 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
 Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 5:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Trust me, if Kerry had actually committed atrocities, I wouldn't be supporting him. The things he did do (and didn't do) show him to be very restrained. Interdiction fire? Well, it's unfortunate that Swift Boat crews were ordered to use this, but Vietnam was a terrible place. Using 50 calibre machine guns? That's all they had. Do you guys really think Swift Boats should have used their service revolvers instead? Search and destroy missions? Awful things, but routine.
And I don't think, by themselves, these things were atrocities. Atrocities could have occurred within them and often did. But all reports of Kerry's behaviors show that his definition of "atrocity" in regards to his behavior, is just too strong a word.
In other words, he was just too hard on himself. After experiencing a war zone in Vietnam, it's difficult to accurately assess and understand your experiences without time to reflect upon them.
AND I just don't let conservative smear-campaigns sucker me.
I lived through 8 years of Hillary-killed-Vince/Bill-kills-children/McCain-was-brainwashed-by-the-Viet-Cong-and-has-a-black-love-child etc... that I learned to demand substance before I get suckered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JasonBinPNW
Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 58
Location: Vancouver (not BC), Washington (Not DC)
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | | Trust me, if Kerry had actually committed atrocities, I wouldn't be supporting him. |
No, you would, you're a Demonazi. That is what you do. Blindly ignoring reality while suspended in an ether of your own self-content.
[quote]The things he did do (and didn't do) show him to be very restrained. Interdiction fire? Well, it's unfortunate that Swift Boat crews were ordered to use this, but Vietnam was a terrible place.[/quote}
What is "Interdiction Fire?" Enlighten me.
| Quote: | | Using 50 calibre machine guns? That's all they had. Do you guys really think Swift Boats should have used their service revolvers instead? |
Contrary to what you may have heard, using a .50 Cal machine gun is NOT a war crime. I could never figure out where this one came from. But you have proven (again) that you are a drone. Please go on.
| Quote: | | Search and destroy missions? Awful things, but routine. |
Please tell me about the last one you were on, and while you are at it, please explain to me the difference between a "Search and Destroy" patrol, and a plain old patrol in a combat zone.
| Quote: | | I lived through 8 years of Hillary-killed-Vince/Bill-kills-children/McCain-was-brainwashed-by-the-Viet-Cong-and-has-a-black-love-child etc... that I learned to demand substance before I get suckered. |
No, while I was just as annoyed by the "Hilary Killed Vince" tinfoil hat crowd as you, you obviously did not learn a damn thing. Several people have presented you with hard truths, you simply have chosen to ignore them because you are set in your own little world, far removed from reality.
_________________
Semper Fi!
Jason
Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
According to the Defense Technical Information Center, NATO's definition of "interdiction fire" is
interdiction fire
(NATO) Fire placed on an area or point to prevent the enemy from using the area or point. See also fire.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/natoterm/i/00602.html
I can understand why Kerry would wonder whether endangering civilians with interdiction fire could be against international conventions regarding conduct during war. Same with using the 50 cal machine guns. Since JasinBinPNW is himself saying that using them as Kerry did "is NOT a war crime," we can scratch that one off the list. Kerry was just too hard on himself.
And I've been on as many search and destroy missions as the following conservatives combined (some are running the war in Iraq):
Dick Cheney Karl Rove Elliott Abrams Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle John Ashcroft Newt Gingrich Bill Bennett
Sean Hannity Katherine Harris Lynne Cheney
Rush Limbaugh Bill O'Reilly Brit Hume Roger Ailes
Ari Fleischer Phil Gramm Ted Olson Tom DeLay
Bob Barr Jeb Bush Bob Dornan Trent Lott
Kenn Starr Ken Adelman Saxby Chambliss John Bolton
Andrew Card Don Evans Michael Ledeen Roy Blunt
Antonin Scalia Steve Forbes Dennis Hastert Tim Hutchinson
Mitch McConnell Don Nickles Tony Snow Mark Souder
Pat Robertson P.J. O'Rourke George Will Clarence Thomas
Gary Bauer Ted Nugent Michael Weiner Dan Quayle
Bob Ney & Walter Jones Alan Keyes Jerry Falwell Matt Drudge
"Demonazi."
Hehehe, that's funny! I learned during the "hillary-killed-vince days" all kinds of names like that! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonBinPNW
Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 58
Location: Vancouver (not BC), Washington (Not DC)
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | | I can understand why Kerry would wonder whether endangering civilians with interdiction fire could be against international conventions regarding conduct during war. Same with using the 50 cal machine guns. Since JasinBinPNW is himself saying that using them as Kerry did "is NOT a war crime," we can scratch that one off the list. Kerry was just too hard on himself. |
Scratch one. Like i said, I never agreed with it.
You stated that interdiction fire was a bad thing before you even knew what it was. EDIT
| Quote: | | And I've been on as many search and destroy missions as the following conservatives combined (some are running the war in Iraq): |
And it's relevant because? Are THEY talking about them? Hmmm, if you read anything of what I said, you MIIIIGHT come away with something, but I'm not going to just give you the keys to the store.
Also if you read any of what I asked, you'd find that I asked how many YOU have been on. The IMPLIED question is: Who the heck are you to make the judgemental statements you just made in the previous post. Again, you are discussing subjects in the familiar that you know nothing about.
| Quote: | "Demonazi."
Hehehe, that's funny! I learned during the "hillary-killed-vince days" all kinds of names like that! |
I have another one, you have obviously heard it... you're an idiot.
_________________
Semper Fi!
Jason
Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Keep your head, Jason. Stay cool and stick with the facts at hand. Calling people names like "Demonazi" and "idiot" only makes you look easily riled.
And how do you know I didn't know what interdiction fire was? It's exactly what I expected. It's not like "interdiction" is some secret military word.
I'm not going to play the you-weren't-in-the-service-so-you're-not-entitled-to-an-opinion game since virtually ALL prominent conservatives today avoided Vietnam or anywhere near a search-and-destroy mission, even though they got us into Iraq and are keeping us there, including Paul Bremer, the Proconsul in Iraq.
I know you'd like to dismiss this reality with "I was talkin' about YOU." I'm sorry, but it's fair that if you want to dismiss my opinion because I wasn't in firefights, you'll have to dismiss your leaders, all of whom have as much experience as I:
George Bush: Chasing skirts and skipping drug tests
Dick Cheney - Managed to pull strings and dodge the draft for 8 years. Said he had more important things to do.
Rush Limbaugh - Claimed a health problem kept him from serving. Turns out it was an anal cyst. Now that’s using your head to dodge the draft!
John Ashcroft - The Attorney General dodged the draft.
Dennis Hastert - Speaker Of The House dodged the draft.
Tom Delay - The House Majority Leader dodged the draft. He was too busy killing bugs in Texas.
Bill Frist - The Senate Majority Leader dodged the draft.
Jeb Bush - Florida Governor and Brother of George W. dodged the draft.
Mitch McConnell - The Senate Majority Whip dodged the draft.
Trent Lott - Powerful senator and former Majority Leader dodged the draft. However, he was a cute cheerleader in college at Ole Miss.
Newt Gingrich - Dodged the draft, and his womanizing made Bill Clinton’s pale in comparison.
Karl Rove - The man that tells Bush when to go to the potty dodged the draft.
Don Nickles - Powerful republican Senator dodged the draft.
Paul Wolfowitz - The Under Secretary Of Defense and a leading Iraq war hawk dodged the draft.
Paul Bremer - Bush’s man in Baghdad dodged the draft.
Bill Bennett - Author of the Book Why We Fight dodged the draft. He is also a gambling addict.
Spencer Abraham - The Secretary Of Energy dodged the draft.
Richard Perle - Former high-level Bush DOD advisor dodged the draft.
Saxby Chambliss - Vocal Senate war ally for Bush who shows up on TV pushing the war.... dodged the draft.
Gary Bauer - Right Wing religious nut dodged the draft.
Alan Keyes - Popular Republican spokesman dodged the draft.
George Will - This nationally syndicated republican columnist never met a republican war he didn’t like, yet he dodged the draft.
Jerry Falwell - Another war-loving TV preacher who dodged the draft.
Roger Ailes - The head of the most powerful republican propaganda machine, FOX News, dodged the draft.
Rudy Giuliana - The famous mayor of New York was a draft dodger.
Neal Boortz - Radio talk show host that calls anyone protesting the war in Iraq a “traitor” successfully dodged the draft.
Don Evans - What else is new? The Secretary Of Commerce joins the crowd of cowards that surround Bush. He is a draft dodger.
Brit Hume - Did anyone at Fox News ever serve in the military? Brit Hume is a draft dodger.
Lewis “Scooter” Libby - Draft dodging Dick Cheney’s Chief Of Staff is a draft dodger. He loves wars though.
Andrew Card - President Bush’s Chief Of Staff dodged the draft.
Mike Savage - This war hawk turned into a butterfly when Vietnam came around. He was a peace-loving draft dodger.
David Horowitz - Another draft dodger.
Wolf Blitzer - Loves to cover wars, but when his number came up it was draft dodging time.
P. J. O’Rourke - The author of Give War A Chance never put on a uniform.
And you know something? This really makes conservatism look like hypocrisy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
War Dog
Captain
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 517
Location: Below Birmingham Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | And I've been on as many search and destroy missions as the following conservatives combined (some are running the war in Iraq):
Dick Cheney Karl Rove Elliott Abrams Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle John Ashcroft Newt Gingrich Bill Bennett
Sean Hannity Katherine Harris Lynne Cheney
Rush Limbaugh Bill O'Reilly Brit Hume Roger Ailes
Ari Fleischer Phil Gramm Ted Olson Tom DeLay
Bob Barr Jeb Bush Bob Dornan Trent Lott
Kenn Starr Ken Adelman Saxby Chambliss John Bolton
Andrew Card Don Evans Michael Ledeen Roy Blunt
Antonin Scalia Steve Forbes Dennis Hastert Tim Hutchinson
Mitch McConnell Don Nickles Tony Snow Mark Souder
Pat Robertson P.J. O'Rourke George Will Clarence Thomas
Gary Bauer Ted Nugent Michael Weiner Dan Quayle
Bob Ney & Walter Jones Alan Keyes Jerry Falwell Matt Drudge |
Don't try to teach a pig to sing! It just annoys the pig, and makes you look foolish!
There is no sense in trying to debate or discuss this or any other issue with Sparky. Clearly, he doesn't have a clue as to what the hell he's talking about. He simply parrots the party line, and repeats the same old mantra over and over and over again! That's evident if you read his posts on many threads.
Yes, he is a democratic / liberal kool-aid drinker! Remember the 'MO' of those dlkad'ers.
Deny
Lie
Parse
Fabricate
and if all else fails
Attack
It gauls me all these dlkad people that have a clear hate-filled, biased, partisan agenda, and are so transparant in their twisted logic arguments. It's the same logic, i.e., what "is" is, "alone" doesn't mean alone, "Oral" sex isn't real sex, your "private" life doesn't matter, and on and on!
No one here needs to try and prove what fools these dlkad'ers are, they are doing a good job of doing that all by themselves!
Those who understand, understand!
Those who do not understand, will never understand!
War Woof!
_________________
"When people are in trouble, they call the cops.
When cops need help, they call the K-9 unit." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Eaton
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Woof! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcaldera
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Going to start with the most egregious offender of logical fallacies here:
| Quote: | | See, it makes perfect sense... Republicans must be consistant at all costs, and may never under any circumstances make a S.W.A.S. but Democrats can call people the "N-Word" on the floor of the US Senate, and state that Ghandi worked at a convienence store in New York City. |
Hasty Generalization: As one supposition that this is false examine Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" testimony that got him halfway impeached.
| Quote: | | Kind of like Kerry lying to Congress while slandering the men he served with, huh? I guess when you spend your summers yachting with the Kennedys, you can get away with anything too! (just like them!) |
Ad hominem, (abusive), and Hasty Generalization: Rather than offering a supposition as to why you believe Kerry was lying, you're attacking him for sailing on a yacht and asserting that all Kennedys can 'get away with anything', simply because they are Kennedys.
| Quote: |
But they step forward to shed a little light on Mr. Kerry and all of you roaches scurry about and try to divert that spotlight away. I'm relly sorry that your candidate is full of Cr@p about his war hero status, really I am. |
Prejudicial Language, Begging the Question. You're asserting that anyone who disagrees with you about Kerry is 'a roach' attempting to change the subject. I think most people here are interested in finding out exactly what took place and whether this criticism of him is justified or not. Just because some have not been convinced by your 'argument' thus far does not make them 'a roach'.
| Quote: |
You folks on the left are all about free speech as long as you agree with it. I have attempted to participate on more than one forum and been banned for the simple fact that my opinions were not in keeping with those on the board. Don't blame it on "Conservatives" (whatever that means), at least not until you've moved out of that glass house.
|
Hasty Generalization, Unrepresentative Sample: Were these 'liberal message boards' you were banned from? How many were you banned from? Enough to justify your too broad assertion that everyone who holds some liberal views selectively supports free speech?
| Quote: |
Since when do the Dems need to have "Facts" when conjecture, hyperbole, and demegogery have worked so well for them?
|
Non-Support, Hasty generalization, Begging the question: You assert that the majority of people that belongs to the democratic party relies on conjecture, hyperbole and demegogery, yet offer no evidence to support this.
| Quote: |
You're not worth addressing any further. You're like one of those last ditch Nazi's you see on bad television who go into a euphoric state when they hear the fuhers words on tape... YOU are a bad episode of Perry Mason.
|
Ad hominem, False Analogy: This is a statement as offensive as it is illogical. You are asserting that Sparky and a Nazi character on Perry Mason will both go into some pre-programmed state of Euphoria when they hear 'the fuhers' voice? I must assume you are asserting that 'the fuher' in Sparky's case are 'the liberal nazi's', of our country.
Your analogy falls apart, however, in that I have seen Sparky provide a good deal of evidence and analysis for his arguement, rather than blindly spewing forth 'Sieg Hiel's.
He most certainly is not relying on personal attacks and Limbaugh-speak. (Rush Limbaugh likes making comparisons between those he disagrees with and Nazi's as well).
| Quote: |
Worst, you're a Nihilist. You can justify ANYTHING as long as it fits into your world view... even denile of facts. You fold them neatly, ignoring the logic associated with them, then use the parts you like in order to justify your beliefs to yourself.
|
Ad hominem, Straw Man, False Analogy: Sparky stated that he believed you were incorrect in stating that Kerry 'admitted he lied'. Rather than offering proof to counter his counter of your claim you are here making a new argument saying that, because he disbelieved you, he will believe anything that 'fits his world view'; that he is a nihilist. A nihilst denies any objective ground of truth, especially moral truth. A nihilst would have said: "It's impossible to say whether kerry was lying or not, because it's impossible to say what is truth." Sparky said he did not believe Kerry was lying. There's a world of difference between the two positions. Further, a Nihilist would have no political alliances and would not care to even partake in political discourse.
| Quote: |
No, you would, you're a Demonazi. That is what you do. Blindly ignoring reality while suspended in an ether of your own self-content.
|
Ad hominem(abusive): If we examine who is offering support for their argument from outside sources I think it's fairly obvious that Sparky is not "Ignoring reality". I would like to see some evidence and analysis of your claims.
| Quote: |
You stated that interdiction fire was a bad thing before you even knew what it was. You're an idiot.
|
Ad hominem(abusive)
| Quote: |
I have another one, you have obviously heard it... you're an idiot.
|
Ad hominem(abusive)
| Quote: | | Look, with the exception of one 1:30am post, I have presented the case pretty clearly. There is nothing ambiguous or vague about it. |
Certainly there is nothing ambigous or vauge about your personal attacks and logical loopholes. Turn off the Limbaugh and stop trying to categorize the world into 'us' and 'them'. The reality is far more complex and the vast majority of people hold both some views that are 'Liberal' and 'Conservative'. Attempting to pigeon-hole someone as one or the other does nothing but weaken your argument and make you sound like a pundit. You are not Limbaugh however, and this is not your show, people talk back here.
If you want to make a claim, make it: Provide evidence and analysis if you need to. Huge impossible-to-prove attacks on 'The Right' or 'The Left' are NOT support of your claim.
Now then, my personal feelings on the matter:
Nobody has hit on what I think is correct, (that I've read thus far anyhow).
Kerry was telling the truth, atrocities did occur in Vietnam, and he probably did commit them. Whether they are the 'justified' ones that most of us think of as not being an atrocity, (killing an enemy soldier), or the 'unjustified' ones that we do, (shooting a mother with her child), is a matter of debate.
When it comes to war, atrocities happen. A soldier is a soldier and stress/fear/anger/pain can lead him to behave in ways that no sane human would ever consider under normal circumstances. This sort of **** is always going to happen: it's war, it brings out the darkest and weakest elements of the id. And the longer one is exposed to it the greater the likelihood of it happening. Look at the Abu Gharib prison pictures as only the most recent evidence of this.
Regardless of whether Kerry's specific claims are accurate or not, he *did* experience, firsthand, what it is to be in a war and to kill or be killed. This is something that G.W. Bush has not and will likely never experience. I feel far more comfortable having a president in charge that fully understands the human cost of war as he should be far less likely to take us into one unless absolutely necessary: Unlike this one, (the president and the war), but that is a whole other argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcaldera wrote: | Going to start with the most egregious offender of logical fallacies here:
|
Hey sport, while you were honing your debating skills, you either missed or ignored a caveat.
| Quote: | Using Your Knowledge
In your day-to-day life you will encounter many examples of fallacious reasoning. And it's fun - and sometimes even useful - to point to an argument and say, "A ha! That argument commits the fallacy of false dilemma."
It may be fun, but it is not very useful. Nor is it very enlightened.
The names of the fallacies are for identification purposes only. They are not supposed to be flung around like argumentative broadswords. It is not sufficient to state that an opponent has committed such-and-such a fallacy. And it is not very polite.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/howto.htm |
You wanna debate a point? Fair enough. But spare us the cut-and-paste, nauseatingly pretentious, pseudo-intellectual "logical fallacies" blather. It's old news sport, and tediously overbaked. Then again, feel free to wrap your arguments in intellectual veneer...it'll sell well in Peoria. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcaldera
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yet another ad hominem and straw man?
| Quote: |
You wanna debate a point? Fair enough. But spare us the cut-and-paste, nauseatingly pretentious, pseudo-intellectual "logical fallacies" blather. It's old news sport, and tediously overbaked. Then again, feel free to wrap your arguments in intellectual veneer...it'll sell well in Peoria.
|
Perhaps if they were not so overwhelmingly used in place of logical supposition or genuine argument (*gasp*), I would not have the cause to draw attention to them.
But apparently rather than responding to my points you'd rather accuse me of 'pseudo-intellecutalism' and attempting to make it big in your home town.
If anything, we need more folks learning and exercising their argument analysis skills.
Most folks that see that tripe and know it's not right. Nothing wrong with taking a step back and pointing it out. If more folks would do that with the pundits and 'infotainment news networks', (CNN/FOX), perhaps the general public wouldn't be so clueless.
[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stumpy
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
/me applauds mcaldera
Thank you for taking the time to expose the phony Swifty arguments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonBinPNW
Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 58
Location: Vancouver (not BC), Washington (Not DC)
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcaldera wrote: | | Hasty Generalization: As one supposition that this is false examine Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" testimony that got him halfway impeached. |
Yet you cherry pick a single point which proves to be the exception to the rule. Crass Ignorance.
| Quote: | | Ad hominem, (abusive), and Hasty Generalization: Rather than offering a supposition as to why you believe Kerry was lying, you're attacking him for sailing on a yacht and asserting that all Kennedys can 'get away with anything', simply because they are Kennedys. |
Actually, the history of the Kennedy Family is well enough known that I did not feel the urge to offer a refresher course on their antics. And your causality linkage is also supposition. I was inferrng that his connection to Kennedy is what kept him safe. Nice redirection though.
| Quote: | | Prejudicial Language, Begging the Question. You're asserting that anyone who disagrees with you about Kerry is 'a roach' attempting to change the subject. I think most people here are interested in finding out exactly what took place and whether this criticism of him is justified or not. Just because some have not been convinced by your 'argument' thus far does not make them 'a roach'. |
Again, supposition on your part. Please recheck the context of that statement. The purpose of saying such is "The moment you question anything about Mr. Kerry, the DU sends out its drones to ensure that those who are listening for the answers will be sufficiently distracted to create indecision." AKA Poison Pill or "By proponderence of the evidence" et al.
| Quote: | | Hasty Generalization, Unrepresentative Sample: Were these 'liberal message boards' you were banned from? How many were you banned from? Enough to justify your too broad assertion that everyone who holds some liberal views selectively supports free speech? |
It need only happen once to be factual, but if it is truely relevant, than the following:
Micheal Moore
**
Two forums connected to Move On
| Quote: |
Since when do the Dems need to have "Facts" when conjecture, hyperbole, and demegogery have worked so well for them?
|
| Quote: | | Non-Support, Hasty generalization, Begging the question: You assert that the majority of people that belongs to the democratic party relies on conjecture, hyperbole and demegogery, yet offer no evidence to support this. |
OK, you must bear with a slight tangent in order to get a relevant examle in the limited time I have available on my late lunch.
Democratic Rhetoric:
"Workplace violence is the #3 killer in the workplace"
Rhetoric. Pure and simple. It attempts to create a problem based on elimination of alternatives and stands against reason. Why?
As near as I can tell, there are only FOUR WAYS TO GET KILLED AT WORK. 1) Accidents, 2) Disease/Medical Conditions, 3) Acts of violence or criminality, 4) Suicide.
Democratic Rhetoric:
"We can't afford the proposed tax cut. However, under my administration, if you have a savings account with $500 in it, then the federal government will match it. If you make a contribution to your retirement account of $1200 then the federal government will match up to ($600)"
The above is paraphrased, but I can find the exact text, from the first debate between Gore and Bush (aka "The Lock Box Debate")
Rhetoric: Not being able to afford a $170 per person tax cut, but being able to afford a $500 per account matching funds program.
Now, I do NOT wish to debate the above subjects matter OF the statements. I was asked for examples, I provided two off the top of my head.
Again, forgive the tangents. Once I get home for the day, I will compile some more topical examples.
| Quote: |
You're not worth addressing any further. You're like one of those last ditch Nazi's you see on bad television who go into a euphoric state when they hear the fuhers words on tape... YOU are a bad episode of Perry Mason.
|
| Quote: | | Ad hominem, False Analogy: This is a statement as offensive as it is illogical. You are asserting that Sparky and a Nazi character on Perry Mason will both go into some pre-programmed state of Euphoria when they hear 'the fuhers' voice? I must assume you are asserting that 'the fuher' in Sparky's case are 'the liberal nazi's', of our country. |
No, read the paragraph above that statement. I referred to an old episode of Perry Mason in which a former nazi had gone underground, and was outed by playing a tape of one of Hitlers speeches,it had the effect of inducing an etherial state on the subject. I compared the origional writers failure to think critically or use proper reason when confronted by true, relevant facts with "A bad episode of Perry Mason"
| Quote: | | Your analogy falls apart, however, in that I have seen Sparky provide a good deal of evidence and analysis for his arguement, rather than blindly spewing forth 'Sieg Hiel's. |
I disagree. When asked a questions regarding Mr. Kerrys statements or conduct, Sparky tends to resort to contrasting between Kerry and Bush. If the answer was indeed relevant to the discussion, I'd have moved on, but it is not. The answers are not related to the question being asked in any way inside of the scope of this argument.
Further, when confronted with valid, legal points, the answers suddenly go into relativist tangents in which reason becomes subjective.
| Quote: | | He most certainly is not relying on personal attacks and Limbaugh-speak. (Rush Limbaugh likes making comparisons between those he disagrees with and Nazi's as well). |
So do you Democrats. You'll find examples all over the net, use google. try using "Bush Nazi". That said, your basis for far ascerting that I listen to that druggie is flawed, but lets not split hairs... I don't listen to AM radio, and the only show on "Fox" I ever watch is Neil Cavutto, and then only becasue it's on in the office.
| Quote: | | Ad hominem, Straw Man, False Analogy: Sparky stated that he believed you were incorrect in stating that Kerry 'admitted he lied'. Rather than offering proof to counter his counter of your claim you are here making a new argument saying that, because he disbelieved you, he will believe anything that 'fits his world view'; that he is a nihilist. A nihilst denies any objective ground of truth, especially moral truth. A nihilst would have said: "It's impossible to say whether kerry was lying or not, because it's impossible to say what is truth." Sparky said he did not believe Kerry was lying. There's a world of difference between the two positions. Further, a Nihilist would have no political alliances and would not care to even partake in political discourse. |
Reread the thread in dteail, and the other that I have participated in with Sparky. If you are using real logic, you will have no choice but to conclude what I did.
Ad hominem(abusive): If we examine who is offering support for their argument from outside sources I think it's fairly obvious that Sparky is not "Ignoring reality". I would like to see some evidence and analysis of your claims.
Then you are not reading,or are allowing your prejudices to guide you conciously. The requested sources have been provided throughout this thread and others. They are there, in detail.
| Quote: | | Ad hominem(abusive) |
I disagree, Sparky spoken in the familiar context about a subject that he/she knew nothing about before I called him/her on it. It is apparent by the syntax of the origional statements I was retorting. I would never discuss a topic like quantum physics from a familiar standpoint WITH a quantum physicist because to that physicist, I would sound the way that Sparky sounds when speaking to a former infantryman.
| Quote: |
I have another one, you have obviously heard it... you're an idiot.
Ad hominem(abusive) |
See above
| Quote: | Certainly there is nothing ambigous or vauge about your personal attacks and logical loopholes. Turn off the Limbaugh and stop trying to categorize the world into 'us' and 'them'. The reality is far more complex and the vast majority of people hold both some views that are 'Liberal' and 'Conservative'. Attempting to pigeon-hole someone as one or the other does nothing but weaken your argument and make you sound like a pundit. You are not Limbaugh however, and this is not your show, people talk back here.
If you want to make a claim, make it: Provide evidence and analysis if you need to. Huge impossible-to-prove attacks on 'The Right' or 'The Left' are NOT support of your claim. |
Again for the record: I don't listen to Rush. Never have, never will. We just don't agree with things. again, for the record: The claims that I and others have made in conjunction with the relvant case (I'm not talking about the tinfoil hat citations either) are salted are all throughout these forums. Youwill please pardon me for not posting and re-posting the UCMJ, Code Of Conduct, or other (spacious) DoD regulations pertaining to the conduct of an officer, the laws of land warfare, the Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention etc... To say that it would be "cumbersome and repetative" would be an understatement. There are references on this thread already, and there are sufficient inother threads to prove my argument beyond the shadow of a doubt.
[quote]Now then, my personal feelings on the matter:
Nobody has hit on what I think is correct, (that I've read thus far anyhow).
| Quote: | Kerry was telling the truth, atrocities did occur in Vietnam, and he probably did commit them. Whether they are the 'justified' ones that most of us think of as not being an atrocity, (killing an enemy soldier), or the 'unjustified' ones that we do, (shooting a mother with her child), is a matter of debate.
When it comes to war, atrocities happen. A soldier is a soldier and stress/fear/anger/pain can lead him to behave in ways that no sane human would ever consider under normal circumstances. This sort of @*$! is always going to happen: it's war, it brings out the darkest and weakest elements of the id. And the longer one is exposed to it the greater the likelihood of it happening. Look at the Abu Gharib prison pictures as only the most recent evidence of this.
Regardless of whether Kerry's specific claims are accurate or not, he *did* experience, firsthand, what it is to be in a war and to kill or be killed. This is something that G.W. Bush has not and will likely never experience. I feel far more comfortable having a president in charge that fully understands the human cost of war as he should be far less likely to take us into one unless absolutely necessary: Unlike this one, (the president and the war), but that is a whole other argument. |
First point (tangent): "I feel far more comfortable having a president in charge that fully understands the human cost of war as he should be far less likely to take us into one unless absolutely necessary"
We're already in one, right or wrong, we're in one. That is not really inside of the scope of this argument, but I felt compelled to address it.
Next: Your very statements validate my claims in their context.
Kerry wants to portray himself on his war record. Good for him, I salute the effort, but he either committed war crimes in violation of his oath a an officer, or he lied about them in violation of his oath as an officer. That hemade other violations of his oath is unquestionable. The articles posted of the UCMJ stand in clear contrast to his actions in either case. Your attempt to mitigate them is not relevant, nor would they be at an Article 32 hearing if one were to have been conviened on the matter.
In either case, he did not do his duty as an officer, there is no arguing that from a real perspective (not a hypothetical or theoretical one).
Nice talking to you.
MCaldera... I know that name from somewhere.
_________________
Semper Fi!
Jason
Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Way to go, mcaldera. You've got those logical fallacies nailed! I appreciate the hard work you've put into exposing them here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
95 bxl
Seaman
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 179
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Given Kerry's confession that he's a war criminal, and the inability of his supporters to accept that he's a war criminal, I've gone to the extreme of looking it up.
hyperdictionary
Definition: [n] an offender who violates international law during times of war
See Also: offender, wrongdoer
yourdictionary
1. war criminal -- an offender who violates international law during times of war
wordiq
A war crime is a punishable offense, under international law, for violations of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.
Clearly, Kerry is certainly guilty of this... whether he has called himself a war criminal in view of his confessions on the subject being totally irrelevant... and the gross situational ethics of Kerry supporters on this matter is reason enough to oppose Kerry BY ITSELF. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Everything Kerry describes was routine during the Vietnam War:
o Shootings in free fire zones.
o Harassment and interdiction fire.
o Using 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.
o Search and destroy missions
o Burning of villages.
And superiors were completely aware of these activities if they hadn't actually ordered them.
Therefore for Kerry to have been a war criminal, you'd have to also believe that war crimes were a daily occurrence and very few troops in the field didn't commit them.
Btw, Kerry never confessed that "he was a war criminal." |
|
| 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
