Bush and Cheney in Vietnam?

[jdbolick]

Perknose:
I know it is societally valuable, but I don't find humility to be particularly attractive. I know my limitations, and being able to admit when I am wrong does tend to make me more nimble and reactive than some other highly confident individuals. And actually I am so stupidly puffed about myself, I was simply phrasing it in what I found to be a humorous manner. That you did not is unfortunate, but I most often tell jokes for my own amusement. I meant to take a humorous jab at what I have seen to be a rather disappointing level of intellectual discourse, at least in the P&N section since I know that I'm dwarfed in the technological sections (I actually came to read opinions on when to upgrade and what to get), and get all the pleasantries out of the way since a horde of nattering liberals were already nipping at my heels and dismissing my perspectives out of hand. The fact is that I do pretty much always destroy those who seek to debate against me, but I'm actually always looking for a good challenge. After all, there's nothing quite like losing to make you better at something.

For the record I'm 26 and have met a number of individuals smarter than myself in an overall sense, then a great many more who are far more knowledgeable than me in any one particular area. My strengths seem to be adaptability and avoidance of common mistakes like stubborn allegiance to a position or blatant bias. At first I tend to be a curiousity or inspire dislike, but I find that over time I garner a healthy respect even from those who have extreme distaste for my particular politics. As you say, time will tell, although it remains to be seen whether or not I'll stick around. I haven't been much for message boards over the past several years. They tend to be idle and all too disappointing amusements.


But like I said, my humor takes a bit of getting used to and I amuse myself quite often.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: jdbolick
I apologize for posting the entire article, but you have to register to view it, so I figured few would bother if I didn't post the full text. But the link is at the Chicago Tribune.

CLEVELAND -- In a campaign unusually focused on the Vietnam War, Sen. John Kerry trained his criticism on Vice President Dick Cheney Tuesday, saying it is "inappropriate" for Cheney to criticize his military service when he "got every deferment in the world and decided he had better things to do."

A day after Cheney questioned Kerry's credibility on national security, the Massachusetts senator went after the vice president--in addition to President Bush--as he took his campaign bus tour from economically depressed Youngstown to the shores of Lake Erie. Though Kerry met with two unemployed people and stopped by a construction site to greet workers here, the Democrat's focus shifted for a second day in a row to questions of military service.

"I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard, and a vice president who got every deferment in the world and decided he had better things to do, criticizing somebody who fought for their country and served," Kerry told the Dayton Daily News. "I think it's inappropriate. I think it shows how desperate the Republicans are. They don't have a record to run on. They have a record to run away from."

I'd just like to point out, jdbolick, that there is a difference between condemning someone for receiving deferments and condemning someone who, after receiving deferments, criticizes someone elses service record. Follow me?

And one more thing. I have the Santa avatar registered at Anand's Board of Registrations. I have for some time now. So you'll have to compensate me if you decide to continue using it. Let me know through PM and I'll send you my address. Paypal is preferred.

 

[jdbolick]

Gaard:
Your point might be valid except for the fact that Kerry is critizing Cheney specifically for avoiding the Vietnam conflict by receiving deferments. Clearly he's attempting to say "I served, he didn't!" even though Kerry received those same deferments until he graduated, at which point he sought more deferments unsuccessfully. I think even Cheney has been clear that Kerry's Vietnam service is to be admired, but that doesn't mean that Kerry's claims about that service should go unchallenged. Like with me for instance, I have enormous respect for anyone who serves in the military, but that does not mean I can't or shouldn't question whether or not the person is exaggerating or misrepresenting that service. Nor does military service alone necessarily mean that someone is a good person or qualified political leader.

And I really don't think there's any defense for Kerry insinuating that Bush was a deserter. That was completely out of line and while many are aware of the mistreatment of returning Vietnam vets, few seem to acknowledge the abuse that has been hurled on those who served in the National Guard at that time, often by those vets. As I mentioned earlier, my father was in the Guard during that period.



As for the avatar, I apologize for sullying its reputation but it's just too darn cute to change.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: jdbolick
Gaard:
Your point might be valid except for the fact that Kerry is critizing Cheney specifically for avoiding the Vietnam conflict by receiving deferments. Clearly he's attempting to say "I served, he didn't!" even though Kerry received those same deferments until he graduated, at which point he sought more deferments unsuccessfully. I think even Cheney has been clear that Kerry's Vietnam service is to be admired, but that doesn't mean that Kerry's claims about that service should go unchallenged. Like with me for instance, I have enormous respect for anyone who serves in the military, but that does not mean I can't or shouldn't question whether or not the person is exaggerating or misrepresenting that service. Nor does military service alone necessarily mean that someone is a good person or qualified political leader.

And I really don't think there's any defense for Kerry insinuating that Bush was a deserter. That was completely out of line and while many are aware of the mistreatment of returning Vietnam vets, few seem to acknowledge the abuse that has been hurled on those who served in the National Guard at that time, often by those vets. As I mentioned earlier, my father was in the Guard during that period.



As for the avatar, I apologize for sullying its reputation but it's just too darn cute to change.

Ok, I reread it and it does seem like he's criticizing Cheney merely for receiving a deferment. A little hypocritical of Kerry. I yield that point...though I adamantly deny being "crushed".


I am a little bothered by these two statements by you...

"...but that does not mean I can't or shouldn't question whether or not the person is exaggerating or misrepresenting that service."

"And I really don't think there's any defense for Kerry insinuating that Bush was a deserter. That was completely out of line"

 

[jdbolick]

You deny being crushed because your feeble ego is incapable of recovering from the mighty blow.


Anyway, what I mean about questioning someone's service is showing some skepticism as to any claims of particular bravado. I think the claims that Kerry's Purple Heart wounds were self-inflicted is outrageous and way out of line unless someone has some pretty hard evidence. The same goes with calling someone a deserter, which is probably the absolute worst thing you can ever say about a person in the military. But on the other hand I don't think it's outrageous at all to question whether or not Kerry was as good a soldier as he claims, or if he's being honest about his motivations. After all, has Kerry ever mentioned the fact that he got deferments while in college or sought additional ones after graduating in his political ads or speeches? No, he talks about how he volunteered, which is technically true but certainly misleading. I understand being misleading in a political race, but it's the job of the media and voters to question exactly that kind of thing.

I don't know how best to phrase it, I just think there's a difference between being skeptical and being insulting. Perhaps part of the differentiation could be evidentiary support. After all, not a single person who served with Bush has ever questioned whether or not he was present, not even Democrats. Therefore calling him a deserter just because the records were incomplete was beyond harsh and well out of line.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: jdbolick
You deny being crushed because your feeble ego is incapable of recovering from the mighty blow.


Anyway, what I mean about questioning someone's service is showing some skepticism as to any claims of particular bravado. I think the claims that Kerry's Purple Heart wounds were self-inflicted is outrageous and way out of line unless someone has some pretty hard evidence. The same goes with calling someone a deserter, which is probably the absolute worst thing you can ever say about a person in the military. But on the other hand I don't think it's outrageous at all to question whether or not Kerry was as good a soldier as he claims, or if he's being honest about his motivations. After all, has Kerry ever mentioned the fact that he got deferments while in college or sought additional ones after graduating in his political ads or speeches? No, he talks about how he volunteered, which is technically true but certainly misleading. I understand being misleading in a political race, but it's the job of the media and voters to question exactly that kind of thing.

I don't know how best to phrase it, I just think there's a difference between being skeptical and being insulting. Perhaps part of the differentiation could be evidentiary support. After all, not a single person who served with Bush has ever questioned whether or not he was present, not even Democrats. Therefore calling him a deserter just because the records were incomplete was beyond harsh and well out of line.

I see. I see a lot of "I think"s and "I don't think"s, so we're really talking about your opinion here. Once we get there, we're no longer in a place where we can 'prove' things. I can't really say that your opinion is wrong, all I can do is say that, in MY opinion, it's perfectly acceptable to question our president's honesty regarding his service record.

And I must say, from reading this present reply and this one from earlier..."and the major media until the Pentagon finally found all his pay receipts, proving he was there every single week"...I question your knowledge on the subject of Bush's NG records.

 

[jdbolick]

Gaard:
Actually it's a common fallacy that opinions can't be proven wrong, or that they don't have differentiated value. I always point to the fact that people hire financial planners, etc when essentially they're buying that person's opinion. Opinions are generally valued by their logical consistency, evidentiary support, and utility. But anyway, in this particular case we are talking about something that is largely subjective, but I think we can evaluate it based on commonly accepted societal principles. Calling someone a deserter is more or less akin to saying their mother is a whore, etc, in the form that it's extremely insulting and of a very serious nature. Questioning someone's claims, on the other hand, is more or less routine. For example, this largely liberal board has been questioning my claims right and left, but that's fine. Meanwhile if someone called me a deserter or said that my mother was a whore, that would be a bit more serious and would need some substantial degree of evidence to have any legitimacy and therefore be somewhat acceptable according to societal standards.

Regarding the NG records, that was reported about a month ago by the Pentagon, although it was buried if mentioned at all by the mainstream media. That bothered me considering how widely they reported his "possible desertion" even though there were no witnesses or any evidence whatsoever that he hadn't fulfilled his responsibilities. The entire thing originated with Terry McAuliffe, head of the DNC, and in my opinion - spawn of Satan (evidenced by the horns, tail, and accumulation of poisonous bile).

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I yield that point...though I adamantly deny being "crushed".

Dude, you weren't "crushed", you were destroyed. :roll:


Welcome to the forums jdbolick, I'm sure you're gonna piss off a whole lotta lefties during your stay here. One small piece of advice from one conservative asshole to another: Bragging about how you "destroy" your political adversaries is a meaningless task that only leads to being ignored or ridiculed by those worthy of debate and/or respect. Folly indeed as its consequence is a ping on the radar of the morons who populate this forum. Learn from my mistakes.........and leave them to me. :evil:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jdbolick

Originally posted by: conjur
That's not an attack, jdbolick. That's defending himself and is completely valid.

:roll: When you say things like that, you look like a stubborn, blind, biased ultra-liberal to all people who aren't stubborn, blind, biased ultra-liberals themselves. Denying the obvious is just silly. I don't deny that Bush sounds retarded when he talks, laughs like a villain, made a questionable decision in Iraq, has spent way too much money, and numerous other slights against him. Kerry did attack Cheney for getting deferments even though Kerry also got those same educational deferments and tried to get more. Kerry also did attack Bush on his National Guard service, insinuating that he was a deserter. Has Kerry apologized for that now that the full records have come to light? No. Has he stopped insinuating that Bush was a deserter? Yes, because he was proven wrong.

Kerry only responded in defense after having been attacked by the Bush campaign.

When you say things like "you look like a stubborn, blind, biased ultra-liberal to all people who aren't stubborn, blind, biased ultra-liberals themselves" you come off as the right-wing partisan hack that you are. You are completely new here and take my anti-Bush/pro-Kerry stance to mean I'm a "lib".

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

How wrong you are!

 

[Corn]

I am a walking, talking, self-fufilling prophecy. Bless you Conjur....it's like I've got a crystal ball or something.

 

[conjur]

WTF are you spewing about now, Corn?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jdbolick

Originally posted by: conjur
That's not an attack, jdbolick. That's defending himself and is completely valid.

:roll: When you say things like that, you look like a stubborn, blind, biased ultra-liberal to all people who aren't stubborn, blind, biased ultra-liberals themselves. Denying the obvious is just silly. I don't deny that Bush sounds retarded when he talks, laughs like a villain, made a questionable decision in Iraq, has spent way too much money, and numerous other slights against him. Kerry did attack Cheney for getting deferments even though Kerry also got those same educational deferments and tried to get more. Kerry also did attack Bush on his National Guard service, insinuating that he was a deserter. Has Kerry apologized for that now that the full records have come to light? No. Has he stopped insinuating that Bush was a deserter? Yes, because he was proven wrong.

Kerry only responded in defense after having been attacked by the Bush campaign.

When you say things like "you look like a stubborn, blind, biased ultra-liberal to all people who aren't stubborn, blind, biased ultra-liberals themselves" you come off as the right-wing partisan hack that you are. You are completely new here and take my anti-Bush/pro-Kerry stance to mean I'm a "lib".

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

How wrong you are!

You are right, jdbodlick. Even the libs think conjur is a lib. He's the only one in denial.

LOL edit: ok never mind I was going to fix the typo, but , I like J. D. BodLick better

 

[conjur]

The only people up here who think I'm a "lib" are the Bush-God fanbois such as yourself, alchemize.

Most others know me for what I am...someone who goes off issues and doesn't toe any party lines. How else would you explain my ardent support of Bush up until this past winter, eh?

BTW, I don't think jdbolick would appreciate your homoerotic mispelling of his name.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: conjur
WTF are you spewing about now, Corn?

How do you keep a moron in suspense?




































































































































Maybe I'll explain it to you tomorrow, Conjur.

 

[conjur]

Just as I thought. You're just typing to see your name in print. I don't know why I bother with attention whores like yourself.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: conjur
The only people up here who think I'm a "lib" are the Bush-God fanbois such as yourself, alchemize.

Most others know me for what I am...someone who goes off issues and doesn't toe any party lines. How else would you explain my ardent support of Bush up until this past winter, eh?

I never questioned what you WERE, I'm saying what you are NOW. For example, if you are disenfranchised with bush, but you really are a republican, then why this post?:

Nothing but old, tired, GOP talking points with a Cajun twist on the vocabulary.

And we have other posts, such as the one ripping on Keyes, etc.

But anyhoo, continue in your little fantasy world, I don't mind :beer:

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: conjur
Just as I thought. You're just typing to see your name in print. I don't know why I bother with attention whores like yourself.

Glutton for punishment, most likely.