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
<>
Congress doesn't get their intelligence from the president. The intelligence committees in both the House & Senate get the same intelligence reports that the president does, and it's their responsibility to share their assessment with the rest of Congress, so Congress can act on it.
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
I said "OFTEN their FLEDGLING sense of morality is not ESTABLISHED" I didn't say that they had no morals. Don't try to twist my words. Do you mean to insinuate that of all the human characteristics that take a lifetime to develop, that morality is one of the first, and that it is firmly established in the sheltered exerience of an 18 or 19 year old kid fearing for his life, experiencing sleep devrivation, separation from his loved ones etc...?
<>
I'm sure there are some who refuse to believe that. No side is without their illogical radicals. But as far as 'heroism,' 'duty,' and 'honor' go, war is not the only or the best way to live those ideals. I believe that there have been many wars worth fighting but there are and have been many that were not. When one considers what's at stake I suppose it all boils down to what price you are willing to pay, what beliefs you are willing to sacrifice and for what payoff.
Oh, it was my understanding that they were missing important pieces of the puzzle like sources for the info and I understood, some of the caveats. However, I never thought Congress was sporting halos either. If they voted based upon the EXACT same information the administration had that they hadn't thoroughly read, well....how irresponsible.
When one considers what's at stake I suppose it all boils down to what price you are willing to pay, what beliefs you are willing to sacrifice and for what payoff.>>
Thank you for acknowledging that.
rate this post
send to a friend
print
bookmark
report a violation >>
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
I'm not posting from the point of view of the baby boomers (I'm just outside of being one anyway) I was posting from my own conclusions. I would most likely trust what a person who had actually fought in a war has to say than someone else.
<
*Practically all active duty and Selected Reserve enlisted …had a high school diploma or equivalent, well above civilian youth proportions (79 percent of 18-24 year-olds).
*Enlisted members tend to have higher cognitive aptitude than the civilian youth population, as measured by scores on the military's enlistment test.
*eading levels were higher in the enlisted military than in the non-military sector.>>
I also wasn't comparing how young kids in the military stack up against young kids outside of the military. If anything I was comparing the young kids forced to make moral decisions against the older, more mature people issuing the orders and establishing policy. Also, if we want to talk about moral dilemnas, here we have a young kid forced to choose between something that may feel to be morally wrong against the another moral dilemna of perhaps disobeying an order (which flies in the face of doing one's duty). Being younger and in that atmosphere, this makes the decision all the more troubling and difficult.
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.>>>
Ummm if you have missed I have dismissed Rush and Michael and Sean Hannity as "spin" information...if I refused to see it from both sides why would't I be a devoted bias supporter of Rush and Sean Hannity? You continually accuse me of not "seeing" it from the other side yet I wonder where in the world you get that from? Is it perhaps because I don't change my POV according to who or what I am discussing? My opinion is my opinion...is it your mission to change it? There have been plenty of rebuttal by the left on here of information posted to support the President and his actions and sources refuting the actual context the Bush admin has been accused of saying...where is the "seeing it from both sides" in that? Why accuse me and single me out constantly when it is you and others doing the same exact thing...just because you admitted that some vote blindly doesn't mean you see things from both POVs. I have yet to hear you digress yet you accuse ME of not doing so...the double standards are yelling at me in this topic and it just further proves my point...thanks, I think.
<>
How very diplomatic of you! ;) The intelligence committees had it, read it, discussed it, and called in members of the intelligence community to ask them questions & get the most up to date information. They came to the same conclusion as the administration,
Renee ~~~
"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."
What are you talking about? And please don't tell me I'm thinking this, because I don't even know what it means.
"But as far as 'heroism,' 'duty,' and 'honor' go, war is not the only or the best way to live those ideals."
Pages