Ever notice how when the tough questions get asked, Elvis Copperfield et al bail on the conversation? Only to return later with no refutation and a certain foul ball insult or non-sequitur?

I have, and for merely asking tough questions I've been called everything from french (ouch! i mean,who doesn't hate being associated with the country that wrote our constitution and bailed our asses out of the revolutionary war?) to a 'ledouchebag' (as if adding 'le' to a word that's already french somehow makes it 'Frencher').

What are they running from? The truth? Is it denial?

The thing is I expect that out of Elvis, even grandpa but I know there HAS to be a more coherent conservative voice out there that can answer some of the questions posed in the 'marriage' thread or the 'exit strategy thread' amongst numerous others.

I have a theory though and it goes like this:

Right minded conservatives know they can't defend Dumbya Bouche's record. Right minded conservatives don't want to engage in the only remaining tactic to a flagging, flailing, failing presidential campaign, duck and run. It would only make them look bad and further damage the credibility of the entire conservative base.

A right minded conservative cannot say we are better off than we were four years ago or that we are more 'secure'.

Right minded conservatives know that they cannot argue Bouche's service record v. Kerry's.

They've either all 'flip flopped' to the dark side (aunty), decided to vote for Kerry with a clothespin over their noses (sh?, andy?) or will toe the party line with the same clothespin and vote for Bush in spite of their misgivings (c'mon Plunker, sell me on Bouche).

This is the reason for the complete lack of a coherent argument or refutation on any topic discussed in this forum, there isn't one.

Do you think you might have one? Lay it out there....but don't pull an Elvis Copperfield.

"This is the reason for the complete lack of a coherent argument or refutation on any topic discussed in this forum, there isn't one."

Funny, I was thinking the same thing toward the Kerry fans.

How about listing your top 3 unanswered questions. In going through many of these posts, the crap starts getting so deep I fail to see many questions worth answering. Most that are worth answering have been hashed out time and again. Then it comes down to deflecting with - "yeah, but Bush did XYZ". Or, yeah, but Bush lied. If all else fails, "yeah, but I hate Bush".

I admit I'm not a Bush fan. I'm not happy with many policies and decisions made. His approach and style aren't always what I would prefer. There are questions surrounding his past. But from what I've seen, I am more confident in his leadership and ability to lead this country than I am in the hope that Kerry could step in and make things any better. Those of you who hate Bush will just be happy he's gone. But I don't hate him, I just have several specific issues. But I have way more issues with Kerry.


1) I find his war\post war actions to be more slimy than GWs
2) What has he done in all his years in public office? Why isn't his campaign focused on "I was a great leader and puplic servant over the last 30 years and here is what I accomplished..." instead of "I was a war hero 35yrs ago, so I'm more qualified to lead the war on Terrorism today"...
3) What specifically is he going to do the help the economy, health care, environment, war on terrorism and national security - while not driving my taxes way up...?

I'll give you a prime example...

h2o:
"If your only objection to gay marriage is that you don't approve won't you admit that is a pretty thin argument for banning something outright? If not, why?"

grandpa:
"Not too complicated. Just think it is perverse. Don't agree with it. Personal opinion. Simple as that."

h2o:
"You know what's perverse?

Out of one corner of your mouth sending soldiers off to die for 'freedom' and out of the other denying another man his freedom because you don't like what he does.

Example:

I hate bluegrass. Makes me want to vomit. I think its wrong and it goes against nature to play the guitar all Lamar Latrell. One of my best friends loves it and forces me to listen to it every time i go to his place, rams it down my throat as it were.

Using the exact same logic, if I could marshall the forces of metal uniting all headbangers across the country (especially the rich ones) into convincing the majority of voters or the right senator that it is somehow perverted to listen to bluegrass we could simply ban it.

Identical logic (albeit a horribly constructed sentence). Identical impingement of freedom.

No?"

grandpa:
**crickets**

grandpa hates it when it when you reverse his logic.

I'm not even going to cite any of elvis' numerous cut and runs, just read any thread he's posted on.

The thing about your points Phishy is that, IMO, you are relying on sources with questionable credibility to form your opinions. That more so than anything is why we disagree. In order to reach any sort of an understanding we have to agree on what the facts are as they relate to each point you make.

I'll do that after lunch...a little cut and run of my own so I can have some guitar time. I'll be back with more than an insult and a non-sequitur, you can bet on it.

LOL. Gotta love the double standard \ irony in this...

"Most of you probably came to your conclusions nearly instantaneously based on your political philosophy. "


And I bet you reached that "informed opinion" because you:

"... have some experience and background as a starting point. Then ... [approached this topic] ...with as much objectivity as possible. "

So which of us have you discussed in detail what our political philosophies are AND were before this election? Or is this your idea of being informed and objective???

Roarstoomuch

Nice well informed research you've done. LOL.


So...

My thoughts on GW are based on prejudices?

My thoughts on Iraq are based on prejudices?

My thoughts on the economy are based on prejudices?

My thoughts on Kerry's anti war actions are based on prejudices?

My thoughts on Kerry's lack of a strong campaign platform is based on prejudices?

etc, etc

You nailed me on that one! LOL

So who did I vote for in the last election? In the one before that?


As I said - how do you know where we stood before this election? What experience and information do you have that allows you to draw that conclusion of our past vs present philosophies? Are you the only one who approaches things objectively? It doesn't appear to be showing...

all right phishy...as to your points numbered:

1)" I find his war\post war actions to be more slimy than GWs"

so....ever seen the movie 'born on the fourth of july'? guy goes to vietnam ready to die for his country, gets there sees what a mess it is, gets wounded (badly), comes home and protests the war....

you find excercising your rights as an american (free speech) 'slimy'? . you don't have to agree with the message or even the delivery but you do HAVE to respect the excercise.

Probably the most repected pow from the vietnam era (McCain) doesn't hold that excercise against Kerry. Why should he? That is the very principle they were over there fighting to protect.

Key words...'were over there'.

If you are simply going to base your opinion on the facts as they are credibly known, the best you can do is rely on the military records, no? Everything after that is purely analysis, capable of being spun in either direction.

The miltary records are quite clear that Kerry was in vietnam, medals and awards notwithstanding.

The records for Bouche are at best, thin. All you can tell me with certainty is that he was in the national guard. Show me something that proves with at least the credibility of the military record WHERE Bouche WAS while he was in the guard and what he DID while he was there.

I mean, its the military, there has to be some paperwork around somewhere, right? RIGHT?

I'll address your second point a bit later.

H20,

You openly plan to vote for a guy just because he is not the other guy and you expect people to try and engage you in debate? You and your cohorts openly launch the first salvo of insults when your weak attempts at countering a point are challenged then play the liberal victim game of accusing others of calling you names? Only you and your buddies can play in the twisted fantasy in which you choose to dwell and you call that some sort of victory? I would suggest that the ADA list liberalism as a disease and fully support stem cell reaserch to hopefully come up with a cure but that is pure fantasy. We know the only cure is learning to accept personal responsibility or the Islamic lobotomy. the odds on one are zero and low on the second so we just learn to live with you.

non-sequitur

as predictable as your vanishing act but twice as entertaining.

I did not realize i was required to repond to you and yours or keep a schedule. As if that somehow effects someones credibility. Some people work for theirs instead of playing on the charitable hearts of others and fulill there resposibility to their family and community. Try it sometime but it would me less time worshiping entertainers as idols.

stop long enough to answer the questions or go back to trolling fertlizer

phishy?

You said you'd get to the other points later. I didn't know you were waiting for my response...


Here is why I find Kerry's war history offensive:

1) pre-war: he was already known to be 'anti-war' and against US policy on communism.

2) pre-war: he and his skull and bones yale buddies all decided that they needed to go to war to acheive their political goals

3) pre-war: kerry had clear plans to enter politics and knew the war was part of that agenda

4) kerry knew he was likely to be drafted, so he offered to volunteer if he could play an officer (fits political aspirations)

5) kerry received 3 purple hearts in less than 4 months and used that to get out of service

6) records show that his wounds were superficial and only needed band aids.

.....

more tomorrow, I gotta go. Read the link I posted on the other thread to see where most of the items above can be verified...

yer right, phishy, sorry about that...

unanswered questions:

1. ever seen the movie 'born on the fourth of july'?

2. 'Why should John Mc Cain hold Kerry's excercise of free speech against him?'

3.Where was Bouche while he was in the guard.

4. What did he do while he was there?

Answer the questions and then move on to your point, that's how 'debate' works, right?

so, which set of points am i supposed to address again, the first set or the second set?

1) He was an American with an opinion. Perfectly legal and encouraged.

2) Conjecture on your part that politics was their motivation.

3) He may have had plans to enter politics, but saying it was his war agenda is conjecture.

4) Volunteered. Very noble of him. Being an officer makes sense since he had a degree. The Navy would have encouraged him to do so anyway.

5) Why is it an issue how long it took to be wounded three times? He didn't get ouf of the Navy, he got out of Vietnam. Everything done legal in accordance with Navy Regulations.

6) His Purple Hearts were awarded within the guidelines of Naval Regulation. All legal. Besides, if you have a problem with that, attack his commander - who signed the medal - not Kerry.

So why do you find that so offensive? Is it because you had to go to combat for the mere sake of duty to your country and didn't receive a Purple Heart when you were wounded more severely, in your eyes, than Kerry? Were you forced to spend your entire tour in theater because you didn't get wounded enough?

Honestly, why do you find it so offensive that he volunteered for combat duty? Strictly because of what you perceive his motives were at the time?

H2O....First of all ,maybe it is the irrelevance of your opinions (or facts in your world) that keeps this from being taken seriously by anyone but the rest of the sock monkeys who agree with you (AuntyM, Harley and the rest who make up 99% of the posts here) ....Maybe it is the arrogance with which you spew? Besides who wants to have a serious debate with a monotonous sock monkey with nothing but the same old line of crap to talk about. So what's left at the end of the day are only tired insults and hackneyed zingers.

dodge ball!

who's in?

answer the questions

Continuing as promised...

7) After is 'tour' in 'nam, he quickly took a lead role in protesting the war. He used blatant lies and exagerations to undermine those serving. He personally fueled the "baby killer" accusations and other hate talk that resulted in honorable men like my father and thousands of other honest soldiers being insulted and spit on when they returned from serving their country.

8) He used all of this to propel his political agenda.

KK: "Phish: You seem to be saying that ambition, drive and perseverence are bad traits when in the political realm. I always considered those traits admirable."

You bet those can be good traits. But combined with his lies and trashing of honorable soldiers for his own political agenda is what I find slimy.

AM - what's your point?? We all know war is terrible. We all know terrible things happened. We all know war crimes have been committed. But the focus here is on JF Kerry's lies and exagerations about his personal experriences. Was Kerry's swift boat unit involved in any of the incidents your links describe? No.

So what specifically am I referring to?
http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=WarCrimes


Those guilty of war crimes should be dealt with. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with people making ALL honorable soldiers - the majority of men who were not involved in war crimes - into horrible criminals for their own agenda.

Getting Lib to stay on point is like filleting a Jellyfish. Possible but real messy :p


XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 12, 2004 21:01:21 ET XXXXX

JANUARY -- NOT CHRISTMAS -- KERRY IN CAMBODIA

**Exclusive**

TOUR OF DUTY author and John Kerry historian Doug Brinkley is rushing a piece for the NEW YORKER: to set-the-record-straight on Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia tale, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Kerry has turned to author Brinkley for a "modification" after it was exposed that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968, as he once claimed from the Senate floor.

The Brinkley piece for the NEW YORKER will now say that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas, but rather in January, publishing sources tell DRUDGE.

MORE

Since the early 1970s, Kerry has spoken and written of how he was illegally ordered to enter Cambodia. Kerry mentioned it in the floor of the Senate in 1986 when he charged that President Reagan’s actions in Central America were leading the U.S. in another Vietnam. Here’s what he said as excerpted from the new book, UNFIT FOR COMMAND:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me."

John O’Neil’s, author of UNFIT FOR COMMAND, comments on the “clarification:”

“John Kerry describes Christmas Eve in Cambodia as a critical turning point in his life. We now know that his story is completely false. My question is how many people do you know have invented a turning point, one that is seared in his memory? While it makes sense for John Kerry to come clean about the Cambodia story, it is one of several tales that the Kerry campaign will have to face and clarify.”

“By claiming we were engaged in a war crime and crossing international borders, John Kerry damaged the credibility of all the commanding officers above him and insulted the sailors who served with him,” said John O’Neill, member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.”

Developing...

TK, c'mon now, we all know Kerry is a very credible and respectable person. He'd never lie, exagerate, and falsify reports just for his political aspirations. How dare you! LOL

LOL PP, if you truly have a problem with someone using the military for their own political gain, then I'm sure you thoroughly renounce Bouche and Co. LOL

If Kerry used the military for political gain as you suggest, he did so in a manner that shortened the war and saved potentially thousands of lives. Unless you can submit some credible evidence that his actions cost lives.

Bouche is using the military in a manner that's costing more and more lives everyday, and that's not considering the numbers of innocent civilians being lost. Nor is it taking into account how he's essentially cut funding for veteran's benefits, including those maimed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's a fact the military is a pawn for every politician. Some obtain positive results in return, others negative.

LOL.


"Kerry NEVER said "all" soldiers were guilty of acts of atrocities. Show me where he said "ALL" in the transcripts!"


I'm sure that made my dad and countless other honorable soldiers feel much better knowing that, as they were spit on and insulted by the hippie protestors on their return from duty.

GH - once again using the "but Bush did this..." instead of confronting Kerry's actions.


"If Kerry used the military for political gain as you suggest, he did so in a manner that shortened the war and saved potentially thousands of lives. Unless you can submit some credible evidence that his actions cost lives."

"Potentially" saved thousands of lives??? That's certainly debatable. But then again, not comforting or debatable to the thousands killed and the million fleeing refugees after the US abandoned the South Vientnamese... I'm sure Jkerry is their hero....

This from Andrew Antippos in this morning's Washington Times:

-----------------------------------------

"Finally, concerning the assertion that Mr. Kerry was shot at by the Khmer Rouge during his Christmas 1968 visit to Cambodia, it should be noted that the Khmer Rouge didn't take the field until the Easter Offensive of 1972, when the Vietnamese forces that had attacked the Cambodians initially in March 1970 pulled out of Cambodia to attack the U.S. and Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. Only Vietnamese Communist soldiers were found on the battlefields of Cambodia in 1970-72."

-----------------------------------------

PP - sure it's debatable, but it's logical. Stop the war and the killing of soldiers stops. Let the politicians in charge continue unchecked, the war continues and soldiers continue dieing. I don't know the time period your father was there, but he could have not come home at all if the war continued.

It was not meant to justify Kerry's actions against Bouche's. It was meant to point out your inconsistency if you are supporting Bouche because of your perception of his treatment towards veterans.

------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, Hanoi John Kerry is the North Vietnamese communists (VC) hero---they acknowledge that his war protesting with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War helped them gain control of South Vietnam and they actually have a picture of him in a communist museum in Ho Chi Minh city---take a look:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38948

Viva Le Ho Chi Minh city!---Hanoi John "Pierre" Kerry

No. The NK don't recognize Kerry as a hero, the not-so-swifts are trying to spin him into a NK hero.

What he and McCain did by going back there was instrumental in closing the loop for thousands of American families. Only anti-Americans can't see what good that did to erase the pain and suffering from that war.

Ya know, if Bouche could find a record to run on himself, he wouldn't need his goons and thugs to continually keep trying to spin something that happened 35 years ago.