On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:12:26 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:57:57 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
It's also no secret that his psychobabble seems to keep you going.


Newsflash: I argue with Twisty to keep my own wits sharp.

You admitted it yourself, Twisty "debates" by playing head games with
people. That's hardly your style Frank. Certainly not something worthy
enough to be called "sharpening your wits".


On the contrary (and I mean that quite literally), I have to stay on
my toes -because- of his 'head-game' style.

Why? If you are telling the truth, his "spin" is quite evident for
what it truly is. Hardly something that one needs to defend.


I argue with you because you are ignorant.

Which started coincidentally when you found out that I support the
opposite political party.


Wrong. It started when you came running to the defense of baby-G after
I raked his policies over the coals. The specific post where you
started it was:


Yes, and after deflecting your vicious and unsubstantiated claims, or
the hypocrisy of using one set of opinions to offset another, you had
a problem.



Before that we were on good terms. Now you
"think" (and I use the term loosely) that I'm an idiot for it.


Wrong. I think you are quite intelligent. You just don't use those
brains whenever the facts conflict with your belief system.

But you have YET to provide more than a few true facts. Your "facts"
are little more than conclusions that someone else arrived at based
loosely on probability and conjecture. What true facts you have
provided are not relevant to the core issue.


If that
isn't a partisan pundit attitude, I don't know what is.


I see you discovered a new word -- 'pundit'. But you use it much to
frequently to be effective.

If the shoe fits.......


Only an idiot argues with another idiot Frank. You "argue" with me,
because you are unable to present your "side" with anything other than
your own opinions. The fact that I can effectively deflect your
"facts" as the op-ed opinions that they truly are frustrates you.


What makes you think you can do anything of the sort? So far you
haven't accomplished anything that would substantiate your claim
(which is certainly no suprise).

I can and I have. Can you prove that Bush was a deserter? Can you
prove that he dodged the draft? Can you prove that he's a "criminal?



The facts are not in your favor Frank.

At least back before you guys found a common love for the wrong side
of the political spectrum....


Your political spectrum analyzer is out of alignment, Dave.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it might
be.....

And you
haven't read a single word I've written because, and to put it simple
enough for a 1st grader, I don't take sides when it comes to politics.
I oppose Bush because he's a criminal, not because he's a Republican.

Where is the proof that Bush is a "criminal"?


How about his conviction for DUI? That alone defines him as a
criminal.

And Clinton never inhaled (But did dodge the draft) so what's your
point? How does a DUI conviction that happened many years ago affect
his leadership of the country now? You're grasping at straws Frank...

What is your basis for
making such an outlandishly absurd and so typically partisan claim?


Now there's a loaded question if I ever heard one. Regardless, I think
Twisty would me more than eager to provide an answer so I'll let him
take the first jab.

Coming from someone who disregards and disrespects the law, and then
makes all sorts of lame excuses for it, whatever he says is already
suspect.


And if you had any evidence..... or even a reasonable suspicion that
Kerry was in any way a criminal, I could accept it.

The evidence is there. It came out of Kerry's own mouth. He admitted
to taking part in the atrocities in Vietnam on Meet the Press on April
18th 1971.


He admitted the same at the congressional hearing.


Now Frank, you are a man who claims to embrace logic, so
riddle me this then. If Kerry is telling the truth about his part in
these "atrocities", then is he not guilty of a war crime?


Truth is relative to the observer. Facts are not. Kerry may have been
telling the truth as he saw it but the facts may be different (and
frequently are when testimony is based on nothing but recollection of
events). If the details from his testimony could be verified as
factual then he might indeed be a criminal.

If that isn't the biggest double talking tap dance I ever saw, I don't
know what is. The facts are quite clear:
Either he was truthful and he took part in war crimes, or he lied
about it. Either way, he's a an opportunistic slimeball.


But there are two parts to
his testimony:

1) that war crimes were committed in Vietnam, which has since been
verified as factual.

There are many statements from other servicemen that say pretty much
the opposite. While some atrocities may have occurred, they were in no
way condoned, endorsed, or pardoned by the command structure.


The problem is that everybody knew stuff like
that was going on so it wasn't any big shock when Kerry made the claim
in front of congress.

Everybody didn't know, as evidenced by the testimony of other
servicemen.

And isn't it odd that Kerry, a swiftboat captain, saw more atrocities
in the 4 months that he was there, than other guys saw in 2 or more
full tours of duty?


2) that -he- committed war crimes in Vietnam, which has -not- been
verified as factual. IOW, either he provided specific information
regarding his conduct which the government chose not to verify, or his
claims were nonspecific generalities which could not be verified.

Assuming the former (that he made specific references to specific
acts) then the question becomes one of why the crimes were not
prosecuted. There were plenty of war crimes in Vietnam that -were-
prosecuted, so war crimes were not always ignored. Nixon wanted him
silenced, and it would have certainly been easy enough if he -was-
prosecuted for war crimes, but that never happened.

Which then lends credibility to the notion that HE LIED. Along with
the other stuff he did while a part of the VVAW.

So the only issue left is one of perception. What one person perceives
as a crime may only be an act of war in the mind of another (a problem
that is still evident today but you refuse to admit). That seems to be
the case, and therefore it doesn't matter what he said. The -fact- is
that Kerry's acts were never addressed by the government as war crimes
-regardless- of how Kerry perceived his own actions.

IOW Kerry lied.

On the other
hand, if he didn't take part, and the whole issue was a blown up
fabrication, doesn't that make him a liar?


No. As I stated before, people have different perceptions and
interpretations about what constitutes a "crime", and the subject has
been addressed in this newsgroup on many occasions when discussing the
legality of FCC rules.

The FCC rules are pretty cut and dry. You operate above 4 watts of
power and/or on non-assigned frequencies, you are committing a
violation of federal law. The only "perception" issue is the one kept
alive only by those who refuse to deal with the reality of what they
are doing, or who try to justify it somehow by trivializing it.



Would you want someone who
lied like that to be your CNC? How many other lies did he make in the
aftermath of the who winter soldier debacle and the VVAW movement
which followed?


But so far you
have offered nothing but excuses, logical fallacies, and websites with
forged documents and paranoid rants.

As opposed to the sites you provided which were nothing more than the
flip side of what I provided?


Do you think Kerry's official military records are forgeries?

No, but they only tell part of the story.


You discard what I provided because you refuse to acknowledge the
possibility. You don't want to believe it so you deny it. You came up
with some sort of "font analysis" on one document, and concluded that
it was a forgery, so then you projected that conclusion to all the
rest of the evidence.


Once again, I used the same standards that were used to discredit the
CBS documents.

Has it occurred to you that the font issue could be explained by the
OCR software used to digitize the documents?


And the rest of the website was nothing more than
speculation without facts. Such as assumption of guilt in the absense
of evidence, and misinterpretation of official military records.

Many murderers have been put in prison based on circumstantial
evidence. When this much smoke is generated, there will be a fire
somewhere.


If you are really a supporter of
the Republican party then you should keep quiet on political issues
because you are giving your party some very poor representation.

I am a conservative,


That's fine. Label yourself if you want. But don't label me a liberal
just because I don't share your beliefs.

Fine then. But I find it odd, but perhaps enlightening, that most of
the people I know with conservative ideals are quick to admit it,
almost proudly. While most of the people I know who are liberals hide
from the term, almost like it was holy water to a vampire. I have to
wonder why they feel the need to hide what they are? If you are
committed to your beliefs, then you should be able to admit them with
confidence.


That being said, what are your political leanings Frank? You are
certainly no conservative. And please don't try to pull a cop out and
claim to be "moderate".




and I support those who best represent my
political views.

I also believe in the history and honor of our country, its military


Were you ever in the military, Dave?

Irrelevant.




and the judgement of its leader in matters of national security and
enemies of the state.


You do understand that there are three branches to the government,
don't you? Bush isn't in the Judicial branch.

And your point is? The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting
the law.

Dave