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
Your "feeling" about how someone "feels" doesn't hold much water especially when you are judging her absent apologies as a character flaw. The bottom line is you don't know how she feels right now...this can all be so terrifying and confusing and facing jail time might keep your mouth sealed in regards to the fear of that happening.
I have not stated anything about how she feels.
You exaggerate a lot I have noticed.
In case you didn't know the meaning of the word "ballistic" I took the time to post it for you so next time you can use proper wording in your description of people.
Idiom:
go ballistic Slang
To become very angry or irrational.
I also recommend "practicing what you preach" I have seen you in other topics and I think it's fair to say you may get a little to "ballistic" for such minor things. Just an observation.
Well this is obviously where we most certainly disagree.
I am not justifying anyone's actions here...but from what I got from you, you were making it seem she isn't sorry and that is indeed speaking for how she feels. The bottom line is you nor I know "how she feels" or if "she is sorry".
<< Are you trying to tell me if you were apologetic inside about what occured but didn't feel like or maybe wasn't able to (lawyers advice) under certain circumstances express it at this time so you could have a better chance of not facing such horrible penalties, you wouldn't?>>
<<<>>>
So if your lawyer told you to keep within certain guidlines when discussing your case you'd flat out incriminate yourself and ignore your lawyer's advice? That is pretty far out there if you think about it...but ok.
Please explain to me why she shouldn't be thinking about herself? Who else should she be thinking about and how is her not saying "sorry" yet going to change anything right now other then her going to jail for a long time or not. Who should she be thinking about? I am not getting you here...but then again that is no suprise considering what you stated above is mind boggling to me.
You stated that some of my posts were less than ideal so I thought I might use your posts as role models of civility and constructive discourse. However, after looking at them I decided....ah, no, I don't believe I will.
"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."
Let me break it down for you..." You think that the bias...that has remained on the left...which will lead them to vote for Kerry....just because speaks poorly of Bush...
What will the bias do? Result in? Skew? You don't finish!
Oh I JUST FIGURED IT OUT! If I omit the word "which" then it all falls into place.
"Do you really think the bias that remains on the Left will lead them to vote for for Kerry just because he speaks poorly of Bush?" Wait. That still doesn't make sense. If the Left is already biased against Bush, wouldn't that in itself lead them to vote for Kerry? I guess I can clearly say, in response to your question, that yes, I think that people who are "biased" against Bush will vote for Kerry. Is that what we're talking about?
You just said that anti-war supporters will never truly understand "words like 'heroism,' 'duty,' and 'honor'
Here's my message
"Yes, he did, but we did not go to 'war' with everyone who supported him, and kill thousands of civilians "collateral damage" in the process.. We did not start to make generalized statements about white extreme right veterans, or assume his whole family and everyone who had any 'link' to him was also a terrorist, and as far as I know, he wasn't tortured while in prison.
From what I gather, those extreme groups are still very active, and dangerous, and they could plan a major attack under our noses."
*****
Where I am comparing Saddam to MCVeigh??? Bin Laden and McVeigh are both terrorists, right? One killed hundreds of people, the other thousands, but the McVeight was caught, tried and put to death early, so he didn't get a chance to kill more. In order to catch MCVeigh, no civilans were killed (that I know of), there was no backlash at everyone who met the same 'profile' as MCVeight, and we didn't try to kill everyone who had any kind of 'link' to him, and imprison them and torture them on the assumption that they are terrorists.
Any clearer now?
My last point was that mentally we always use two processes to make choice: evaluation and elimination. Both are equally important.
Pages