Text 305, 253 rader
Skriven 2004-07-31 16:48:46 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
    Kommentar till text 173 av JOHNJWILSON (1:123/140)
Ärende: Nothing much, I guess.
==============================
29 Jul 04 19:21, JOHNJWILSON wrote to JOHN HULL:


 ->> I don't suppose there is any possibility that the reason people say 
 ->> some of the things they do - and that you take exception to above - is 
->> because there might be some truth in it?  Nah, how could that be, eh,  ->>
John?
 ->>
 J> Pick any LARGE group, scratch all of them and you will find
 J> bigotry. Making the statement 'scratch a liberal' is all-inclusive and 
 J> CANNOT contain 'some truth' :-|

I agree with your first sentence, but not the second.  Are you saying liberals
can't tell the truth?


 J>   If that is the case, why then would you assume that he
 ->> is being any LESS intelligent when making that remark?
 ->>
 J> Because in my life I have done some unintelligent things :-)

Ah, so you're judging everybody else by your failures or mistakes?


 ->> combat with him) say he's unfit?  Why have they formed an organization to 
->> oppose his candidacy as president based on his Vietnam record?

 J> Why, indeed?

Come on, John.  This one is a no brainer.  Kerry's record in the Senate is
enough to disqualify him as a good CinC.  He has voted against nearly every
bill that would've been of benefit to our armed forces and our national
security and readiness.  He voted FOR the war in Iraq, then turned around and
voted AGAINST the money needed to support the troops in the field.  Add his
Vietnam stuff into the mix and there is no question he's not qualified.



 J>   I will remind you that this group covers the whole system of rank, from 
 ->> seaman to admiral.

 J> Line 'em up. Pro and con admirals, seamen, all.

The people who worked for him didn't trust him, and his superiors didn't have
anything good to say about him, then or now.

 J>   I assume you know that ratings don't associate with officers 
 ->> normally, so its highly unprecedented for such a diverse group to come 
->> together on a single unifying issue almost to a man.  Surely, that must 
->> give you pause as to Kerry's qualifications for the most important part of 
->> being president...

 J> It gives me pause. 

 J> You don't follow Rove, much I take it.

Personally, I think Karl Rove is the James Carville of the GOP.  I don't like
either of them.

 J> find 'the enemy's strongest suit and attack THAT.
 J> and "Ride this war right through to the election"

And this has what to do with YOUR opinion based on the facts?

 J>   I know it does me.

 J> I know it does you. 

 J> A 20 year old Lt. picking someone out of the water,
 J> who beached his boat attacked and overcame...
 J> ...you know THAT story. Does it too, give you pause?

I assume you are referring to Kennedy.  Red herring.  We aren't talking about
Kennedy.  And, swift boats are not the same as PT boats just in case you want
to go down that road.


 J>   In fact, just contemplating him as CinC scares the hell out of 
 J> me. 

 J> Bush's being so, scares me NOW :-)

Why?  What has Bush done that scares you?  He reacted to the miscreants who
attacked us, and took down their safe haven.  Was that a BAD thing?  He took
out a megalomaniac dictator who had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own
people, not to mention supporting those same terrorists who have been attacking
us, freed 25 million people from oppression and fear.  Was THAT a BAD thing,
too?  Oh, and he also gave us back some of our own money that had been taken by
excessive taxes, sparking a recovery at the same time.  Was THAT a bad thing?

I'm truly mystified.  What has he done that is so scary?  Maybe its just the
fact that he isn't lying to you and treating you like like some cog in the
machine that has you spooked.  Is that It?  

 ->> Doesn't the fact that he sat in front of Congress and told those
 J> politicians that US servicemen were committing atrocities by the hundreds, 
 ->> as if he'd seen them (which he hadn't - he was repeating someone else's 
->> false accusations as his own) when clearly that was a blatant lie, give 
->> you pause?

 J> You statement above REEKS of distortion-trying.
 J> I think his disgust of war matches mine.
 J> Perhaps you didn't notice, but really bad things happen.
 J> Kerry was undoubtedly convinced that those vets told the truth
 J> (much as you are convinced by the anti-Kerry vets)
 J> he was mistaken and left the organization...

John, you forget that I was in the service during that same period, and that I
worked for the Vietnam Outreach Service for several years, debunking the crap
that Kerry put on us in those hearings.  Do you have any idea how many guys
that hurt, not just on the battlefield but who were already back here trying to
get a handle on their wartime experiences?  And don't tell me he believed what
he was saying, because there was no evidence he made any attempt to verify any
of what he was saying was gospel.  If he left, it was because it was becoming
increasingly clear that what they were pushing was a load of bull and he didn't
want any of that shit to stick to him as he pursued his political objectives.

 ->> 
 ->> Do you begin to see why there is such vehement opposition to Kerry 
 ->> from many of those in this echo?...

 J> No, I don't. I don't truly understand the course, crude, insulting
 J> vehement opposition. The sweeping assertions the name-calling of 
 J> those opposed. (I believe you kicked Bob Klahn off All Politics 
 J> unfairly... and dropped that echo.

We give as good as we get.  And, I don't much care what you think about Klahn
and why he was booted.  This isn't the echo to discuss that, is it?

 J> I'm dropping this echo because there seems to be little forward 
 J> movement in the 'discussion' ... DEBATE is moderated by an astute, 
 J> intelligent conservative. He and I differ a LOT, interestingly and 
 J> enjoyably. It's pretty much issue-related but I confess there is universal
 J> disgust at my attempts at poetry :-}

We used to have some very good, very spirited debates here, and we still do
from time to time.  Know why that isn't happening so much anymore?  How about
because of the endless stream of individuals who have appeared here for the
sole purpose of playing attack dog for the left?  You can't discuss something
with somebody who simply spouts the requisite chapter and verse from the
Democrat play book.  You can't debate with somebody who has no knowledge of a
subject, and just spews what they're told to say on a particular issue.

 J> Cheers, from the elitist, pseudo-intellectual, snobbish,
 J> old fart...

 J> Oh. There was more:
 J> =======================================================


 J>   None of what I've said is stretching the truth, its all
 ->> fact, and we all know it...

 J> One sentence. Two errors. You stretch in a lot of what you write...
 J> and "we all know it" is, patently absurd.

Actually, I don't stretch things much at all.  I don't employ straw men or red
herrings deliberately like many do.  Now, you may not agree with my opinions,
but that's merely a good reason to discuss things.  If my opinions are so
discomfitting that it prevents you from debating, then I'd say you have a
problem.  Your failure to admit things simply because they make you
uncomfortable is pretty sad.


 J>   You purport yourself to be a fair and intelligent
 ->> man...

 J> (Pause). Yes I do.


 J>   Apply some of that in this case, if you can...

 J> I tried, above. ('if you can'? :-) )


 J>   Prove to the rest of us...

 J> I'll stop before I read the rest of THIS sentence: I will
 J> "Prove" nothing to you...

 ->> that you're not just another mealy mouthed liberal spouting 
 ->> boilerplate
 J> from
 ->> the party apparatchiks.
 ->>
 J> Well, let's see. Aside from making my point(s) above I'll
 J> examine what you spewed at me:

 J> Mealy mouth. Coarsely-ground discourse?
 J> Hmm.
 J> Not enough reflection? Well, sure. I write and reply on the fly
 J> hence my discourse is not as finely tuned as a position paper.

 J> You think my conversation here is coarser, cruder than yours?

 J> Now lets see. What else:

 J> Liberal.

 J> Why would I want to 'prove' otherwise? A label is
 J> a convenience. I am a liberal and I am a conservative 
 J> I contain multitudes.
 J> Liberal have undergone too many definitions to either
 J> accept or deny the label.

If you don't have opinions then you aren't engaged with what is going on around
you.  And if you aren't engaged, then you can't expect to be able to have a
discussion with someone who has strong opinions.  

 ->> 
 ->> If you can, that is.
 ->> 
 J> I don't care to try for your approval in this regard.
 J> The fact that I consider your political opinions
 J> predictable and thus boring is far more pertainant
 J> than that they are presented crudely. 'Mealy mouthed'? :-) 

The object here isn't to gain my approval.  Whatever gave you the idea that it
was?  The object is to take a side and argue your points, vigorously.  The idea
is to present the facts, on both sides, so that everybody can make up their own
mind on a subject.  

 ->> 
 ->> America:  First, Last, and Always!

 J> ...and crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea...

 J> Boiler-plate?

 J> I wouldn't know where to find the boiler-plate.

You don't have to search for it.  Its everywhere you look.  Read almost any
newspaper, or listen to any mainstream network TV news broadcast.  They are all
saying nearly identical things about the same subjects.  And their reactions to
anyone who disagrees is almost universally to turn and attack savagely for
daring to disagree.

 J> factcheck.org

 J> is interesting. Analysing boilerplate evidently from all sides...

As I've said for years, I don't want boilerplate, I want YOU to give us YOUR
real opinions, and WHY you have that opinion.  You didn't just spring fully
formed and ready to go, so you must have learned something you can relate to an
issue over the years.

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin: We are the Watchmen of our own Liberty! (1:379/1.99)