3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2006 05:05 pm
okie wrote:
I don't know what this has to do with this thread, but since it is brought up, it is not accurate to lump any form of military service criticism as "Swift Boating." I happen to think the Swift Boat people earned the right to speak a few facts about what happened. I contributed to their cause. I have personal reasons to affirm the general principles that they brought to bear on Mr. Kerry. I would not categorize the criticism of McCain or Murtha as even close to the same thing. And just because somebody supposedly served in the military, it does not earn them the right to be above any disagreement or criticism. Criticism, if valid, will gain traction, and if it is not, it probably won't gain traction.

The Swift Boat people attempted to simply respond to the slurs of Mr. Kerry that went back 30 years plus. The Swift Boat people did not start it. Lets get history correct here.



Okay, let's. You're saying they "earned the right" to "speak facts". Were any of the so-called "swift-boaters" on Kerry's swift boat, or on a swift boat from which they eyewitnessed Kerry's. NO. they wove slurs from whole cloth. Every single one of the men who served on Kerry's boat substantiated Kerry's reports of what happened. They didn't start it? If you're referring to the "slurs" of Kerry's like "The United States has committed atrocities in Vietnam", and you're tryijng to put THAT forth as the "start" of the torrent of lies that poured out of the mouths of those wind-up toys of Karl Rove, then you will probably not be moved by the truth in ANY form, even if it creeps up and bites you on the ass.

"Let's get history correct" - indeed.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2006 05:38 pm
Quote:
"Let's get history correct" - indeed.


You mean like the fact that it was "seared into his brain" that he was in Cambodia???

Only to find out that he was NEVER there.

Is that getting history correct?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2006 06:47 pm
snood wrote:
okie wrote:
I don't know what this has to do with this thread, but since it is brought up, it is not accurate to lump any form of military service criticism as "Swift Boating." I happen to think the Swift Boat people earned the right to speak a few facts about what happened. I contributed to their cause. I have personal reasons to affirm the general principles that they brought to bear on Mr. Kerry. I would not categorize the criticism of McCain or Murtha as even close to the same thing. And just because somebody supposedly served in the military, it does not earn them the right to be above any disagreement or criticism. Criticism, if valid, will gain traction, and if it is not, it probably won't gain traction.

The Swift Boat people attempted to simply respond to the slurs of Mr. Kerry that went back 30 years plus. The Swift Boat people did not start it. Lets get history correct here.



Okay, let's. You're saying they "earned the right" to "speak facts". Were any of the so-called "swift-boaters" on Kerry's swift boat, or on a swift boat from which they eyewitnessed Kerry's. NO. they wove slurs from whole cloth. Every single one of the men who served on Kerry's boat substantiated Kerry's reports of what happened. They didn't start it? If you're referring to the "slurs" of Kerry's like "The United States has committed atrocities in Vietnam", and you're tryijng to put THAT forth as the "start" of the torrent of lies that poured out of the mouths of those wind-up toys of Karl Rove, then you will probably not be moved by the truth in ANY form, even if it creeps up and bites you on the ass.

"Let's get history correct" - indeed.


You only need to look at what Kerry did when he came back and testified before Congress that the U.S. Military was committing atrocities on a regular and daily basis in Vietnam, and if you had been there and known what happened, you would know the man was delusional, a liar, or worse. Case closed.

To watch him come into the Democratic convention on a boat, trying to relive his days, then saluting at the start of his acceptance speech, "reporting for duty," was not only sad, but it was very revealing for most of us that had ever served in the military.

P.S. The Swift Boat people were honorable men that served in the same units as Kerry, and most of them were there for 12 months, not just 4 because of phony purple hearts.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2006 07:16 pm
Whatever - you can have your "honorable" awol from the TANG pres. I'd take Kerry over him anytime. And I guess that's as good a place to leave it as any.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2006 09:08 pm
snood,
You conveniently ignored my post.
Why?

Do you really believe that Kerry got history correct when he claimed to be in Cambodia?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2006 09:20 pm
mysteryman wrote:
snood,
You conveniently ignored my post.
Why?

Do you really believe that Kerry got history correct when he claimed to be in Cambodia?


I don't know. Do you buy all of Bush's stories about what he did during his "service" time? Like I said, I'm going to leave it be now.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2006 09:23 pm
snood wrote:
Whatever - you can have your "honorable" awol from the TANG pres. I'd take Kerry over him anytime. And I guess that's as good a place to leave it as any.


The AWOL charge never stuck, because they were bogus. Bush flew all of his hours and served in the National Guard in an honorable fashion. The best that could be dredged up were fake documents, which is a crime by the way. We are still waiting to find out who forged them in an effort to alter a federal election just a few days out, which is criminal as well. It was the typical mode of operation for CBS to air slanted and bogus garbage. And where are the next great investigative reporters looking to make a name for themselves in the mold of Woodward, etc.? As usual, nowhere to be found. Nobody seems to care do they? Some of us have not forgotten however.

Just so you know, I do not agree with Bush on near everything, but I do think he was the only acceptable choice we had at the time.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2006 09:34 pm
snood wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
snood,
You conveniently ignored my post.
Why?

Do you really believe that Kerry got history correct when he claimed to be in Cambodia?


I don't know. Do you buy all of Bush's stories about what he did during his "service" time? Like I said, I'm going to leave it be now.


Leaving it be is good advice. Thanks for being a gentleman here on this forum. Kind of a refreshing attitude.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2006 10:04 pm
Random list of the day:

Individual opinions referred to, in the process of finding her bearings on this issue, by Foxfyre

Limbaugh
Hannity
Malkin
Coulter
Krauthammer

There must be some conservative thinkers or experts of greater expertise or stature to consult on this issue, must there not - or is that just me?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2006 10:17 pm
nimh wrote:
Random list of the day:

Individual opinions referred to, in the process of finding her bearings on this issue, by Foxfyre

Limbaugh
Hannity
Malkin
Coulter
Krauthammer

There must be some conservative thinkers or experts of greater expertise or stature to consult on this issue, must there not - or is that just me?


Boortz?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2006 10:17 pm
Who's Boortz?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2006 10:28 pm
Try google.

Do you know who Krauthammer is?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 08:12 am
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
"Let's get history correct" - indeed.


You mean like the fact that it was "seared into his brain" that he was in Cambodia???

Only to find out that he was NEVER there.

Is that getting history correct?


http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/kerrycambodia.htm
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 08:16 am
revel wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
"Let's get history correct" - indeed.


You mean like the fact that it was "seared into his brain" that he was in Cambodia???

Only to find out that he was NEVER there.

Is that getting history correct?


http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/kerrycambodia.htm


I am just as impressed by the fact that Kerry lied about his presence in Cambodia as all of you Bushites seem to be by the absence of any of the "swift-boat vets" at any of the events leading to his medals that they so heatedly dispute.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 08:30 am
Except that one of the gunner's who WAS on Kerry's boat was among the Swift Boat vets. And others were on adjacent boats with a full view. And so far there is no indication that they intentionally lied. We know Kerry did.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 08:35 am
nimh wrote:
Random list of the day:

Individual opinions referred to, in the process of finding her bearings on this issue, by Foxfyre

Limbaugh
Hannity
Malkin
Coulter
Krauthammer

There must be some conservative thinkers or experts of greater expertise or stature to consult on this issue, must there not - or is that just me?


If you'll check the running list, I have included some of your liberal darlings too, Nimh. If you had really been paying attention you would note that this is a Bush supporters thread, and you also would have noticed that I have been comparing how various well known people have been taking opposite sides of a particular issue.

But then I suspect you are more interested in playing "gotcha" than you are interested in what we are actually discussing.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 09:34 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Try google.

Do you know who Krauthammer is?

Yep. He's definitely (by far, but thats easy) the best (or least bad, at least) of the list. At least he makes proper arguments, if usually the wrong ones ;-)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 09:36 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Except that one of the gunner's who WAS on Kerry's boat was among the Swift Boat vets. And others were on adjacent boats with a full view. And so far there is no indication that they intentionally lied. We know Kerry did.

What about all of Kerry's other crewmates? All intentionally lying too, when they stood up against the Swift claims?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 09:52 am
nimh wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Except that one of the gunner's who WAS on Kerry's boat was among the Swift Boat vets. And others were on adjacent boats with a full view. And so far there is no indication that they intentionally lied. We know Kerry did.

What about all of Kerry's other crewmates? All intentionally lying too, when they stood up against the Swift claims?


None of them backed him up that they were in Cambodia with him.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 09:57 am
Foxfyre wrote:
If you had really been paying attention you would note that this is a Bush supporters thread, and you also would have noticed that I have been comparing how various well known people have been taking opposite sides of a particular issue.

Well, quite. I'm sorry if I missed some, but I merely listed the "various well known people" you chose to quote by name on the last few pages I read. And it had me wondering. Are these, then, sort of the calibration points? It's a very logical, natural reaction to, when confronted with an ambiguous issue, think: "What do [fill in] think?", with [fill in] standing for proposed figures of authority that one would look to. I was struck by the [fill in] people here being Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, Hannity ... are those the primary points of orientation, then?

My question is twofold, really. There is usually quite a little storm of indignation among residing conservatives when a ranting libbie says something about you all just listening to Limbaugh and Coulter. It is ignorant and insulting, you would object, to pretend like they speak for the mainstream of conservatives. It's in fact, you would reply, the typically bone-headed reaction of lefties who just want to make you out to be stupid talk-radio sheep. Hell, "I never listen to talk radio, actually", would be a typical reaction.

OK, so how does this instance figure into that? Who do you go on by instinct? What's the first sources you look at, yourself, when you want to know what the map of conservative opinion looks like on a topic? If it is, apparently, Coulter, Limbaugh and Hannity, doesn't that make it a little harder to object when those are the figures referenced to by lefties when they try to characterise "US conservatives" next time, too?

Seriously though - I have a sincere enough question here, too. There must be more reasoned or expert opinions to sample out there. Who do you consider the prime conservative thinkers, analysist and opiners? Who are leading the way into the thoughts of tomorrow? If I were to ask, recommend me one author to read on conservatism's answers today, who'd it be? The stuff copied/pasted into this forum is overwhelmingly the column stuff by exactly the above-mentioned type of pundits. But who do you read when you want more than that?

Foxfyre wrote:
But then I suspect you are more interested in playing "gotcha" than you are interested in what we are actually discussing.

I already noted that on the issue of the British selling their ports in the US to Dubai, I have no opinion really - apart from thinking it's an overblown story in the first place. So yeah, the dynamics of the reactions to the issue are the more interesting thing for me, here.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 06:52:16