Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Wow - Now this is just pitiful
Posted by: McQ on Monday, October 08, 2007

If you're interested in one of the most - and I'm scratching around here for an appropriate word, oh I'll stick "stupid" for right now - character assassination attempts I've yet seen, check out a post entitled 'Phonied-Up Republican Soldier - Yes, Phonied-Up', here.

Clumsy? Lame? Sad? All of the above?

I mean, it's actually funny how hard this person tries to denigrate Pete Hegseth of Vets For Freedom, someone who has actually done something as compared to the real phony soldiers, such as Jesse MacBeth.

It is another example of the overreaching and overreacting the left tends to do.

It's pitiful.

Maybe that's the best word for it.

The irony? The same people doing this sort of thing found John Kerry's 4 months in country to be perfectly adequate enough to have him pontificate on the military and national security. But Hegseth, who actually did his entire tour in country, well, just not worthy enough.

You see, as far as the left is concerned, to have full moral authority as a soldier, you pass whatever the arbitrary litmus test the left has this week. Otherwise, you get lumped in with all the other real "phony soldiers" because, you know, it's convenient to the narrative and all.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I don’t know, McQ, the guy’s style and tone sound a lot like you, he’s just criticizing from a different direction. Seriously. Do you really not realize that you often sound a lot like the people you condemn, but with different targets of attack.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
the guy’s style and tone sound a lot like you, he’s just criticizing from a different direction.


Uh, when did McQ go after someone who didn’t deserve it? You might be correct on the style and tone, but you are loosing it when you get to the merits.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Everyone should check out the comments to that post as well. There are several military people in the Daily Kos community and they did not take kindly to the diary or the diarist.

As for the post itself, it doesn’t actually make any sense. Hegseth is phony soldier because he didn’t see enough combat for the diarist’s tastes? He’s a phony banker because he didn’t work at Bear Stearn long enough? It really is pathetic.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Uh, when did McQ go after someone who didn’t deserve it? You might be correct on the style and tone, but you are loosing it when you get to the merits.
It’s a case of classic moral relativism and Erb has a chronic infection he’s never been able to shake.

And of course, he couldn’t go into the Kos post and detail all the things wrong with it as I could (you see he’s never had anything to do with the military so he has no idea of what is or isn’t valid in such a post - but the post isn’t really worth that sort of effort). But that certainly won’t keep him from making the usual fool of himself anyway.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
And no, the tone wasn’t the same. When did anyone here ever write an "expose" that always ended with a question? Could it be McQ doesn’t start many sentences with "could it be"? Is this the mode of a serial conspiracy theory nut? Are these the hallmarks of empty rhetoric and baseless speculation?
 
Written By: Phelps
URL: http://phelps.donotremove.net
Scott, I wouldn’t be criticizing anyone on "style and tone" if I were you.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
As for the post itself, it doesn’t actually make any sense. Hegseth is phony soldier because he didn’t see enough combat for the diarist’s tastes? He’s a phony banker because he didn’t work at Bear Stearn long enough?
Exactly. And the diarist, who hasn’t done zip in either area apparently, feels qualified to decide what is or isn’t ’enough’.

Truly pathetic.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Look he’s a phony because he married a hawt babe and did NOT attend Airborne Training, like the girl did....I believe I have summarized the reasoning correctly.

And Dr. Erb, are you sure you got a PhD? I mean this diary is like QandO...You just make stuff up as you go along, right?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
he’s just criticizing from a different direction
Yeah, McQ.

You don’t even have the skills of Erb who can criticize from a different direction depending on the ideology of the target!

Hang your head in shame, McQ.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
C’mon McQ, you should know by now that if nothing else, Erb is lazy (as well as intellectually dishonest). Going in there and actually reading what was posted then posting side by side comparisons of you and the article in question to back up his wild accusations are just not worth his time.

However, the Gods help you if you even hint that Erb doesn’t know something, or say he’s wrong: he’ll then forget simple definitions and call you a liar.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
So funny, so so funny.

He’s a phony soldier because he didn’t follow rules about political activities? Why is it that that only matters when the left wants to shut someone up?

Sort of like at KOS conventions where the military fellow on the floor gets shut up by the military brass on the freaking PANEL, because it’s against the rules for him to represent himself as speaking for the military?
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
"Look he’s a phony because he married a hawt babe"

Au contraire, mon ami. He is a phony because, in the words of the diarist, "I prefer a slightly curvaceous girl", although he does say she is fetching(I suspect sarcasm, for some reason). I didn’t read the whole article, but I assume he also has an ugly dog. What more proof do you crypto-fascist Wall St. lackeys need?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
It’s a case of classic moral relativism and Erb has a chronic infection he’s never been able to shake.
No, I accuse you of relativism. If it’s ’your side’ being attacked, you consider it bad. If Murtha, Kerry or the "other side" is attacked, then it’s OK. Each side rationalizes that they are "right" and the other side "wrong" and thus what is done by them is "moral" in their context and "immoral" when the others do it.

I’m being the moral absolutist here: such attacks whether on Kerry or Hegseth are wrong. They are unfair, personal, and detract from real political debate and discussion. These kind of attacks are a symptom of what is wrong — morally wrong — with American politics, and in fact are one reason why the state of our political discourse has fallen so low.

Moral relativism:
Left: it’s OK to attack Bush, Cheney and Bolton, but wrong to attack Kerry, Carter, and Murtha.
Right: it’s OK to attack Kerry, Carter and Murtha, but wrong to attack Bush, Cheney and Bolton.

Moral politics: the personal attacks and smears against all these people are wrong, even if each side finds reason to rationalize it. It is gutter politics, where emotion and personal attacks overcome reason and honest discourse.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I’m being the moral absolutist here
Erb view #1:
Kerry, smart enough to realize that in the gotcha game an apology is precisely the wrong thing to do, fired back...

So why not apologize? In an ideal world, Kerry could say, “gee, I didn’t mean to insult anyone and I apologize for any offense.” But the gotcha game is perverse in how it plays itself out. Once you apologize, you are admitting that the charge is true, at least in the world of modern American political discourse. The opponents will take the apology and parade it as proof that you meant what you said.
Hmmm...Kerry "smart" for worrying about what others are going to say.

Erb view #2:
But Limbaugh would have the moral high ground, and isn’t it more important to do the right thing rather than worry what others are going to say?

the way Rush responded — going on the attack — suggests he is, deep down, an insecure person. That’s OK, and it explains a lot, but somehow it causes me to feel a little sorry for him.
Hmmm...Limbaugh "insecure" for realizing "an apology is precisely the wrong thing to do."

Erb, does your head hurt when it spins around like that?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
There are some who decide that it is patentaly partisan to attack those opposed to your point of view. There may be a point to that position, until you read the material being posted that is being attacked - notice I said material, not person.

Kerry, Murtha, Durbin, Reid, Kennedy have each in turn maligned the military. Each have been broght to task by the people who frequent this blog. Each has attacked the person’s action first, the person second. What is interesting is that people of the right do not make such disparaging remarks (recent Limbaugh faux controversey included). And if they did I would be leading the charge against that person’s comment. Note: I said comment, not person.

I have problem with this entire discussion. And the problem is a simple one - personal responsibility. I am responsible for what I say and do. No one else. I have the freedom in this country to say what I wish to whom I wish about virtually any topic I so desire. (To think I would write "to whom" - boy, my Mom would be so proud!) But I do not have the freedom from the criticsm of my comments. Just as my comments are free, so are other people’s comments, even if directed at my own. Likewise, in a free country, I am free to act. But I am not free of the consequences of my actions.

Some would say there is a double standard. People of the right do not attack people of the right. That’s Crap! Duke Cunningham was a hero of mine but I was out in front condemning his actions. Larry Craig has not been given any slack that I have seen in any right leaning blog. When Bush f*cks up, I am among the first to jump on the man. And for the most part, I see the same in the persons around me on this blog. I do not see the same from those on the left.

When Kerry, Murtha, Durbin, Reid, Kennedy maligned the military, the left was silent - silent as a tomb. Time and again. And some, who would complain about the treatment given those individuals on the blog, defended the person because "he is a good man" and "he has done good things for his constituency" and comments of the like. You know, he may even "be a good man" and is kind to the elderly and pets puppies of all breeds - but if he steps in his own sh*t, someone needs to tell him he stinks! And if the Left will not do it to one of their own, I will lead the frigging charge.

You got a problem with that, Erb? (Jeez, the man made me break my own frigging vow!) Moral relativism: What is this, your cause celeb these days? I see it in droves coming from the left, even to the members of the left chiding their own - not for making stupid comments but those who criticize the left when they do. Where is the condemnation from the left, only when it is directed at the right.

You speak of seeking the moral high ground but your words come from the swamp. You don’t like being criticized but you are among the first to do so yourself. You say you acknowledge when you’ve made a mistake or mispoke - yeah after being beaten around the head and shoulders for, in some cases, days before you will acknowledge the gaffe.

So now you defend the left for this postion of attacking a real soldier because he wasn’t John Wayne enough to be real and has a hot wife? And you, with your vast knowledge and understanding of all things military, think we have sinned for taking the other side in the discussion. Talk about moral relativism!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
No, I accuse you of relativism
You have accused everyone not in lockstep with you, of moral relativism. Everyone.



I have unquestionably jumped down your throat on several occasions. THe reason is a simple one: To put it mildly, I think you could be extraordinarily misguided. But here’s the thing; I’m not the only one that thinks so.

Look; I’m not an extraordinarily popular guy in here. And that’s fine. But here’s the point; When you see so many people who are saying to you precisely what I’m saying, and I mean people who DISagree with me, In some cases quite vehemently on most other matters, it should be a clue that it’s not everybody else has the moral relativism problem, it’s not everybody else who was wrong, it is you.


(Shrug)
I guess that concept now, to be beyond you.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I’m being the moral absolutist here: such attacks whether on Kerry or Hegseth are wrong. They are unfair, personal, and detract from real political debate and discussion.
Bullsh*t.

Kerry attacked his fellow vets back in the day, so when he ran for president 30 odd years later he was fair game to the same vets he had attacked. He called it on himself, he even amplified it by making his military service the centerpiece of his campaign.

It’s dumb to make something you did over 30 years ago a center piece in your job interview, and even dumber when many of your past achievements are questionable at best. But Kerry went one more step and insulted his past coworkers. And, yeah, he lied about his past service every chance he got.

This is all fair game. Show that Hegseth lied or shirked duty, and maybe you would have a point.

But then, Scott, you don’t think Kerry lied about Xmas in Cambodia. The word of Kerry’s campaign manager and gushing biographer count every bit as much as the official documents, the word of his commanders, and the word of the people who were actually on the boat in Scott’s world of moral equivalence.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
First, SShiell, why do you think I’m defending the post McQ linked to. I’m not defending it one bit, it’s the kind of thing I strongly condemn.
Kerry, Murtha, Durbin, Reid, Kennedy have each in turn maligned the military.


So? Are you saying that the military is perfect, and should be above criticism? Sorry, the world doesn’t work that way. Moreover, most of it has been ’gotcha games’ rather than reality. Durbin is incensed by tactics he hears about and compares those tactics to things from the third Reich. Then, dishonestly, the rhetorical move is made to say he’s saying "our troops" (universally) are "like Nazis." No, some tactics by a small group engaged in questionable activities — things opposed by many Republicans — remind him of tactics the Nazis used. Big difference, but that is ignored by those who dishonestly want to play a ’gotcha game’ so they can attack him for the rest of history.

The point is simple: both sides play these gotcha games and shifts towards personal attack, each side rationalizes that the ’other side is worse,’ through their own deployment of moral relativism, and the result is noise and emotion.

I obviously disagreed with the attack on Limbaugh, I disagreed with the attack McQ cited, I have no room for that any more than attacks on Carter and Murtha. While I understand your dislike of Murtha, I think you’re over-reacting, based on your perspective and experiences. But I know I do the same sometime, so I’ll not begrudge you that reaction. I just wish the ’right’ would say that, in principle, they are behaving like they accuse the left of behaving, and the left would see that they are behaving as they accuse the right of behaving.

And why would you think I don’t like being criticized? If criticism and insults bothered me, I would go post somewhere with like minded people and not take provcative stands. I know sometime my position is going very much against the prevailing perspective hear. I know people will often get mad. I don’t care about that as much as learning that perspective and understanding it, and learning new ways of looking at issues. It would be boring if I posted things only to an audience of like minded people, I wouldn’t learn anything. And, though you may not believe it, I don’t dislike anyone here or hold any grudge over any insult. I don’t mind the insults, and I usually know when I take a position that is going to generate a number of them (many of you are predictable). But I’m still going to state what I think. Give me a good argument, or pointing out when I’m wrong (and I’ve had to admit error on a number of occastions), that is helpful to me. Then I learn something.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Durbin is incensed by tactics he hears about and compares those tactics to things from the third Reich. Then, dishonestly, the rhetorical move is made to say he’s saying "our troops" (universally) are "like Nazis."
What is the point of saying some group does things the Nazis did if not to imply that the group is like the Nazis?

Sorry, Durbin can’t walk both sides of the rhetorical street. If he starts comparing things to the Nazis, he doesn’t get to feign indignation when someone complains about it.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Steverino, your point is illogical. In a report on the rise of Hitler, Peter Jennings (obviously this was a few years ago — in his American Century series) noted that the Nazis operated in a way that many modern campaign would recognize, using the same tactics as those used by modern political parties today (mass broshures, organization, campaign events, etc.) Noting that some of the tactics used by the Republicans and Democrats are the same as the tactics used by the Nazis is not to say that Republicans and Democrats are nazis.

The reason we point out when American tactics are reminiscient of Nazi tactics is to get people to think about the morality of our actions, and if what’s being done in our name is really something we want to be associated with.

But fundamentally, saying someone is using the tactics of someone else is different than saying someone is just like someone else. The distortion of Durbin’s words was a dishonest smear of the kind Goebbels would enjoy (and yes, the left engages in similar activities).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Steverino, your point is illogical.
Coming from you, that’s high praise, and all your blathering merely underscores my point.

My point is that many people compare "A" to Nazi Germany without actually saying "A" is like the Nazis, but with the clear intent to tie the two together. It’s a rhetorical trick of juxtaposition. When called on the comparison, they will become indignant that someone has accused them of saying "A" is like the Nazis.

It’s cheap, but not unexpected.
The distortion of Durbin’s words was a dishonest smear of the kind Goebbels would enjoy (and yes, the left engages in similar activities).
My, you are quick to resort to mudslinging here. Are you saying those who "distorted" (put in quotes because I don’t yet concede that anyone distorted his words) Durbin’s words are engaging in Nazi tactics?

I think you did that deliberately to get others to accuse you. It’s really dishonest of you, Erb, and your actions here bring shame upon the institution that awarded you a doctorate.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Are you saying that the military is perfect, and should be above criticism?
No, and I dare you to cite anything that I have written to say otherwise. That was not the point of my comment. My point was rather simple - moral relativism.
Moral relativism:
Left: it’s OK to attack Bush, Cheney and Bolton, but wrong to attack Kerry, Carter, and Murtha.
Right: it’s OK to attack Kerry, Carter and Murtha, but wrong to attack Bush, Cheney and Bolton.
And where on this blog do you see this? Do we not call out Bush when he makes a mistake? As I pointed out in my comment:
Duke Cunningham was a hero of mine but I was out in front condemning his actions. Larry Craig has not been given any slack that I have seen in any right leaning blog. When Bush f*cks up, I am among the first to jump on the man.
In this blog, I see an equal opportunity applied at it’s best. You screw up and expect to get slammed - regardless of political slant. What you fail to recognize is that for the most part I may be libertarian but I am also a conservative. What happens when I agree with the actions taken by the administration and you do not? Does that mean I am partisan in my defense of the action? Not necessarily. It just so happens they are acting in a manner that I agree with regardless of party affiliation.

But is that type of activity applied equally on the left? NO! And that was the point of my comment. The Moral Ralativism you abhor does not exist in the manner you describe. If I am wrong show me - show me one left blog that took Durbin to task for comparing our military to Nazis. Show me one leftist blog that condemned Murtha for trying and convicting the Haditha Marines publicly - while the investigation was ongoing. (Note: I do not claim what did or did not happen at Haditha, I point out Murtha’s perfidy in convicting them when and how he did.) Show me one leftist blog that condemned Kerry for his "botched joke". Show me one leftist blog that took exception with Reid calling the war as lost before the surge even began. Look at each of those actions and show me where the moral relativism is equalled on the right. Bush got slammed on the right for Katrina. Bush got slammed on the right for the conduct of the war 2004-2006. Bush got slammed on the right for immigration. Larry Craig got and is getting slammed on the right. Show me the equivilence on the left.

I expect people to act in accordnace with their postion.
While I understand your dislike of Murtha, I think you’re over-reacting, based on your perspective and experiences.
If their actions bely their postion, I will not give them any benefit of any doubt - period. Murtha stepped beyond his purview, and he deserved to be condemned by all for his comments. He could have condemned the action without condemning the marines but he didn’t nor has he backed away from his condemnations. And to top it off he is adored by the left because of them. Show me where this fits into your moral relativism argument for the right.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Durbin is incensed by tactics he hears about and compares those tactics to things from the third Reich.
Yeah, Durbin was talking about Gitmo and prisoners that were held in 100 degree heat, one was so cold where he "shivered", force to listen to rap music . . . none of which quite equates to Nazi death camps (and these stories were not verified, at least when Durbin made his comments).

Comparing Americans to Nazis is stupid, even when you have some factual similarities. You have the same factual similarities to just about any state engaged in war. Bringing in the Nazis is inherently over-the-top: the only point to a comparison to the Nazis is the images of exceptional evil and brutality.

Durbin is an ass, and deserved his any ass kicking he received on this issue.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Bush got slammed on the right for Katrina. Bush got slammed on the right for the conduct of the war 2004-2006. Bush got slammed on the right for immigration. Larry Craig got and is getting slammed on the right. Show me the equivilence on the left.
Yeah, and the Harriot Miers thing . . .

. . . and Duke Cunningham (what a dissapointment).

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
SShiell, I don’t mind getting slammed if I screw up. But I’m not going to accept I "screwed up" just because someone asserts it and insults. I’ve admitted being wrong many times, most recently in suggesting that Bush’s rhetoric was the equivalent of Ahmadinejad’s.

Also, I’m not at all concerned with ’leftist blogs’ because I don’t read them. I don’t like the overly partisan blogs and websites, and this one does have a different slant, isn’t as predictable, and therefore more interesting. I don’t know who they slam, but I suspect right wing and left wing blogs are similar in their approach (most are lenient to their side, and slam the other side). I do recall reading in this blog that the "leftie" blogs were hard on their side for not being stronger in trying to end the war. So I suspect that while they may criticize for different things they do criticize their own side.

And sometimes I support the President even against his own side, like with the Harriet Miers nomination. Oh well.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Also, I’m not at all concerned with ’leftist blogs’ because I don’t read them.
Then be careful when you imply that blogs such as this one is morally equivilent to blogs on the Left. (Note: I did not say you said it but the implication was there whether you meant to or not.)
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I don’t know who they slam, but I suspect right wing and left wing blogs are similar in their approach (most are lenient to their side, and slam the other side). I do recall reading in this blog that the "leftie" blogs were hard on their side for not being stronger in trying to end the war. So I suspect that while they may criticize for different things they do criticize their own side.
Certainly there are similarities, and certainly one treats one one’s side better. But there are differences as well.

For example, leftie blogs have tended to act as Democrat shock troops, while right wing blogs have acted as a conservative antidote to the MSM.

To my knowledge, the biggest success of the lefty blogs was Lieberman’s "defeat", while the biggest successs of the right wing blogs was Rathergate.

Of course, it ain’t over till the fat lady sings, so maybe (as some have argued) the lefty blogs are on to something.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
This list of frauds is rather suggestive. No doubt Erb et al won’t like the source, but somehow I don’t think they can compile a meaningful list that’s too their liking.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Well, Don, I think the "defeat" of Lieberman was really sad — I disagree with this war as much as anyone, but to demonize Lieberman over one issue, an issue I’m sure he was sincere about, was simply wrong, IMO.

I do think, for all my criticism of some of what McQ’s personal attacks (or your obvious antipathy to John Kerry), this blog is the only one I’ve found worth reading. I actually agree with a huge chunk of what’s written by the bloggers here when you move away from American foreign policy. I’ve got a traditional "libertarian" perspective on foreign policy, making me anti-interventionist and a foreign policy minimalist. I don’t trust big government with massive war making power; I think Ike was right when he warned of the military industrial complex. But on a lot of other issues there is a lot of commong ground. I think I’m less trustful of big business (I don’t like big government or big business, both centralize power and can be dangerous). I sometimes think that the reaction to me is not just my tendency towards provocative prose sometimes, but also that I’m not a stereotypical leftist and I don’t fit with the image of who people seem to want me to be.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I do think, for all my criticism of some of what McQ’s personal attacks (or your obvious antipathy to John Kerry),
Well, I tend to think McQ is usually spot-on.

As far as Kerry, I have a low opinion of him largely because I think the Swift Boat vets were right. But I don’t bring up Kerry so much because of any dislike, but rather as a showcase of the left’s style of argument. And it provides a nice sharp contrast to the forged Bush documents that Rather/Mapes tried to float on CBS.

Kerry isn’t interesting on his own (at least ppost 2004), and the "what did Kerry do in Vietnam?" question isn’t interesting in and of itself. But within the context of Bush vs. Kerry in the 2004 election, I think it (and it’s mirror controversy provided by CBS) is facinating. Often moreso by the adherance to certain views that appear to require some measure of self deception or intellectual dishonesty.

For example, the Xmas in Cambodia thing: you seem to think that Kerry’s biographer’s word and his campaign manager’s word is equivelent to that of his ship mates (including those who support him: all of them say they were never there), his commanders, and his written orders. Of course, the biographer claimes to have devined Kerry’s foreys into Cambodia from Kerry’s log, but last I heard he does so without telling us what dates (page), and what geographical entries support the idea he was in Cambodia. Unless he supplies specifics, his claim is empty. And of course, the biographer and the campaign manager didn’t even provide consistent stories.



 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
And why would you think I don’t like being criticized?
Simple observation and induction.

Observation of the way you hide under your desk, and duck and cover when it occurs, for example, the charge of "Moral Relativism."



Don:
Kerry attacked his fellow vets back in the day, so when he ran for president 30 odd years later he was fair game to the same vets he had attacked.
agreed fully. But you’ve gotta understand; as a historian, Erb’s memory doesn’t go back quite so far.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
/induction/deduction/
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
It was funny that the head of the Swift boat vets said that no swift boat commander would have gone into Cambodian waters without being punished, but in 1971 he said directly to President Nixon that he had been in Cambodia. It does make one doubt the credibility of the swift boat folks. They also tried to make it sound like they served with Kerry, when only one did.

Everyone has bias — I think what happens is that when people disagree, it’s easy for them to slip into seeing those with a different opinion as BAD. Emotion gets involved, and it feeds on itself, sort of like the yellow journalism of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. So the right sees intense criticism of Bush as "BDS" — as if it were a mental illness — but give it a pass for their intense criticism of Hillary Clinton (or Bill Clinton before her). The right think that Clinton’s lies about sex make him objectively worse than Bush, the left thinks that Bush’s policies in Iraq have lead to massive needless death and destruction, something Clinton’s lurid personal life did not do. My question: can’t one disagree with Bush or Hillary or Bill without finding it necessary to hate them? Do people on the right really not see that their treatment of Hillary is often easily as bad as what they call ’rabid anti-Bush BDS’ emotion from the left (and vice-versa)?

That’s OK — I’ll keep complaining about it, and probably get nowhere. But I’m OK with that.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"(Shrug)
I guess that concept now, to be beyond you."

It’s proof of his exceptionalism. He is head and shoulders above the rest of us in logic, analysis, and rational thought unsullied by emotional baggage, taking heroic stands against the herd. Like Kerry vs. a couple of hundred other veterans.


"It was funny that the head of the Swift boat vets said that no swift boat commander would have gone into Cambodian waters without being punished, but in 1971 he said directly to President Nixon that he had been in Cambodia. It does make one doubt the credibility of the swift boat folks."

Timing is everything. Some time after Kerry left Vietnam, a whole bunch of Americans went into Cambodia at the direction of the President. Acting under orders instead of against them is also a good way to avoid punishment.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
My question: can’t one disagree with Bush or Hillary or Bill without finding it necessary to hate them?
Yes. I have known Bill Clinton personally for over 35 years. I can tell you exactly the day that I met him because he came to my wedding. (A friend of my wife brought him to the ceremony as her date) He is extremely intelligent and captures any room he enters.

The next time I saw him was some 7 years later. I was in the Air Force and was home on a 30 day mid-tour leave from a remote tour in Korea. While home on leave I took my wife to a small romantic restaurant in Little Rock and in the next booth was Bill Clinton with a georgeous blond. He was in between tours as governor at that time. I spoke to him for a moment but he seemed extremely uncomfortable.

I saw him two years later at a local Fairgound political rally. He was running for re-election as governor. I watched as one person after another came up to him and told him of their particular problems of the day. A tax they did not like, a land variance they needed, a zoning law they would like to see amended, the list went on and on. To each one he would agree with their problem and assure them he would find a solution. And I can tell you that he did not lie to a single person - he fully believed he could find that perfect happy compromise to all’s satisfaction.

Ten years later I saw that blond again giving a press conference. I know now why he was uncomfortable at that restaurant - the blond was Jennifer Flowers and the press conference was telling the world of her affair with Clinton. And several days later watched Bill and Hillary during their interview on 60 minutes about their healthy happy marriage.

Hate the man? I do not hate the man. But I would not trust him in the same room alone with my 27 year old daughter, either. There is a real difference.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
It’s proof of his exceptionalism. He is head and shoulders above the rest of us in logic, analysis, and rational thought unsullied by emotional baggage, taking heroic stands against the herd. Like Kerry vs. a couple of hundred other veterans.
My exceptionalism is that I admit when I’m wrong, I don’t dislike those who disagree with me or insult me, and I try to be polite. I don’t claim to be at all above anyone in logic, analysis or rational thought.

My point is that many people compare "A" to Nazi Germany without actually saying "A" is like the Nazis, but with the clear intent to tie the two together. It’s a rhetorical trick of juxtaposition
You’re reading more into his quote than I did.

The distortion of Durbin’s words was a dishonest smear of the kind Goebbels would enjoy (and yes, the left engages in similar activities).


My, you are quick to resort to mudslinging here. Are you saying those who "distorted" (put in quotes because I don’t yet concede that anyone distorted his words) Durbin’s words are engaging in Nazi tactics?
Who’s mudslinging? Democrats and Republicans alike use tactics that are much like those used by Goebbels, a brilliant propagandist. To think that this makes them Nazis or that these tactics are uniquely Nazi is silly. You make my point. It’s not impermissible to make comparisons to what the Nazis (or Germany army in WWII) did, and it doesn’t mean you’re calling people nazis.
I think you did that deliberately to get others to accuse you. It’s really dishonest of you, Erb, and your actions here bring shame upon the institution that awarded you a doctorate.
You are spewing insults and accusations, but you have nothing. Settle down, and maybe try to make an argument.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
My exceptionalism is that I admit when I’m wrong
More undersubstantiated claims.(Snicker)

Look, erb, let’s make this easy for you with an illustrative question: If all this was a bad dream, how would you know?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider