Originally posted by CazMedia
...wonder how/why you seem to think that using criteria other than lets say, the gennerally accepted standards set by broadcasters or the court system
with regard to verifying fact from fiction is useful.
The difference is based on one fundamental truth - sometimes we are lied to
. Should I accept primary documentary evidence when I am unsure of
the author's veracity? Of course not. Should I accept second- or third-hand information when I have previous evidence of the witness' integrity?
Absolutely, I should! Unlike a court of law, I do not have the legal authority to summon any person for questioning, and I do not have the legal
authority to punish them if they lie - therefore, I have to rely on my intellect and my judgement.
How can you look at the US Commission on Human Rights report about the florida election and then deny this informtion?
I do not believe that the US Commission on Human Rights report was unbiased, and I do not believe it addressed the most important issues.
from earlier in the thread sets out my case for
Bush's illegitimacy. How else can I put this? Fewer people voted for Bush than voted for Gore
! Now you can complain about Electoral
Colleges as much as you like, but it doesn't change the simple fact that Bush does not
have a mandate from the people.
So, to sum up, Dubya didn't win according to the letter
of the law, and didn't win according to the spirit
of the law. I repeat my
astonishment that this staggering injustice seems to have been accepted and paved over.
As far as his desertion is concerned:
- This link gives a broad overview, including
Dubya's mysterious absence from April 16 to October 28 1972, and an explanation on the political motivations behind his "honourable discharge".
- This link gives an analysis of the
documents (finally) released by the White House, which also show his absence from April 16 to October 28, 1972.
- This link tells how Bush's fellow servicemen in Alabama never set eyes on
- Here is a technical description of the meaning of the term AWOL as
understood by the US Military, and here is a technical description of
- And finally, the whole sordid story is laid out, in exhaustive detail, here.
Additional information is readily available, and is far too plentiful to be linked to here, but I would like to include a quote:
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe
equal allegiance to their country."
Who wrote that? Why, none other than Mr. Colin Powell, in his autobiography My American Journey
. Perhaps he should have a word with his
And finally, his idiocy is well documented and I don't believe it would serve any purpose to rehash the evidence yet again.
Also, the document i was refering to was cited by MrMulder in the "Bush going crazy" thread...(yet a third non issue bush bash)...
I have not read or contributed to the thread you refer to, and I don't believe I ever supported, intentionally or unintentionally, the article in
I reviewed this entire thread and have not seen this link.
The link I referred to is contained in the first post of page five
on this thread. It
, an article which refers to Bush's statement in the September
2000 issue of George Magazine. I have been unable to trace an copy of the article in question, but the article, and the "God told me to run" quote
in particular, is referred to constantly by commentators on both side of the political fence, which I am prepared to accept as confirmation.
I also noticed that on page 4 you seem to have been censured by the MudPit thought police
I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you're referring to this
, I'm afraid it wasn't censorship, it was just a stab at humour on my part.
My answer would be the journalist. The politician already has a ton of $$$ with which he has used to become elected with...there are also few
quick/easy means to oust him from office, whereas the journalist usually needs his job and can be fired way quicker than the politician...the
journalist job is more "at risk" than the politicians is.
Exactly my point. So I'm more likely to believe a second-hand story from a journalist about a politician, than I am to accept a first-hand denial
the politician. Therefore, it's sound deduction to say that a "second-hand" story can be more accurate and less biased than the same
story reported by one of the participants. This harks back to my point earlier about different standards of fact.
This plays to my whole arguments basis. The idea that some of these topics are really personal attacks against a candidate, and not based in
something factual. (ill give you they are extrapolationally interpretational) They are really unimportant ideas to waste time with before this
election as compared to the war, education, budget, ect.
I would contend that Bush's intelligence and competance - or lack thereof - go right to the heart of the election. You're not, after all, voting
for a political party or a suite of policies, you're electing a single man to the most important office in the world today. Isn't the suitability
of the candidates of prime importance - far more, it could be argued, than obscure points about the nation's finances or the candidate's education
We SHOULD be having a logical debate instead of an emotional one.
We should be talking about tangibles instead of feelings or interpretations of broad "patterns" if you will. Especially on a website devoted to
denial of ignorance.
With respect, I'm perfectly prepared to have a logical debate with you, or anyone else, on the minutiae of Bush's presidency and record. This
thread, however, is not
that debate. The title made it clear that we were discussing emotional judgements - emotional judgements based
in facts and figures, but informed by our deductive processes, intellect and instinct. I would also disagree with your implied assertion that
"emotional truth" is worthless - it is our intuition, emotion and reason that make us human.
The main reason that ive hammered away at your argument isnt because I dont like YOUR views per-say, id have hammered anyone that had stuck in a long
as you have.
I suspect most people aren't as stubborn as we are.
1)Dont citizens care about the real issues?
I think, generally, that they do
. The reason that Bush's personality - or Kerry's, or Clinton's, or Reagen's - is so important is that the
President is not an absolute monarch, he's just the Head of State. He doesn't have the single-handidly execute policy decisions, for good or ill.
But the President is a leader, the most important ambassador your country has, and a political figure of international importance. I disagree with
Bush's policies, but I dislike him because of what he is, what he represents, and what he has done to that once-illustrious office.
In short, policies are for Congress or the Senate. Presidents are about personal achievements, personal records, and personal merits - not to
mention, I'm sorry to say, entrenched left vs. right auto-voting.
2)How so many can just accept these type of arguments and opinions as FACT? WITHOUT question?
In all honesty, CazMedia, I think you're getting caught up on facts
and ignoring the evidence
. Not all documents tell the truth; not
all undocumented sources are wrong. There is nothing I can point to and say "there, that proves scientifically and absolutely that Bush is as stupid
as a barrel of spam". Instead, I have to look at the things he says and the things he does, and judge his intelligence based on that. Quite
candidly, I cannot believe that anyone
who judges Dubya objectively can think he's of even average intelligence - and remember, I'm the
foreigner here who doesn't benefit either
It's also worth remembering that it's not a one-way problem. For every pseudo-Democrat who calls Bush stupid without investigating the evidence for
himself, there's a Republican who supports
Dubya with an equal lack of analysis.
Of course people will/can not seperate their feelings totally from the issues, but could we at least TRY to? This is too important to just let slide
on non issues. If this is these are the reasons that people are going to vote on, I worry for our nation and am thankful for the Electoral Collage.
While I disagree with your point about the Electoral College (is that a tacit admission that Bush wasn't elected by the people?
), I agree that
policies deserve more airtime than personalities. The problem, I suspect, is that the "Bush is Stupid" or "Gore is too Smart" or "Dean is a
Nutter" message is easier for the media to propogate and for the public to swallow.
In conclusion, CazMedia, I appreciate your point of view. I haven't changed my opinion of Bush - but, since I oppose his policies first and his
personality second, I don't think you can object to my deductive process. I also disagree that decisions coloured by opinion are somehow lesser than
strictly logical and rational conclusions. And lastly, I disagree with your requirement that single-instance documentary facts be the only
things which are taken into consideration when making a judgement.