RCow

Testy, testy.

It took all of 10 seconds to find the email is bogus. Imagine that? Yet another internet smear Claim: The current flu vaccine shortage is attributable to a lawsuit handled by Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards. Status: False. The lawsuit premise is also extremely faulty. Just flip on the TV, for two weeks nearly every public health expert dismissed the link between lawsuits and the shortage.

Ah, "AD and Rich . . . Perfect Together."

Hmmm, I think you got something there. My dog said the exact same thing.

Is this a joke? The circular logic is mind numbing. All idiots eat apples, if you even try to prove that's not true you must be an idiot. (Hmmm. anarchistic logic, perhaps?) I guess 95% of the board are idiots because they support one of the two major candidates. So, your role is to let everyone know they are idiots. By your logic, soon after people form into a Party the organization will cease to be legitmate or serve the purpose of the political philosophy. Hence, to actually offer a Party or Presidential candidate is to automatically qualify ones self as part of the hopeless status quo. (This is mighty close to anarchism, isn't it?). That's perfect for you, the ultimate win-win situation, perfectly suited for no solution, no alternative and no debate. Then its back to your regularly scheduled one-sided B word session.

It has everything to do with individual candidates and parties. Are you saying there isn't a single candidate or party that comes even close to your personal politcal views? Are you saying the whole system is hopeless, that maybe we should have a revolution to start over? Of course, we wouldn't really know since you NEVER offer an articulate, rationale or realistic alternative to anything.

I know I get under your skin but it would end if you just be honest. It's really a very simple question -- who will YOU vote for, why do you support that person, and how are they better than the candidates you continually crap all over. Why are you immune to such criticism? I suppose you think your free to crap all over other people and not be held accountable for your own opinion. What a boring place this would be if no one ever said who they supported for President because they were afraid to be criticized. You want to talk hypocracy? It's laughable. Yeah, I may have a thing about posting partisan crap as a legitimate source of news but I'm honest about it. I've told you and others exactly why I think it's a bad PPP form and have no problem calling people out on it. Do I concentrate on the Right's cites, yeah probably guilty, but I do not even join conversations or threads when done on the left. I probably should . . . This place gets very dull when we're simply citing partisan commentary as news without ever admitting that it's just opinions and the source and its agenda should be questioned. If you really need to know, the sabbaticals are due to work. You know, a job. Sorry if I can't spend as much time here as you. Nice of you to say you missed me.

Coming from someone who just a parrot it would seem odd to even respond to your post. However, since you feel inclinded to speak for me I will tell you that your absolutlely wrong. Not to say I usually agree with him but I have great respect for BiB, he's one of my favorite posters, thoughtful and intelligent and not afraid to say exactly what he believes, not just a line or two from talk show dittohead script sheets. He may have thought I was disrespectful re: his recent links but quite frankly he probably knows as much about those issues as the partisan hack pieces without having to use the sources. I wanted to respond further to our discussion on the Vietnam War but didn't have the time. It would be nice to have more threads like that one.

Yes, Herr Typo. You take style, I'll take substance.

I'm now convinced you really don't know what hypocracy means. I mean you can cite it in a dicationary but you don't know how its applied. I've cited Friedman and the others quite a lot thank you. I have explained myself quite clearly that both sides should be honest and not offer commentators with clear partisan and unobjective agendas as anything other than opinion that should be taken with more than a grain of salt. If we want to play that game we can just continually link them without ever making a point. I provided a list of those I believe have the greatest amount of credibility and you can't even offer a candidate.

Well, gall darn, that WAS funny. Especially after you take it totally out of the context of the conversation. Though things tend to be funnier when there's more than a hint of truth.

Hey, go ahead and believe what Novak says. May as well read RNC press releases while your at it. I like Paul Gigot, Robert Kagan, Tom Friedman, David Broder, David Gergen, Kevin Phillips, Tim Russert, Jeff Greenfield, Michael Barone, Andrew Sullivan, Richard Cohen, David Remnick, John B. Judis to name a few. I find these people to more or less balanced -- that is, they are likely to praise and criticize both sides and find fault with those they lean toward. I don't see many pieces ready made by the DNC and RNC press shops.

I will send you ten dollars for every time I have cited anyone of these sources. Better yet, show me a source I've cited that you can legitimetly say has a left wing agenda and the information is suspect. You can say it but it isn't true.

Let's see -- it certainly wouldn't start with you . . . I'd rather go to someone other than Bob Novak for truth. You did know he's a RNC mouthpiece, right? You can't be that out of touch. I don't see me quoting or citing many Molly Ivins columns, do you?

If you're searching for the Truth, Bob Novak is the place to start.

So, in a democracy, we are to say nothing that "could" "aid and abett" the enemy? Who is to make those decisions? You? The government? The military? Should we have a "Minister of Things Not Say?" Do you really think the country is that weak that we can't tell the truth? Anyone could say almost anything that could be construde as aiding and abetting, it's called propoganda. Just turn on right wing radio for a few minutes. The NVA did not need an excuse to torture the POWs, they could have used anything for propoganda and get away with it -- they were the antithesis of the US democracy. Kerry's comments were powerful because they were true; things could not have gotten much worse by that time and he said what nearly everyone knew was the truth. Save your reading list, I've read plenty to believe that public opinion reflected the true state of affairs. We didn't win because to win because to do what was necessary to win the on the ground battles wouldn't secure the objective: keep South Vietnam non-communist. Half the time we were fighting the very people we were sent to protect, while the other half was pretty indifferent. There wasn't a democracy in place and most SVN believed we were there to preserve the current corrupt, incompetent and vicious dictatorship. How could we win such a war? There was no clamor for democracy, no founding fathers, no George Washington, no call to arms from the people. What were they fighting for? The whole country was constructed with rubber bands and glue because it did not stand on a democratic foundation. To help a stablize and assist a nation the US has to be on the same page as the people we proport to help. You can't talk a country's citizenry into something they don't necessarily want or believe will ever happen. If we don't have the same goal and convince them that once we all achieve it we'll leave. So, yes, I agree it may have been militarily possible to drive most of the NVA out of South Vietnam -- for a time, and at what cost? What was the objective? Just to be non-communist? To estabilish a Democracy? What did the people of SVN want? What did they expect? What were they "fighting" for? Like almost every war it usually starts when we know what we fighting AGAINST, it only ends when we know what were fighting FOR.

Are you on the ballot anywhere? Don't suppose you qualified for matching funds, because I could be monetarily persuaded.

JSP, you already disqualified yourself by saying why you're voting for Bush. Plus, I knew where you stood before pledging your support (albiet reluctantly) for the incumbent.

You'll have to tell me to which question I've replied "no." It is not a rationalization. If the world is so black and white by your rationalization the POWs were tortured BECAUSE of Kerry's comments and for no other reason. By your logic, if Kerry never existed or no Vet or US citizen ever spoke out against the war the POWs would never have been tortured. It's absurd. Why? Because the world is not pretty black and white. By your rationalization the world, the soliders and the POWs would have been better off if US citizens did not oppose the Vietnam War; we would have been better off if they had kept their mouths closed and soliders like Kerry did not step up and say "enough is enough." I don't think you believe that no more do I rationalize Kerry's statements.

I care about the candidate you choose because it would put you on a level playing field with everyone else. Your MO is to attack everyone for their choice without ever once offering your alternative. It's easy to take shots, it takes real courage to stand by your candidate -- but you won't -- it would ruin your one-sided debates. We'll never have a chance to compare our choice to yours because that would spoil your game. But you won't say because of me? How flattering -- and childish. But, then again, trying to change the subject by attacking me is very typical of your M.O. You know it's not about me, its about you and your unwillingness to stand up for your choice for President. It's amazing you get away with your transparency.

I am quite certain his statements were used. But wouldn't you agree that the North Vietnamese torturers may have exaggerated and take nearly every word extremely out of context. Do you really think they would not have signed them regardless? ("I know you've tortured me for months and years but, gee, if Kerry said that I MUST be a war criminal"). Do you really think his statements taken in context made the POWs captivity any worse and don't you think that it's just possible the stand that Kerry and tens of thousands of Vets took against the war ended it sooner that led to their release? Isn't it possible thousands of additional lives were not wasted in a hopeless war? When the President sees another American on TV held hostage by terrorists his heart must bleed for their fate but we cannot give in to their demands. It's not that he doesn't care about them and their families he must do the right thing. However, in Kerry's case to do nothing and stay silent would do nothing to improve the POWs chances of survival. The POWs were being tortured long before Kerry and other spoke up. Which takes more courage: to know your comments could lead to more harm of POWs or stay silent while POWs rot in imprisonment anyway and tens of thousands of more US troops are killed and wounded year after year with no end and no clear path to victory in sight?

OK, give us an alternative. Just this once stop the insults and offer one. Stop telling me how dumb we all are and give us another choice. Who should we vote for? What should we do to make things better? We're all ears (or in this case, eyes). Come on, this is your chance. No joke, I promise I will change my signature for the whole week whatever you seriously suggest. "Vote for _______ " or whatever. There has to be someone or something that you can back.

Hope not, because it's sure ain't much here.

Do you have no shame? The third straw man this thread. Where did I EVER say Moore was a credible documentary film maker? Please, show me an instance where I said anything remotely like that. I haven't even SEEN F-9/11. Oh, please. You WANT to believe Kerry didn't care -- if he indeed cared and was a war hero that just wouldn't work for you.

Ah, another straw man. I wasn't attacking the POWs just the whole concept.