From Moore to Swift Boats

[Valkenar]

Bottom line I really don't think the Kerry camp has room to be pointing fingers about folks changeing their minds.

Little to much glass in that particular house to be throwing stones at others

Changing your mind is one thing, changing your memory is a little more suspicious. It's not just a question of someone going from a position of supporting Kerry to being against him. That's perfectly reasonable. But if he goes from saying "I was with Kerry in a boat that got shot at" to "Kerry was never in a boat that got shot at" Well that's different. And I personally disagree very much with that old glass house aphorism. Just because someone is guilty of some sort of dubious practice doesn't mean they can't accurately point out when someone else is doing it.

And here's a random aside. I don't understand why people get so up in arms about the idea that a politician changes his mind on issues. Much more important than whether a politician changes his mind is why he changes his mind. I would fear anybody who has been involved in politcs for years and never flip-flopped on an issue, because that means they're unwilling to admit they were wrong, unwilling to listen to reason and evidence, or more concerned with their reputation than with doing the right thing. Of course there is an opposite extreme of changing your position at any mild pressure from any side.

A president needs to be resistant to persuasion, but flexible at the same time.

[cxt]

Vaulkenar

"Just because someone is guilty of some sort of dubious practice doesn't mean they can't accuratly point out someone else doing it."

Yes it does--its called hypocrisy.

And its wrong no matter whom is doing it.

Plus--

So its wrong if a guy stood up on a stage with a bunch of other guys in support of Kerry--then changes his mind 8 years later?

See, what you have done is argue that its OK for a Senator etc to "flip flop" but NOT OK for a private citizan.

In my view if your saying its ok for Kerry to change his mind--as he has done all over the place-then you (and other of course) have no room to kick when a private citizen does it.

Same rules should apply to everyone, not just the "important" folks.

Lets not forget that many of Kerrys statments are not simple "flip flops" on the issues.

The man (on camara) publically stated that he had personal knowloge of US troops commiting various war crimes.

Thats either true or its not.

If true, as an officer he was obligated to report it and see too it that those involved were punished.

If its not, well then that was a little lie then was it not?

Not just picking on Kerry, I am pretty disgusted with the whole process.

Getting tired of voteing for the perosn that has the LEAST problems.

Presidents should be the best possible person for the job.

Not the perosn with the least negitives.

[Valkenar]

Vaulkenar
Yes it does--its called hypocrisy.

And its wrong no matter whom is doing it.

You didn't get my point. Hypocrisy is bad but it doesn't render everything someone says false. If two thieves are detailing the crimes of the other, you convict both, not neither. If I gain a lot of weight, I can still point out people who are also overweight. Similarly, Kerry has changed his mind on a number of issues. That doesn't mean that he's *incorrect* when he points out that someone else also has.

So its wrong if a guy stood up on a stage with a bunch of other guys in support of Kerry--then changes his mind 8 years later?

How can I say this more clearly? There's a difference between saying "I think birds are pretty" and changing your mind to "birds are not pretty." That's a matter of opinion. "I saw John Kerry got shot at" vs. " I did not see John Kerry get shot at" is a matter fact.

There's nothing wrong with deciding you do or do not like birds. But if someone says they saw something, and now says they didn't, then it's exceedingly likely they were lieing either then, or now.

See, what you have done is argue that its OK for a Senator etc to "flip flop" but NOT OK for a private citizan.

No, a private citizen and a senator are equally reasonable for changing their minds on matters of opinion, or understanding of complex issues. What is not OK is for anyone, senator or other, to say one thing that is a simple, emperical fact, and then say its opposite.

Lets not forget that many of Kerrys statments are not simple "flip flops" on the issues.

What statements are you referring to? I looked up a few to make sure I wasn't totally off-base and on the two or three websites I sampled, his flip-flop statements are matters of policy or opinion.

The man (on camara) publically stated that he had personal knowloge of US troops commiting various war crimes.

If he said that, and its opposite, then he lied in one of those cases. But even if he didn't report the crimes as he should've at the time (which is understandable, if not excusable) I'm glad he owned up to it later.

Getting tired of voteing for the perosn that has the LEAST problems.

Well, you can always go ahead and vote for the person you think is best and ignore the fact that you may as well stay home. At least you'll be doing the right thing. Or you can get active in reforming our campaigning and election processes and beat your head against a wall of entrenched politicians.

[cxt]

Vaulkenar

No, I got your point, just don't think it holds water.

A person that cheats on his wife has no room to point fingers at others.

Not a question of "false" its a question of ethics.

Look at it like this, to use your example, yes you can--assueming you gain a lot of weight--to point at other overweight folks.

You run into problems however when you:

A-Castigagate them for being overweight--a problem you BOTH share-thus its at best foolish of YOU to "label" them.

You in effect have labeled yourself.

B-Failing to recognize that BOTH of you are overweight.

Either way you cut it.

Hurts your case--at best your no different, at worst your a hypocrit.

To tie it back directly to Kerry:

A-To use your logic--just because some "else" may also have "flip-flopped" does not mean its "inacurate" to point out that KERRY has done so.

Sorry, your getting cut by your own argument here.

B-Since you are also overweight you can't really use the fact OTHERS are overweight to make yourself look good.

Thats back to the "glass house" argement you don't like.

So now your saying its NOT ok for a citizen or Senator to say "a simple emperical fact and then say the opposite"

(my para-phrase)

Would that include:

"I was in Cambodia on Christamas day"

"I have a SUV"

"I Don't own an SUV"

See all those are statement of fact--which he reversed--so now your argueing with yourself.

He either lies or he does not.

I don't see "Iwas in Cambodia on Christmas day" as a simple "flip flop" this is more alon gthe lines of "puffery" at best--outright lie at worst.

Either way does not fill me with confidence.

For my money the guy will say whatever he thinks is the person in front of him wants to hear.

Please read your last staement on Kerrys testamony on "war crimes"

Guy claimes to have personal knowloge of war crimes being commited.

Thats either a lie-which you have already stated is NOT GOOD.

Or its the truth--if the true he was required to name names and see that justice was done--as did a number of others who showed the courage to step up and help prosacute the criminals.

Other people DID names names and people were sent to Levenworth for it.

Could not Kerry have done the same?

Why not?--if true he could have help bring war criminals to justice.
Again, either way does not look good for Kerry.

[IJ]

Talk about a discredited source.... Ann Coulter has an entire cottage industry following her absurd and unrepetent name-alling and lying spree in all manner of media. I have read several worse authors than this vacuous, ankle biting yap dog of a columnist who's worsened the plights of blond women everywhere, but they were all in a freshman college fiction writing course I took--and at least they all meant well.

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian

Perhaps there's something about a vacuous blonde that you don't "get."

Just teasing, buddy!

Appearances have their advantages in life. Unfortunately they don't come across on paper.

- Bill

[Panther]

Talk about a discredited source.... Ann Coulter has an entire cottage industry following her absurd and unrepetent name-alling and lying spree in all manner of media.

I'm sure it is a business for her. But you say that it's "absurd", "lying" and "unrepentant name-{c}alling" and that she's a "discredited source". The problem is, you've done nothing to rebut any of the substance of her article and only responded with accusations.

I have read several worse authors than this vacuous, ankle biting yap dog of a columnist who's worsened the plights of blond women everywhere, but they were all in a freshman college fiction writing course I took--and at least they all meant well.

Again, you accused her of "name-calling" and without any debate, discussion or substantive rebuttal have spent an entire post calling her names and resorting to insults.

You are one of the first to get upset and accuse those who disagree with your viewpoint of resorting to name-calling and insults, but here is your response. It seems unnecessary to point out the pot & kettle analogy... James Carville would be proud.

[Panther]

Folks,

Thusfar things have been fairly civil.

Please keep it that way.

The rules of this forum are still posted at the beginning of this forum, if you're unsure, re-read them.

[Valkenar]

Cxt:

I agree that pointing out flaws in others that you posess yourself exposes you, rightly, to criticism along the same lines. But that doesn't mean it's morally wrong to point out those flaws.

And it won't make you a better person in absolute terms, but it can make people realize you're better than someone else. Somewhat lame example: if Bob is smart but dishonest, and Tom is less-smart but falsely considered honest, people will like Tom better. If people knew of Tom's dishonesty they'd like Bob better, so I think it's all to the good if Bob reveals Tom's equal dishonesty.

The swift boat thing isn't about Kerry establishing that he's not a liar, it's about establishing that he's a legitimate war-hero. It doesn't make Kerry less of a liar if his accusers are lying, but it does mean that he's still a war hero (if he's right).

In a more extreme fictional example, if someone falsely called Kerry a child molester, pointing out that it's a lie would not make Kerry less of a liar. But better to remind everyone of his lies than be wrongly thought a child molester.

I don't think that having ever told a lie means you're morally obligated to be silent if other people make up lies about you.

"I have a SUV"

"I Don't own an SUV"

If he said these things then one is a lie. As a matter of fact, I'm sure Kerry is a liar. I'm also sure Bush is a liar. I'm pretty sure 99% of politicians are liars.

As far as Bush vs. Kerry goes, there's no shortage of Bush lieing about things.

[cxt]

Vaulkenar

Thats the main reason that politics are so nasty--I have real problems trusting ANY of them.

Seems that honesty is no longer a character trait that gets you elected.

Too much "whats in it for me"--and too little public service.

This bi-partisan "in-fighting" while the nations boarders are not secure is criminal.

This infighting about whom and how the new intellegence depts should be run-criminal

Infighting rather than fixing any number of serious problems.

Catering to special interest groups a the expense of the citizenry.

On the other hand its been pointed out that we get the gov we ask for.

Really no-one to blame but us.

[Valkenar]

Seems that honesty is no longer a character trait that gets you elected.

Was it ever, truly? Maybe it's just that since watergate we've been less implicitly trusting. Also when scandal is page one and oops-no-scandal-afterall is page 60 next to the personals, there's a strong incentive to get away with as many accusations as possible.

Really no-one to blame but us.

Yup. Most people are too absorbed with their daily lives to do the mountain of research needed to make wise decisions. And here's some of that hypocrisy you hate. I know I should do more investigation of all these things, but I can't bring myself to devote all my free time to knowing that even if I did I wouldn't be able to get all the facts.

[Paul_C]

Quote:

I have an SUV
I don't own an SUV

Maybe he's leasing it?

Quote:

Yup. Most people are too absorbed with their daily lives to do the mountain of research needed to make wise decisions. And here's some of that hypocrisy you hate. I know I should do more investigation of all these things, but I can't bring myself to devote all my free time to knowing that even if I did I wouldn't be able to get all the facts.

You would think the Media should be acting as a filter for all of these accusations, so we wouldn't have to spend all of our time trying to check the facts. Unfortunately it seems the media is just as bad as the 527's.

[IJ]

Sideline:

It's almost TOO easy, Panther, which is why I didn't bother. Yeah, I know I called her a name, but they're all supportable by her comments except for perhaps ankle biting yap dog. That you have to see her speak for. Here are some outright lies she's told that should keep her out of public commentary forever.

In the conclusion of "slander," she accuses the NY Times of being out of step with americans because they ran no story on Deal Earnhardt's racing death for 2 days (presumably when others made the story a story they couldn't ignore). He died 2/18/01, they ran the story the next day.

Ann claims she was born in 1963 (her DC license) though her CT license says it was 1961, and that would have made her 16 when she registered to vote, which means she either committed voter fraud or got a falsified drivers license from DC or just lied to the other state.

She claimed that Newsweek bureau chief Evan Thomas was the son of 4 times socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas. Norman actually ran 6 times and is not related to Evan.

She writes in a manner that accuses people of things they didn't do or say, for example, she quotes the NY Times as saying clarence thomas is a "house negro" and a "chicken-and-biscuit-eating uncle tom," but doesn't explain that the newspaper was QUOTING someone when they ran that.

She writes "NY Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that Ascroft stop monkeying around with muslim terrorists and concentrate on antiabortion extremists." He didn't.

She claims the NY times implied a link between christianity and nazism, and again she claims the newspaper is stating what in fact they are only quoting a critic of the catholic church in a balanced article.

She does improper searches for coverage on certain topics and then reports that, again, the NY Times didn't cover the event. When a proper search is done the coverage is located.

She reported the christian science monitor as noting that reagans approval dropped only 5 points during iran contra to 75; the actual numbers were from 63 to 47.

Ann herself: "we should invade their countires, kill their leaders, and convert them to christianity."

She joked "my only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." She also called political debate in the USA "insufferable ... it's all liberal's fault." She claims liberals only call people names, and among the names she uses are "birdbrain, halfwit, boob, DUMM, airhead," etc.

There's more if people are interested. Write for sources and exact references. (I hear that...

www.salon.com
www.dailyhowler.com
www.spinsanity.org
.... are entertaining, but have not yet visited myself.)

[cxt]

IJ

Honestly not trying to be a pain.

At least that is not my intent.

But this is exactly the kind of bi-partisen "finger-pointing"
that makes things so rancorous.

You do an excellent job of point out the inconsistancies in her work.

But where is your anger at Micheal Moores faked up movie?

Are you not the slightest bit irked at his fakery and conclusions basied not upon reality but on an political agenda.

I mean you to talk about contradictory statements--the man stated that Walmart is an evil company and no one that cares should do business with it.

Want to guess who the largest distributer of his movies are?

Also the same guy that stated on national TV that the "rich" folks should be taxed "70 percent"

What to guess if his is turning over "70 percent" of the profits from his movie???

Man builds an entire movie around a idea that multiple independent investigations have shown o be false.

Also totally ignores the sworn statements of Clarke himself.

Who by the way is a substantial focus of his movie.

Where is your commentary about Al Frankens "fact twisting?"

He is also a pretty nasty little guy--equally as venomous as Colter.

How about Garolflao (sorry don't know how she spells it)
Saw her the other night ranting about the various evils of the USA--got to tell you her "read" of history is quite suspect.

And its equally as bad fron the right.

Point is that all were going to get until we drop the "business as usual" bi-partisen ugly and demand better from our representatives and the media.

Not holding my breath on this one.

Two wrongs most certianly don't make a right (although 3 lefts will-sort of)

[IJ]

I was asked to defend my comments on Coulter so I did so.

No one has to be equally mad at every duplicitous commentator. No one has asked you, for example, to write a polemic against Ann Coulter, nor have you, nor do I recall anyone denouncing Ann Coulter on the Michael Moore thread, nor do I recall anyone being noted to fail to do so. His work was discussed, it was slammed; her work was discussed, I slammed it.

I AM *less* mad at Moore because he ackowledges his biased presentations, because his work contains some insights as well as some lies. He also has plenty of vocal distractors here, Ann doesn't. And, as I have oft admitted, I cannot stand our current President. I've acknowledged Moore's faults and have not paid a penny to see any of his work, and have not seen F911 at all. I don't support him hypocritically dealing with Walmart; for the record, I don't support Rosie for slamming guns then hiring armed body guards. But I don't think MM has to turn over 70% of his proceeds until the government accepts his offer to tax him at 70%.

I know nothing of Garolfolo except I do believe I caught her in "The truth about cats and dogs." If she's a nutcase, ok. As for Franken, the man has a philosophical bent, like Coulter, just diametrically opposed, and like her, he makes jokes, sometimes mean, or even crude. What makes them different is that she deliberately lies 100 times in each book she writes and to my knowledge the only correction to Franken's book on limbaugh or his more recent "Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them" came from Franken himself and concerns an error that was not intentional and probably correct at the time of its printing.