Kerry? Perhaps they know what they are saying is true and that the media would not listen. Perhaps they just wanted to get their voices out where it would be heard.

The more relevant question would be, "Why do you think that group is telling the truth?" Just one of them served with Kerry -- and at least a dozen others who served with him rebut his story.

ML:
Given that "the group of veterans" wasn't there, how can they "know what they are saying is true"?


Keith--- They were certianly closer than you were.

ML:
You ignore the fact that many, if not most, of that group have been Republican activists for some time -- so they are trying to slime Kerry because they want Bush to win -- and evidently believe anything is fair. Their primary organizer was also involved with the South Carolina slime on McCain, remember.


Keith--- do you know that virtually all of these men have been Republican activists or are you trying to slime them? Why don't Kerry just release his records?

ML:
If they choose to fight Kerry on the issues, fine -- that's fair game. If they choose to oppose him because he opposed the war in Vietnam when he came home -- fine, that's understandable. But impugning his record and his service on the basis of their suppositions is pretty cheap, and a stellar display of the very absence of honor they accuse Kerry of.

Keith--- He is making his service in Vietnam an issue, so it is fair game. If they are telling the truth, then it is very damning evidence against him as to his character and ability to tell the truth.

ML:
Here's a letter to the editor of the Dallas Morning News which makes it rather clear why their smear campaign is offending even Republicans.
Is nothing sacred in this country anymore? When our young men put their lives on the line in war and are commended for it by the military, do they have to worry that 30 years from now someone can attack their credibility on the subject?

John Kerry didn't award himself these medals. I hope that the soldiers in Iraq today will never have their courage questioned.

President Bush has given the wrong message to our military by not condemning the ads.

Mary Rauschuber, Plano


Keith--- Let the truth win out. As long as Kerry wants to run on his record in the service, that is fair game. When he takes along a dozen men who say good things about him and his record, let us not be surprised when a lot more coe out to say the opposite.
It is only in Christ that the glory of God can be seen and loved.
Keith
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:27 pm

Postby mlovell » Fri Aug 13, 2004 12:32 am

Keith--- Interestingly enough, I thought that those lost records had turned up a few weeks ago.

Well, you're wrong about that. (Too.) "Some" formerly "lost" records were miraculously found -- but nothing which verifies that he showed up for duty during that year when he transferred to another southern state so he could use his military flight training more effectively by running a political campaign than by actually flying.

Keith -- The group of men are claiming that Kerry has lied and are trying to give evidence to prove it.

What "evidence"? Just one of the "swiftboat veterans" ever served on a boat w/Kerry -- and his "memory" is rebutted by twelve others who did. Other than that, you have what people who weren't there "think" or "believe."

Keith--- They were certianly closer than you were.

But not nearly as close as the twelve who served on the swiftboats with Kerry -- and stood with him on the platform.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that I was closer than YOU were. :roll: (Trying to get the discussion down to your level here.)

This is one of your sillier posts, Keith. When have I ever said I was "close to the swiftboats"? What I HAVE said (in case you'd actually like to discuss that) is that when it comes to accurate reporting of what happened there, I find the twelve+ men who served on the boats with Kerry more credible about his performance than I find the men who weren't there.

Keith--- do you know that virtually all of these men have been Republican activists or are you trying to slime them?

I wouldn't consider "Republican activist" a slime attempt -- and I'm immensely entertained to learn that you do. :lol:

A "slime attempt" would be something like saying McCain is unfit to be president because his time as a POW made him "emotionally unbalanced"; or maybe, as happened in the 2000 primary campaign, to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi-born daughter was McCain’s illegitimate black child; or maybe to suggest that Max Cleland was unpatriotic or lacks courage -- as his opponent did in the 2002 election; or to say, as the "swiftboat" cabal does now, that Kerry didn't earn his medals. (As I said on the old board -- if he's smart enough to totally put one over on the military and get three Purple Hearts, one Bronze Star and one Silver Star on his record without earning them, he's certainly smart enough to vote for.)

Keith -- Why don't Kerry just release his records?

Why don't you ask a question based on something other than rhetoric? Kerry's military records are on his website -- easy to find, and I'd post a link for you -- except that I've already done that more than once, and you're apparently not interested.

OTOH, I can't find a single thing about Bush's military record on his website. If you enter "military records" in the search box, it just starts playing another television ad. Like, you're punished for asking.

Keith --- He is making his service in Vietnam an issue, so it is fair game.

There's nothing "fair" about the game that's being played -- by the same guys who brought you insinuations about McCain's fathering a black child or Cleland's lack of courage.

But, speaking of what candidates have "made an issue" -- perhaps we could discuss the reliability of what Bush told us about the reasons we were attacking Iraq? Perhaps we could evaluate how well he's performed as "a uniter, not a divider"? (He managed a good bit of that while he was governor because he had Bob Bullock -- but Karl Rove seems extraordinarily uninterested in "uniting" if he thinks "dividing" is the only way to win.) Perhaps we could discuss the recent new job numbers, since the economy has been "made an issue"? Or we could discuss the recent New Yorker article about how American corporations are building up huge cash balances -- not investing in new business, not creating new jobs, not paying bigger dividends -- just piling up the cash. An excellent example of how the "trickle down" theory of economics actually works.

Or perhaps (for reasons of your own) you'd prefer to continue questioning the military record of a man whose military records actually exist. (One easily understands why that might be the case.)

Keith -- Let the truth win out. As long as Kerry wants to run on his record in the service, that is fair game. When he takes along a dozen men who say good things about him and his record, let us not be surprised when a lot more coe out to say the opposite.

I'm not surprised when a Bush-blessed group decides that nasty insinuation is a more effective technique than talking about the issues -- or Bush's own military record.

Let me know when "a dozen" who "coe out to say the opposite" happen to be men who were actually on the swiftboats with Kerry. Until then, they're rumor-mongering for their own purpose.
mlovell
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Beautiful East Texas

Postby Keith » Fri Aug 13, 2004 6:44 am

Quote:
Keith--- Interestingly enough, I thought that those lost records had turned up a few weeks ago.

ML:
Well, you're wrong about that. (Too.) "Some" formerly "lost" records were miraculously found -- but nothing which verifies that he showed up for duty during that year when he transferred to another southern state so he could use his military flight training more effectively by running a political campaign than by actually flying.


Keith--- Oh, so nothing that verifies. Are you trying to slime Bush? Talking about his military record and all. Hmmm.

Quote:
Keith -- The group of men are claiming that Kerry has lied and are trying to give evidence to prove it.

ML:
What "evidence"? Just one of the "swiftboat veterans" ever served on a boat w/Kerry -- and his "memory" is rebutted by twelve others who did. Other than that, you have what people who weren't there "think" or "believe."


Keith--- You are greatly exaggerating the situation again. I am not sure how many were on the same boat, but there were others on boats that were with the boat and others who were with him in other locations. Being on the same boat is not the only way to know and understand how a man operates. Followig your argument, then, I take it that you are unwilling to trust the memory of people who are against your position.

Quote:
Keith--- They were certianly closer than you were.

ML:
But not nearly as close as the twelve who served on the swiftboats with Kerry -- and stood with him on the platform.


Keith--- The men were right there and served with Kerry.

ML:
On the other hand, it's entirely possible that I was closer than YOU were. (Trying to get the discussion down to your level here.)

Keith--- The point, ML, is that the men who are part of that group were right there and serving with Kerry.

ML:
This is one of your sillier posts, Keith. When have I ever said I was "close to the swiftboats"? What I HAVE said (in case you'd actually like to discuss that) is that when it comes to accurate reporting of what happened there, I find the twelve+ men who served on the boats with Kerry more credible about his performance than I find the men who weren't there.


Keith--- You have never said that you were close to the swiftboats, but your argument seems to rest on the supposition that the twelve men were actually with Kerry and the other men were not. Since you are arguing about the situation as to closeness, that means that you should believe the men who were actually in Vietnam over yourself. In that case, I find their argument more credible than yours.

Quote:
Keith--- do you know that virtually all of these men have been Republican activists or are you trying to slime them?

ML:
I wouldn't consider "Republican activist" a slime attempt -- and I'm immensely entertained to learn that you do.


Keith--- In the way you are using it, it is a slime attempt. You have no real proof that these men are lying or what they are saying is incorrect.

ML:
A "slime attempt" would be something like saying McCain is unfit to be president because his time as a POW made him "emotionally unbalanced"; or maybe, as happened in the 2000 primary campaign, to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi-born daughter was McCain’s illegitimate black child; or maybe to suggest that Max Cleland was unpatriotic or lacks courage -- as his opponent did in the 2002 election; or to say, as the "swiftboat" cabal does now, that Kerry didn't earn his medals. (As I said on the old board -- if he's smart enough to totally put one over on the military and get three Purple Hearts, one Bronze Star and one Silver Star on his record without earning them, he's certainly smart enough to vote for.)


Keith--- So no matter how immoral a person may be, your vote is simply if the person is smart enough. The prisons are full of people who are that smart.

Quote:
Keith -- Why don't Kerry just release his records?

ML:
Why don't you ask a question based on something other than rhetoric? Kerry's military records are on his website -- easy to find, and I'd post a link for you -- except that I've already done that more than once, and you're apparently not interested.


Keith--- Parts of Kerry's records are on his website, selected parts. The whole records are not there.

ML:
OTOH, I can't find a single thing about Bush's military record on his website. If you enter "military records" in the search box, it just starts playing another television ad. Like, you're punished for asking.


Keith--- Bush is not running on his military sevice.

Quote:
Keith --- He is making his service in Vietnam an issue, so it is fair game.

There's nothing "fair" about the game that's being played -- by the same guys who brought you insinuations about McCain's fathering a black child or Cleland's lack of courage.


Keith--- Do you have proof that the swiftboat veterans had anything to do with the McCain issues? Do you have prrof that these men were brought together by anyone other than themselves? It sounds again like you are sliming away.

ML:
But, speaking of what candidates have "made an issue" -- perhaps we could discuss the reliability of what Bush told us about the reasons we were attacking Iraq?


Keith--- Sounds like you have been reading some more slime against Bush. The intelligence that he had said that this was a slam dunk. The intelligence that he had was given by a Clinton appointee, not to mention that Clinton had them bombed over this very issue. Let us not forget that the same intelligence that Bush had was given to Kerry who voted for the way.

ML:
Perhaps we could evaluate how well he's performed as "a uniter, not a divider"? (He managed a good bit of that while he was governor because he had Bob Bullock -- but Karl Rove seems extraordinarily uninterested in "uniting" if he thinks "dividing" is the only way to win.)

Keith--- Or perhaps Washington operates a good bit differently. There is no unity there and has not been for a very long time. Bush has done several things that should have brought unity, but the Democrats are not interested in unity. Bush let Ted Kennedy do a lot on the education bill and then did what the Dems have been crying for for years. Surely you remember the prescription drug issue. But since the Dems did not get all the credit for those things and they do not like not having all of the power, this did not work. But it certainly appears that he tried.

ML:
Perhaps we could discuss the recent new job numbers, since the economy has been "made an issue"? Or we could discuss the recent New Yorker article about how American corporations are building up huge cash balances -- not investing in new business, not creating new jobs, not paying bigger dividends -- just piling up the cash. An excellent example of how the "trickle down" theory of economics actually works.


Keith--- Yawn. The economy is on the upswing after being on the way down with Clinton, so live with it. I can understand why the liberal media is after Bush. I don't think they are actually serving with Bush, so I listen to those who actually do serve with him.

ML:
Or perhaps (for reasons of your own) you'd prefer to continue questioning the military record of a man whose military records actually exist. (One easily understands why that might be the case.)


Keith--- His complete records have not been released.

Quote:
Keith -- Let the truth win out. As long as Kerry wants to run on his record in the service, that is fair game. When he takes along a dozen men who say good things about him and his record, let us not be surprised when a lot more coe out to say the opposite.

ML:
I'm not surprised when a Bush-blessed group decides that nasty insinuation is a more effective technique than talking about the issues -- or Bush's own military record.


Keith--- Do you have proof that this group has been blessed by Bush? Kerry has made his military service an issue.

ML:
Let me know when "a dozen" who "coe out to say the opposite" happen to be men who were actually on the swiftboats with Kerry. Until then, they're rumor-mongering for their own purpose.


Keith--- Why are you so tough on these veterans and call their records and honesty into question? Why are you so tough on these men who were right there with Kerry and risked their lives too? Why are you so doubtful that men who served honorable might not be too happy with a man like Kerry who came back and said things that maligned them? Why don't you jump on Kerry for saying things that maligned honorable veterans? Until then, it appears that you are on the level of those who really do practice rumor-mongering.
It is only in Christ that the glory of God can be seen and loved.
Keith
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:27 pm

Postby mlovell » Fri Aug 13, 2004 8:48 am

Sandy -- Also, over here in the heart of the Texas Republican Paradise in Fort Bend County, Tom is in a pretty tight horserace. His Republican primary opponent, who got almost 40 percent of the vote, is running as an independent in the general election.


You're probably aware of one of my favorite websites, which focuses on the Exterminator and Fort Bend County -- but just in case you've missed it, allow me to introduce you to Juanita. :lol: This link will take you to the latest article posted, but do go to "Home" and explore her other writing.
mlovell
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Beautiful East Texas

Postby bobfrgsn » Fri Aug 13, 2004 9:36 am

Keith wrote:
Keith--- Why are you so tough on these veterans and call their records and honesty into question? Why are you so tough on these men who were right there with Kerry and risked their lives too? Why are you so doubtful that men who served honorable might not be too happy with a man like Kerry who came back and said things that maligned them? Why don't you jump on Kerry for saying things that maligned honorable veterans? Until then, it appears that you are on the level of those who really do practice rumor-mongering


Keith have you read the testimony given by Senator Kerry before the congress when he returned from Vietnam? Please document those places when he "maligned" the men serving. He was opposed to the war and rightly so ... but he did not condemn the troops. This is all I have to say on the subject ... dialogue with you is a "black hole."
bobfrgsn
 
Posts: 796
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:29 pm
Location: Mandeville, Louisiana on the northshore of beautiful Lake Ponchatrain

Postby mlovell » Fri Aug 13, 2004 9:44 am

Keith -- Keith--- You are greatly exaggerating the situation again. I am not sure how many were on the same boat, but there were others on boats that were with the boat and others who were with him in other locations. Being on the same boat is not the only way to know and understand how a man operates. Followig your argument, then, I take it that you are unwilling to trust the memory of people who are against your position.

Goodness, Keith -- I thought the testimony of those who were actually present when Kerry earned his Purple Hearts, his Bronze Star, and his Silver Star would interest you. Apparently not -- as you dance around and focus on others "with him" elsewhere (but not there) and "on other boats" (but not his).

You're "not sure" how many were on the same boat? You don't want to find out -- else you'd do some research.

Keith--- The men were right there and served with Kerry.

Define "right there" and "served with Kerry." :D (The effort you're making is apparent, though hardly convincing.)

Keith--- They were certianly closer than you were.

ML: But not nearly as close as the twelve who served on the swiftboats with Kerry -- and stood with him on the platform. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that I was closer than YOU were. (Trying to get the discussion down to your level here.)

Keith -- The point, ML, is that the men who are part of that group were right there and serving with Kerry.

I think you've changed "the point," Keith -- though I surely don't blame you for abandoning the sinking ship of "They were certainly closer than you were." (And noting that you ignore any statement as to how close YOU were. Big surprise, that.) :lol:

Again, define "right there" (I believe they were somewhere in the general vicinity, meaning on the river in Vietnam, though not on Kerry's boat and therefore not in a position to know what actually happened). Also, define "part of that group" -- the U.S. Navy? those who ever at any time served on any swiftboat?

Keith--- You have never said that you were close to the swiftboats, but your argument seems to rest on the supposition that the twelve men were actually with Kerry and the other men were not. Since you are arguing about the situation as to closeness, that means that you should believe the men who were actually in Vietnam over yourself. In that case, I find their argument more credible than yours.

Keith, this "argument" is so ludicrous that it's difficult to know where to begin responding to it. "The men who were actually in Vietnam" are exactly those men I believe -- specifically, those who were involved in the events being questioned. I do, in fact, "suppose" that the twelve men were actually with Kerry and that the others (except for one) were not -- given that is precisely what all of them (Kerry supporters and Kerry opponents) have said and what the records indicate. (I note that those who oppose him (except one) have said they were somewhere in the general vicinity, or they served on a swiftboat sometime somewhere, or they talk about stuff that happened elsewhere.)

ml -- (As I said on the old board -- if he's smart enough to totally put one over on the military and get three Purple Hearts, one Bronze Star and one Silver Star on his record without earning them, he's certainly smart enough to vote for.)

Keith -- So no matter how immoral a person may be, your vote is simply if the person is smart enough. The prisons are full of people who are that smart.

Smart beats dumb when it comes to earning my vote, Keith. And, to use your form of argument (tacky though it may be, apparently it's the sort you understand), the cemeteries are full (1000+) of people sent to die by dumb.

Keith--- Bush is not running on his military sevice.

No kidding.

He's not running on his own record, either. He's running on accusations of Kerry, half-truths, and desperate hope that the economic figures will improve in the next couple of months.

We could make a long list of the things Bush is "not running on," starting with his grasp of issues and his ability to think on his feet. Did you read his explanation of tribal sovereignty? Or you can watch the actual film by clicking on the link to suit your connection speed.
Enjoy!

Keith--- Why are you so tough on these veterans and call their records and honesty into question? Why are you so tough on these men who were right there with Kerry and risked their lives too? Why are you so doubtful that men who served honorable might not be too happy with a man like Kerry who came back and said things that maligned them? Why don't you jump on Kerry for saying things that maligned honorable veterans? Until then, it appears that you are on the level of those who really do practice rumor-mongering.

"Right there with Kerry"? Define "right there" and "with Kerry."

"Call their records into question"? They're not offering their records, they're offering their opinions.

I don't doubt that they're opposed to Kerry because (after he served) he vigorously opposed the Vietnam war. I think that's exactly why they're offering their opinions of events they neither participated in nor witnessed.

Kerry said "things that maligned honorable veterans"? No -- the things Kerry said maligned actions that were not honorable. Here's a letter to the editor from my local newspaper:
I am extremely disappointed in the Bush campaign for its failure to request that his supporters stop the smear campaign against Sen. John Kerry.

As a former infantry officer who spent 365 days in Vietnam, I have first-hand knowledge of events similar to those described by John Kerry years ago in testimony before a Senate committee. I seriously think that anyone who spent much time in combat operations there could truthfully say he never witnessed any such events.

According to those who actually witnessed John Kerry's actions in combat, his conduct is something we should all be proud of. Every man who actually served with John Kerry on the boat he commanded testified to his bravery and leadership. Those who were not there and who are funded by Bush supporters are now trying to smear Sen. Kerry.

Although the Bush campaign has been requested by Sen. John McCain to try to put a stop to this smear campaign, it refuses. The Ninth Commandment tells us, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." It seems to me that allowing this smear campaign to continue on his behalf without protest makes the president a willing party to the smear.

It is too bad Sen. McCain's presidential campaign was cut short by a similar smear tactic in the 2000 campaign. The tone in Washington and on the campaign trail really has changed with Bush in office.

Loyd N. Jones, Tyler

I'm done talking to you about this, Keith, until (as I said in my last post toyou) you Let me know when "a dozen" who "coe out to say the opposite" happen to be men who were actually on the swiftboats with Kerry. Which you haven't done, and will not -- because you cannot. It's clear that you know little about the actual events of the Vietnam war, the atmosphere there, what it was like to serve there. You've previously said that "opinion is fact" for you, which is another area altogether.

This thread began with my posting an "equal opportunity editorial" which pointed out a clear instance of Bush's failing to be what he'd have us believe he is, while at the same time noting that the writer had previously condemned name-calling at a party for Kerry. Your take on that was to question what "higher ground" is. If you don't recall Bush's frequent and continued promises to take us there, you're unlikely to recognize higher ground even if it's right in front of you.
mlovell
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Beautiful East Texas

Postby Keith » Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:41 pm

BobF:
Keith have you read the testimony given by Senator Kerry before the congress when he returned from Vietnam? Please document those places when he "maligned" the men serving. He was opposed to the war and rightly so ... but he did not condemn the troops. This is all I have to say on the subject ... dialogue with you is a "black hole."


Keith--- Bob, read what others have to say on this issue, don't just read what I am saying. Kerry came back and said that there were atrocities going on over there, and made it appear that it was a wide practice. He even admitted to being part of it. If you were over there trying to keep some people alive while you were fighting others, you would consider yourself maligned. If you aligned yourself with the protesters and Hanoi Jane, the remaining troops would feel maligned.

You might think that Kerry was rightly opposed to the war, but just remember what happened in Cambodia after we left.
Now, as to what you consider a black hole, it is just that I don't buy the liberal line. Call it what you will.
It is only in Christ that the glory of God can be seen and loved.
Keith
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:27 pm

Postby mlovell » Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:51 pm

BobF to Keith -- Please document those places when he "maligned" the men serving.

Keith -- Bob, read what others have to say on this issue, don't just read what I am saying.


That falls far short of supporting your statements, Keith.
mlovell
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Beautiful East Texas

Postby Keith » Fri Aug 13, 2004 2:22 pm

Quote:
Keith -- Keith--- You are greatly exaggerating the situation again. I am not sure how many were on the same boat, but there were others on boats that were with the boat and others who were with him in other locations. Being on the same boat is not the only way to know and understand how a man operates. Followig your argument, then, I take it that you are unwilling to trust the memory of people who are against your position.

ML:
Goodness, Keith -- I thought the testimony of those who were actually present when Kerry earned his Purple Hearts, his Bronze Star, and his Silver Star would interest you. Apparently not -- as you dance around and focus on others "with him" elsewhere (but not there) and "on other boats" (but not his).


Keith--- I am not dancing, ML, you are. There are far more people giving tesimony against Kerry than for him. Indeed a few of his buddies are saying things for him, there are many, many more that do not agree.
ML:
You're "not sure" how many were on the same boat? You don't want to find out -- else you'd do some research.


Keith--- Simply incorrect. It would depend on how confident a person is in Google. Searching Google and throwing out an article or two does not prove this issue.

Quote:
Keith--- The men were right there and served with Kerry.

ML:
Define "right there" and "served with Kerry." (The effort you're making is apparent, though hardly convincing.)


Keith--- Apparently you are not making a real effort. Kerry was on the boat for about three months. Are you saying that twelve and twelve only were on those boats for three months? Are you saying that no one was in another boat beside Kerry? Are you saying that Kerry and the twelve were the only one's posted at one site and one site only? Surely you know better. There were many others who were posted with Kerry and were in combat situations with him. There were many others who were in differing situations with him. Your position is the one that is hardly convincing.

Quote:
Keith--- They were certianly closer than you were.

ML: But not nearly as close as the twelve who served on the swiftboats with Kerry -- and stood with him on the platform. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that I was closer than YOU were. (Trying to get the discussion down to your level here.)

Keith -- The point, ML, is that the men who are part of that group were right there and serving with Kerry.

ML:
I think you've changed "the point," Keith -- though I surely don't blame you for abandoning the sinking ship of "They were certainly closer than you were." (And noting that you ignore any statement as to how close YOU were. Big surprise, that.)


Keith--- My argument has not changed at all. My point is that despite your argument (apparently) that there were only twelve men who ever saw Kerry in service, that there were many others who were a lot closer than you and so have a much better idea of what went on than you do. You can argue philosophically all you want, but as to what went on you are in no position at this point to argue about it. That is what I am arguing at this point as I have not said that I know what happened. I am just saying that these men have a right to say what they want and we should step back and listen.

ML:
Again, define "right there" (I believe they were somewhere in the general vicinity, meaning on the river in Vietnam, though not on Kerry's boat and therefore not in a position to know what actually happened). Also, define "part of that group" -- the U.S. Navy? those who ever at any time served on any swiftboat?


Keith--- "General vicinity" is your statement that is not warranted by the testimony of those there.

Quote:
Keith--- You have never said that you were close to the swiftboats, but your argument seems to rest on the supposition that the twelve men were actually with Kerry and the other men were not. Since you are arguing about the situation as to closeness, that means that you should believe the men who were actually in Vietnam over yourself. In that case, I find their argument more credible than yours.

Keith, this "argument" is so ludicrous that it's difficult to know where to begin responding to it. "The men who were actually in Vietnam" are exactly those men I believe -- specifically, those who were involved in the events being questioned. I do, in fact, "suppose" that the twelve men were actually with Kerry and that the others (except for one) were not -- given that is precisely what all of them (Kerry supporters and Kerry opponents) have said and what the records indicate. (I note that those who oppose him (except one) have said they were somewhere in the general vicinity, or they served on a swiftboat sometime somewhere, or they talk about stuff that happened elsewhere.)


Keith--- Read some more. "General vicinity" is not adequate. My argument is not ludicrous, it is just not the standard liberal line that you are giving out. It is defend Kerry at all cost and attack any who do not buy it. I will repeat that I am not a Republican and I have not decided for sure who I will vote for. However, I do think that what Kerry did when he came back from Nam was simply inexcusable.

Quote:
ml -- (As I said on the old board -- if he's smart enough to totally put one over on the military and get three Purple Hearts, one Bronze Star and one Silver Star on his record without earning them, he's certainly smart enough to vote for.)

Keith -- So no matter how immoral a person may be, your vote is simply if the person is smart enough. The prisons are full of people who are that smart.

ML:
Smart beats dumb when it comes to earning my vote, Keith. And, to use your form of argument (tacky though it may be, apparently it's the sort you understand), the cemeteries are full (1000+) of people sent to die by dumb.


Keith--- I did not make the argument that you are saying that I did. However, your insinutation that President George Bush is dumb is simply absurd. The 1000 people who have died is a number far less than the brutal torturer Hussein killed and wanted to kill. If you want to make the argument that we should have stood by for longer and let that murdering dictator continue, then make it. But on this one, your argument is absurd. Even Kerry voted for this war and said recently that he agrees with it. What he will say today or tomorrow is a different story.

Quote:
Keith--- Bush is not running on his military sevice.

No kidding.

He's not running on his own record, either. He's running on accusations of Kerry, half-truths, and desperate hope that the economic figures will improve in the next couple of months.


Keith--- He is letting the record of Kerry speak for itself. It is Kerry's record that is full of half-truths. There is no desperation from Bush on the economy, that is bad news for Kerry.

ML:
We could make a long list of the things Bush is "not running on," starting with his grasp of issues and his ability to think on his feet. Did you read his explanation of tribal sovereignty? Or you can watch the actual film by clicking on the link to suit your connection speed.
Enjoy!


Keith--- You are simply another liberal who is so blinded by a dislike for the somewhat conservative Bush that you actually think that he is dumb. But then again, liberals think that most conservatives are dumb. That is simply because they think that if a person had brains that person would be liberal. I have some major disagreements with Bush on some issues, but it is quite clear that he is far from dumb. It is a dumb mistake to think that he is.

Quote:
Keith--- Why are you so tough on these veterans and call their records and honesty into question? Why are you so tough on these men who were right there with Kerry and risked their lives too? Why are you so doubtful that men who served honorable might not be too happy with a man like Kerry who came back and said things that maligned them? Why don't you jump on Kerry for saying things that maligned honorable veterans? Until then, it appears that you are on the level of those who really do practice rumor-mongering.

ML:
"Right there with Kerry"? Define "right there" and "with Kerry."

"Call their records into question"? They're not offering their records, they're offering their opinions.

I don't doubt that they're opposed to Kerry because (after he served) he vigorously opposed the Vietnam war. I think that's exactly why they're offering their opinions of events they neither participated in nor witnessed.

Kerry said "things that maligned honorable veterans"? No -- the things Kerry said maligned actions that were not honorable. Here's a letter to the editor from my local newspaper:


Quote: Newspaper
I am extremely disappointed in the Bush campaign for its failure to request that his supporters stop the smear campaign against Sen. John Kerry.


Keith--- So far there is no evidence that this is but a smear campaign.

As a former infantry officer who spent 365 days in Vietnam, I have first-hand knowledge of events similar to those described by John Kerry years ago in testimony before a Senate committee. I seriously think that anyone who spent much time in combat operations there could truthfully say he never witnessed any such events.

According to those who actually witnessed John Kerry's actions in combat, his conduct is something we should all be proud of. Every man who actually served with John Kerry on the boat he commanded testified to his bravery and leadership. Those who were not there and who are funded by Bush supporters are now trying to smear Sen. Kerry.


Keith--- There is no evidence that "every man who actually served with John Kerry on the boat" actually are for him. Who says that these men are trying to smear Kerry? One has to assume that these men are all lying in an effort to get at Kerry. One also has to assume that all of their money is coming from people who are Bush supporters, or perhaps that being a Bush supporter is what makes a person lie.

Although the Bush campaign has been requested by Sen. John McCain to try to put a stop to this smear campaign, it refuses. The Ninth Commandment tells us, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." It seems to me that allowing this smear campaign to continue on his behalf without protest makes the president a willing party to the smear.


Keith--- Inded the Ninth Commandment is true, but it should apply to those who are accusing the swiftboat veterans of lying and smearing. I am not sure how this would make the president a willing party to the smear since a smear has not been proven. It is also true that any president should be very careful about condemning a large group of veterans who will use their own money to have their voice heard.

It is too bad Sen. McCain's presidential campaign was cut short by a similar smear tactic in the 2000 campaign. The tone in Washington and on the campaign trail really has changed with Bush in office.

Loyd N. Jones, Tyler


Keith--- One has to be really confused to think that the tone in Washington has changed, it is just that it is more open.

ML:
I'm done talking to you about this, Keith, until (as I said in my last post toyou) you Let me know when "a dozen" who "coe out to say the opposite" happen to be men who were actually on the swiftboats with Kerry. Which you haven't done, and will not -- because you cannot. It's clear that you know little about the actual events of the Vietnam war, the atmosphere there, what it was like to serve there. You've previously said that "opinion is fact" for you, which is another area altogether.

Keith--- You continue to misunderstand what is being said. Please read this closely which is something you have repeatedly failed to do. I will assert that my opinions are facts, but only in the sense that it is a fact that I have opinions. So each time I have an opinion it is a fact that I have an opinion. It is true for each person, therefore, that an opinion is fact. Please read things more closely from now on. Now, you continue to set standards for me to obtain a standard of truth. Your standard for truth is simply unreasonable. Apply it to virtually any situation and you will notice how frail it is. For example, in law enforcement an eye witness is no longer considered all that valuable in many instances, especially after many years have gone by. I am sure that twelve men could be influenced as to what happened several years ago by a few dollars and some public appearances with a presidential candidate. That is more likely than to think that close a few hundred men would band together to be against Kerry because of a few Republican boys among them.

ML:
This thread began with my posting an "equal opportunity editorial" which pointed out a clear instance of Bush's failing to be what he'd have us believe he is, while at the same time noting that the writer had previously condemned name-calling at a party for Kerry. Your take on that was to question what "higher ground" is. If you don't recall Bush's frequent and continued promises to take us there, you're unlikely to recognize higher ground even if it's right in front of you.


Keith--- The higher ground is to realize that the men who have fought for this country have the right to have their voices heard. You may disagree because of what it might say against your candidate, but that does not mean that it is wrong for their voice to be heard. My original position is the same. Let the men speak and if they are telling the truth, let it be heard. If they are lying, then let that be heard. Personally, I am willing to let men who have served in combat speak. They have risked their lives for freedom so let them have it.
It is only in Christ that the glory of God can be seen and loved.
Keith
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:27 pm

Postby Keith » Fri Aug 13, 2004 5:48 pm

Jane:
Bavarian Cream
1½ Tablespoons unflavored gelatin
⅛ teaspoon salt
3 Tablespoons sugar
3 eggs, separated
6 Tablespoons sugar
1¾ cups milk
1¾ cups whipping cream
1½ teaspoon vanilla extract

In top of a double boiler, combine gelatin, salt and the 3 Tablespoons sugar.
Stir in the egg yolks.
Add milk very slowly and cook over boiling water until mixture coats spoon.
Remove from heat and refrigerate until consistency is slightly thicker than the unbeaten egg
whites.
Beat egg whites until soft peaks form.
Gradually add the 6 Tablespoons of sugar and beat until the peaks turn stiff.
Fold the egg whites into the yolk mixture.
Beat the whipping cream with vanilla extract until stiff.
Fold into the egg mixture.
Pour into a lightly-greased bundt mold.
Refrigerate at least four hours (or overnight).
Yield: 12 – 16 servings

Serve with Melba Sauce:
10 ounces frozen raspberries, undrained and thawed
½ cup currant jelly
1½ teaspoons cornstarch
1 Tablespoon cold water

Combine the thawed raspberries, their juice, currant jelly, cornstarch and water.
Cook over medium heat until clear and thick.
Run through a sieve to remove seeds.
Allow sauce to cool.


Keith--- In the absence of an intelligible argument, by all means give a recipe. Perhaps, Jane, you are better in the kitchen working on a recipe than trying to construct a real argument. Not that this discussion about Kerry is all that worth it, but it is interesting that at this juncture people want to deny these veterans their right to be heard. However, I am sure your recipe is better than your theology. The part with the cream was almost too hard to resist in terms of comparing with certain flavors of theology. Have a good night.
It is only in Christ that the glory of God can be seen and loved.
Keith
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:27 pm

Postby Ed Pettibone » Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:31 pm

Keith wrote
but it is interesting that at this juncture people want to deny these veterans their right to be heard.



And who is it that wants to deny these veterans "their right to be heard"?
How about their responcibility to be truthful?

Some folk have heard them and don't buy what they say, those folk have rights also.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Postby Keith » Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:40 pm

Ed:
And who is it that wants to deny these veterans "their right to be heard"?
How about their responcibility to be truthful?


Keith--- Those who want their ads banned.

Ed:
Some folk have heard them and don't buy what they say, those folk have rights also.


Keith--- I don't buy what Kerry says, but he can buy ads to put out his views. Whether people buy what the swiftboat vets say or not, they have the right to purchase ads for their message. I don't know if they are true or not, but they do have credibility. It is not like some nut putting out false information like Michael Moore, these guys seem to have a real message. Until people like Michael Moore are banned, there is no reason to want the swiftboat vets taken off the air.
It is only in Christ that the glory of God can be seen and loved.
Keith
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:27 pm

Postby mlovell » Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:03 pm

Keith--- I don't buy what Kerry says, but he can buy ads to put out his views. Whether people buy what the swiftboat vets say or not, they have the right to purchase ads for their message. I don't know if they are true or not, but they do have credibility. It is not like some nut putting out false information like Michael Moore, these guys seem to have a real message. Until people like Michael Moore are banned, there is no reason to want the swiftboat vets taken off the air.

Your standards are absolutely undecipherable, Keith. You "don't know if they're true or not, but they have credibility"? How much credibility does one have if what he says isn't true? The fact that they served in Vietnam doesn't mean that, per se, they are credible on this matter -- if they weren't there when it happened.

Your "standard" says if 22 people live in a house a block away, what they say about what happened in your house is as reliable as the testimony of the people who actually live in your house, are with you 24/7. After all, they live in the neighborhood and they have houses and families, too -- so they do have credibility. :roll:

And here's a real difference between them and Michael Moore. Moore made a film -- and you have to choose to take yourself to the theater, buy a ticket, and sit there to watch it. Whereas the swiftboat ads come into a home uninvited, just like the part of the turkey you throw away when you buy it. I wouldn't go see Moore's film -- but it's tough to avoid the swiftboat ads if you live where they're being shown.

So long as I'm back here dealing with your "opinions" --
There are far more people giving tesimony against Kerry than for him. Indeed a few of his buddies are saying things for him, there are many, many more that do not agree.

Can you provide a basis -- other than your "opinion" for that first statement? Who cares what the "many, many more that do not agree" say, given that they weren't there?

If people have credibility on the basis of their military service, as you say above, then Wesley Clark and Merrill McPeak are credible, too.
Washington Post -- "As they've seen polls and seen the rising respect people have for John Kerry, they're more determined than ever to run a personal attack campaign," Clark said in a telephone interview. "They don't have a good record to defend, and so they've fallen back on personal attacks. It's the lowest form of politics."

Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill McPeak, another Kerry supporter, contrasted Kerry's service in Vietnam with Bush's service in the Texas National Guard and Cheney's lack of military service. "Do the president and vice president really want to have a debate about who is more suited to fight the war in Iraq and the war on terror?" he said in a statement. "Do they really want a debate about which candidate has the toughness to make America stronger?"

In sign of the Kerry campaign's determination to rebut the criticism, it also issued a statement signed by 10 former senior military officials, including McPeak and Clark, denouncing Cheney's attacks as "gutter" politics.

It's the same kind of campaign Bush adherents ran against McCain in the 2000 primaries, with their false insinuations that he'd fathered a black child out of wedlock and that he was "unbalanced" due to his time in the Hanoi Hilton, the same kind of campaign run against Max Cleland, implying that he is not patriotic, that he's a coward.

The piece I linked to begin this thread made the point that Bush had the opportunity to speak out strongly against this sort of thing -- and he hasn't. He won't -- because he believes that's his best shot to be reelected.

McPeak has credibility, given your view that military service in and of itself provides that. Here's what he says:
"Kerry's squared away on security matters," McPeak said.


The lanky, 68-year-old former Air Force chief of staff has grown increasingly vocal in his attacks on Bush's military policies and his support for Kerry, whose campaign he has joined as an unofficial adviser.

Bush, he said, has frittered away the international good will America reaped after the Sept. 11 attacks, and committed American forces to Iraq under conditions "guaranteed to create an insurgency" because the war and subsequent occupation lacked legitimacy.

"It's very interesting. We went from being kissed on the sidewalks of Paris, with headlines 'We are all Americans,' to the lowest esteem ratings for Americans in my lifetime. And maybe in all time," he said.

McPeak, a former Republican who reregistered as an independent, is filling various roles in the campaign after he met personally with Kerry before agreeing to endorse the Massachusetts senator.


Keith -- Searching Google and throwing out an article or two does not prove this issue.

Probably not -- especially if all one found was "an article or two." However, if many articles were found, from many sources, directly quoting people who were actually there, most people would regard that as a substantial basis for deciding what's true. It's called "preponderance of evidence."

I grin when you attempt to minimize my posts because they cite specific sources -- especially when you misstate those sources and never, ever cite any yourself, just your unbuttressed opinion. Google's good, and I use it a lot -- but I'm also fond of this website, which lists tons of newspapers which are online. I can read what people across the country (and the world, for that matter) say and report, and that wide variety of reading helps me decide what I believe. You, OTOH, have your "opinion" -- apparently with no basis other than your personal preference for whoever and whatever story supports Bush.

Keith -- Kerry was on the boat for about three months. Are you saying that twelve and twelve only were on those boats for three months? Are you saying that no one was in another boat beside Kerry? Are you saying that Kerry and the twelve were the only one's posted at one site and one site only? Surely you know better. There were many others who were posted with Kerry and were in combat situations with him. There were many others who were in differing situations with him. Your position is the one that is hardly convincing. . . .

My point is that despite your argument (apparently) that there were only twelve men who ever saw Kerry in service

And now you've turned to deliberate misrepresentation of what I've said. I have never said that only those twelve were on those boats -- and that is not my "apparent" argument. It's the twist you give my words so you can try to rebut what I didn't say, since you've done a lousy job of indicating I'm incorrect about what I actually did say.

I've certainly never said that no one was in other boats on the same river. What I have said is that I find the testimony of those who were actually there, nearest the action which is being questioned, more important than what someone who was in the general area says. (Back to that same old thing -- If you're accused of doing something, I'd rather hear from the other people in the house with you at the time than from neighbors down the block who drove past your house on their way home from work.)

Let's see what YOU "know better," Keith. How many others were in combat situations with him? How many of them are dead now? If what's being said is that Kerry didn't earn his medals, what does the testimony of "others who were in differing situations with him" have to do with that?

And (though you continue to repeat that "many more" oppose Kerry) can you name twelve men who did serve with him who speak against him now?

You continue to ignore my request to define "right there" and "served with Kerry" -- why is that? (You said it several times, I asked you twice to specify what you meant -- but your silence on that is notable.)

Keith -- . . . . that there were many others who were a lot closer than you and so have a much better idea of what went on than you do.

Ah, but you haven't specified what you mean by "a lot closer," have you? If they were in Vietnam but not on the river, they were "a lot closer" but in terms of having actually witnessed what happened, they're no better off than anyone else. "Closer" doesn't mean spit -- actually being present for the events being questioned is what matters. How can anyone credibly testify to what he wasn't there to see?

Keith--- "General vicinity" is your statement that is not warranted by the testimony of those there.

So you say. But then, you haven't cited or linked any testimony of those there, have you? That's simply your unsupported "opinion."

Keith--- Read some more. "General vicinity" is not adequate. My argument is not ludicrous, it is just not the standard liberal line that you are giving out. It is defend Kerry at all cost and attack any who do not buy it. I will repeat that I am not a Republican and I have not decided for sure who I will vote for. However, I do think that what Kerry did when he came back from Nam was simply inexcusable.

You have every right to disagree with his opposition to the war -- but no one has the right to say/imply that he's a coward or a liar because you don't agree with his action. Call it "the standard liberal line" if you choose -- but my repeated "line" is that the testimony of twelve who served on his boat outweighs the testimony of the one who served with him and the "many" who didn't. You don't like that "line"? Name twelve who served with him who agree with the smear group.

(That "I haven't decided who I'll vote for" line is not too credible, BTW -- given that you view what Kerry did as "inexcusable." You wouldn't seem to have many choices -- unless you enjoy burning a vote in the same way you'd enjoy setting fire to a dollar bill.)

Keith--- I did not make the argument that you are saying that I did. However, your insinutation that President George Bush is dumb is simply absurd. The 1000 people who have died is a number far less than the brutal torturer Hussein killed and wanted to kill. If you want to make the argument that we should have stood by for longer and let that murdering dictator continue, then make it. But on this one, your argument is absurd.

Hey, I'm not the one who equated "smart" with "immoral" -- you can take full credit for that one. I've not said Bush is dumb -- and I've certainly insinuated no more about him than you insinuated about Kerry with that "immoral" bit.

The people Hussein killed were Iraqis, in Iraq, The people who've died in this war were Americans. If you wish to argue that we should rush in and overthrow every murdering dictator who's oppressing his people, then explain why we're still doing nothing in all those other countries with murdering dictators AND nuclear capability. Please. (Your argument that it's worth that many lives to overthrow a brutal torturer stands only if we attack all the countries with murdering dictators.)

Keith--- You are simply another liberal who is so blinded by a dislike for the somewhat conservative Bush that you actually think that he is dumb. But then again, liberals think that most conservatives are dumb. That is simply because they think that if a person had brains that person would be liberal. I have some major disagreements with Bush on some issues, but it is quite clear that he is far from dumb. It is a dumb mistake to think that he is.

You are simply another reactionary who is so blinded by dislike for someone you see as having done something "inexcusable" that you are willing to listen to unproven slander. (Calling names is so fun, isn't it? Though that actually throws no light whatsoever on an actual issue.)

As it happens, if you'd read and respond to what I actually posted, you'd note that I've never said Bush is dumb -- because I don't think he is. I think he has a gift for some things -- relating to people, finding and hiring staff which fully shares his views, recognizing his own inadequacies and assigning responsibility for those areas to others.

What I actually said was, "We could discuss his grasp of issues and his ability to think on his feet" -- and I cited a specific example. For some reason, you don't much want to discuss his grasp of tribal sovereignty. :) (I'm pretty sure whoever is in charge of preparing him for debate winced when s/he saw that one. Though I'm not convinced he'll agree to debate Kerry.) Before he was elected, Bush talked about his dislike of traveling to other countries, and he demonstrated his unfamiliarity with more than one foreign policy issue. But if you'd rather take a suggestion to discuss a specific issue and turn it into "It's dumb to think Bush is dumb" -- well, that's par for the Bush-supporting course, isn't it?

Keith--- So far there is no evidence that this is but a smear campaign.

Sure there is. There's the testimony of the twelve who served on the swiftboats with him, the response from Sen. McCain and others with military experience/background, and the fact that only one of those quoted in the book/ads ever served on the swiftboats with Kerry. The fact that you choose to look out the window doesn't mean there's not a dragon in the living room, Keith.

Keith -- One also has to assume that all of their money is coming from people who are Bush supporters, or perhaps that being a Bush supporter is what makes a person lie.

Where do YOU think the ad money is coming from, Keith? You think it didn't come from Bush supporters? You think a bunch of Democrats got together and decided to buy them? :roll:

Keith -- It is also true that any president should be very careful about condemning a large group of veterans who will use their own money to have their voice heard.

Talk about self-serving assumptions! What's your basis for assuming that "a large group of veterans used their own money"?

Keith -- (1) Your standard for truth is simply unreasonable. Apply it to virtually any situation and you will notice how frail it is. For example, in law enforcement an eye witness is no longer considered all that valuable in many instances, especially after many years have gone by. (2) I am sure that twelve men could be influenced as to what happened several years ago by a few dollars and some public appearances with a presidential candidate. (3) That is more likely than to think that close a few hundred men would band together to be against Kerry because of a few Republican boys among them.

(1) "An eye witness"? How about twelve eye witnesses? Any attorney I've known would consider that quite valuable, especially if their testimony was backed up by the official record of what took place.
(2) Pitiful, Keith. Elsewhere you say the men you agree with have every right to be heard -- and now you slur the twelve men who served with Kerry by saying they "could be influenced by a few dollars and some public appearances with a presidential candidate." You're saying that the veterans you agree with are credible witnesses (even though they weren't there), but these twelve who WERE there "could be" venal men who sold their integrity for a mess of pottage.
(3) "A few hundred men" and "a few Republican boys among them"? Even more pitiful -- but funny, too. "Boys" -- as in "good old boys," chums, friends, one of the gang? Anyone who was in Vietnam when Kerry was -- even anyone who was BORN in Vietnam when Kerry was there -- has surely attained his full majority and should be described as a man, wouldn't you think? And -- most of us have grasped this by now -- only one of the "few hundred" ever served on the swiftboats with Kerry.

(I'd have left you alone, Keith -- but you deliberately misrepresented my view, twisted my post into something you thought you could rebut, and continue to argue that "several hundred men" who weren't there are more convincing that twelve who were. I live in a heavily Republican part of a heavily Republican state -- and even here people are disgusted by the swiftboat ads, the attitude that produced them -- and they're beginning to wonder out loud about the vocally Christian president who tacitly approves them.)
mlovell
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Beautiful East Texas

Postby Keith » Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:33 pm

Keith--- ML, it is late. I will get to all of your misrepresentations tomorrow. Meanwhile, sleep well and I hope you can dream as well at night as you do when you are writing.
It is only in Christ that the glory of God can be seen and loved.
Keith
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:27 pm

Postby mlovell » Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:14 am

Sleeping in, are you, Keith? :)

Good -- because you'll need to do more than just opine if you're going to label anything I wrote as a "misrepresentation." You'll have to demonstrate that what I said differs from fact.

You could begin by naming twelve men who actually served on the swiftboats with Kerry who believe he's unfit for command.
mlovell
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Beautiful East Texas

Postby Keith » Sat Aug 14, 2004 5:00 pm

Quote:
Keith--- I don't buy what Kerry says, but he can buy ads to put out his views. Whether people buy what the swiftboat vets say or not, they have the right to purchase ads for their message. I don't know if they are true or not, but they do have credibility. It is not like some nut putting out false information like Michael Moore, these guys seem to have a real message. Until people like Michael Moore are banned, there is no reason to want the swiftboat vets taken off the air.

ML:
Your standards are absolutely undecipherable, Keith. You "don't know if they're true or not, but they have credibility"? How much credibility does one have if what he says isn't true? The fact that they served in Vietnam doesn't mean that, per se, they are credible on this matter -- if they weren't there when it happened.


Keith--- What you mean, ML, is that you are unable to decipher what is going on, not that they are absolutely undecipherable. You have just stated what would knock Kerry out. One is not credible if the statements are not true. The fact that all these men are veterans in Vietnam does give them credibility about things that went on there.

ML:
Your "standard" says if 22 people live in a house a block away, what they say about what happened in your house is as reliable as the testimony of the people who actually live in your house, are with you 24/7. After all, they live in the neighborhood and they have houses and families, too -- so they do have credibility.


Keith--- ML, your analogy here should embarrass you. There is no real analogy between it and the situation.

ML:
And here's a real difference between them and Michael Moore. Moore made a film -- and you have to choose to take yourself to the theater, buy a ticket, and sit there to watch it. Whereas the swiftboat ads come into a home uninvited, just like the part of the turkey you throw away when you buy it. I wouldn't go see Moore's film -- but it's tough to avoid the swiftboat ads if you live where they're being shown.


Keith--- That is why they make ways of changing channels or turning the things off. Those things are not that tough to avoid, but why would you want to anyway?

ML:
So long as I'm back here dealing with your "opinions" --
Quote:
There are far more people giving tesimony against Kerry than for him. Indeed a few of his buddies are saying things for him, there are many, many more that do not agree.

Can you provide a basis -- other than your "opinion" for that first statement? Who cares what the "many, many more that do not agree" say, given that they weren't there?


Keith--- The definition of "there" is so small as to disappear into the realm of non-meaning.

ML:
If people have credibility on the basis of their military service, as you say above, then Wesley Clark and Merrill McPeak are credible, too.
Quote:
Washington Post -- "As they've seen polls and seen the rising respect people have for John Kerry, they're more determined than ever to run a personal attack campaign," Clark said in a telephone interview. "They don't have a good record to defend, and so they've fallen back on personal attacks. It's the lowest form of politics."


Keith--- If you will take my statement of credibility, it had to do with men who had served in combat in Vietnam. They have the credibility to speak about issues there. Clark's comments might be nothing but an attack of his own.

ML:
Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill McPeak, another Kerry supporter, contrasted Kerry's service in Vietnam with Bush's service in the Texas National Guard and Cheney's lack of military service. "Do the president and vice president really want to have a debate about who is more suited to fight the war in Iraq and the war on terror?" he said in a statement. "Do they really want a debate about which candidate has the toughness to make America stronger?"


Keith--- Interesting comments, yes. However, if you wanted to debate about who is more suited to fight the war in Iraq and on terror, then we must see how Kerry voted and acted during the war and after he came home. That is exactly why these people are coming out (they say). Kerry's voting record in the Senate is not exactly conducive to a man who should run the country.

ML:
In sign of the Kerry campaign's determination to rebut the criticism, it also issued a statement signed by 10 former senior military officials, including McPeak and Clark, denouncing Cheney's attacks as "gutter" politics.


Keith--- Does that make them right? Are these people Democrat activists?

ML:
It's the same kind of campaign Bush adherents ran against McCain in the 2000 primaries, with their false insinuations that he'd fathered a black child out of wedlock and that he was "unbalanced" due to his time in the Hanoi Hilton, the same kind of campaign run against Max Cleland, implying that he is not patriotic, that he's a coward.


Keith--- These are not even close to the same kind of issues. I don't know who was responsible for the stuff in the past campaign, but Kerry is running on his service and there are a lot of people who served over there who have fought him for years on this. This did not just come up when this campaign started, this started years ago.

ML:
The piece I linked to begin this thread made the point that Bush had the opportunity to speak out strongly against this sort of thing -- and he hasn't. He won't -- because he believes that's his best shot to be reelected.


Keith--- You don't know for sure why he has not spoken out against this, so why make the unfounded deduction? Maybe he just does not want to stand against the veterans on this.

ML:
McPeak has credibility, given your view that military service in and of itself provides that. Here's what he says:


Keith--- Did he serve in Vietnam on the same boat with Kerry? Then he has no credibility to speak on this with you. Did he serve in Vietnam at all even close to Kerry? That is what I have been trying to get at.

ML:
Quote:
"Kerry's squared away on security matters," McPeak said.

The lanky, 68-year-old former Air Force chief of staff has grown increasingly vocal in his attacks on Bush's military policies and his support for Kerry, whose campaign he has joined as an unofficial adviser.


Keith--- Being an advisor might even give a reason why he would bash Bush on this.

ML:
Bush, he said, has frittered away the international good will America reaped after the Sept. 11 attacks, and committed American forces to Iraq under conditions "guaranteed to create an insurgency" because the war and subsequent occupation lacked legitimacy.

"It's very interesting. We went from being kissed on the sidewalks of Paris, with headlines 'We are all Americans,' to the lowest esteem ratings for Americans in my lifetime. And maybe in all time," he said.


Keith--- Hogwash. The French have been against us for a long time. Besides, who cares what they think if we are doing the right thing. Besides, they originally voted for us to be able to go in. Now what was that oil for food thing again? Oh, the French Prez had some big deals going with Hussein?

ML:
McPeak, a former Republican who reregistered as an independent, is filling various roles in the campaign after he met personally with Kerry before agreeing to endorse the Massachusetts senator.

Quote:
Keith -- Searching Google and throwing out an article or two does not prove this issue.

ML:
Probably not -- especially if all one found was "an article or two." However, if many articles were found, from many sources, directly quoting people who were actually there, most people would regard that as a substantial basis for deciding what's true. It's called "preponderance of evidence."


Keith--- Or the liberal media has a few sources that all get their information from. It is much like my buying a thousand papers (of the same paper on the same day) and saying that I have a thousand articles from the paper that supports my position.

ML:
I grin when you attempt to minimize my posts because they cite specific sources -- especially when you misstate those sources and never, ever cite any yourself, just your unbuttressed opinion.


Keith--- I am always happy to be able to bring a grin to your face. However, you really ought to study what constitutes knowledge and/or evidence. Quoting several people does not prove a position correct, it only demonstrates that certain people believe it. Please grasp that. A simple bit of logic when applied can give more certainty or uncertainty than a thousand quotes.

ML:
Google's good, and I use it a lot -- but I'm also fond of this website, which lists tons of newspapers which are online. I can read what people across the country (and the world, for that matter) say and report, and that wide variety of reading helps me decide what I believe. You, OTOH, have your "opinion" -- apparently with no basis other than your personal preference for whoever and whatever story supports Bush.

Keith--- Simply incorrect. Applying logic to these situations is just more helpful than reading several articles from the liberal media. My issue, again, is simply saying that the swiftboatvets should be listened to instead of trashed.

Quote:
Keith -- Kerry was on the boat for about three months. Are you saying that twelve and twelve only were on those boats for three months? Are you saying that no one was in another boat beside Kerry? Are you saying that Kerry and the twelve were the only one's posted at one site and one site only? Surely you know better. There were many others who were posted with Kerry and were in combat situations with him. There were many others who were in differing situations with him. Your position is the one that is hardly convincing. . . .

My point is that despite your argument (apparently) that there were only twelve men who ever saw Kerry in service

ML:
And now you've turned to deliberate misrepresentation of what I've said. I have never said that only those twelve were on those boats -- and that is not my "apparent" argument. It's the twist you give my words so you can try to rebut what I didn't say, since you've done a lousy job of indicating I'm incorrect about what I actually did say.


Keith--- I have not misrepresented your argument, I have made a deduction. Notice that I also used the word "apparently" in my sentence. That means that your argument appears to be... You continue to focus on the twelve while denying that the swiftboatvets have any business saying anything about this.

ML:
I've certainly never said that no one was in other boats on the same river. What I have said is that I find the testimony of those who were actually there, nearest the action which is being questioned, more important than what someone who was in the general area says. (Back to that same old thing -- If you're accused of doing something, I'd rather hear from the other people in the house with you at the time than from neighbors down the block who drove past your house on their way home from work.)


Keith--- Interestingly enough, sometimes people who are back just a bit can actually see things more clearly than those who are right there.

ML:
Let's see what YOU "know better," Keith. How many others were in combat situations with him? How many of them are dead now? If what's being said is that Kerry didn't earn his medals, what does the testimony of "others who were in differing situations with him" have to do with that?

And (though you continue to repeat that "many more" oppose Kerry) can you name twelve men who did serve with him who speak against him now?


Keith--- I have read what some have said, but I have no intention of going through all the writings to figure out these things in exact numbers. It might not even be possible. My main point is that we should listen to these men and not think they are just Republicans out to slime Kerry.

ML:
You continue to ignore my request to define "right there" and "served with Kerry" -- why is that? (You said it several times, I asked you twice to specify what you meant -- but your silence on that is notable.)


Keith--- I did tell you, but evidently you did not like it much.

Quote:
Keith -- . . . . that there were many others who were a lot closer than you and so have a much better idea of what went on than you do.

ML:
Ah, but you haven't specified what you mean by "a lot closer," have you? If they were in Vietnam but not on the river, they were "a lot closer" but in terms of having actually witnessed what happened, they're no better off than anyone else. "Closer" doesn't mean spit -- actually being present for the events being questioned is what matters. How can anyone credibly testify to what he wasn't there to see?


Keith--- So don't testify, but some of those men were there. I don't know how many, but several say they were there. There are many other issues involved in these things too, but you are focused and nothing else matters right now.

Quote:
Keith--- "General vicinity" is your statement that is not warranted by the testimony of those there.

ML:
So you say. But then, you haven't cited or linked any testimony of those there, have you? That's simply your unsupported "opinion."


Keith--- My statement is not unsupported, it is just that I have not given the links. You can go to the swiftboatvets site and see for yourself some of the basics. As far as unsupported, I think that what you have given is completely unsupported.

Quote:
Keith--- Read some more. "General vicinity" is not adequate. My argument is not ludicrous, it is just not the standard liberal line that you are giving out. It is defend Kerry at all cost and attack any who do not buy it. I will repeat that I am not a Republican and I have not decided for sure who I will vote for. However, I do think that what Kerry did when he came back from Nam was simply inexcusable.

ML:
You have every right to disagree with his opposition to the war -- but no one has the right to say/imply that he's a coward or a liar because you don't agree with his action. Call it "the standard liberal line" if you choose -- but my repeated "line" is that the testimony of twelve who served on his boat outweighs the testimony of the one who served with him and the "many" who didn't. You don't like that "line"? Name twelve who served with him who agree with the smear group.


Keith--- I have not said that he was a coward, though his words have shown that he has lied (or was terribly mistaken) about some issues. Following your own line of thought there, why do you think these men are a "smear group" out to get Kerry? A smear group? Do you really have strong evidence for that? No.

ML:
(That "I haven't decided who I'll vote for" line is not too credible, BTW -- given that you view what Kerry did as "inexcusable." You wouldn't seem to have many choices -- unless you enjoy burning a vote in the same way you'd enjoy setting fire to a dollar bill.)

Keith--- I have decided that I am not going to vote for Kerry unless things change a lot, but I am not sure who I am going to vote for. I am sorry to see that you think a person who votes according to conscience is a wasted vote. You are right about one thing, I do view what Kerry did as inexcusable. He has never apologized for what he did after he came home.

Quote:
Keith--- I did not make the argument that you are saying that I did. However, your insinutation that President George Bush is dumb is simply absurd. The 1000 people who have died is a number far less than the brutal torturer Hussein killed and wanted to kill. If you want to make the argument that we should have stood by for longer and let that murdering dictator continue, then make it. But on this one, your argument is absurd.

ML:
Hey, I'm not the one who equated "smart" with "immoral" -- you can take full credit for that one. I've not said Bush is dumb -- and I've certainly insinuated no more about him than you insinuated about Kerry with that "immoral" bit.


Keith--- Here is what you said:

ML:
Smart beats dumb when it comes to earning my vote, Keith. And, to use your form of argument (tacky though it may be, apparently it's the sort you understand), the cemeteries are full (1000+) of people sent to die by dumb.


Keith--- I am not sure what other conclusion I can draw than that you are calling Bush dumb.

ML:
The people Hussein killed were Iraqis, in Iraq, The people who've died in this war were Americans.


Keith--- So American lives are worth more than those who live in Iraq? Surely that is not what you mean, but it appears as such. Please note that I am not accusing you of meaning that, just that it appears that you mean that. I do wonder what you mean by this, however.

ML:
If you wish to argue that we should rush in and overthrow every murdering dictator who's oppressing his people, then explain why we're still doing nothing in all those other countries with murdering dictators AND nuclear capability. Please. (Your argument that it's worth that many lives to overthrow a brutal torturer stands only if we attack all the countries with murdering dictators.)


Keith--- I have no problem with going in a taking out murdering dictators, especially when they hate America and fund terrorism. Not only that, they fire at our jets when they are in the zones they have a right to. The war we are engaging in is a war on terror and we have to defend America. Hussein was a threat to us in different ways. It is also good for many other reasons. One, we are now in a positiion to stymie the countries around Iraq who are terrorists states. Two, it is much better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than to fight them here. My argument stands because of America's past with Hussein and his capability and willingness to aid terrorists. Your counter (about us having to attack all countries with murdering dictators) is simply absurd. From the principle you have given, that would mean that we could never arrest a murderer unless we arrested all murderers. It would mean that I could never answer a post unless I answered all posts.

Quote:
Keith--- You are simply another liberal who is so blinded by a dislike for the somewhat conservative Bush that you actually think that he is dumb. But then again, liberals think that most conservatives are dumb. That is simply because they think that if a person had brains that person would be liberal. I have some major disagreements with Bush on some issues, but it is quite clear that he is far from dumb. It is a dumb mistake to think that he is.

ML:
You are simply another reactionary who is so blinded by dislike for someone you see as having done something "inexcusable" that you are willing to listen to unproven slander. (Calling names is so fun, isn't it? Though that actually throws no light whatsoever on an actual issue.)


Keith--- Indeed it has not been proven that those men are slandering Kerry, so I am unwilling to listen to unporven slander by you and others who say they are sliming Kerry. Calling one a "liberal" is not necessarily calling a name in that sense, it is just getting to the root issue. I freely admit that I think John Kerry is a very dangerous man to have elected.

ML:
As it happens, if you'd read and respond to what I actually posted, you'd note that I've never said Bush is dumb -- because I don't think he is. I think he has a gift for some things -- relating to people, finding and hiring staff which fully shares his views, recognizing his own inadequacies and assigning responsibility for those areas to others.


Keith--- But what you said sure seems to say that he is (see my quote of you above regarding 1,000+ dead, sent by dumb).

ML:
What I actually said was, "We could discuss his grasp of issues and his ability to think on his feet" -- and I cited a specific example. For some reason, you don't much want to discuss his grasp of tribal sovereignty. (I'm pretty sure whoever is in charge of preparing him for debate winced when s/he saw that one. Though I'm not convinced he'll agree to debate Kerry.) Before he was elected, Bush talked about his dislike of traveling to other countries, and he demonstrated his unfamiliarity with more than one foreign policy issue. But if you'd rather take a suggestion to discuss a specific issue and turn it into "It's dumb to think Bush is dumb" -- well, that's par for the Bush-supporting course, isn't it?

Keith--- But when you said what you said, it does appear that you meant that.

Quote:
Keith--- So far there is no evidence that this is but a smear campaign.

ML:
Sure there is. There's the testimony of the twelve who served on the swiftboats with him, the response from Sen. McCain and others with military experience/background, and the fact that only one of those quoted in the book/ads ever served on the swiftboats with Kerry. The fact that you choose to look out the window doesn't mean there's not a dragon in the living room, Keith.


Keith--- ML, you have not given any real evidence that the close to 200 men who are with the swiftboatvet group are lying based on the testimony of 12 men. You are the one not choosing to look out of the window.


Quote:
Keith -- One also has to assume that all of their money is coming from people who are Bush supporters, or perhaps that being a Bush supporter is what makes a person lie.

ML:
Where do YOU think the ad money is coming from, Keith? You think it didn't come from Bush supporters? You think a bunch of Democrats got together and decided to buy them?


Keith--- From what I have read (again, I don't trust the media) the men have used their own money, but also a large amount came from one man. I don't know that all of these men are Bush supporters, do you?

Quote:
Keith -- It is also true that any president should be very careful about condemning a large group of veterans who will use their own money to have their voice heard.

ML:
Talk about self-serving assumptions! What's your basis for assuming that "a large group of veterans used their own money"?


Keith--- What is the basis for your assumption that they did not use any of their own money?

Quote:
Keith -- (1) Your standard for truth is simply unreasonable. Apply it to virtually any situation and you will notice how frail it is. For example, in law enforcement an eye witness is no longer considered all that valuable in many instances, especially after many years have gone by. (2) I am sure that twelve men could be influenced as to what happened several years ago by a few dollars and some public appearances with a presidential candidate. (3) That is more likely than to think that close a few hundred men would band together to be against Kerry because of a few Republican boys among them.

(1) "An eye witness"? How about twelve eye witnesses? Any attorney I've known would consider that quite valuable, especially if their testimony was backed up by the official record of what took place.


Keith--- Even if close to 200 other witnesses said something different? Do you always believe the official version?

ML:
(2) Pitiful, Keith. Elsewhere you say the men you agree with have every right to be heard -- and now you slur the twelve men who served with Kerry by saying they "could be influenced by a few dollars and some public appearances with a presidential candidate." You're saying that the veterans you agree with are credible witnesses (even though they weren't there), but these twelve who WERE there "could be" venal men who sold their integrity for a mess of pottage.


Keith--- Did I accuse them of such? Or did you accuse the swiftboatvet group of something? I am not accusing those men of anything, I am just saying that it is easier (note #3) to believe that 12 could be bought than it is to believe that close to 200 would only be interested in sliming Kerry which is what you say.

ML:
(3) "A few hundred men" and "a few Republican boys among them"? Even more pitiful -- but funny, too. "Boys" -- as in "good old boys," chums, friends, one of the gang? Anyone who was in Vietnam when Kerry was -- even anyone who was BORN in Vietnam when Kerry was there -- has surely attained his full majority and should be described as a man, wouldn't you think? And -- most of us have grasped this by now -- only one of the "few hundred" ever served on the swiftboats with Kerry.


Keith--- Only by your very narrow definition.

ML:
(I'd have left you alone, Keith -- but you deliberately misrepresented my view, twisted my post into something you thought you could rebut,


Keith--- But I did not deliberately misrepresent your view, you just read it wrong again. Your post was twisted, but not by me. Oh, just in case you are interested, that was a bit of humor, though a bit of truth is lurking.

ML:
and continue to argue that "several hundred men" who weren't there are more convincing that twelve who were.


Keith--- I don't argue that they were not there.

ML:
I live in a heavily Republican part of a heavily Republican state


Keith--- Wow, I hope they can sink some truth into you, though that might depend on what kind of Republical they are.

ML:
-- and even here people are disgusted by the swiftboat ads, the attitude that produced them -- and they're beginning to wonder out loud about the vocally Christian president who tacitly approves them.)


Keith--- They have just listened to the liberal media, or some who listen to the liberal media. But maybe they listen to their liberal neighbors. Neighbors should never let their neighbors vote for Kerry. What attitude can be documented other than that these men have been against Kerry for what he did years ago? Because of those things, they do not think he is fit to be elected.
It is only in Christ that the glory of God can be seen and loved.
Keith
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:27 pm

Next

Return to Baptist Faith & Practice Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron