1
   

If Kerry lied, would it matter?

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 07:31 am
Though the last word one might use to describe anything I write would be 'duplicatable', it just happened.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 07:32 am
fox

I'll get back to you...doing my morning harvest...including the following.

New question, "What if the Bush campaign lied (again)? Would it matter?"

Quote:
The Boston Globe columnist Thomas Oliphant covered the 1971 rally in question.

"From what I could observe firsthand about Friday, April 23, 1971, Kerry did not make even the slightest effort to pretend that he was throwing all of his military decorations over that fence. He did what he did in plain view, and in my case in the view of someone close enough to kick him in the shins. It was clear to me that Kerry had arrived here with only the ribbons he wore on his shirt -- which, by the way, were referred to as 'medals' by the late Stuart Symington of Missouri, one of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members present for his famous antiwar statement ... It was clear from our conversations back then and ever since that Kerry made no distinction among his various decorations, though others have ..."

"I have always found the political junk served up by Kerry's detractors to be undignified as well as largely inaccurate. I write now because the political junk is much higher profile now, though no less misleading -- and not, by the way, because in her fourth job in the public arena, my daughter just joined Kerry's staff. I just happened to be there that long-ago day. I saw what happened and heard what Kerry said and know what he meant. The truth happens to be with him."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 08:08 am
Yes I've read what Oliphant said. And at that time, I don't doubt that Oliphant's version is correct; however, that misses the point.

The point is that this year Kerry looked America in the eye and stated emphatically that he didn't throw his medals/ribbons over the fence but that he threw somebody else's. "I am proud of my medals" he said.

Then the 1971 video--that's a VIDEO showing him in the flesh in his own words--saying that he threw his medals over the White House fence in protest.

When confronted with this earlier this week, he then changed his story and said he threw his ribbons, not his medals--he didn't have his medals with him--and that (in his mind in 1971) ribbons/medals were the same. I have some nice swamp land to sell to anybody who believes that.

Kerry has been caught in a lie of political expediency. It is of small consequence unless it is indicative of a pattern of deception for political expediency. As that pattern appears to exist, I still wonder how his supporters think he is giving them the truth about what he will or won't do as president.

(As an aside, yesterday John McCain went public telling both Bush and Kerry to knock it off re bashing each other on their respective military records.)
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 09:12 am
Well, I still think the whole thing about kerry and his medal was a stupid PR lie gone bad and he is trying cover it sticking his further in it, while what everyone questioned Bush about was if he actually served during a certain time during those months in question and if he had his daddy pull strings to get him in the National Gaurd ahead of others already in line in order to avoid a draft. In the end, pick your poison. I pick Kerry to get Bush out of office.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 09:32 am
Foxfyre wrote:
blatham write:
Quote:
I loves loves loves America. I had a coonskin cap and wanted to be Davy Crockett. I think the US has produced a golden age comparable to fifth century BC Athens. But now you are screwing up and in danger of forgetting that it has been diversity and independence of mind that has made you the incredible country you are.


Well here you and I finally found some common ground except that I disagree on HOW we are screwing up. I have never said that a safety net should not be provided nor have I ever said that a compassionate people does not take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Nor will you find me saying that no government beneficiaries are deserving of the aid they receive. Nor will you find me criticizing necessary social programs that are accomplishing good things. Nor did I say you'd said those things.

But at the risk of being accused (again) of self aggrandization, to note, that indictment followed upon a sneaky intro you did...this isn't a pattern in what you write I have some hands on experience with some less successful social programs addressed by government social services. I've seen first hand the damage that can be done when money is thrown at programs with no real concern that the problems be solved. I rail constantly against politicians who take credit for massive increases in education and various kinds of assistance programs when a large lion's share of that money never gets to the kids or the people who would benefit from it. At the same time the massive bureaucracy becomes even more bloated and incompetent administrators become even more overpaid. There's truth to this, fox. The questions are, how much, where, and why? Take education. This is an immensely complex undertaking with equally complex questions of measurement, not to mention of philosophy (what ought we to consider is the proper function of a school? Job training? Producing fodder for industry? Moral instruction? Passing down traditional social values? Making good flag-waving citizens? Or perhaps as Socrates would have it, making 'good citizens by training them to recognized fixed ideas and uninvestigated cultural assumptions/agreements...making, in other words, ****-disturbers?) To claim that money will help is no more of an unthinking simplistic response than the opposite stance of Norquist or Gingrich.

I agree that it was independence of mind that helped make America great, but I disagree that it was our diversity. Why would you disagree? There is no political entity in history which has been so ethnically/racially diverse. I think it was our common sense of individual reponsibility and shared values that made us great. That we were able to learn and grow and mature as a nation and have learned how to be more inclusive and more tolerant and do most things better is a testament to those shared values. (Admittedly some have had to be dragged along kicking and screaming.) But when mostly free of government interference, we went right to the top in innovation, intellectual creativity, productivity, and prosperity. Again, that is a cliche. And it isn't matched by an historial view. The fact of the matter is that the last century, which coincided with America's rise to economic, political, scientific, technological, and cultural dominance was also the period where those same governmental systems which the cliche derides were built up.

I now think we are in danger of losing that quality because of the very intolerance of those who claim to be the champions of tolerance along with an unhealthy dependence on government to be the provider of all we need and the solution to all that is wrong. I really don't know what you might refer to here. It really seems a valueless charicature.

As far as FDR's New Deal, he would roll over in his grave if he knew what a mess we've made of it. Simply put, it started out two pronged: to provide a small pension to the elderly and to provide short term food and assistance, mostly in the form of employment, so that out-of-work men could feed their families during the Great Depression. No. This period saw:
-Federal banking regulations and creation of SEC
-mortage relief
-loan guarantees
-establishment of the Federal Housing Administration with relief to states, and then to 20 million citizens
-formation of the CCCand its work relief programs
-new agriculture administrations and new farm bill
-public works programs
-complex regulations on bussiness to ensure fair competition
and more

He would be horrified that it has become the behemoth of entitlement that it has become. Perhaps not We've thrown many trillions of dollars at the problems and there is no appreciable reduction in poverty and underemployment, false no reduction in the homeless on the streets, also false and an enormous permanent underclass has been created. here too Our people are less secure and our children are far less well educated. Come on, fox. You are pulling this out of thin air. What studies have shown we are now less educated or less secure than in 1930 or 1950? I just think we can do it better than that. I think we need to rethink it and do it differently.

I suppose Canada, many European countries, and some other democracies are happy with a higher degree of socialism and, if it works for them, power to them. I do not believe it is a good plan for the USA. Why not? People are people, regardless of borders or flags. If social programs produced an underclass in one place, surely they would elsewhere. I think, for us, an intelligently regulated capitalism with a return to individual responsibility and shared values is in the long run the most profitable and the most compassionate way. A compassionate society takes care of those who cannot care for themselves. And I think sometimes tough love is a critical component of a compassionate society.
Well, 'tough love' is another cliche. It would mean one thing to Calvin, something else to a dominatrix, and yet something else to a drill seargant, and again something new to someone born into wealth who just can't understand how those 'people' down there haven't made it like he has.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 09:38 am
ps

But the seeds of the New Deal arose in New City and State, and were carried up into the Roosevelt adminstration. Those seeds involved a new sense of community and of the state's ethical responsibility towards all citizens. A fundamental component of this thinking acknowledged that laissez faire capitalism, unfettered and unregulated, would function predatorily...that it would effectively reproduce a vast disparity in wealth and in quality of life. That it would tend to recreate precisely the sorts of class and power evils which immigrants to America had been fleeing.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 10:43 am
In all due respect Blatham, your tossing all government initiatives into the "New Deal" doesn't mesh with the way I learned history though I could have included some of the examples you cited and you could have acknowledged that some of your examples were covered in the terminology I used.

And I won't debate you on who uses the most cliches as it does not interest me in the least. I do not object to cliches used as shorthand for a held belief or proven fact. And I have accepted that you are as supportive of the socialistic liberalism of the authors you read as you presume me to be supportive of the 'conservatives' you abhor.

As for your disagreement with me on specific issues, we can take those up on a different thread.

As to this thread, would it be your opinion that John Kerry would stave off the conservative agenda of those evil Republicans and restore America to the glorious policies of the New Deal? Why do you believe him when he says he would?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 02:08 pm
Away from the particulars of the pros and cons of the New Deal, here's how I see this little medals/ribbons dust-up:

A wartime deserter sends surrogates to attack a decorated war hero.

The notion is stunning in its outrageousness, isn't it?

George W. Bush did in fact disappear from his Guard post after the government spent nearly a million dollars training him. He did not, in fact, produce anything close to conclusive proof that he fulfilled his obligations to our government and the Texas Air National Guard. He only escaped closer scrutiny over the issue because he rope-a-doped the media until they were tired of asking questions to which no answers would ever be forthcoming, and he topped it off by doing a document dump -- which included such utter detritus as a receipt for a dental appointment -- on a Friday afternoon and then had his surrogates declare the matter closed.

In short, he put out the mother of all smokescreens, and the media fell for it.

And now, in the midst of his political campaign for re-election, he sends out Dick Cheney (who recorded six draft deferments to avoid going to Vietnam, the last of which he got for impregnating his wife) and Karen Hughes (who allegedly left the White House to "spend more time with her family"; I guess she spent enough time with them, because now she's taken up near-constant residence on any TV show that will allow her prevaricating ass to sit in a chair) to whine about Kerry's 'flip-flops' and how he is somehow not fit to lead the country because he had the nerve to go to war, save some fellow sailors, get some of the highest decorations this country can bestow on its military, then come home and tell the American people the truth about how wrong that war was.

It's all I can do to keep from growing nauseous at the rampant hypocrisy and the overwhelming stench of blind, jingoistic, unquestioning fealty to a man who was given the chance to serve this great country -- and bailed for reasons that he refuses to disclose.

And that is the type of people we're dealing with here.

People who take the easy way out for themselves, who avoid the hard choices in life and who have gotten everything they have through the largesse of privilege, criticizing and belittling a man who actually got in the way of bullets in a hot zone and got medals for his wounds and his bravery. These same people make a living by duping people too lazy or stupid to research the subject for the facts, and worse yet, for some reason the duped actually seem to like being lied to.

This attitude is ignorant and hopelessly stupid, and this type of rank stupidity makes me fear for my country almost as much as the reality of the despicable, selfish greedheads we were collectively stupid enough to allow to occupy the offices of leadership in the first place.

Kerry served and was awarded. George W. Bush ran away. All his supporters are able to do in response is to attempt to trash Kerry's reputation, much as they did to decorated veteran Max Cleland, and even one of their own loyal footsoldiers, John McCain.

Those are the facts. On the ground.

Now, call me unpatriotic or that I support the terrorists or tell me to leave the country for telling you the facts, and I'll tell you to take your fake patriotism, your smarmy innuendo, and your desperate, rabid attack-dog politics and shove them up your ass with both hands. Shocked Cool
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 02:45 pm
I'm not agreeing to that, but even if for the same of argument your facts are okay PDiddie, it doesn't change the fact that Kerry lied about what he did about those ribbons and medals. Does that matter to those of you who support him?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 02:58 pm
Your question establishes a false premise and as such, isn't worthy of response, Foxy.

Homie don't play that way.

Know why George Dubya didn't toss his medals?

A. He was too busy tossing his cookies;

B. It's too difficult to get distance on your toss when you are face down in the gutter;

C. He thought someone said, 'Do you want to toss salad?' and got scared; or

D. The Air National Guard doesn't award Purple Hearts for cavities.
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 03:16 pm
"People who take the easy way out for themselves, who avoid the hard choices in life and who have gotten everything they have through the largesse of privilege, criticizing and belittling a man who actually got in the way of bullets in a hot zone and got medals for his wounds and his bravery. These same people make a living by duping people too lazy or stupid to research the subject for the facts, and worse yet, for some reason the duped actually seem to like being lied to.

I agree, P.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 03:19 pm
And that looks very much like another anti-Bush person who is neither focused on John Kerry nor has any ammunition (or inclination) to defend him. And as Kerry is the only candidate with any realistic chance to beat Bush in November, this is getting to be rather amazing.

Obviously many think Bush should never have been elected the first time, much less deserves a second term.

But it is disconcerting to think that the presidency will be decided because people are against the current occupant in the White House when so far nobody has disputed the idea that the likely replacement is unlikely to be any better.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 05:36 pm
The best defense is offense. If we went on and on how good kerry is and what he stands for that would be the only focus.

When they debate, I hope they debate often, but I wonder if Bush will have to have cheney hold his hand if does agree to a debate, anyway, when they debate, it will be clear as a bell who the more able president is; which is why I am not worrying too much about defending him.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 05:43 pm
Yes, it matters.
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 05:53 pm
Fox,

Anyone would likely be better than the current turtle.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 05:54 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
But it is disconcerting to think that the presidency will be decided because people are against the current occupant in the White House when so far nobody has disputed the idea that the likely replacement is unlikely to be any better.


Maybe I missed something. Where was it ever put forward that Kerry is unlikely to be any better? You are equating the symantics of medals or ribbons with invading Iraq?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 06:23 pm
foxfyre said
Quote:
But it is disconcerting to think that the presidency will be decided because people are against the current occupant in the White House when so far nobody has disputed the idea that the likely replacement is unlikely to be any better.


mesquite said
Quote:
Maybe I missed something. Where was it ever put forward that Kerry is unlikely to be any better? You are equating the symantics of medals or ribbons with invading Iraq?
Fox doesn't have a lot of options here. All she can really do is attempt to forward the party line that this incident ought to cause folks to doubt Kerry's truthfulness. That's the party line presently because everyone but the faithful (and even many of them) have concluded that Bush and his administration are not worthy of trust, having used deceit so often they likely aren't sure themselves what story is real. Bush, in interview, pauses in half of his sentences, trying to remember the appropriate 'story' for that question.

And Fox doesn't have a lot of options regarding the service comparisons between Kerry and Bush (or those around Bush other than Powell) because only Kerry bothered putting his own ass at risk. So, like the party hacks, Fox has to try and discredit Kerry. Predictable modern Republican smear stuff, hoping to take the folks eyes off of what they are already looking at...Bush as incompetent, deceitful, and lazy, perhaps cowardly. Her question (as illogical as an earlier "Prove to me with documents that Kerry is honorable!") has its answer in PD's passage below. Kerry served. Bush ran away.

PDiddie said
Quote:
Kerry served and was awarded. George W. Bush ran away. All his supporters are able to do in response is to attempt to trash Kerry's reputation, much as they did to decorated veteran Max Cleland, and even one of their own loyal footsoldiers, John McCain.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 06:34 pm
I can only agree that Kerry is a more honorable man than Bush. He want to Vietrnaum while Bush used his dads power and prestiege to avoid it. Bush thinks his life is much more important than we surfs.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 08:42 pm
Blatham, recently I was in a conversation re partisanship, liberal vs conservative, Democrat vs Republican, etc. Because of the make up of the group, all would be classified as 'right wingers'.

Most in the group were convinced that the surest test of a true liberal is that s/he forms no opinions of his/her own but must be told by someone else what s/he believes.

This is demonstrated by the liberal's inablility to defend his/her viewpoint on its own merits. Given opportunity to do so, s/he thinks s/he does so by insulting, demeaning, or tearing down the one who holds a different opinion or behaves 'improperly'. The 'other person' therefore is characterized as lacking in logic and/or reasonableness, blinded by bias or outside radical influences, and, by inference, is inferior to the liberal if not downright evil.

I was pretty adament that this characterization was unreasonable and unfair and that all liberals could not be painted with that brush. But now and then it is really hard not to give in to that prejudice.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 08:56 pm
foxfyre

Not terribly compelling, that bit.

I actually don't paint all conservatives with a particular brush (eg fishin, roger, thomas on economics, etc). But I'm afraid I put you in the brushable category for specific reasons of common logic faults, lack of reflection, and dogmatism. That's a disappointment, frankly.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 08:09:38