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
Where did Kerry say he killed civilians?
BTW I am not trying to change anyone's mind if that's what you mean...I was raising the serious notion that there are people out there who will vote for Kerry and not give two hoots how contradictory they sound or why they even want to vote for Kerry other then his name. That's a subject worth discussing if you don't mind. You are right about one thing though...my mind is made up but before it was I was aware and knowledgable about why my vote would be Bush...and it had nothing to do with a name.
Oh yeah so did I...cool.
In fact, I posted that exact same quote months ago.>>
That's nice.
Please show me where in that quote it says that John Kerry "killed people in their villages"?>>
LOL...where were all the village people? On vacation? Give me a break he isn't going to say "I killed innocent people in their homes" How ridiculous. Are you trying to tell me no innocent people were killed at the burning of the villages?
I'll cut you some slack since you don't have a link to the radio show you actually heard, and what was said. You've posted a representation of what you thought you heard (or maybe they said this - but they would be wrong).>>
I don't need you to cut me some slack...I know what I read and what I heard.
What Kerry is talking about in that quote, delivered to Congress after he returned from the war, is the modus operandi which the armed forces and the administration approved as acceptible to use in combat in the very dangerous situation our soldiers faced in Vietnam.>>
So are you saying you agree with the orders that took place? Or just that it is justified because he was ordered to do so? The facts still remain he burned villages and took part in atrocities that went completely against everything the Geneva Conventions stood for. Actions are actions...just like what the soldiers that abused the Iraqi prisoners....the funny thing is these people in these "villages" weren't prisoners...what would call them other than a target or innocent prople?
He includes himself as operating under those instructions, and carrying out those orders, since he was a soldier in Vietnam. >>
So? Orders or not...just like those in Iraq...you should have spoken up and refused to do such things. The point still remains he did them and some people don't care and as I have noticed by this thread some will justify the means and that's even worse that not knowing.
Do you care to comment on anything else in my post, or just my reading habits?>>
Yeah I did but for some reason I still get the feeling you didn't read all the posts on this thread...because you may have had your answers to some of the questions you posed or would have had my POV on some already brought up points.
Edited 7/9/2004 1:31 am ET ET by britogal3
<>
VERY true!
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
So now it was a "random person holding up a sign" the conclusion you make as that all such people are then liberals?
Personally I've found numerous people who claim to love Bush but don't have a particularly good reason for doing so as well.
<>
so this guy, because he didn't happen to "hear" the same interview you did on TV is showing a lack of knowledge that is scarey to you? What about all the things he may have happened to "hear" that you didn't. Perhaps your lack of knowledge would scare him equally.
I agree with you that ignroant people vote all the time but this does not only happen on one side. There are plenty of people on the right who are unwilling to even look at information that raises questions about Bush, dismissing it as hogwash and propaganda. That to me sounds like coming from a place of willful ignorance/lack of knowledge as well.
<>
I agree, so kindly remove your foot if you please. I haven't read it, I've "heard it" on television numerous times. Gee, I hope you don't plan on voting with a "lack of knowledge", that would be very scarey indeed.
Come on, when you talk about a double standard let's look at both sides. No one can know everything that is going on. I don't, and you don't. Conservatives as well as liberals will have to go and vote without knowing everything. You can't tell me that the Republicans out there voting are a paragon of information and the Dems are all totally ignorant? There are those on both sides that make a point of informing themselves to the best of their abilities and thousands of others that do not lift a finger to do so.
<>
Surveys consistently show that Republicans are better educated, better informed, and more likey to vote.
We're also happier and have better sex.
Renee ~~~
<>
If my memory serves me (correct me if I'm wrong) you felt that those participating in the abuse in the prison as a few bad apples while others said that this was probably condoned from on high (the beloved Bush administration). You staunchly defended the governemnt as you always do in every situation if I recall. Sorry if I'm mistaken.
According to this interview by Kerry, he (and many others) were following orders given to them by their government. So what is it to be? In order for this not to be a double standard and to say that the man who would not vote for the soldiers but who would vote for Kerry, we would have to make the assumption that BOTH were following orders (and this is not the official stance on things). If BOTH were following orders given from on high, then yes, it might be hypocritical to support/critisize one but not the other.
Surveys consistently show that Republicans are better educated, better informed, and more likey to vote.
We're also happier and have better sex.
Yup, if he had done that in Vietnam, I can hear it now....republicans crowing from the rooftops about Kerry refusing to follow orders while in Vietnam....how he was a traitor etc....It's bad enough that he took part in some prostests against the war when he got back. Imagine if he had refused to follow orders back then.
Also, remember, back then it was pretty much a different situation. Soldiers didn't go around disobeying orders (especially thousands of miles away from home in the middle of a jungle surrounded by hostile forces). That is a crime punnishable in some cases by death or imprisonment. It would be a very scarey thing to do alone (as all his other fellow soldiers were following the orders). If he had done so with a group of his fellow soldiers, that is called mutiny. The American armed forces doesn't look too kindly upon mutiny.
How is it then that academia (universities) are mostly predominantly Democrats and liberals?
I guess once you get TOO educated, you then become a democrat/liberal again.
You may be right about the sex thing though. It's usually Republicans that get caught up in business and corruption scandals and the Dems that get caught with their knickers down. This might be a sign that their sex lives are unsatisfactory....then again, it might be a sign that Republicans are shrivelled up prunes who are satisfied with much less.
Pages