Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Integrity, Integrity, Integrity

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Integrity, Integrity, Integrity
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
John Kerry, answering a question about his wife in the third debate:
quote:
My mom passed away a couple years ago, just before I was deciding to run. And she was in the hospital, and I went in to talk to her and tell her what I was thinking of doing.

And she looked at me from her hospital bed and she just looked at me and she said, "Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity." Those are the three words that she left me with.

The points of emphasis in the closing days of the Kerry-Edwards campaign include:

1) Bush is planning to implement a draft after the election. It is almost inconceivable that Kerry believes that. Kerry proposes if elected to assemble two entirely new divisions, so he cannot think that a draft is necessary to increase troop levels.

2) Bush is going to cut social security benefits by 15-30% in January. Kerry certainly does not believe that.

3) If Kerry and Edwards are elected, they will lift the "ban" on stem-cell research, and paralytics will rise out of their wheelchairs and walk again. Patently absurd.

4) There is a "growing controversy" about Bush committing a "great blunder" by allowing 300 tons of explosives to be stolen from the al Qaqaa facility in Iraq. Setting aside the outrageous timing and questionable details (was it 300 tons or only 3 tons?) of this report, Kerry certainly knows that it is much more plausible for the explosives to have disappered before the American forces got there, and that an NBC reporter embedded with the troops when they arrived the day after Baghdad fell confirms they saw no sign of these explosives. While he won't say one way or the other, I believe Kerry also knows that if he had been president at the time, Saddam & Friends would still have these 300 tons of explosives, plus hundreds of thousands of tons more.

I think I am beginning to understand why Kerry's mother was so uncertain of her own son's integrity as to need to feel the need to admonish him about it on her deathbed.

Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL
I'm not gonna debate the legitimacy of these claims right now - just for the record, I think they are legit - nor Kerry's actual integrity. I'll just say that I think it's nearly impossible to become a major candidate for POTUS if you have much of it (last one, in my book, made a poor prez). Bujt anyway, I gotta admit, that was an EXTREMELY hokey moment, Kerry saying that. I totally cringed. Sorry if I didn't mention it when we were talking about the debates. [Smile]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Van Aaron,

Care to post any links to any of your accusations?

I have heard about #1. I think it was more like Bush will have to impose a draft given the way he is handling things, troop morale, etc. (BTW, cf. Kerry promising no taxes on middle class, Bush seconds later saying Kerry will raise taxes on the middle class)

Please provide an explicit source for your explicit quote, 15-30% in January.

Please provide a source for the rising out of the wheel chair exaggeration oops, I mean misrepresentation, well, I mean... well it is clearly putting your words into their mouths, so I am not sure what to call it.

Check the timelines. Check the facts. NBC never said what the administration claims they said.

I think Kerry had integrity before the campaign. After getting drenched in s**t from his opponents, he had no choice but to respond in kind. I am only glad he has kept it to a fractioin of what the Republicans are doing, shredding voter registration forms, saying liberals will ban the bible, jamming Democratic phone banks, spreading rumors as Karl Rove has been proven to do over and over.

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

The ammunition was there, or very nearby, in mid April.

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not according to Bill Gertz latest in the Wash Times:

Russians Moved Iraq's Missing Explosives to Syria
By Bill Gertz
Washington Times | October 28, 2004


quote:
Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Please provide an explicit source for your explicit quote, 15-30% in January.
You caught me; I was mistaken. Kerry actually said Bush was going to cut social security 30-45%.
quote:
Please provide a source for the rising out of the wheel chair exaggeration oops, I mean misrepresentation, well, I mean... well it is clearly putting your words into their mouths, so I am not sure what to call it.
It certainly is a misrepresentation, but not mine. Here is a direct quotation from John Edwards:
quote:
If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.


[ October 28, 2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Van Aaron ]

Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, eventually. That's the hope, that stem cell research will lead to cures like that. What's your problem? That people talk of a ban? It is a ban, despited the fact that Bush graciously (...) permits research on several dozen stem cell lines already obtained. Nobody in the scientific community thinks that's even a fraction of enough.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought it wasn't a ban but just won't be federally funded.
Posts: 3635 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which is, essentially, a ban, considering the way scientific research works in this country.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gertz just parrots dr*dge, and the Russia theory has been discredited. Excellent analysis and other data (video proof!!!) on this at www.talkingpointsmemo.com.
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Disparaging Gertz and Drudge (cute that you would substitute *, like Drudge is a curse word or something....you HAVE to be a DU vet...) and than citing Josh Marshall? LMAO.

That is hardly conclusive, nor does it debunk anything Zyne. The video shows a seal on a chain and some drums. So what? How do we know the munitions weren't somehow removed while leaving the seal intact? There is no other evidence anywhere disputing Gertz's sources...just Josh's say so? There are so many conflicting reports and articles on this it's hard to definitively say ANYTHING provable at this point.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Josh Marshall is an excellent journalist who backs his claims and admits when he was wrong. Nice try, though.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hah. That's all a matter of personal bias. I could easily find just as many instances of Marshall distorting and hyperventilating on inaccurate stories equal to Drudge -- especially since there are so many right wing and libertarian blogs that have spent a good deal of time fisking Marshalls hysterics and hyperbole.

He does have some good points and posts as well...but he's no more credible or un-credible than Drudge -- who's got just as many right as he's gotten wrong...and Bill Gertz? Where has he been shown to be less credible than Marshall?

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What's your problem? That people talk of a ban? It is a ban, despited the fact that Bush graciously (...) permits research on several dozen stem cell lines already obtained. Nobody in the scientific community thinks that's even a fraction of enough.
Saying it's not enough doesn't make it a ban. I don't think we give NASA enough funding - would it be honest of me to say Bush has banned space exploration? It is simply false to say there is a "ban," when Bush provides public funding of research with adult stem cells and with existing lines of embryonic stem cells, and permits private research with new lines of embryonic stem cells. (And if we really were on the verge of curing Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, as Kerry-Edwards would have us believe, I think a few venture capitalists might be interested in a piece of that action.)

All that said, my biggest problem is with the Kerry-Edwards rhetoric, falsely and absurdly trying to fool the gullible into thinking that with them in the White House we will soon have cures for all these serious diseases and no more need for wheelchairs in our society. You can criticize Bush's restrictions on federally funded stem-cell research (as I do) without making an ass of yourself talking like a faith healer.

Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Van Aaron,

#1-Essentially no response from you.

#2-Good point. I will graciously accept that this ad is misleading. There is a kernel of truth,
quote:
The CBO found that under Plan 2, first-year benefits paid to retirees born in the 1980s would be 30 percent lower for middle- and upper-income persons than under a wage-indexed system. (The reduction would be less for low-income persons.) The figure would reach 45 percent only for future retirees born in this decade, most of whom are yet unborn.
Only a crazed partisan would stretch that to mean that Bush WILL CUT benefits. One of the plans he is looking at will reduce increases with the effect of cutting, but it is a stretch.

Now it is your turn. Admit that when Kerry voted against $87B funded by increasing the deficit, it could not reasonably be construed as a "vote against body armor". Admit that Bush was against the same bill when funded by tax cut rollbacks. I won't hold my breath.

#3-Edwards did not have the clear causality of lifting the ban and quickly ending paralysis that you imply. Kerry would respect science much more, and appoint scientists to advisory boards, not lobbyists. That will advance cures as well as funding.

Bush said that we can spread freedom throughout the world if we stay (his) course. Is this any less faith-healer like? To inspire your followers with a grand vision? I find no problem with either comment.

And for #4. You are 100% wrong. Video proof. Testimony from experts, eyewitnesses, etc.

And, of course, no response to my litany of Republican outrages against integrity. Karl Rove is Bush's main political strategist, always has been. Try and put Karl Rove and integrity in the same sentence.

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
#1 - I didn't respond because no one has said anything to contradict my point. The likelihood of a draft is a point of emphasis of Kerry's closing campaign. Yet Kerry knows there is no plan to have a draft, and he cannot honestly believe that a draft is necessary to raise troop levels, unless there is something he's not telling us about his plan to assemble two new divisions.

#2 - We have been all through the $87B. Regardless of how one views that, I think there is a big difference between putting a spin on a vote that you know actually occurred, and telling seniors there is a "January surprise" coming to slash their benefits when you know that's complete horsesh*t.

#3 - Edwards used almost exactly the same words that you said I was putting in his mouth. I find his statement much more absurd and offensive than Bush's pledge to promote freedom.

#4 - You say I am "100% wrong." I am right that Kerry says there is a "growing controversy" about Bush committing a "great blunder" by allowing the explosives to be stolen. I am right about the outrageous timing of the report - Clinton advisor Dick Morris today said the timing reflected "overt partisan bias." I am right that it is questionable whether 300+ tons remained at the facility or only 3 tons. I am right that it is much more plausible for 300 tons of explosives to have been removed before our troops got there than after. I am right that the embedded NBC reporter said they didn't see the stuff the day after Baghdad fell. And while I can't prove it, I am fully convinced that if Kerry had been president, Saddam & Friends would still have those 300 tons of explosives and hundreds of thousands of tons more.

If you want to justify all this by calling Karl Rove names and saying that somebody in Arkansas printed a flier you don't like, have at it. That doesn't change my point on this thread:

Somebody who assures you he has a lot of integrity usually does not, and Kerry is no exception.

Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kerry has integrity, truth, honor, justice, and a lot of other words programmed into his spellchecker.

The Secret Plan to Implement a Draft is the most irritating lie to me.

Rumsfeld is a huge believer in revamping the military to take advantage of the US's technological superiority.

He's pissed off numerous generals and various congressmen and senators with his relentless pressure to do away with the current force structure based in a WWII/Cold War massive force mentality. He's trying to use his time in the Pentagon to reshape the military into relatively small elite force structures with the ability to technologically overwhelm the oppostion.

I know Kerry doesn't show up to a lot of his meetings and such but its impossible for him to be that oblivious to who Rumsfeld is and what he's wanting to do with the military.

Dumping a lot of unwilling recruits with no particular special abilities into the military would completely screw up the revamp Rumsfeld has been itching to do for years.

If there's a plan to get the draft going again, the first thing that would need to happen is to get rid of Rummy. Because he'd be fighting against it tooth and nail...and probably publically.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
#1- I won't argue that one, only say again that Bush did the same thing, and continues to do it, far more than Kerry.

#2- I consider your "spin" on the $87B vote to be as much complete horses**t as you consider the Kerry "spin" on the Social Security. And stop saying January. The ad does not specify a date for the "cuts".

#3- Nope. Almost exactly the same 4 words, surrounded by completely different tone and context.

#4-Your main point is "Kerry certainly knows that it is much more plausible for the explosives to have disappered before the American forces got there, and that an NBC reporter embedded with the troops when they arrived the day after Baghdad fell confirms they saw no sign of these explosives. "

The FACTS, as much as you would like to ignore them, are that the explosives were there after the American forces got there. And I agree, "Kerry says there is a "growing controversy" about Bush committing a "great blunder" by allowing the explosives to be stolen." Kerry says it, and it happens to be true.

I will grant that the ad is misleading. I am reasonable. I recognize that Kerry is not perfect. What I cannot abide is your refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing in a catastrophically unethical administration, while castigating Kerry for mostly imagined faults.

Do you claim Bush has integrity when Republicans are "shredding voter registration forms, saying liberals will ban the bible, jamming Democratic phone banks, spreading rumors as Karl Rove has been proven to do over and over" and other outrages?

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And stop saying January. The ad does not specify a date for the "cuts".
In his stump speeches, Kerry has been saying that Bush plans to cut social security by 25-45%, calling it a "January surprise".
quote:
Do you claim Bush has integrity when Republicans are "shredding voter registration forms, saying liberals will ban the bible, jamming Democratic phone banks, spreading rumors as Karl Rove has been proven to do over and over" and other outrages?
The bible "banned" flier had a dumb graphic, but the text of the flier raised legitimate issues, and the flier only ran briefly in two states anyway. Calling Karl Rove names doesn't impress me unless you tie it to something in this campaign. As for the registration forms and phone banks, I don't know the incidents you're talking about. If you can show me something coordinated by Bush or Rove, that's a serious issue. If they're just isolated incidents, then it's a non-issue, just like that Democratic operative trading crack cocaine for registration forms was an isolated incident that Kerry shouldn't have to apologize for.

Obviously we have different opinions about this, but in my view your litany of "outrages" doesn't begin to compare to the deliberately dishonest campaign Kerry has been running in the closing days before the election.

Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me get this straight.

In your mind, saying a reduction in increases is actually a cut is much worse than claiming that liberals will ban the bible.

And that if you only lie briefly in two states before you are caught, it is not so bad.

And that if a President is aware of travesties done in his name, or on his behalf, and makes no apology, and no attempt to prevent them from reoccuring, that is perfectly all right.

I have not proven that Bush was directly involved. But I have proven that there are many, many unethical activities going on in his adminsitration, in his campaign, and on his behalf. You ignore them because there is no memo signed by Bush authorizing them. But the sheer volume of these incidents is clear evidence that Bush lacks integrity.

There are dozens of incidents clearly documented where Karl Rove started smear campaigns against his opponents. That is well known, and I dare you to deny it. Obviously Bush is also aware of it, but he continues to use Rove as his primary political advisor. Your outrageous claim is that as long as I can not prove Rove did something in THIS campaign, I have no justification in saying that his presence shows Bush is lacking integrity. By that reasoning Bush could have Saddam Hussein as his campaign manager without undermining his integrity, because I can't tie any wrongdoing by Saddam to this campaign. Your comment is so blatantly desperate, illogical, and partisan that I can't believe you would try use it as an argument.

The link you gave for the Kerry speech says that Kerry claims Bush will try to privatize SSI in January. He also claims that the plan will cut benefits by 25-45%. He does not say this will happen in January as you claim. If you have a full transcript of the speech that says this, please link to it. Otherwise you do not have a source for your claim. As a reasonable person, I might be willing to accept the implied connection. This is not a court of law, and notarized affidavits are not necessary. Common sense is good enough for most of us. Except apparently you.

Phone jamming:
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=45676
quote:

The 2002 jamming consisted of computer-generated calls to get-out-the-vote phones run by Democrats and the nonpartisan Manchester firefighters' union. More than 800 hang-up calls tied up phones for about 1½ hours.

In summer, Chuck McGee, the former executive director of the state GOP, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court to a conspiracy charge and admitted paying $15,600 to a Virginia telemarketing company that hired another business to make the calls. GOP consultant Allen Raymond, former president of GOP Marketplace in Alexandria, Va., also pleaded guilty.

At their plea hearings in U.S. District Court, McGee and Raymond acknowledged speaking to an unidentified official with a national political organization about the jamming. Democrats have said they believe Tobin was the official and might have put McGee and Raymond together.

Tobin was the campaign director for Bush for NH until recently. With this hanging over his head for months, Bush still picked him to lead the regional campaign. I believe the two who plead guilty have named Tobin themselves. Tobin was to testify under oath recently, but the (Bush) Justice Department stopped it. I will link if you can't find this yourself.

Shredding voter registration
http://www2.kval.com/x30530.xml?ParentPageID=x2649&ContentID=x47627&Layout=kval.xsl&AdGroupID=x30530
Same company (run by a prominent Republican) accused in Oregon and Nevada of collecting voter registrations and destroying the Democratic ones.

Just a sample of Karl Rove policies below.
quote:

Some of Kennedy's [opponent of Rove's client See] campaign commercials touted his volunteer work, including one that showed him holding hands with children. "We were trying to counter the positives from that ad," a former Rove staffer told me, explaining that some within the See camp initiated a whisper campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile. "It was our standard practice to use the University of Alabama Law School to disseminate whisper-campaign information," the staffer went on. "That was a major device we used for the transmission of this stuff. The students at the law school are from all over the state, and that's one of the ways that Karl got the information out—he knew the law students would take it back to their home towns and it would get out." This would create the impression that the lie was in fact common knowledge across the state. "What Rove does," says Joe Perkins, "is try to make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship. Mark is not your typical Alabama macho, beer-drinkin', tobacco-chewin', pickup-drivin' kind of guy. He is a small, well-groomed, well-educated family man, and what they tried to do was make him look like a homosexual pedophile. That was really, really hard to take."


from http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green

I noticed you are very quiet about the explosives issue. Most people, when proven wrong, choose to acknowledge their mistakes, and even apologize. It helps with their credibility next time they make a claim. Others backtrack, and say "I never actually SAID that, I just questioned the proof of my opponents". Those people tend to get ignored in their later posts.

Again, what I cannot abide is your refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing in a catastrophically unethical administration, while castigating Kerry for mostly imagined faults.

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have "imagined" nothing. I found fault with John Kerry's closing campaign based on four specific points of emphasis of his campaign that I am convinced Kerry knows to be false. You have not "proven wrong" any of these points (although several times on this thread I have corrected misstatements of yours - that I made up the bit about paralytics walking again, that I was "100% wrong" about the explosives, that Kerry said nothing about January - and you have failed to acknowledge any of your mistakes). Calling me names does nothing to advance your argument.

Describing Bush's administration as "catastrophically unethical" means nothing unless you can articulate why. You've shown me nothing unethical in Bush's campaign. There is no ad anywhere that says "liberals will ban the bible." The flier that arguably implied that was quickly yanked from circulation, which shows a lot more integrity than Kerry's continuing pattern of spouting baloney he doesn't believe to try literally to scare up some last minute votes. If some jerk somewhere tore up some registration forms, that is contemptible, but I don't think it reflects on Bush, any more than I hold it against Kerry that some Democrats have generated fraudulent registration forms.

I find guilt by association a lot less persuasive than you apparently do. Long quotations about dirty tricks pulled by Karl Rove in 1994 and somebody in New Hampshire I never heard of in 2002 just don't impress me much, when it seems to me that John Kerry is the one doing all the dirty campaigning right now.


[P.S. Nobody here is under any obligation to respond to every statement that another member makes. If I don't reply to something you say, rest assured that it is not because I think you have disproven a point of mine, but rather because I think it is quite clear that you have not.]

Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ATW - Rumsfeld is so enamored with "amall, flexible strike forces" that he simply refuses to understand that for some things - like pacifying and stabilizing, as opposed to defeating a regular force - you simply need bodies on the ground en masse. The generals are not blind to the who "use technology, not people" thing, but they triued to tell him that while it would be possible to beat Saddam with X number of troops, holding Iraq, rebuilding it and doing something constructive with it would take more. About double at least.

He wouldn't listen. He took it uponm huimself to do it HIS way, and Bush won't hold him accountable.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
ATW - Rumsfeld is so enamored with "small, flexible strike forces" that he simply refuses to understand that for some things - like pacifying and stabilizing, as opposed to defeating a regular force - you simply need bodies on the ground en masse...He wouldn't listen. He took it upon himself to do it HIS way, and Bush won't hold him accountable.

And if you are 100% correct, then obviously there's not a secret plan to reinstate the draft.

Rumsfeld has been against using soldiers as warm bodies en masse even in the face of strong political opposition and Bush has consistently backed Rumsfeld's approach.

Kerry is the person wanting to put more troops into Iraq, not Bush. The democrats introduced a bill to reinstate the draft, not republicans.

Kerry knows he's being dishonest in saying Bush has a secret plan to reinstate the draft. Thus I said, "The Secret Plan to Implement a Draft is the most irritating lie to me."

Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Van Aaron,

When did I call you a name?

Rove is proven without a shred of doubt to be an unethical campaigner. Bush keeps him on anyway.

This PROVES Bush is unethical to any rational person.


It is not some jerk tearing up registration forms. It is a company paid by the Republican Party, run by a Republican Party stalwart. Find any news story about dirty tricks. The tricks are about 5:1 Republican. Bush has not said a word.

You claim
quote:
There is no ad anywhere that says "liberals will ban the bible." The flier that arguably implied that...
The uncontested facts are this:
quote:
The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.
So if you are saying I am wrong because I called a political advertisement flier an ad, I apologize. The FLIER said it. Not arguably implied. No rational person I ever met would argue that the flier as described said anything else besides someone would ban the bible. And there is no-one else besides the "liberals" that are ever accused of doing such a thing, or that could take power if you don't vote.

The fact that you do not acknowledge this means that you are incapable of recognizing clear facts right in front of your face. You have proven this over and over and have lost all credibility in my view.


My "misstatements" were questions about your sources. Your original sources did not support your statements, so I asked for more. I did not agree with your interpretations of your sources, because they were taken out of context, and explained why. I agreed with your point #1, but pointed out that Bush does worse. So what exactly were my misstatements?

I believe I got across the point that Kerry is not perfect.

You have yet to acknowledge any shortcomings whatsoever regarding President Bush. That, in my mind, is completely [deleted to maintain civility, but I am sure you can imagine].

I am not wasting my time with you any more.

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK. As long as you're not calling me names. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Van Aaron,

I apologize for losing my temper. I just came back to take out the nastier parts, but I was too late.

As you can tell, I get very frustrated when there is 99% proof for an idea, and someone refuses to acknowledge that the idea might be right.

Most discussions of this sort are not 100% one way or the other. But a reasonable person will usually acknowledge when the preponderance of the evidence is against them. You do not. There is no point in refuting your facts when you just reinterpret them to fit your conclusion. There is no point in providing my own facts when you just ignore them and keep repeating your discredited opinions.

The only reason I have been responding is because I can not leave a falsehood alone, in case someone comes along and believes it because no one refutes it. As I have said before in other threads, anyone interested in knowing the truth would have been convinced long ago, so I will stop trying to force you to admit you are wrong. I am completely certain that an unbiased observer would conclude that, so I do not need to respond to you any longer.

In the future, I will continue to point out your errors in fact and reasoning. I will no longer address these corrections to you, because just like Daruma, I have no expectation of you actually listening and attempting to learn. I know your purpose is to prove yourself right, since I have never heard you say you are wrong.

I have friends that have similar shortcomings, and I still value them and appreciate their good points. I will try to consider you in the same light.

So again, I apologize for the anger and incivility. Happy Election Day!

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Velcro, no offense taken.

You say that it irks you when you present me with proof of something and I refuse to acknowledge it. But couldn't it be that I just don't agree with your assessment of what you think is proof? Perhaps I am biased and mulish, but when you are so adamant that you have proven your points such that any reasonable person would have to acknowledge that you are right, aren't also showing yourself to be biased and mulish?

Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you take that tack, then nothing can be proven. If I say 2=2=4 and you respectfully agree, I would be biased and mulish if I insist that 2+2 does indeed equal 4. There are some logical axioms that must be agreed upon before a rational discussion can be had. I feel that you ignore some fundamental rules of logic, so I will no longer be discussing them with you.

There also must be a common standard for interpretation of facts. If I see a flier that has a picture of a bible with the word "banned" across it, and saying that "this will happen if you don't vote", I interpret that as meaning "if you don't vote for the right people, the bible will be banned". You seem to be unable to reach this conclusion. To me it is 2+2=4, and I am adamant, because the commonly accepted rules of logic agree with me.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider proof? How would I prove to you that 2+2=4 if you refuse to believe it? I could count for you, but you would just say my way of counting was biased and mulish.

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1