Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal frankie's Journal: Lie down with dogs 23

Journal by frankie
The latest round of Swift Liars for Bush.

Also, Gingrich said there were no pro-life speakers at the DNC? Rep Jim Langevin. And Giulieani.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lie down with dogs More

Lie down with dogs

Comments Filter:
  • And the two that do don't actually contradict anything the swift boat veterans claim. Even Kerry's own journal supports their main claim that the first purple heart was bogus. [washtimes.com] Of course, since Kerry can't even remember if he ever ran a marathon [go.com] (he didn't) [go.com] I wouldn't expect him to be able to put up any substantial defense to the swifties, cause it really is his word against theirs. A marathon isn't something you forget like in which summer your trip to Bakersfield was.

    Now I do agree with him on making
    • Mike, please answer my questions from my past several journals.
      • I stopped answering your questions after your rediculous attempt to divert a similar discussion into a meaningless debate about abortion. I lost what little respect for you I had that day. Since then its been all fun and games. You can attempt to discredit my reply, or not. But as it stands, of your last 3 or 4 journal entries, you have deleted at least one and modified the other 2 or 3 after I posted.

        But today, thanks to Drudge, I finally figured out how you Democrats think. Kerry gets caught accep
  • This is the kind of thing this JE [slashdot.org] was addressing back almost two weeks ago. Keep up with the times Frankie, you are supposed to be attacking Zell Miller now.

    BTW, it isn't Kerry v SBVs anymore, its Kerry versus the Navy. You tell me how Kerry got his V, was not discharged until 1978, and has three silver star certificates, one of which signed by a Secretary of the Navy in the 80's that when questioned says he never saw it.

    That, by the way is why everyone's more than happy to make Zell. Which won't work eit
    • The link for Kerry v Navy is not working. You can find it with a google search on, "Thomas Lipscomb Setting Straight Kerry's War Record". It is followed up here [washtimes.com].
      • Let me get this straight. A random Navy clerk makes a typo on Kerry's discharge summary ... and this matters how? Your little conspiracy theory is really quite sad. If you would be so kind as to point me to a "V" on Kerry's actual physical medal, then we might have something to talk about.

        Second, you pointed me to Thomas Lipscomb [google.com] in the New York Sun, and expected me to consider them reliable sources. Does this mean that if I pointed you to a Greg Palast article in The Nation, you would take them at their

        • Greg Palast, hmmmm what was he again. Oh yeah, the person who broke the story about the ex-cons who didn't get to vote in Florida. I believe that was a reliable issue and has been resolved. However I don't think anyone thinks it played a difference in the election any more. I have no problem with Palast, or any other source for that matter. It is the reason and facts that hit the mark for me.

          For instance Tom points to certificates on Kerry's website. That is what we call supporting an argument. The journal
          • 1: Good. You're willing to consider facts and reply to arguments rather than simply impugn their messenger. This is our first exchange, and I wanted to know if it's theoretically possible to have honest & rational discussion with you. I'm tired of wasting time with monologue trolls.

            As should be obvious, I did in fact follow your link and consider it on its merits. I repeat: unless there is a little "V" on Kerry's actual physical medal, there is no problem here except the sloppiness of navy clerks in t

    • Zell Miller? Why would I want to attack him? If the RNC really thinks Zell should rag on Dick Cheney for trying to cancel a gazillion weapon programs in the 1980s, who am I to disagree?
      • If the RNC really thinks Zell should rag on Dick Cheney for trying to cancel a gazillion weapon programs in the 1980s, who am I to disagree?

        Now *that* folks is how you dodge an issue. Not quite triangulation, not quite true either. Well the RNC bit was overtly false, but I'm sure that was in jest anyway.

        Well, now, so what do you have to say for yourself? You do like what Zell said at the RNC or what?
        • Sorry, I'm not going to write a tedious point-by-point rebuttal of Zell's RNC rant. There's plenty of strongly referenced articles out there already covering that.

          To restate my previous post less sarcastically: half of Zell's criticisms could be applied identically or worse to Bush/Cheney group; the other half were nonsensical screaming better suited to a street-corner schizophrenic [workingforchange.com] than a "positive" convention [google.com].

          However, thanks for reminding me that Zell helped reinvigorate one particularly abusive meme.
          • half of Zell's criticisms could be applied identically or worse to Bush/Cheney group;

            Hey, you can't have it both ways. Is Bush trimming the military or is he using it to achieve security for the US? Maybe the answer is both, which would a good thing. But trying to fault both ways is simply churlish. Zell, btw was going one way. Unfortunately there isn't anything in the Kerry record to indicate that he is strong on defense. Nothing that he currently owns up to, that is.

            Zell helped reinvigorate one partic
            • you can't have it both ways.

              Have WHAT both ways? You're making some strange assumptions, Farnbach. Zell complained about past defense cuts. What the Cheney is that about? [prospect.org] Zell complained about "sensitivity". What the Cheney is that about? [americanpr...action.org] etc, etc, etc. As I said, other sites have debunked Zell already.

              anything in the Kerry record to indicate that he is strong on defense

              Answered already [johnkerry.com].

              this kind of CYA on Kerry's part

              Umm... WHAT kind of CYA? How does your paragraph relate to what I said?

              An

              • And I really do want to know what the "King Cedric" bit means.

                Lewis Caroll's "Alice in Wonderland". In the Disney Movie the trial scene has the Queen as the ruler. But in the Book it is King Cedric who is presiding. As each witness is questioned, King Cedric points out to the record keepers what is important and what is unimportant. Usually the trivial facts, or damning facts are "important" and the facts that let the knave off he labels as "unimportant".

                WHAT kind of CYA?

                Kerry is gaffing big time, fro

                • FYI: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland ( Lewis Carroll 1865 [google.com]) does not contain the string "Cedric".

                  He's re-defining himself daily

                  Whereas Bush sticks to one definition [slashdot.org] and contradicts himself daily [slashdot.org]? Kerry's record -- his WHOLE record, not biased snippets -- is certainly not perfect, but it's not even close to what the GOP claims. He has what it takes to be CinC (to be fair, Cheney also has sufficient skill, but his soul is in the wrong place).

                  I am non-partisan.

                  No, you're non-registered. Partisanship

                  • FYI: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland ( Lewis Carroll 1865) does not contain the string "Cedric".

                    If you needed help finding the chapter [cmu.edu] you should just say so.

                    `What do you know about this business?' the King said to Alice.

                    `Nothing,' said Alice.

                    `Nothing whatever?' persisted the King.

                    `Nothing whatever,' said Alice.

                    `That's very important,' the King said, turning to the jury. They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted: `Unimportant, your Majesty means,

                    • I'm just saying I know the characters' names and you apparently don't. ;-)

                      execution of his principles

                      I'll agree that Bush Jr probably had his principles executed a few years ago, along with his sense of decency. :-) When Bush says...

                      • "It's very important to be patient with the peace process. To be diligent and patient. It's very important not to impose a US solution"
                      • "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this states' issue"
                      • etc

                      ...those are FLIP-FLOPS (or redefinitions, or mo


                    • Funny, in this single post swagger with an air of importance from spliting hairs (Was the King named Cedric?) then don't (undelcared, non-partisan, bah!). You appeal to flipflops, then say "what does it matter if I do?" Then its an appeal to hypocrisy, guilt by association with Bill O'Neill, etc...

                      Your all over the map. I'm wondering if in your punch-drunk fury if this is even evident to you at all ;)

                      But as for Bush, he's a fine president and we are lucky to have him. I don't see Gore or Kerry doing wha

                    • What an interesting summary. You ignore my points and try a Reaganesque "there you go again" sort of riposte.

                      1: The Cedric bit was a joke, apparently lost on you just as yours was lost on me.

                      2: Yes, I'm throwing some obvious barbs at you. I thought you enjoyed that sort of thing. However, I am also answering what I believe is the meat of your remarks and posing questions back to you. Should I take your lack of a substantial reply to be a concession that my points are right?

                      3: Angry at Bush? Yes, since

                    • You ignore my points and try a Reaganesque "there you go again" sort of riposte.

                      When debating with someone it is good to know what values they hold so you can appeal to them. Unfortunately, as the last post points out, I'm having trouble nailing any down. At one point you split hairs (which you say is in jest and I can accept that), and then say one shouldn't split hairs. At one point you appeal to nuanced opinions coming across as conflicting, then do the same.

                      More than a "there you go again" (which is
  • Do you have any comment on On Lawn's latest journal? [slashdot.org] You better hurry to counter it. It really defines what your party is all about. Lies. Negative politics. Pretty much the whole platform of your party. Or you can continue to ignore me. Either way, I can't lose at this point. You're too much fun frankie.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon

Close