Double Standards of some Liberals
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 07-08-2004 - 1:39pm |
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
I didn't say that....This is what I said. It ended at the end of the sentance with a period.
"...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."
About the countless arguments. They are countless so that's why I was paraphrasing. I'm not about to go into hundreds of posts and start cutting and pasting.
<>
That happens on both sides you know. You don't think Republicans don't put "spin" on things? Does that fact that someone who supports your view can come out and say "Oh that has "spin" make you just discount it? Hey, for a lot of people that means they don't even have to read it cause it has "spin" so there mustn't be one single redeeming factor in it....not a single grain of truth worth considering. It's easy then to make people ignore important information. If something really damaging comes out all one has to do is cry "Spin!" and it all goes away.
There was plenty of information on both sides however, the decision to go to war was based only on one-sided information. It was a one-sided decision that was not balanced. From what I'm hearing about the intelligence information that was given to the administration, there were all sorts of caveats in the documentation (red flags about the accuracy of the intillegence). This was ignored and certainly the public and congress did not see this.
Edited 7/12/2004 2:01 pm ET ET by suemox
Sorry, what example was that?
And I'm not "unwilling" to see yours, remember I admitted you made a good point about people who vote and who don't take the time to inform themselves. Remember the chamapgne? However, I KNOW that there are people on ALL sides who vote this way and you were only out to attack the Dems/liberals.
<>
I do read all sides. Both of them can contain very valuable information. I also recognize spin when I read it and it IS a bipartisan trait.
I am NOT passing anything off. I am just beating my head bloody against a brick wall trying to get you to broaden the way you look at things.
Michael Moore (spin)
Rush Limbaugh (spin)
Al Franken (spin)
Ann Coulter (spin)
The information you used as a baisis to start a new thread warning us all about the "dangerous" Theresa Heinz Kerry (spin)
Getting you to see the difference?(Priceless)
I don't dismiss the stuff these guys say. I investigate it (on both sides) using more reputable sources. If it turns out that it is untrue, THEN I dismiss it.
Actually. I'm MORE inclined to investigate things said by people who's views support my own because I don't want to make an ass out of myself if I use it in an argument or as confirmation and it turns out to be untrue.
Edited 7/12/2004 3:29 pm ET ET by suemox
They went on an edited down version of that intelligence and they came to conclusions based upon the information they were allowed to see (the information that supported this administration's desire to go to war with Iraq) - Not ALL of the information.
<>
Oh yes there definately is room for human error. Too bad Bush can't admit as much. I suppose he thinks admitting personal human error would be a sign of weakness. But I don't think that Bush's error was in getting bad intelligence (easy for him to shift the blame off elsewhere). His error was in willfully ignoring certain information and taking the intellegnece and massaging and presenting it in such a way as to mislead congress and the American people to start this war that to date has killed over 1000 American kids, and scores upon scores more Iraqi civilians that won't be resolving itself any time soon. this isn't so much an intelligence error but an editing error....an error of "spin" shall we say ;o)
THAT was his error. It wasn't an *oops* mistake, it was a calculated and deliberate error in judgement (to present the information in that manner) that is costing tens of thousands of people their lives and the American people billions and billions of their hard-earned tax dollars.
<<Particularly, one should listen to the vetrans.
You must remember that often these kids that are fighting in the wars are so painfully young. Their judgement is not mature enough. Often their fledgling sense of morality is not established and they are put into situations and circumstances of fear and deprivation where ANYONE'S judgement would be seriously impaired. >>
How condescending and demeaning. Since when is one's moral sense formed in adulthood? It has been my experience, that, those who did not develop one when they were young, rarely do at any age.
Your point about listening to the veterans
Renee ~~~
Pages