 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
4moreyears
Former Member
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 591
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| sevry wrote: | | There's two ways to approach a demagogue like Matthews. Physical intimidation and brow-beating, ala Ventura. If the person doing that had a point, it might work. Matthews would probably surrender. You would attempt to dominate Matthews into submission. |
I can't wait to see Michelle Malkin in a dominatrix outfit.
Chrissy the sissy will be speechless.
_________________
 kerry returned to the United States on July 22, 1971, held a press conference publicly calling on President Nixon... for the surrender of the United States to North Vietnam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fortdixlover
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 1476
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mjanay wrote: | I Don't agree that O'neil should be the only spokesperson, not at all.
BUT these guys need to learn (and they can, its not hard to do) HOW to answer attacks. It is the art of debate.
The truth means VERY VERY little. The fact is that the Kerry Campaign uses logical fallacies to back up their statements and assertions. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT LIES!!!
Logical Fallacies are techniques to move the argument away from fact.
Read this link: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
To start to understand how they are doing what they are doing. |
Also see www.megat.co.uk/wrong/ for humorous coverage of similar serious topics.
FDL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hanna
Rear Admiral
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 701
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Putting together a FAQ that everyone could use may solve some of these problems.
A brief synpoposis of some of the main events in question:
First Purple Heart
Second Purple Heart
Silver Star incident
Bronze Star incident
Third Purple heart
Elliott's supposed recantation
Hoffman's previous statements
Opposition by those who used to support Kerry
etc............
This should be able to be done in just a couple of pages of very specific information pointing out the differences in Kerry's story and SBVT claims. May also point out differences in the versions of Kerrys B of B
Send it to all media outlets and of course to all the SBVT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beatrice1000
Resource Specialist
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mjanay wrote: | | BUT these guys need to learn (and they can, its not hard to do) HOW to answer attacks. It is the art of debate. |
I know, I cringe, too, when I see one of the guys getting twisted up by a host with an agenda -- but in general, I'm pretty satisfied with how they are doing. In fact, I prefer them NOT to try to be polished speakers, if they are not. When it is obvious that the host will not in any way allow them respect for their side of the story and they are being badgered with "prove it, prove it" -- they could perhaps answer that type of attack with, "well, if JK would sign 180 and release all of his records, we could get the answer to that." This shows that JK is hiding the truth, not the guest. I don't know, just an idea.
What is surprising to me is the number of hosts on cable and MSM that I had come to like and/or tolerate that came out swinging when they saw the first ad. Just swinging and punching blindly - like "What is this??!" This is something I hadn't anticipated -- real people telling personal truths? This is something alien to me and I must attack it immediately. "This is disgusting" -- out of everyone's mouths -- reason flew out the window and this is what the guys had to face. An enraged media. Some perfectly normal people became angry freaks. How in the world do you get the facts out in this environment? (I am hoping that all of our thousands of emails demanding the facts forced the media to do some research ... hoping that we helped, anyway.)
I had a sense that something was wrong after the SBV Press Conf in May and no media coverage after their determined statements that JK was unfit to be CiC. It was obvious these men were serious -- they were ignored by the press .. so they were "unwelcome" and did not fit into the packaged ideas & shows the media had planned for this political season.
ANYWAY - back to the issue of the guys being better able to handle the unhinged media and agenda-driven hosts by perhaps learning some debate techniques -- I would agree, great -- anything to keep the truth forefront -- however, I don't think there is time. We've got two months here and JK is in a panic and stories and facts and lies are spinning & swirling in every direction on multiple fronts.
O'Neill is, of course, the master. I was stunned to see him take on JK in that debate so long ago - the man is a genius with some kind of perfect memory and the ability to hold multifaceted threads of thought in one hand -- he's able to discern with lightening speed and debunk false premises regardless of the length and strength of the argument. And as opposed to answering a question with a question, which is a deflect on both sides (ping-pong?) and which may win you the day, but may not make a point --
What O'Neill does is wait until the other person is done, or stop him IF HE CAN (depends on the moderator), and then with regards to the person's opening statement, "The fact of the matter is ___" from which they launched their argument and draw their conclusion, he goes right at its throat. "I don't agree with your premise" - you have a false premise. If one begins with a false stmt, or a lie, or an abstract opinion, then their argument is useless and he has destroyed their conclusion. It's like a "re-set," where he can then get his facts stated and force the other person to respond to his argument, rather than having to respond to the false conclusion of their argument.
I'm not explaining this well, I'm no debater of any kind -- but I'm confident with John's unique talent for debunking and strategic strikes and sticking to facts. And I am assuming that he is available for the other guys to discuss the problems that they are having in their interviews. On the whole, I think they are all doing pretty good for getting this pulled together so fast and having so little time to become expert speakers!
(by the way, Ventura -- aarrgg.... that was his pet phrase: the only stupid Seal is a dead Seal -- and somehow everyone swallowed that -- (not even pausing to think that there must be many, many brilliant Seals who have died doing their job) yeah, go Jesse, we know now that you must be brilliant because you are alive. An empty little phrase / a disgusting governor that I had to have and I'm glad the fake is gone -- he used his military service to make him into something fit to govern, just like someone else we know.... don't be fooled by the guy -- that's all I'm going to say on that!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SF
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:37 am Post subject: Malkin's ultimate response |
|
|
The original poster was right, though. Michelle did ultimately succumb to the pressure and said, yes, that's what these guys are saying, in response to Matthews' Shot Himself On Purpose?? questions. I heard it replayed, on the radio, and just groaned when I heard her. She really was up against it, though.
Meanwhile, the idea of the FAQ -- think Talking Points -- is a good one.
---snip from MSNBC transcript ---
MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act?
MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.
MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...
MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.
----http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/---- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gozer
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 13
Location: Barstow, CA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:49 am Post subject: I agree |
|
|
I agree as well that many times, not just around the Swifties but the Republican/Conservatives in general, tend not to be good "debators." It's gotten almost sterotypical that the Republican will "back down" or will be a raving loon and nothing in between. (I exagerate of course)
Especially here on the LEFT coast where after a Lib is confronted by the fact that I'm not a Lefty, they immedietly attack. Then when I don't back down they quickly deflate. Sure it helps I'm a big guy, but I've seen some small women do it as well, all it takes is some verbal fighting abilities; as mentioned before.
Sure, there may not be enough time for all of the Swifties to be ready to fight verbaly in public, but it doesn't hurt to prepare for the future. I think most public conservatives need a few courses in debate.
_________________
--------
Give em hell Swifties!
Four more in '04! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy wife
Research Director
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 353
Location: Arlington, VA & Ft. Worth, TX
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| manofaiki wrote: |
You say some good things in your post, I am merely saying watch the interview again carefully and you will never see Michelle say Kerry shot himself on purpose. As a matter of fact, she gets agitated when Matthews interrupts her repeatedly to claim that is what she meant.
manofaiki |
Tonight MSNBC played parts of that interview including what is referred to in this post, and I was horrified at what I saw him doing to her. I frankly was proud of her for not backing down. That was a cowardly attack on his part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swing Voter
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whoa,
MM is an idiot. She got what we call in the south "runned the **** over".
I am saying that people like her, people who can't stop Mathews from furthering the Kerry camps agenda, should not be supported by this website or the group.
I assert there was more damage done to the credibility of the SBVT in that two minute exchange than a week of lib MSM reporting.
I say that O'Niell needs to be the one to do any talking. And people like MM(Hannity) should be told to shut the he11 up.
I would wager any day on JO vs. Kerry or anyone he can produce. Because he KNOWS what he is talking about and can take the pressure.
JO would have NEVER found himself in MMs position.
She is an idiot. Then she wants to cry like a Dem with a blog. Now they use that to laugh at the side that is on the run.
Leave people who were not in Viet Nam OUT of it.
Instead of having CM run down the the Vets via some BIMBO who doesnt understand the DIFFERENCE in SELF INFLICTED and ON PURPOSE....or if she does.....doesnt even have the sense to call somebody on the fact that they(CM) do not.....ask them to STFU about the SBVT if they appear any where for any reason. YOU DO NOT NEED THAT KIND OF HELP!
I believe John Kerry is a liar. I believe he has lied about 99.9% of his time in Viet Nam. I believe he absolutely treasoned his country after the war. I believe he would be the worst president in history.
But get a grip......this is not lightweight banter, this is no place for a woman who has zero military experience, no character, and no experience. Matthews? She got her azz kicked by Matthews?????
Hannity gets boxed around like a punk by Hurley???? He wasnt there! He cant say any more about Kerry than Hannity!
The dems are not kidding around. They are employing profesionals to deal with the SBVT. If the Vets are 100% right, and the Kerry camp is 100% wrong....but the KC wins this in primetime by talking heads.....the SBVT will be THE reason Kerry gets elected.
Dont excuse someone for stupidity because they are on your side. MM got ripped. It just validates the other sides arguement when you take up for idiots.
"I was there to discuss my book, boo hoo. I was kicked off, boo hoo. Maybe she should have said "I wasnt there(in viet nam). Im here to discuss my book." But nooooo, she wants to play with the big boys, she wants to get on the porch.
And then Rush has a pity party for her the next day. Like its some Hardball conspiracy. Please.
She could have saved us all some grief(and maybe the country for 4 years).....if she had the minimum amount of intelligence to say 7 words......"I did not say that, 'On purpose'".
Loyalty to MM is not what this is about.
Its about John Kerry being a liar.
If Matthews interviewed me and it got nasty, and he wants to start badgering questions....I would ask him this:
Are you voting for the war criminal John Kerry or the liar John Kerry?
Because according to his own statements....
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions...."
....according to his own statements he is a liar OR a war criminal. One or the other.
Mr. Matthews?
Defending MM is pointless, this is about JK lieing about Viet Nam Veterans and the time they spent giving their lives to help the people of S. Viet Nam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stealthy
Lieutenant
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:16 am Post subject: Re: Malkin's ultimate response |
|
|
| SF wrote: | The original poster was right, though. Michelle did ultimately succumb to the pressure and said, yes, that's what these guys are saying, in response to Matthews' Shot Himself On Purpose?? questions. I heard it replayed, on the radio, and just groaned when I heard her. She really was up against it, though.
Meanwhile, the idea of the FAQ -- think Talking Points -- is a good one.
---snip from MSNBC transcript ---
MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act?
MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.
MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...
MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.
----http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/---- |
No Sir they aren't getting by with that. That last sentence should have several dots behind it too. It's a lie by Dowd rules.
MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that......[interupted by rude ahole again.]
Pathetic little piece of cya that.
_________________
American Conservative |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 24 May 2004
Posts: 1603
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Swing Voter wrote: | | Instead of having CM run down the the Vets via some BIMBO who doesnt understand the DIFFERENCE in SELF INFLICTED and ON PURPOSE....or if she does.....doesnt even have the sense to call somebody on the fact that they(CM) do not.....ask them to STFU about the SBVT if they appear any where for any reason. YOU DO NOT NEED THAT KIND OF HELP! |
Michelle Malkin certainly knew, and knows, that a "self-inflicted" wound may or may not be "on purpose." Chris Mathews wasn't willing to let her say "self-inflicted, not on purpuse" because it didn't suit his purpose.
Another thing, Michelle was invited to appear on the show to talk about her book, not the Swiftvets. So if she was pressed into a "discussion" of the Swiftvets by the Hardball crew, then she wasn't, in your words, there "to play with the big boys."
_________________
Bye bye, Boston Straggler! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neverforget
Vice Admiral
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
Posts: 875
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I like the idea of a FAQ for people supporting SwiftVets as long as it doesn't end up being like a set of talking points.
Now, as for Michelle Malkin, I think she is an incredibly intelligent and beautiful woman. She is by no means a bimbo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stealthy
Lieutenant
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I bet she could whoop "swingvoter"s butt in a debate.
Don't diss the GOP babes. They are GOP because of their brains, don't misunderestimate them. If you're just learning about MM then you're a newbie or shallow follower of politics.
I does drive me nuts sometimes when I listen to the radio and they don't know as much as little ol me does. I hollar at the radio and TV, I hate the uh huh response you sometimes hear.
BUT (but is a word that is ALWAYS used by a person who wants to say what comes after)
We are winning by getting out our message. By reminding people of who Kerry really is. What he has done. Matthews shown a light on how they are too. People get it.
I think we got us some seminar posters here.
_________________
American Conservative |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beatrice1000
Resource Specialist
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scott wrote: | | ..Michelle Malkin ... |
She did great on Washington Journal when she was allowed to say what she had been trying to say on Hardball.
However, she did step out front in making comments about the recent issues about two of the guys and conflicting reports about their praise of JK in the past and why the change now... She made statements of theory that were perhaps better left unsaid, as no one had heard their responses yet to the accusations. Might have been better if she said that she was not able to speak for them and that the question should probably be put directly to the men involved.
That was my only negative and it wasn't a big thing. I like her immensely, and she continually refers to the book in her responses and stays with the facts.
(I think Michael Reagan did much worse.. - he didn't know facts, and yet spoke about it anyway...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stealthy
Lieutenant
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Beatrice1000 wrote: | | Scott wrote: | | ..Michelle Malkin ... |
She did great on Washington Journal when she was allowed to say what she had been trying to say on Hardball.
However, she did step out front in making comments about the recent issues about two of the guys and conflicting reports about their praise of JK in the past and why the change now... She made statements of theory that were perhaps better left unsaid, as no one had heard their responses yet to the accusations. Might have been better if she said that she was not able to speak for them and that the question should probably be put directly to the men involved.
That was my only negative and it wasn't a big thing. I like her immensely, and she continually refers to the book in her responses and stays with the facts.
(I think Michael Reagan did much worse.. - he didn't know facts, and yet spoke about it anyway...) |
Didn't see it, but had heard all about it by them. Surely she had too.
_________________
American Conservative |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArmyWife
Lieutenant
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 218
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Chris Matthews interview Larry Thurlow BEFORE Michelle Maulkin was on? I had the impression that Thurlow was so effective that Matthews lost his mind and took it out on Maulkin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
