Double Standards of some Liberals

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Double Standards of some Liberals
200
Thu, 07-08-2004 - 1:39pm
I thought this was interesting while driving home from work I heard this whole thing. Tell me what you think.



I was listening to the radio the other day and two men were debating in regards to Kerry. The liberal man was holding a sign that read "Kerry-a war hero"...When asked why he believed Kerry to be a war hero he explained his courage in fighting in Vietnam and that alone should qualify him as being a "war hero"...then the conservative asked him if he was going to vote for Kerry and the liberal man said "Definately!" The liberal man brought up the prisoner abuse in Iraq and how those men and women who performed those war crimes by putting underwear over these prisoners head and humiliating them were a disgrace to the country. He was then asked by the other man if he'd ever vote for any of these men or women that performed such acts down the road for President? The liberal man said "heck no". The other man went on to play a tape where Kerry himself in an interview spoke of the atrocities he and fellow militarymen participated in such as burning down Vietnam villages and other activities that were war crimes while in Vietnam. Kerry with his own words and voice admitted such things happened and do happen in a time of war no doubt about it. ( you could hear the audio tape of his interview) The man then asked the sign holding, Kerry supporting, liberal man how he could vote for someone who actually burned down and killed people in their own villages during Vietnam for President but would never consider voting for those who commited war crimes such as humliation in Iraq in the future as President? Does that make Kerry a war hero he asked? The liberal man was at a loss for words. He contradicted himself...he judged these soldiers in Iraq as a "disgrace to their country" but would vote for Kerry for President of the United States of America.

The reason for posting this story was to give a little insight on the double standards some liberals hold for their own and the mind-set the have.

Sorry so long but it's worth the read :)

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Mon, 07-12-2004 - 10:30am
I think one of the real issue behind the 'anyone but Bush" subject, is that in that one only has (realistically) two choice: Democrats and Liberals. And yes, I know there are independents, and one of them got lots of votes once (forgot his name,.. guy from EDS)..

My points are this:

Would you accept only two choice of meals? Two choice of cars? etc...That's not a lot of choices, is it.

What if you are at a restaurant, and they offer two meals: liver and brocoli, which you can't stand (it would make you gag!), and some other meal you don't know well. WHich would you choose? The one you KNOW you can't stand, or the one you don't know that well? Whenever you have a menu in a restaurant you've been to before, do you rather try something new, or do you go for what you've tried and hated?

That's the bottomline here. Two choices, one that some people just cannot vote for whatsoever, and one who is an unknown. But let's face it, every single president was an unknown the first time they went into office!


Edited 7/12/2004 11:02 am ET ET by nicecanadianlady

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 07-12-2004 - 10:35am

<<Women are also more likely to be democract than republican. >>


Single

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Mon, 07-12-2004 - 10:45am
Geez, I started a thread on democracy, and no one responded. Does that mean no one is interested or even supporting democracy? I hope not! ;)

Lots of reasons why some threads get built up, and others die out. Sometimes the topic, sometimes the initial message, and sometimes it's all about timing with respect to other

hot' threads, and what therefore ends up on the top of the list with the default sort...

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Mon, 07-12-2004 - 10:55am
An observation..

In every single election (Canadian and American, as I watch both), there is always a discrepency between how people talk about the candidates. There is always a category of people who have a view of 'anyone but the incumbent'. Because the only one who is a KNOWN is the incumbent.

I remember years ago being in a board when Clinton was the incumbent, and democrats complaining that people were thinking of voting for Dole just because they didn't like Clinton! I've seen it in every single Canadian election too.

I think no matter what side the incumbent is in, you're going to find people who vote for 'anyone BUT' the incumbent. Again, if you have two choices and one you already tried and didn't like, what are you going to have the next time around?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 07-12-2004 - 11:44am
Sure, there is always some of that, but I don't ever recall it being the #1 reason for supporting a presidential challenger. If you asked most Republicans in '96 why

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 07-12-2004 - 11:57am
Too bad I'm not American so I can't vote then huh, since I have a "reason" for doing so.

This started off as a short response and then I went off on a tangent and now this post is long....sorry.

I do think that a great number of people considering Kerry have made similar conclusions but it might get lost in the extremely strong feelings that people have that Bush and his crew are NOT good for America (as much as one wants to rally around the flag in times of crisis...like 9/11). This comes out in impassioned arguments against Bush that might APPEAR to be lacking in logic (but are founded in a great number of logical objections). This dislike of what Bush is doing, or how he is going about doing things arises out of issues that are much more substantial than "He's a Republican.....or I don't like his squint." Before I get blasted, I know you didn't say exactly that but you have made countless arguments about how shallow people's hatred (strong mistrust) of Bush is and how dangerous it is for the country. Those people that come out on the other side feel that Bush is dangerous for the country and their unease with the Bush administration arises out of a lot of different factual evidence (that many on the right totally discount as if it didn't even exist) as well as a strong feeling of patriotism (not treason or anti-American sentiment as many on the Bush side have argued).

Being an outsider looking in and getting news from another country regarding the whole Iraq run up I will tell you what conclusions I drew. First of all, it's common knowledge by now that most of the population of the world (uncluding coalition members like Britain etc...) felt the war and the justifications for the war that were given were wrong. Many argued that democracy imposed from outside wouldn't work or would take an extrememly long time. Democracy is a movement that is best to come from within. People familiar with the history of Iraq foretold the difficulites that are currently being faced long before the first missle was ever launched. To those outside the situation it appeared that the Bush administration had made the decision to go in there and be dammed about conflicting arguments aganst the wisdom of it all. Even the fact that there were strong doubts about the WDMs was out in the public domain long before the war got started.

Now to what is interestingly happening in the election between Dems and the Republicans. When congress voted to go into Iraq we on the outside knew it for what it was. It was evident by the press coverage in the US and by human nature itself. The US was attacked horribly on 9/11. While Bush was only ever popular among half of the US population before, there was an evidnet coming together, a circling of wagons (very American) around the president in a time orcrisis. People were willing to let bygones be bygones and give the man the benefit of the doubt and allow him to do his job. Hence the vote in congress to go to war.

I tnink it was craven and cowardly of some of the Dems who obviously voted to go to war to save their butts politically or perhaps because they were swept away by this rallying around sentiment. At that point in time it might have been political suicide to appear to be going against the president. They didn't want to risk everything in that climate by going against the status quo. Also, bear in mind the faulty intelligence as well. Folks on the outside were sorely disappointed by that vote. The Dems threw logic into the wind in an effort to be supportive after a terrible event and voted to go into Iraq...now they appear to be flip flopping on the issue. I'm sure that a number of them voted to go to war against their gut instinct and now it's come back to haunt them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Mon, 07-12-2004 - 12:09pm
Ok this is the last time I will respond to you in this thread in regards to this matter. I have yet to respond to the Palo Alto Stanford link you gave to me...interesting indeed. Thank you for that. As for the rest of this I am not going to keep repeating myself about the reasons I have for making this topic and questioning the reasoning a lot if not most Dems/Libs/Kerry supporters are going to vote Kerry. I am not trying to challenge someone's reasonings for wanting to vote for him...when have I ever said that? The only thing I am questioning is those people who don't know barely a thing about the man they plan on voting for and really don't give a darn about knowing but will base their vote entirely on the mentality "He isn't Bush". You seem upset that I am not questioning your reasons for voting for Kerry yet all I ever asked was for someone to give reasons...I could only imagine what would happen if I then started questioning the reasons I so adamently asked for...then what would you say about me? That perhaps I am never satisfied? I don't need to debate your reasons for voting for Kerry unless of course it is contradictory to the reasons you refuse to vote for Bush. Are you understanding this now because repeating myself get's quite well shall I say...annoying!

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Mon, 07-12-2004 - 12:15pm
<>

Then obviously I wasn't referring to you...this does not apply to you then....obviously...but those who do have that double standard and are willing to vote accordingly. Why are you in this thread and getting so upset if I am not even directing this to you? If you don't vote with contradictions then more power to you and good for you, for this wasn't aimed at you or others who feel the same as you. I just wish some people would read what I say instead of interpreting it and placing words in my mouth to form a response that accuses me of things in which I am not even directing at them. Does anyone want a shot? It seems some can use it on here.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Mon, 07-12-2004 - 12:38pm
What isn't true? That Kerry didn't kill one civilian at all? Or that it happened to not be in the village fires? Do you know this for a fact? If not because you were not there, then don't tell me that I am speaking of something that just "plain isn't true"...it makes more sense that in war the innocent will get killed and you are claiming Kerry didn't kill any innocent people....regardless of the village burning or not...it is most likely that some innocent people died from that...unless you have proof otherwise stating no person was killed during that time. Here is an interesting read that shows sometimes...innocent people were killed because so many had the mentality that it is ok to do what needed to be done because of the "free fire-zone" mentality and "body count mania" that is referred in this article.


http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwch1f.htm

I will find more links but for now...You don't seem to get it.


Interesting quote from Kerry


I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. ...

“They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

— John Kerry

Navy lieutenant, leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War

in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

April 23, 1971





Edited 7/12/2004 1:18 pm ET ET by britogal3

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Mon, 07-12-2004 - 12:46pm
<>

Oh so you admit it...one of my points that is? Cool.

Wait, let me get this straight...You think that the bias that has remained on the left which will lead them to vote for Kerry just "becuase" speaks poorly of Bush? Ooooookkkkkkkkkey dokey.

Pages