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: 06-29-2004
Fri, 07-09-2004 - 5:44pm
I really can't begin to address everything you raised or I don't have the energy to. In the past I have carefuly addressed many of the things you raise in many of your posts, complete with links and well thought out arguments. It really doesn't do any good or get any type of acknowledgement from you.>>

What kind of acknowledgement do you need from me? I assumed by my responding to you that I read what you had to say otherwise I wouldn't know what to base my response on...I acknowledge each point you make individually with their very own space dedicated to my response. I read your article about the death penalty which I wasn't aware of before. Did you want a thank you? Thank you it was informative and I added to the current knowledge I have so far.

Never ONCE have you conceded ONE thing that I have said as maybe containing even the tiniest kernal of truth and frankly I'm plum worn out.>>>

I am not sure what you mean by that...I just simply don't see things the way you do nor do I agree with just about everything you say, do I have to concede to things you say simply because you wish me to or maybe so you don't get flustered over my response? I don't agree with a lot of what you say so why should I concede? Most people don't concede here on these boards because it's a debate board, why single out me? You have yet to concede to anything at all that I have said or acknowledge my points. What does that say about you other then maybe you just don't agree with me, I am fine with that.

It's great to be able and call one's self informed when they discount half of the information that's available (or REFUSE to read it) because it doesn't conveniently fit their pre-concieved notion and then use an arguement like "well most of the liberals I know are like this".>>

What? How do you know what I read and don't? I have thus far responded entirely to every point you have made...just because I refute it or disagree doesn't mean I "refuse to read" it...I just plain don't agree with you.

But then DEMANDING proof everytime someone else makes a statement based on their personal experiences.>> When have I demanded proof from someone who stated their personal experience? I was talking about giving an example so I have something to go on in regards to their POV and what led them to feel that way. What's the harm in that? I give examples all the time so it doesn't seem "made up" or "just take my word for it".

It's like YOUR personal experiences are SO much better and more accurate than someone else's. >>

You seem irritated...I don't know where you are getting this but it seems you are just upset at the fact that I keep refuting your points...I am sorry but this is a debate board and that's why people debate...to refute each other's points and information. Again why are you singling me out? You as well as many others debate in such a way where it too seems you can't get through to them...you especially stand strong in your POV.

But anyway....let's just agree to disagree about that. >>

::sigh:: geesh after all that I guess we have to so you don't get more upset. Sorry if I am assuming here but that's the vibe I got from your post.

I will agree with you in one thing though. You and I BOTH feel that to vote without taking the time to find out about the candidates is irresponsible. I think it is a shame.>>

::orders champagne:: We need to celebrate the fact that you agree with me on something ;)

The only difference between you and I is that I acknowledge that this is pretty much an issue that transcends party lines and that both sides are equally guilty of it.>>

If you are referring to equally voting blindly and being contradictory...then yes we will have to disagree.

EVERYONE should find out about the candidate they plan to vote for.

This means more than just swallowing the drivel that that candidate and thier supporters happen to produce in its favour (because they LIKE what it says....because it supports their POV) and investigating other sources from the other side to see if it is indeed true. >>

I agree as well. I plan on reading a book looking at things from a Democratic POV and I am always on these boards...If I wasn't interested in the other side of things why would I bother? I'd just live my life believing what I believe without having to open my mind anymore to anything else that doesn't support my POV...I of course don't do this...even though I may still not agree with you or others doesn't mean I am not processing the contents in my head.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 07-09-2004 - 5:44pm
LOL! First you have to

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Fri, 07-09-2004 - 7:59pm
<>

No. I'm telling you that no innocent people were killed by John Kerry while burning a village.

If you'd like to believe that, you're certainly free to. As the Bush administration is fond of saying, "it hasn't been disproven." It hasn't been disproven that I can fart pineapples either.

The burning of villages occurred because the US military was forcing people (over 4 million people) into "strategic hamlets" which were detention camp-like areas, to seperate them from the Viet Cong. Of course the people needed some strong persuading to leave their homes, their land, and their burial grounds to live in a make-shift prison, so the villages were burned to give reistant villagers no alternative. Here's an informative site: http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwch1e.htm

It's a small but significant point that the soldiers commiting this crime were doing it, they believed, to better protect the people by moving them to secured hamlets. (Thus the famous quote: "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.") In your imagined Kerry killing spree, you seem to think soldiers snuck up on families as they slept and burned their huts down. I'm not defending them - I"m just addressing your insinuation that if you burn someone's hut, you're more than likely to kill them. The point of burning the village, was to round up the people and move them. Not kill them. Still a crime though.

<>

Republicans are calling John Kerry a traitor just for returning to the states and talking about Geneva violations. Now you're demanding that he should have refused orders while in a war zone? Can you imagine how big a headline THAT would get on Drudge?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Fri, 07-09-2004 - 9:01pm
<>

Ya know what? I'm not really sure. Not a thank-you exactly but perhaps an acknowledgment that I might have related some useful bit of news that you didn't know. I always feel on the defensive with you. Not that I mind it that much. It can be quite exhilirating and a welcome challenge.

<>

That goes for me as well. I really have never met anyone who sees things quite the same way you do. Hard to believe that we both belong to the same species huh? LOL (this wasn't an insult to you....I just find that we are both so different in the way we see things). Perhaps if we were posting on some other board like a gardening or recipe board we might find more in common.

<>

Well actually some people do. I don't think I singled you out, I have said similar things to other posters before but as I said above, we see things so differently and this IS a debate board. It's more interesting and fun to debate someone you disagree with than pat the backs of those you agree with.

<> I guess that goes for us both.

<>

I was. Come on....admitt it, you sometimes get irritated too. If you don't, a LOT of your posts sure seem like you are.

<<::orders champagne:: We need to celebrate the fact that you agree with me on something ;)

*POP!* I agree. We could both use one. *CLINK*

<>

TSK, well still, I won't let that ruin my champagne....cheers.







iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Fri, 07-09-2004 - 9:01pm
:oD

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-11-2004
Fri, 07-09-2004 - 9:20pm
"Remember, you might be informed (I don't deny it) however, you reject anything that does not fit with your view of the virtues of this administration. I don't think the point of your research usually is to inform yourself but only to back up your already pre-conceived notions."


Well said.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-11-2004
Fri, 07-09-2004 - 9:53pm
"My only point is how uninformed a lot of liberal/democratic/Kerry supporting people are...find out what the man is about before voting in November is all I ask...it doesn't have to be Bush, just vote wisely, educated and with enough knowledge so you don't contradict yourself. I can't sway an opinion, and I am not trying to...I am observing how the vote for most of those stated above base their votes on and with quite a bit of lacking criteria to make such an important decision. I don't think everything is black and white...but some things are. Vote and know who you are voting for and why...that is pretty basic logic don't you think?"

britogal can you just step back for one moment and understand that a lot of Dems feel the exact same way that you feel? We also question why anyone would be voting for Bush. Why people like you are so devoted to him dispite all the things we know that he has done wrong? You've repeatedly made the comment that a lot of Dems are voting for Kerry just to "not vote for Bush" Certainly there are some who feel that way. That's *always* the case in any election. A certain percentage of voters are voting against someone.... particularly when one of the candidates is an incumbant. The incumbant has had 3.5 years to impact peoples opinions... and some do not like what they see. For most people it's a combination of things. They do not like the incumbant *and* they feel like the other candidate more closely mirrors their beliefs. What I keep reading in your posts is that anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as you is not educated about the candidates. That is not the case. Two people can both read, research and educate themselves and come to different conclusions.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-11-2004
Fri, 07-09-2004 - 10:11pm
"The abusers at the prison in Iraq, however, have not had the chance to speak out because they were arrested for what they did, and not enough time has past and their trials are not over with for them to repent publicly."


I gotta tell ya, the interviews and comments I've heard from these people does not lead me to think they would have ever come forward and "repented publically" I truly believe that the only reason that we've heard the least bit of contrition is because they got busted. They did not seem to think there was anything the least bit wrong with what they did. To me that is the most offensive aspect of the whole thing. I can forgive a lot when someone is under orders, but the obvious pride and enjoyment these people took in those orders belies any sort of humanity.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Sat, 07-10-2004 - 2:51am
Well it nice to have such a great debate and then have it end in some "cheers" don't ya think? ;) Yeah I will admit I can be stubborn about my POV but that's just me...that's why I like to debate. I know I haven't said it yet but you are one of the few I really respect on the other side...*cheers again*
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Sat, 07-10-2004 - 3:03am
<>

I agree and that's how I want it...that's my whole point...too bad it isn't happening with the majority of Dems I have met, spoken to, read about or seen...mainly on these very boards...even the intelligent ones fall into the blind voting trap... As for how some people don't understand how someone can support Bush after all he has done wrong...my answer is simple...because we don't think he has done wrong...he made a decision based on information even Clinton and Kerry read and came to the same conclusions. Ever ask youself why Clinton hasn't lashed out at Bush? He has said he doesn't fault the President for he was only doing what he felt was right and based his decision on the same intelligence he had...he also has said who knows what any other President would have done given that situation...I gained more respect for Clinton after I heard that... The intelligence about WMD's was flawed, we do know this now...I have respect for Bush because he did what he felt was in the best interest of my country...I respect that...I also respect him knowing this war might jeapordize his next term and he did it anyways, non-selfishly is how I see it. It's not that I don't think he can do wrong...I love my father to death but he has some big flaws and little ones, but overall I see a decent human being who has determination, respect and strength...reminds me of my father. I can go on and on but I am sure you don't want to hear it again ;)

Thanks for listening :)


Pages