Q5echo, you really are funny for all your military bravado you should know better. These swift boat jerk waters are worse type of scum. If they had any respect for our country or the military they would go through the proper channels if they had a problem with Kerry and the medals he received they should have spoken up to their superiors when it happened not 40 years later. Anyone who knows the first thing about first hand accounts knows how unreliable they are. These jerk waters are disgrace but they're in good company with deceitful Bush administration who will ever dirty trick in the book to win.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

this conversation is not about the medals, jerky, though i get the feeling occ and opus are gonna pay for that statement. the whole issue is far deeper. and i don't expect you to even try to understand given your history of shortsided opinion.

you want to know how i feel about Kerry's medals?

its my opinion that his three purple hearts are perfectly within the realm of criticizing for integrity. as an officer he was well within his rights for putting himself in for them, questionable merit of those wounds not withstanding. as an officer in that position i might have written those same fitreps myself. there is nothing a sailor likes more, aside from cheap booze, than chest candy.

bronze and silver stars? again given the circumstances i would not have turned them down or not written those same fitreps that gave him consideration for the medals. were they under enemy fire when Kerry came back to pick up Rassmun after hitting the mine? were others there to help? did VC, Kerry's adopted dog, really get blown on to the deck of another swiftboat after running over a mine? (yes thats a true statement by Kerry) i think some if not all those fitreps and sitreps and after action reports were embelished by Kerry. it happens. and in Kerry case all that happened inside a month.

i don't mean to marginalize this subject, but his title is Senator Kerry for a reason...right?

BTW these people we speak of, that don't want Kerry as their president, are not scum.

Before this thread gets too ugly...

I think that all we've discovered is that depending on who you choose to believe, the validity of John Kerry, his medals and what you can conlude of him are highly contestable. Depending on who you give credibility to, as well as your own political stance and objectives, we're going to think differently.

Just as the Swift Boat Veterans aren't "scum," neither are the people behind moveon.org or the individuals raising hell over Bush's National Guard Service. These are all people trying to put forth their political motives, which they believe to be just, by giving us information they believe to be the real "thruth." There is no way to know what acutally happened on those boats in Vietnam, beacase we have a different account from every person that was there. In reality, I'm sure it's a mixture of all the stories, where Kerry wasn't Rambo incarnate as he would like us to believe, nor was he an overt coward as the Veterans would like us to think.

We could go back and forth forever trying to discount each other's sources and then resort to name calling but for both sides it is a futile debate. Do your research, believe who you think is right, don't let your own ideologies cloud your judgement, and go from there.

I personally believe that the account that Kerry gives us is not entirely truthful. He is a politician trying to win the presidency and he is going to bend the hell out of the truth to get there. To aid him in this quest he will find people to support him, riding his coat tails to where ever they see fit. On the other hand, I do commend him for his service, it is much more tangible than any Guard service Bush may or may not have been a part of. The main problem I see is that with a political story of this magnitude, you will have people trying to make names for themselves, and as part of that process no one will tell the complete truth. Such is politics, something I think we're forgetting is at the heart of this debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo so the Vietnam vets that oppose John Kerry are misguided (a polite way of saying naive or ignorant) because they couldn't appreciate the political nuance of his 1971 testimony regarding Nixon's failed strategy. (we're not even gonna mention his words and actions outside of that testimony that year. because if they couldn't appreciate the nuance of that, well to bad right?)

I see you are attempting to malign my argument in the same manner that you strive to portray Kerry's. Well at least I have the luxury of addressing your arguments directly ... now, so I'm saying that Vietnam vets opposed to Kerry are misguided? That's a cute misinterpretation. Here, let me quote myself:

quote:

If Vietnam veterans oppose Kerry under the mistaken impression that he stated in his testimony to congress that everybody in the military was guilty of war crimes or committing atrocities than they are MISGUIDED. http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=4

Now for a little English lesson. The "IF ... THEN" statement is what we call a conditional. The antecedant is the statement "If Vietnam veterans oppose Kerry under the mistaken impression that he stated in his testimony to congress that everybody in the military was guilty of war crimes or committing atrocities." The consequent is the statement, "they are MISGUIDED." Notice how the antecedant is NOT "if Vietnam veterans oppose Kerry." So if you cannot recognize this grammatical distinction than your argument is absolutely correct. Not only am I claiming that all Vietnam veterans are misguided for being anti-Kerry, but Kerry said every veteran of every war committed war crimes, and he also said that he invented the internet.

quote:

and occrider, i'm accusing YOU of taking his '71 testimony transcipt out of context, f**k it, you and opus. why, because the context in question has nothing to do with you or i or how you see it in hindsight, but the people who were there and some of those people are still pretty pissed off about being reminded of it. you may know a lot of things, but the Vietnam vets that take issue with John Kerry's abrupt tour of Vietnam and the actions he spearheaded afterwards have just a little more insight to complexities of having friends die and tortured at the hands of people that fed off of what John Kerry did and said.

Another fallacious arguement: appeal to emotion. You are attempting to justify criticism of Kerry's speech by describing the reaction from others rather than addressing the parts of Kerry's speech and providing contextual criticism that can be refuted or argued yourself. I suppose I can play the same game. Hmmmm ok well I'll just find someone who's suffered and been through unimaginable pain whose arguements you can't POSSIBLY refute because you have no way of understanding what he went through! Ok well how about former senator Max Cleland? Triple Amputee ... says bush is behind swift boat ads ... how can you refute his arguments??? He's a triple amputee for christ's sake, you couldn't even grasp the mental processes he utilizes to take a piss much less what he thinks about Vietnam nor the arguments that he makes. Here's a nice picture of him:



That should score me double points for this logical fallacy right? I like this game.

quote:

they oppose John Kerry for president, not because they feel they need opinion about Kerry to be heard (mind you there's thousands of them) but because they wish...??? yeah, i have yet to hear an alterior motive other than they want Bush to remain in office. which is stating the obvious because, lets face it, who else is running against Bush?

Wait a second ... you're refuting your own argument again. So these vets DON'T oppose Kerry because of their opinions on him??? They only oppose him because they want Bush to remain in office??? Hahaha lemme get this straight ... so all that jazz about him being unfit to command, the controversey about his medals, his credentials, etc. Is all MEANINGLESS? If they do indeed have that opinion it must not be that strong for them to feel that they need not express it as you so claim. The SOLE reason is to keep Bush in office? Finally, NOW we're getting somewhere. Glad we have that settled.

quote:

the swift boat vets deserve to be marginalized huh? again? man thats pretty fucked up if you ask me. "the swiftboat vets deserve to be marginalized" why not? they were all "marginalized" the first time they came back from Vietnam. they "deserve to be marginalized because they all lie to gain a partisan upperhand" am i hearing that right? they don't wish to be heard on their merits as officers and enlisted brothers in arms. they lie on a national spotlight to humiliate one person for political purposes. jesus you people kill me.

Oh goodness, looks like I'm going to have to quote myself again. According to my own statements I never said that they should be marginalized because they were marginalized when they came back from Vietnam. Again the appeals to emotion are not going to work. I said "The swiftboat veterans deserve to be marginilized for the simple reason that they are LYING." The fact that they may have been treated unfairly or poorly when they come back from the war does not warrant them special truth rings that legitamize everything they say in the present. Don't make me bring up the triple amputee again. But look, I'm sick of attempting to refute vague arguments, so why don't you attempt to give us some credible evidence for what these swift boat vets are saying? You specifically mention Kerry's bronze and silver star and raise doubt so make your case with supporting evidence. Who are you gonna use? Hoffman? O'Neill? Letson? I get the funny feeling you're going to continually make vague assertations without providing solid evidence so go to it. Give me something I can dig into. All these guys have been making contradictory statements on so many news interview shows it's rediculous. Bear in mind I shall hold you to equal standards of evidence, doubt, and logic when it comes to the accusations of Bush's purported AWOL. You may claim it's a Red Herring issues or whatever, but really, we wouldn't want to be inconsistent with our logic now would we?

By the way I didn't think that I would "pay" for my statements however, maybe I'm taking myself out of context.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Aug-31-2004 at 06:00

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Before this thread gets too ugly... I think that all we've discovered is that depending on who you choose to believe, the validity of John Kerry, his medals and what you can conlude of him are highly contestable. Depending on who you give credibility to, as well as your own political stance and objectives, we're going to think differently. Just as the Swift Boat Veterans aren't "scum," neither are the people behind moveon.org or the individuals raising hell over Bush's National Guard Service. These are all people trying to put forth their political motives, which they believe to be just, by giving us information they believe to be the real "thruth." There is no way to know what acutally happened on those boats in Vietnam, beacase we have a different account from every person that was there. In reality, I'm sure it's a mixture of all the stories, where Kerry wasn't Rambo incarnate as he would like us to believe, nor was he an overt coward as the Veterans would like us to think. We could go back and forth forever trying to discount each other's sources and then resort to name calling but for both sides it is a futile debate. Do your research, believe who you think is right, don't let your own ideologies cloud your judgement, and go from there. I personally believe that the account that Kerry gives us is not entirely truthful. He is a politician trying to win the presidency and he is going to bend the hell out of the truth to get there. To aid him in this quest he will find people to support him, riding his coat tails to where ever they see fit. On the other hand, I do commend him for his service, it is much more tangible than any Guard service Bush may or may not have been a part of. The main problem I see is that with a political story of this magnitude, you will have people trying to make names for themselves, and as part of that process no one will tell the complete truth. Such is politics, something I think we're forgetting is at the heart of this debate.

Neophono, I respect your desire to keep this thread civil, however, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to press you on my point. I'm simply confused at how you can place the same value or credibility upon some of the swiftboat veterans compared with accounts from those supporting Kerry's viewpoints. There are plenty of republican vets who were documented as being there and supporting Kerry's point of view. All the navy records support Kerry's points of views. All of Kerry's critics are shadowed by controversy, changing points of view, or simple incapability of knowing what they're claiming. If you think that I am wrong than simply point out who among the swiftboat vets has had impecuous credibility? Than compare that with those who were there and how NONE have been able to refute any portion of their stories. I'm simply confused ... face it, bush was not awol and Kerry was a war hero. Simple combination of rational logic and skepticism. However you wish to value those character traits is your own choice. However neither candidate is as demonic or incapable of good deeds as pundits attempt to portray.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I see you are attempting to malign my argument in the same manner that you strive to portray Kerry's. Well at least I have the luxury of addressing your arguments directly ... now, so I'm saying that Vietnam vets opposed to Kerry are misguided? That's a cute misinterpretation. Here, let me quote myself:

don't go tripping over your own flattery in a glib English lesson there, hero. i was refering to a statement made by Opus.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpusThat fact may certainly remain, as is their misguidedness toward Kerry being the culprit of their anger.

quote:

Another fallacious arguement: appeal to emotion. You are attempting to justify criticism of Kerry's speech by describing the reaction from others rather than addressing the parts of Kerry's speech and providing contextual criticism that can be refuted or argued yourself. I suppose I can play the same game. Hmmmm ok well I'll just find someone who's suffered and been through unimaginable pain whose arguements you can't POSSIBLY refute because you have no way of understanding what he went through! Ok well how about former senator Max Cleland? Triple Amputee ... says bush is behind swift boat ads ... how can you refute his arguments??? He's a triple amputee for christ's sake, you couldn't even grasp the mental processes he utilizes to take a piss much less what he thinks about Vietnam nor the arguments that he makes. Here's a nice picture of him: That should score me double points for this logical fallacy right?

i'm not gonna play this game with you dude. they are real people that take a real issue with the way Kerry wishes to present himself. they are as real and Cleland. sorry dude, but your way off base with this one

quote:

Wait a second ... you're refuting your own argument again. So these vets DON'T oppose Kerry because of their opinions on him??? They only oppose him because they want Bush to remain in office??? Hahaha lemme get this straight ... so all that jazz about him being unfit to command, the controversey about his medals, his credentials, etc. Is all MEANINGLESS? If they do indeed have that opinion it must not be that strong for them to feel that they need not express it as you so claim. The SOLE reason is to keep Bush in office? Finally, NOW we're getting somewhere. Glad we have that settled.

don't be juvenile, it's beneath you. FACT: they don't want Kerry to be president FACT: Kerry is now the nominee. you do the math

quote:

Oh goodness, looks like I'm going to have to quote myself again. According to my own statements I never said that they should be marginalized because they were marginalized when they came back from Vietnam. Again the appeals to emotion are not going to work. I said "The swiftboat veterans deserve to be marginilized for the simple reason that they are LYING." The fact that they may have been treated unfairly or poorly when they come back from the war does not warrant them special truth rings that legitamize everything they say in the present. Don't make me bring up the triple amputee again. But look, I'm sick of attempting to refute vague arguments, so why don't you attempt to give us some credible evidence for what these swift boat vets are saying? You specifically mention Kerry's bronze and silver star and raise doubt so make your case with supporting evidence. Who are you gonna use? Hoffman? O'Neill? Letson? I get the funny feeling you're going to continually make vague assertations without providing solid evidence so go to it. Give me something I can dig into. All these guys have been making contradictory statements on so many news interview shows it's rediculous. Bear in mind I shall hold you to equal standards of evidence, doubt, and logic when it comes to the accusations of Bush's purported AWOL. You may claim it's a Red Herring issues or whatever, but really, we wouldn't want to be inconsistent with our logic now would we?

look, you said

quote:

The swiftboat veterans deserve to be marginilized for the simple reason that they are LYING.

i feel they have been marginalized enough without people like you calling them liars. i don't need evidence for that and i don't care that you feel like your winning the game.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo don't go tripping over your own flattery in a glib English lesson there, hero. i was refering to a statement made by Opus.

Thanks for the clarifaction champ. Except for one thing ... your statement was made AFTER that statement from Opus, after your subsequent reply, and after the following statement from Opus which stated:

quote:

If those veterans believe that Kerry was out to dishonor them, rather than point directly to the government for the atrocities being committed, that is precisely what I am saying.

And after my statement:

quote:

I'm not sure what MisterOpus thinks, but I'll go out and say it. If Vietnam veterans oppose Kerry under the mistaken impression that he stated in his testimony to congress that everybody in the military was guilty of war crimes or committing atrocities than they are MISGUIDED.

So pick which one you're replying to ... they're essentially the same argument and anyone can look at the timestamps to verify. Tell ya what though ... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, retract my statement, and apologize. Ok champ?

quote:

i'm not gonna play this game with you dude. they are real people that take a real issue with the way Kerry wishes to present himself. they are as real and Cleland. sorry dude, but your way off base with this one

No you fail to understand the game ... you can't start it, and attempt to back out of it when I trump you. You said I'm taking things out of context because ALL those vets suffered so much, lost friends, yadda yadda yadda, and therefore I don't understand their situation. Why can't my vet, who is a triple amputee, suffered MORE, yadda yadda yadda, demonstrate how YOU are taking things out of context because YOU simply cannot understand his situation? This is ONLY a game because YOU brought it up. I'm on the same base as you champ.

quote:

don't be juvenile, it's beneath you. FACT: they don't want Kerry to be president FACT: Kerry is now the nominee. you do the math

I was under the impression that you had an epiphany with that remark ... my "juevenille" assumptions were no more prepubescent than what you were implying with that statement.

quote:

look, you said "swiftboat veterans deserve to be marginilized for the simple reason that they are LYING." i feel they have been marginalized enough without people like you calling them liars. i don't need evidence for that and i don't care that you feel like your winning the game.

"I feel that they have been marginalized enough without people like you calling them liars. I don't need evidence for that ..."??? I'm trying to understand this statement champ, perhaps you can enlighten me. It appears that you either:

A) Don't care that they are lying because they have been marginilized "enough."

B) Don't want to know if they are lying because they have been marginilized "enough".

or

C) Some completely unknown summation of your argument because ... well because you haven't clarified your position by standing by specific, quoted, and sourced statements that swiftboat vets have stated. One cannot refute an argument that never materializes right? Brilliant champ ...

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Aug-31-2004 at 07:11

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Thanks for the clarifaction champ. Except for one thing ... your statement was made AFTER that statement from Opus, after your subsequent reply, and after the following statement from Opus which stated: And after my statement: So pick which one you're replying to ... they're essentially the same argument and anyone can look at the timestamps to verify. Tell ya what though ... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, retract my statement, and apologize. Ok champ?

well take it up with Opus then because it's pretty obvious i could give a damn about how you consider Vets being misguided, but heres his take on it timestamped before you even confused yourself with him

quote:

If those veterans believe that Kerry was out to dishonor them, rather than point directly to the government for the atrocities being committed, that is precisely what I am saying.

quote:

No you fail to understand the game ... you can't start it, and attempt to back out of it when I trump you. You said I'm taking things out of context because ALL those vets suffered so much, lost friends, yadda yadda yadda, and therefore I don't understand their situation. Why can't my vet, who is a triple amputee, suffered MORE, yadda yadda yadda, demonstrate how YOU are taking things out of context because YOU simply cannot understand his situation? This is ONLY a game because YOU brought it up. I'm on the same base as you champ.

convince me they are not genuine in what they believe, otherwise it's still a game. why can't Cleland be genuine? i don't think i said he wasn't. on the contrary, i claimed he's as genuine as the Vets but supports the man that would be president.
you did, in fact, take Kerry's '71 testimony out of a real veterans contexed. real vets felt they were betrayed by that testimony, honest i'm not making it up. long before all this started. and not just his testimony, like i said, everthing he did that year real vets took real issue with it. and its come full circle hasn't it?

quote:

I was under the impression that you had an epiphany with that remark ... my "juevenille" assumptions were no more prepubescent than what you were implying with that statement.

i made no bones about it. they do not want Kerry in office. that was the point in my statement. sorry i had to "dumb it down" for you. i can't make it any clearer.

quote:

"I feel that they have been marginalized enough without people like you calling them liars. I don't need evidence for that ..."??? I'm trying to understand this statement champ, perhaps you can enlighten me.

i believe you are flat wrong calling them liars. they took time out of their lives and put their good name and legacy on the line in front of the nation. they say that John Kerry has not been honest with the people he is asking for help to put him in office. don't hurt youself trying to understand that. if you want to be enlightened talk to these people.

quote:

Daniel Aguilar, OSC, USNR-R Pat Alexander Roy Alexander* Robert Anderson, EN2, USN (Ret.) Kenneth J. Andrews, Lt.* Arturo Arias, QM2, USN (Ret.) Daniel V. Armstrong, BM2* Douglas Armstrong, Capt., USN (Ret.) Harry Ball, Cdr., USN (Ret.) Ray Lewis Ballew* Sonny Barber, USN (Ret.) John Bare Alexander Bass* George "M." Bates* Richard Beers* Paul L. Bennett, Cdr., USN* Edward J. “Lord Mort” Bergin, Capt., USNR (Ret.)* Henry “Buddy” Berman, QM2* Herb Blume, Lt. Barry Bogart, EN2* Bob Bolger Cdr., USN* (Ret.) M.T. Boone* Benny Booth David Borden* Carl Bowman Vern Boyd* David M. Bradley, LCdr.* Robert Bradley, Lt. USNR - inactive Robert “Friar Tuck” Brant, Cdr. USN (Ret.)* Kenneth Briggs* Carlyle J. Brown, EN2* Donald Brown, RD3 Kenneth "Buck" Buchholz, GMM3* Michael C. Burton Tom Burton Joe Cahill, Jr., Lt.* Jack L. Carlson, Lt., USNR* James Carter Billy Carwile, EN3* Virgil Chambers, RD3 Jack Chenoweth, Capt., USNR, (Ret.)* William Colgan, RD3* Bill Collins* Daniel K. Corbett, Lt., USNR* James M. Corrigan, QM3* Terry Cosstello, Capt., USN (Ret.)* Tom Costarino Toi Dang, GM3 John H. Davis, Lt.* William K. Daybert,Cdr.* James Deal* Richard Dodson, Capt., USN (Ret.) John Dooley, Cdr., USN (Ret.)* Dale Duffield, CWO USN (Ret.)* Robert G. Elder, Lt.* George M. Elliott, Capt. USNR (Ret.)* Bill Eshelman Claude Farmer, Cdr., USNR (Ret.) Michael Fasold William Ferris, Capt., USNR (Ret.) Wallace Benjamin Foreman, QM1, USN (Ret.)* William T. Ferris, Capt. USNR (Ret.)* James Foster, GMG1, USN (Ret.) William E. Franke, Lt.jg* Robert L. Franson, BMCS (SW)* Alfred J. French, III, Capt., JAGC, USNR (Ret.)* Paul F. Fulcomer, RD3* Ray Fuller, GMG3* Steve Fulton, Cdr., USN (Ret.)* Mike Gann, Capt., USNR (Ret.)* Steve Gardner* Bill Garlow* Les Garrett* Tony Gisclair, BOSN2* Robert Gnau, QM2* Donald Goldberg* Morton Golde, Cdr. USN (Ret.)* Kenneth Golden* Gerald L. Good, Lt. USN* Roy Graham John C. Graves* Charles E. Green, ENCM, USN (Ret.)* Dennis L. Green, GMG* H.C. Griffin, Jr., Lt. USNR* I.B.S. (Boyd) Groves, Jr.* Charles R. Grutzius, Capt. USNR (Ret.)* F.L. Skip "Mustang Sally" Gunther, Lt. USN* Louis Hahn ETCM (SW) USN (Ret.) Bill Halpin, Lt. USNR (Ret.)* Don C. Hammer, Lt.* Rock Harmon* Keith C. Harris, RD2* Stewart M. Harris, Lt., USN* Stirlin Harris, BM2* Gene Hart, RD3* Bob Hastings* Curt Hatler* John Hecker, RD3* Chuck Herman, RD3* Raul Herrera* Tom Herritage* Grant "Skip" Hibbard* Bill Hickey Rocky Hildreth* Gary Hite Jim Hoffmann, RD3 Roy Hoffmann, Adm., USN (Ret.)* William P. Holden, Capt., USN (Ret.)* Wayland Holloway, Lt. USNR* Duane Holman, QM2 Robert Hooke, Lt.* Bill Hoole Andy Horne* John Howell* Warren Hudson* Charles W. Hunt, EN3* Robert Hunt* Gail E. "Ike" Ikerd, Cdr. (Ret.)* Bert Jeffries, QM3 Richard Jenkins John Paul Jones, QM3* Tom Jones* Eddie Kajioka ENCS, USN (Ret.)* John L. Kipp, Cdr., USN (Ret.)* Thomas H. Klemash* Kenneth Knipple, EN1* Robert Koger, QM2* Mike Kovanen, RD3* Bob Kreyer, GMG2* Jack K. Lane, GMG3* William T. Langham* William Lannom* Alan Lapat Joseph R. Lavoie, II CWO2 (BOSN), USN (Ret.)* Louis Letson, LCdr., USN (Ret.)* Jim Madden, RD3* William S. Mann, Jr., Lt.jg* Jim Marohn, GMG3* Douglas Martin, Lt. USNR* Tom Mason, Lt.* Donald Matras, EN2 (Ret.)* Thomas Mason, Lt.* Louis Masterson* Donald Matras, EN3 Richard McFarland, Lt. USNR* Kenneth B. McGhee* James McNeal, ENC* Errol Meleander, Cdr., USN (Ret.)* Jack Merkley, Lt.* James M. Miller* John Miller, ENC (Ret.) Martin Miller, ENC (Ret.)* Marc Milligan, GMG2* Benjamin A. Montoya, QM3* Edward Morgan, Capt. USN* Edgar (Ed) M. Morrill, Jr.* Tom Morrill, EN3* Wayne H. Moser* Kurt Moss, Lt. J.G.* Frank Mueller* Marc Milligan, GMG2* Ed Mundy* Van Odell, GMG1 Richard Olsen, Lt.* Richard O'Mara, RD2, USN John O'Neill, Lt., USN, (Ret.)* Albert Owens* Tedd Peck, Capt. USNR (Ret.)* Richard Pees, Lt., USNR James Penkert, ENC Thomas Petersik Robert Phalen, GMG2* Charles Plumley* Joseph L. Ponder, GMG-2, USN (Ret.)* Chuck Rabel* Bob Reller Steve Renfro, RD3, USN (Ret.) Don Renshaw, EN2, USN PCF 93 Frank Rockwell Bill Rogers, Lt.* Patrick Sage GMG3* Gary W. Sallee, BM2* Burke Salsi, RD2 Joe Sandoval, GMG3* Jimmy W. Sanford, RD3* Robert Scattergood* Jim Schneider, EN2* Clair J. (Pete) Schrodt, Capt. USN (Ret.)* Jack Shamley* Patrick Sheedy, Cdr., USN (Ret.)* Paul Shepherd, QM2* Robert B. Shirley, Lt.jg* William Shumadine* Stanley G. Simonson, GMG2* John Singleton, ENC Darryl Skuce, GMG2* John J. Skura* Gerald H. Smith* Bob Smith, GMG2 Gerald Smith Roy Smith* B. Tony Snesko BM2* Mike Solhaug* Dennis Spranger Jack Spratt, LCDR* David R. Stefferud, Capt., USN (Ret.)* James Steffes* Fred E. Stith, USN (Ret.)* Lawrence Stoneberg, Lt. USN (Ret.)* Weymouth Symmes, RDM* Tony Taylor W.P. "Sonny" Taylor* Dewey Thedford James P. Thomas* Eldon Thompson, Lt.jg* Larry Thurlow, Lt.jg Joseph Timmons, RD3, USN Charles R. Tinstman, ENC* Gary E. Townsend* William F. Trainer* Mark Tuft, Capt., USN (Ret.) Michael Turley, BM2* Chris J. Vedborg, RD3* Jeffrey M. Wainscott, Lt.jg* David Wallace* Greg Ward, EN2* Larry J. “Waz” Wasikowski, Cdr. U.S. Naval Reserve* Pete Webster* Robert T. Wedge, Jr., QM1, USN (Ret.)* Steven Weekley, GMG, QM3* George Wendell, En1, USN (Ret.) Bruce Wentworth, Lt., USNR George H. White, II* R. Shelton White, Lt.* Gary K. Whittington, EN3* James D. Wiggins* Tom Wilkins Thomas A. Withey, Lt.* Bernard Wolff* Thomas W. Wright, Cdr., USN (Ret.)* John Wyatt, GMG* John Yeoman, Lt.* Ex Officio (other military): Ross Barker, Capt. USN (Ret.) Joe Cantrell, Lt.jg, USNR Allan Clapp, ETR3, USN George Clatterbuck, CMSgt. USAF, Ret. Tony DeLuna David Desiderio, Cdr., USCG (Ret.) Verne DeWitt, MR1 Jim Fitzgerald Monte Gluck Don Higgins Larry Hobson Robert Johnson Walter Jones, USMC Adrian Lonsdale, Capt., USCG (Ret.) David P. Marion, CPT Infantry, US Army* Larry Meyer* Benjamin A. Montoya, QM3* Denny O'Brien Cordelia Ogrinz, in memory of her brother Alexander J. Ogrinz, III, Lt.* Rex Rectanus, VADM, USN (Ret.)* Skip Ridley* Jennings Rogerson II, Capt. USMC* (Ret.) John Slagle, Special agent, USBP (Ret.) Patrick Stevenson, Army Special Forces (Ret.) Emmett Tidd, Vice Admiral, USN, (Ret.)* Leslie "Butch" Vorphal, RD3, USN PCF 3 Steve Watts, Army Dennis D. Willess, EN3, Army Infantry* Raymond Wroten, SSgt., USMC (Ret.) James M. Zumwalt in memory of Elmo Zumwalt, Sr. and Elmo Zumwalt, Jr, his father and brother* ---------- * = signed original letter, presented May 4, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well take it up with Opus then because it's pretty obvious i could give a damn about how you consider Vets being misguided, but heres his take on it timestamped before you even confused yourself with him

Fine so you're going to use his arguments as to what your replying to ... now why don't you address the argument itself? Your original statement:

"so the Vietnam vets that oppose John Kerry are misguided (a polite way of saying naive or ignorant) because they couldn't appreciate the political nuance of his 1971 testimony regarding Nixon's failed strategy. (we're not even gonna mention his words and actions outside of that testimony that year. because if they couldn't appreciate the nuance of that, well to bad right?)"

Is still inaccurate regardless of whether you're applying it to MisterOpus's statement or mine. Please see my original argument.

quote:

convince me they are not genuine in what they believe, otherwise it's still a game. why can't Cleland be genuine? i don't think i said he wasn't. on the contrary, i claimed he's as genuine as the Vets but supports the man that would be president. you did, in fact, take Kerry's '71 testimony out of a real veterans contexed. real vets felt they were betrayed by that testimony, honest i'm not making it up. long before all this started. and not just his testimony, like i said, everthing he did that year real vets took real issue with it. and its come full circle hasn't it?

No no, you misunderstand the game. According to your system of credibility, Cleland is MORE genuine than any of the vets you utilize because he has obviously suffered more. Therefore unless you have a triple amputee backing you up, your arguments, and all of the statements put forth by your vets are insignificant. Look, I can't possibly ridicule this system of logic any further ... if you want to continue on the meaningless appeal to emotion fallacy than show me a vet who has suffered more than Cleland.

quote:

i made no bones about it. they do not want Kerry in office. that was the point in my statement. sorry i had to "dumb it down" for you. i can't make it any clearer.

No the point of your statement was that the primary concern of these vets was to keep Bush in office regardless of ALL OTHER CONCERNS. Look I'll quote you:

quote:

i have yet to hear an alterior motive other than they want Bush to remain in office.

Your point can't be made any "clearer" than your OWN WORDS.

quote:

i believe you are flat wrong calling them liars. they took time out of their lives and put their good name and legacy on the line in front of the nation. they say that John Kerry has not been honest with the people he is asking for help to put him in office. don't hurt youself trying to understand that. if you want to be enlightened talk to these people.

So you believe I'm wrong in calling them liars. Well for christ's sake you've been completely absent in making their case so WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE THAT ESTABLISHES THEIR CREDIBILITY????? Furthermore, you can make your silly appeals to emotion all you want, it doesn't matter because I only have one person you need to talk to: Max Cleland. And he trumps your entire list because he's suffered more! However, the crux of the entire argument is simpe: The Vietnam vets who are in a position to provide insight on Kerry's war record categorically side with Kerry. You have made little to no effort in addressing their arguments, you have made little to no effort in addressing the majority of MisterOpus's arguments, and you have made little to no efforts in addressing my arguments. Stop trying to obfuscate the issue and start debating facts. Thanks champ.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well take it up with Opus then because it's pretty obvious i could give a damn about how you consider Vets being misguided, but heres his take on it timestamped before you even confused yourself with him

I feel so honored to be quoted so often.

I stand by my statement, PROVIDED that this is the category from which any of these vets fall under.

quote:

convince me they are not genuine in what they believe, otherwise it's still a game.

Why is it up to Occ or anyone else for that matter to convince you that which you are supposed to demonstrate?

You just walked right into yet another logical fallacy - attemping to prove a negative. The burden is not on your debator to prove event "X" is true or not. Rather, the onus is on the individual making the claim to demonstrate event "X" is true or false.

So the onus is on you to demonstrate exactly what they believe as well as demonstrate the content of their beliefs is logically consistent. As of yet you have failed to do so.

quote:

why can't Cleland be genuine? i don't think i said he wasn't. on the contrary, i claimed he's as genuine as the Vets but supports the man that would be president.

Occ demonstrated where you're running into problems with your logic here.

quote:

you did, in fact, take Kerry's '71 testimony out of a real veterans contexed.

Explain. Be specific. We have successfully demonstrated the reverse - that some veterans have taken his testimony out of context, and what's worse, they've willfully done so in attempts to further smear Kerry.

YOU need to demonstrate how exactly Occ took his testimony out of context. The specific passage which Occ cited IS the passage in question, and it IS the passage being utilized (i.e. distorted) by some veterans. If Occ took his testimony out of context, please explain the FULL context in detail.

quote:

real vets felt they were betrayed by that testimony, honest i'm not making it up. long before all this started. and not just his testimony, like i said, everthing he did that year real vets took real issue with it. and its come full circle hasn't it?

Logical fallacies: Appeal to emotion, argument from authority

You have yet to argue why they feel as they do. Please do so now.

quote:

i believe you are flat wrong calling them liars. they took time out of their lives and put their good name and legacy on the line in front of the nation. they say that John Kerry has not been honest with the people he is asking for help to put him in office.

I would certainly appreciate what these Swifties would say IF they had consistency in what they are saying. As it stands now, the 13 or so individuals who say they've actually served tours with Kerry and were part of his wounds and medals have been riddled and caught with contradictory statements, both in what they have said and what has been reported by Navy records. What's worse, a number of so-called eyewitness Swifties for Truth have finally confessed to actually not being TRUE eyewitnesses! Ain't that great? Not only have some been caught contradicting themselves with previous statements of praises for Kerry, but a few have been caught lying about actually being there to witness the events!

So when someone is caught lying about an event in efforts to hurt the credibility of someone else, doesn't that kinda disturb you a little about these guys?

quote:

don't hurt youself trying to understand that. if you want to be enlightened talk to these people.

You know, I kinda find something funny about this list of some 254 veterans. My question is this - is this all the Smear Boat private investigators could muster? I mean really, how many veterans do we have from the Vietnam War? Let's keep something in mind about these guys listed here - only a handful of 13 or so ACTUALLY claim to have been witnesses to the events of Kerry's actions in question, and as it's been demonstrated, this small handful have been riddled with lies and inconsistencies in their own statements. That leaves only about 241 or so WHO WERE NEVER involved with any of Kerry's actions in the war.

Now that's not what the Smear Boaters would want you to initially believe, but they will eventually concede that point and mention that the rest of the Smear boys have something against what Kerry stood for AFTER the war (actually the 13 supposed eyewitnesses do too). This was the basis of their 2nd attack ad, which is what we've discussed so far. You, however, have yet to present their arguments logically. Instead, you've relied on fallacious arguments of emotion, authority, and population to support your assertions. That will not work here - you must present the content of their arguments logically here. If you cannot do so, simply retract your argument until you can.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Ya know, after what Bob Dole said the other day, I really don't know whether some of these guys have bled enough to deserve a purple heart:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery.htm

I mean, only one freakin' eye blown out?

C'mon.

My grandfather still has all his limbs.

He should probably give back his purple heart too.