| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| darwin |
Posted - 07/05/2004 : 23:34:56
Rumor is that Kerry will announce his VP tomorrow and that his plane is being repainted with John Edwards's vp decals.
http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11966
I think it's probably a pretty good pick for Kerry, if true. Edwards is a pretty charming guy. Self made man. And by many accounts an unbelievably good trial lawyer. People hate lawyers, but most of Edwards case involved him representing people against corporations.
So, the Cheney-Edwards debate should be entertaining. |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 14:23:22
quote:
Sure is hard to discuss such things, as language has developed to express in terms of individuals and groups of organisms, and not at all in terms of analysis of selection of behavior at the level of the genes themselves.
Your laymans language maybe ( )
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 14:16:37
apl, I like what you have to say about the distinction between compassion as evolved and the compassion as legislated that would serve as the former’’s surrogate. My own emphasis has been on a different disjunction, that between reciprocal altruism as it is theorized to have evolved, in relatively small groups of tens to hundreds to thousands, and altruism as practiced in the “global village”. Under the former view, reciprocal altruism would have been selected and retained as a set of behavioral dispositions simply because it enhanced the persistance of the genes underlyng that behavior. In other words, the sacrifices involved in reciprocal altruism paid off. They were cost effective. The disjunction I mention arises because altruistic dispositions and the genes underlying them, which were still evolutionarily appropriate as recently as thousands or even hundreds of years ago, are today being triggered by events and needs all over nation and even world, far beyond the ability of recipients of that altruism to ever respond. In this age of mass media and round the clock cable we are constantly bombarded by images of suffering and need that trigger the still active mechanisms of reciprocal altruism. Many would say “And quite rightly too! We all share responsiblity and obligation to do whatever we can to address such conditions and their underlying causes!” [Reminds me of the parable of the Good Samaritan as an example of an early attempt to extend the reach of reciprocity. JC as evolutionarly subversive.] Regardless of the moral merits of such a stance, it forgets that the very impulse to altruism that is being championed was selected and retained within the human repertoire of behavior precisely because it enhanced replication of the genes of those who practice it. One helps and the other helps back, as the need arises, and, most importantly, because we are talking relatively small groups here, and not a global village, the helper and the helpee share similarities of DNA. Helping the other is much akin to helping the self, just as helping members of one’s biological family, with the high degree of genetic overlap, amounts to helping oneself, or, if you will, helping copies of one’s own DNA. By the model I’m attempting to sketch, under today’s regime of universal, global altruism, given a relative lack of genetic similarity between helper/provider and helpee/recipient, and given a relative inability of recipient to reciprocate, we would henceforward expect the altruistic disposition to evolve to become more discriminating. Those who continue to exercise help universally will reduce their genetic replication simply because it involves use of resources without adequate payback. Conversely, those who are able to discriminate between cases where it evolutionarily behooves and where it does not, will do better at replicating their DNA, which will become relatively more represented in the gene pool.
Sure is hard to discuss such things, as language has developed to express in terms of individuals and groups of organisms, and not at all in terms of analysis of selection of behavior at the level of the genes themselves.
On another note, I am sympathetic with your concern that the two political parties are substantially the same. I too believe that, especially considering that there is simply too much at stake, financially speaking and otherwise, for the power brokers to willingly field candidates who are not already signed on as members of the club. (Jimmy Carter may have been something of an exception, a renegade as it were, who upon election had no choice to deal with the club when he really wanted to get something done, and who was, as an outsider, otherswise ineffective.) However, even if we do face a simple choice between insiders, as I see it there are still two types of differences. First, the Dems seem inclined to quicker spread of social welfare policies and to greater multinationalism and appeasement on foreign policy. Secondly, the differences of candidate personalities certainly can mean differing styles of governance and decision making, resulting in significantly different policy outcomes.
Oh yeah, I like the long view you take in noting that civil war or similar will not solve the problem, due to the creep back that would occur. Nice. |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 10:23:34
Judgmental I don't mean to be, It just seems to be a two way debate for the most part between erebus and yourself, I don't find what either of you have to say boring and would not wish either of you to stop at all, much of what both of you say isn't stuff I get to hear about over here.
And by war of intellectualism and ideals I didn't mean the evolutionary stuff, I meant the big grown up wordy posts, it's like reading "will self does american politics" on here! I was kind of teasing, I think sometimes it's hard to get the point being made because of it's pretty packaging is all!
Don't think I'm being down on either of you, that was not my intention really, and I'm sorry if I jumped right in on your debate but I would like to know more and I am trying to throw a non US spin on it a bit.
And sort of a biologist, biomolecular really.
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| darwin |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 09:42:20
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
And the pair of you, so bold with your statements and arguments yet at the same time so self-effacing, no one cares, everyone will hate what I post, only us two care, blah blah blah, thats because you both seem to be trapping yourself into a war of intellectualism and ideals and are trying your damndest to exclude everyone else.
I have read your posts with both interest and amusement, I must confess, bless you both.
You're awfully judgmental. You're welcome to join the conversation if you wish. I'm not trying to exclude anyone. I'm just apologizing if my posting is too boring for most of the readers.
As far as the "war of intellectualism and ideals", aren't you biologist? How is describing possible avenues of evolution a war of intellectualism and ideals? There are no ideals in natural selection and evolution. |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 08:50:03
I enjoyed your post Erebus. I think you made your points well, though I don't completely agree with them. Well, to be more specific:
I read your argument this way: that altruistic compassion is out of keeping with urgent balanced human survival instincts, and that that behavior is the source of our societal ills. I come at the question from a slightly different angle. I believe there is an ugly morass between our natural tendency for group compassion (which aids survival of the species, which in turn aids survival of one's own offspring) and the way in which we govern ourselves, which actually dehumanizes and removes natural first-hand compassion, replacing it with a bastardized version of misguided resources and thus resulting in group disharmony. I believe that human social structure has limited capacity for permutations of interaction. In other gregarious species, there is a cut off point where groups no longer grow. The weak ones are expelled from the group and become loners or join another group, or meet their death through predators or disease.
Our tools have superceded our natural intelligence, and created a disconnect between our innate understanding of laws in times of balance and laws in times of excess. Our success at producing more than we need has subjugated our very means of survival. We have made ourselves rats in a cage of overabundance. Civilizations formed when an abundance of food (stored grains) created the need for beaurocracy.
I would love to spend more time talking about this, but I think it would take writing a book to really think this through fairly. I'm not expecting to have the answer, because I think it is a complex and self-referential loop that takes a lot of analyzing and testing/debate with others. Some of your points seem more emotional than others, and seem to stem from an assumption that the majority do not understand they are acting against their very nature. I revert to cynical assumptions at times, but I think it is an intellectual and emotional trap - when I find myself there, I think it is an important opportunity to reevaluate.
To summarize, because I don't think I made my points very clearly, the problem is not compassion, but its false replacement, which we have created as a by-product our overproduction. It's possible there is a solution to this dilemma, wherein we can function gracefully within this new scenario, but I haven't learned of anything more successful thus far than a democratic republic. At least we have the opportunity to discuss somewhat freely and to educate ourselves, and search for better/more relevant answers.
I hope that wasn't too convoluted. I really need to work on my debating/communication skills.
(darwin, I enjoyed reading your breakdown of compassionate behavior in species. It makes utter sense, and has an underlying beauty. I have never understood the assumption that behavior that protects oneself is lacking in goodness - it seems to be based on the fallacy that only an act of martyrdom is virtuous truly good.)
On topic: I can't stand either party, and am very frustrated with our beaurocratic monstrosity of a government. Too many permutations to keep our society healthy, I'm afraid. Just as you said, it's just too big. However, a civil war or other such occurrance will not solve the problem, only postpone the inevitable creep back to the same place. We have to work within the structure to reshape it. I think the Constitution laid out the means for that process, but I fear it is being tampered with, and that we may not have much time before the beaurocracy makes change impossible, and the remaining tools are lost to us.
edited for spelling and crappy choice of words |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 07:57:29
darwin, thank you for the reply. In regard to compassion, what I was trying to say was simply that it is an EXCESS of it, or of anything, that would pose a problem, in the sense that excess represents a "miscalibration" of sorts, a mismatch between behaviorial disposition and the context of the behavior in question.
Tre, I write the only way I know how. You are hardly the first to find me guity of "stinking thinking", as a young lady described it some twenty years ago. I sincerely wish I could convey my thoughts in a more easy-going fashion but when I try it seems I manage only to make myself misunderstood. Which is not to say that I achieve much success the way I have been doing it. I find such debates invigorating, if sometimes frustrating. Thank you also for your reply. I will try to shut up now. |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 03:23:00
quote:
I would limit degree of participation on the basis of demonstrated understanding of the candidates, platforms, and principles under consideration. Is it really heresy to insist that people grasp the issues on which they are voting?
quote:
it's about character, something most who love Bill Clinton would know little about.
There's one of them things again, the wadchamacallit oxmymoron. So what is it again, issues or character? All this to and fro is burning out my brit girl brain...
And the pair of you, so bold with your statements and arguments yet at the same time so self-effacing, no one cares, everyone will hate what I post, only us two care, blah blah blah, thats because you both seem to be trapping yourself into a war of intellectualism and ideals and are trying your damndest to exclude everyone else.
I have read your posts with both interest and amusement, I must confess, bless you both.
I was going to add to the compassion/evolution debate but to be honest even that seems slightly convoluted. And you'd probably ignore it anyway...... heh
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| darwin |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 22:26:39
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Guess I stuck my foot in it and so now have to explain myself, again. Damn. Well, here goes: it’s not like anybody’s ever credited me with knowing when to stop digging.
First of all, on a relatively minor note, given that as a professional biologist your opinions on evolution rightly receive heightened respect, please say more about the “simplistic understanding” you mention.
Sorry, my comment was too pompous. What I was reacting to is that natural selection isn't solely about who can screw who the most. You implied that people that show comparison will ultimately be the losers the "DNA tournament". Natural selection doesn't necessarily preclude behavior that can be described as compassion. I'll try to keep this somewhat brief because maybe you and I are the only ones that care about this conversation, but here a few scenarios that lead to compassionate behavior.
1) reciprocal altruism - by giving you food when I have plenty and you have none, I might increase my fitness (pass on more genes) because maybe you someday return the favor to me (or my kin) when we need food.
2) coalitions - being social animals in many situations we are more successful when we work with members of a group. If your behavior indicates that you only think about yourself, that you never give to others, then you might not be welcomed into the group and lowers your fitness. Groups have the power in some situations to police selfish behavior, to make selfish behavior unsuccessful.
3) mate choice/sexual selection - it may be that showing compassion for others indicates to potential mates that you would be a good provider or care-giver for offspring.
4) signal of wealth or success - compassion or spending time or resources caring or worrying about others might be a clear, honest signal that you are so well off or successful that you can afford that kind of behavior. You gain more status and opportunities by giving up resources than you would gain from those resources.
At some level I agree with you that there should be no true altruism. Behaviors that lead to fewer copies of genes being passed to the next generation should ultimately be selected out. BUT, that does not mean that evolution is always towards the most greedy, anti-social, screw-over whoever you can behavior. We can look at the rest of the natural world and see that sociality has evolved multiple times, that many species work co-operatively. Compassion apparently exists in humans, why?
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 11:45:44
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Those imbalanced in regard to fear, empathy, or compassion have no business voting or expressing political opinions. Anyone who has compassion for everyone needs to get some standards. Life is a DNA tournament; deal with it.
Sometimes I like you erebus, but you can be a scary guy who has allowed a simplistic interpretation of natural selection to color your philosophy. And, it's scary because the simplistic understanding and application of natural selection has a bad history.
I hear the echos of literacy tests and the right to vote in your above statement. We all have the right to express our opinions and to vote.
Guess I stuck my foot in it and so now have to explain myself, again. Damn. Well, here goes: it’s not like anybody’s ever credited me with knowing when to stop digging.
First of all, on a relatively minor note, given that as a professional biologist your opinions on evolution rightly receive heightened respect, please say more about the “simplistic understanding” you mention. Political orientation within the community of evolutionary scientists is hardly monolithic. Nor is the degree of aggressiveness with which certain principles are extended into human affairs. I see myself as guilty of acknowledging the gorilla in the room that most others willfully ignore, the gorilla representing wishful thinking that natural selection does not fully impose on the future of humanity, or does so impose only in a way somehow compatible with our delusional image of ourselves as free and rational moral agents. How many times have I heard the otherwise Darwinistically-converted offer, usually sheepishly, that “it’s different with human beings”, almost always without coherent justification? I’m afraid I see our current period of democracy, tolerance, inclusion, and hope as a vestige of industrialization and planetary rape of resources, a temporary and almost certainly counter-productive respite from the forces that have produced us. While it is accurate to see everything in nature as natural, to include our current, artificially-produced success at holding pre-historical forces at bay, when at last we return to conditions more closely resembling those of ruthless nature, we will pay for our temporary luxuries with interest. To me this belief is not social darwinism but rather a simple case of intellectual consistency.
Regarding your larger point of objection, I confess to being a less than enthusiastic fan of relatively unqualified democracy. Echoing Aristotle, the primary advantage of democratic systems ironically derives from its core deficiency, which is to say from a moderation arising via mediocrity. An averaging of opinion provides a body of policy which is slow to develop or change and which does not tend to excess. To gain this advantage most of us accept the inevitable inclusion of the opinions of the foolish, selfish, unintelligent, and uninformed. Obviously I would advocate higher standards, not out of an intent to exclude but instead to improve. For example, I would limit degree of participation on the basis of demonstrated understanding of the candidates, platforms, and principles under consideration. Is it really heresy to insist that people grasp the issues on which they are voting? And if this results in demographic patterns we prefer to ignore, would that really be so unfortunate? I admit that I went too far by categorically forbidding expression of ignorant opinion, but I would stand by promotion of standards regarding voting.
Looking at it pragmatically, it’s pretty obvious the system is broken. Both sides are supported by sheep who are actively exhorted to vote their own selfish interests, with only fools actually attempting to vote for what they perceive to be beneficial for the nation as a whole. Near-universal suffrage contains the seeds of its own destruction. Beyond my endorsement of standards of participation, I would exclude anyone with a conflict of interest, which would probably be most of us considering it would include anyone in government employment, on government contract, or on the dole. If the government pays you, no vote. How’s that? The solution here is simple: reduce the federal government by at least 90%.
It’s not me or the spectre of literacy tests that you need to fear. Rather, look to what you already know about large scale democracy as it is practiced. Can it persist? Should it? It’s pretty obvious we’re already caught up in a spiraling urban dystopia. And the further we get in, the more painful it will be to get out. This morning I heard a caller complain that the re-election of Bush just moves us toward the curse of civil war. Curse or blessing?, I ask.
I must admit I dread the responses this post would elicit should readers even honor with a reply what most will regard as insane drivel. I know from experience I haven’t anticipated the myriad objections than can be offered by those unable or indisposed to provide a sympathetic reading.
If you can forgive the self-indulgence, in conclusion I’d like to point to my username, Erebus. Though I’m hardly up on my ancient mythology, Merriam-Webster offers this as first definition: “a personification of darkness in Greek mythology”. The twist, for me, involves an inversion of the accepted takes on “light” and “dark”. The “hope” and “light” of the masses could not be darker for humanity, and, if only more could see, their salvation would be found in the darkness most devote entire lives to avoid. Much like insects, actually. Reminds me of Nietzsche’s comment on the myth of Pandora’s Box, to the effect that while most abhor the unleashed afflictions and welcome the salve of hope, in actuality, in the absence of hope, the afflictions would be quite bearable. That Nietzsche was such a card!
|
| n/a |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 10:51:04
no need, most people make that mistake because of my inhuman intellegence and burning wit, they think it couldn't possibly be from the mind of an ickle wickle girly
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
oh I made myself laugh! ()
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| NimrodsSon |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 10:47:06
Oh, don't I feel stupid!
ˇViva los Católicos y la Pistolaa! |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 10:37:09
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Life is a DNA tournament; deal with it.
Oh that's so funny.. almost nazi sounding don't you think?
They should use that in the health sevice for all those poor souls born with inheritable genetic diseases, hey your kiddie is ill, but life is a DNA tournement deal with it, hey your offspring votes Bush, but he was dealt a bad set of genetic cards... ha ha ha
Life is also about evolving, you are not the summit of evolution. In fact, that quote makes me think you have a long long way to go
and yeah nimrod.... I am a laydeeeee ()
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| n/a |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 10:30:31
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
. We all have the right to express our opinions and to vote.
hang on i thought this was an echo chamber for the ill informed!!
and erebus, you can't be serious, really? It's about character? Maybe it's really different in the UK, our political parties have these things called manifestos that contain principles beliefs and promises and I tend to vote on who has a better ethos rather than who smiles the biggest and who hugs the most kiddies.
Every one of these psuedo political threads I have looked at so far seems to me to be a quote driven slanging match, dredging up history and mistakes made by an individual rather than looking at what exactly that individual could do for your country, I hope for your sake that's not how you think.
Erebus you seem so set on the intellectul yet you seriously are pro bush? geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez
*rolls eyes*
there's an oxymoron if ever I saw one
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| darwin |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 23:40:59
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Those imbalanced in regard to fear, empathy, or compassion have no business voting or expressing political opinions. Anyone who has compassion for everyone needs to get some standards. Life is a DNA tournament; deal with it.
Sometimes I like you erebus, but you can be a scary guy who has allowed a simplistic interpretation of natural selection to color your philosophy. And, it's scary because the simplistic understanding and application of natural selection has a bad history.
I hear the echos of literacy tests and the right to vote in your above statement. We all have the right to express our opinions and to vote. |
| darwin |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 22:52:45
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
Darwin I should have known the only reason Kerry was dragging his men into the bush to shoot commercials was because of GWBush. Its always the answer.
I may have felt a need to defend Kerry if the source was anything better than Drudge. What happened to Drudge's exclusive about Kerry's affair with a staffer? No need to respond to that guy or a group of veterans financed by the Republican party. |
| martha_promise |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 22:02:31
If ever you need,.. don't call.
~~I love the north part, I love your marble ear~~ |
| VoVat |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 22:00:40
quote:
So, give me a second, let me strap in just a minute here, are you guys saying that a pre-requisiste for potential president material is how well and what they did in another one of your wars?
I think part of it is that people like Bush and Cheney (and Clinton, for that matter) didn't fight themselves, yet have no problem with sending other people (people whom they're supposed to be protecting, mind you) off to war. Kerry, having experienced the horrors of war first-hand, might be somewhat more prudent in making decisions involving war.
No, fighting in a war doesn't make someone better, but I'd say it might well be a step above being a warmonger with no fighting experience yourself. It's easier to tell other people what to do than to do it yourself.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| TheCroutonFuton |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 17:39:53
quote:
Originally posted by NimrodsSon
[quote]You, that's why I quoted you. I guess I should have just said, "Word."
ˇViva los Católicos!
(Tre = Female)
Anywho...
"Freedom is a state of mind and the condition and position of your ass. Free your mind and your ass will follow." - Funkadelic |
| NimrodsSon |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 17:37:41
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
quote:
Originally posted by NimrodsSon
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
So, give me a second, let me strap in just a minute here, are you guys saying that a pre-requisiste for potential president material is how well and what they did in another one of your wars? Do they have a points system? is it more or less points for innocent civillians and women and children? I'm confused? Rather than a man/woman with empathy and intelligence understanding and compassion for the world, as a fucking whole, he fired big guns and flew fast jets is a good thing. You people frighten me you really really do
What he said.
ˇViva los Católicos!
what who said?
Frank Black ate my Hamster
You, that's why I quoted you. I guess I should have just said, "Word."
ˇViva los Católicos! |
| Jefery With One F |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 17:33:33
quote:
Originally posted by begeegs
Bush has presided over the worst job creation (read negative job creation) since President Harding, who, incidently, presided over the Great Depression.
Ah yes, the Great Depression. Beginning with the stock market crash of 1929, it was indeed a dark time.
Unfortunately for your argument, Harding died in 1923.
But I'm sure your statistics are reliable. You've clearly demonstrated a fine knowledge of the accomplishments and life spans of American presidents.
Of course, according to the Department of Labor, the unemployment rate is, in fact, dropping.
Vote Bush in 2004 |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 16:26:41
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Those imbalanced in regard to fear, empathy, or compassion have no business voting or expressing political opinions. Anyone who has compassion for everyone needs to get some standards. Life is a DNA tournament; deal with it.
If that's how you really feel, Bush and the Republican party (or for that matter the Dems) are the last institutions you should be supporting. Didn't you get the memos from Grover Norquist and the Evangelical lobbyists? God and compassion is in da hizzouse.
So why aren't you arguing for the Libertarians? Fa shizzle dizzle. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 16:13:11
Tre, it's about character, something most who love Bill Clinton would know little about. Character is a function of moderation, with all excess being its antithesis, to include an excess of compassion. And fear can also exist in excess, almost exclusively found on the left. Those imbalanced in regard to fear, empathy, or compassion have no business voting or expressing political opinions. Anyone who has compassion for everyone needs to get some standards. Life is a DNA tournament; deal with it. |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 15:36:18
quote:
Originally posted by NimrodsSon
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
So, give me a second, let me strap in just a minute here, are you guys saying that a pre-requisiste for potential president material is how well and what they did in another one of your wars? Do they have a points system? is it more or less points for innocent civillians and women and children? I'm confused? Rather than a man/woman with empathy and intelligence understanding and compassion for the world, as a fucking whole, he fired big guns and flew fast jets is a good thing. You people frighten me you really really do
What he said.
ˇViva los Católicos!
what who said?
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| n/a |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 15:22:53
I'm sorry, did I misread the previous threads, 'cos it read like a my dad's bigger than your dad squabble to me. I just don't understand why there is so much emphasis on that, call me crazy...
*straps on safety helmet*
explain this points system to me then?
naive little brit that I am
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| NimrodsSon |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 15:15:36
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
So, give me a second, let me strap in just a minute here, are you guys saying that a pre-requisiste for potential president material is how well and what they did in another one of your wars? Do they have a points system? is it more or less points for innocent civillians and women and children? I'm confused? Rather than a man/woman with empathy and intelligence understanding and compassion for the world, as a fucking whole, he fired big guns and flew fast jets is a good thing. You people frighten me you really really do
What he said.
ˇViva los Católicos! |
| Dallas |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 15:12:48
yes, yes a points system is in place. Thanks for joining the conversation!
Be afraid, BE VERY AFRAID... |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 15:01:52
So, give me a second, let me strap in just a minute here, are you guys saying that a pre-requisiste for potential president material is how well and what they did in another one of your wars? Do they have a points system? is it more or less points for innocent civillians and women and children? I'm confused? Rather than a man/woman with empathy and intelligence understanding and compassion for the world, as a fucking whole, he fired big guns and flew fast jets is a good thing. You people frighten me you really really do
"We hope you enjoyed your fireworks show. It was so pretty, and it took our mind off of domestic issues!"
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| Dallas |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 13:50:23
Darwin I should have known the only reason Kerry was dragging his men into the bush to shoot commercials was because of GWBush. Its always the answer.
Another example of not being able to defend your candidate based on HIS merit. It has to be an attack on Bush.
Let me defend Kerry. Kerry was IN 'nam. Lots of other folks didnt go. Bush served almost 5 years in the guard. Most of that time was logging flight hours over Texas. Over 4 years. Then he was approved to leave 6 months early to work on a Republican house campaign (I believe it was a house race) in Alabama. Bush' service was not without its share of danger or merit (several pilots doing the same thing Bush was doing in the guard died in their training), but, it cannot be compared with going to nam and leading men. Kerry gets a big nod for that. God Bless him.
Some people would consider bringing your patrol back into the bush to film mock scenes to be suspicious. Some people would consider the Purple Hearts to be suspect. Kerry's Dr. from the first PHeart said that Kerry had no injury, literally the 'wound' was covered with a band aid.
That may place Kerry's service below some other heroic soldiers in vietnam, but, once you have crossed the line and entered the fray, you have gone one step further than say a GW Bush did. 2 giant leaps further than what Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney did. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 13:48:59
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Too bad Bush didn't film where he was or what he was doing during his National Guard 'service'.
I'll take a guy who flew jet fighters over a guy who films re-enactments of his "exploits". Kerry's the kid way back in third grade that everybody knew was a joke . The Dems really know how to pick 'em. You gonna be reading "Unfit For Command"? |
| darwin |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 13:17:31
Too bad Bush didn't film where he was or what he was doing during his National Guard 'service'. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 13:06:41
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JULY 28, 2004 12:56:02 ET XXXXX
CONTROVERSY SURROUNDS KERRY CONVENTION FILM: WAR SCENES REENACTED
A bombshell new book written by the man who took over John Kerry's Swift Boat charges: Kerry reenacted combat scenes for film while in Vietnam!
The footage is at the center of a growing controversy in Boston.
The official convention video introducing Kerry is directed by Steven Spielberg protégé James Moll.
Moll was given hours of Kerry's homemade 8 millimeter film to incorporate into the convention short, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
"Kerry carried a home movie camera to record his exploits for later viewing," charges a naval officer in the upcoming book UNFIT FOR COMMAND.
"Kerry would revisit ambush locations for reenacting combat scenes where he would portray the hero, catching it all on film. Kerry would take movies of himself walking around in combat gear, sometimes dressed as an infantryman walking resolutely through the terrain. He even filmed mock interviews of himself narrating his exploits. A joke circulated among Swiftees was that Kerry left Vietnam early not because he received three Purple Hearts, but because he had recorded enough film of himself to take home for his planned political campaigns."
UNFIT FOR COMMAND, Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, will be unleashed next month by REGNERY. [It ranked #1,318 on the AMAZON hitparade Wednesday morning.]
The BOSTON GLOBE reported in 1996 that the Kerry home movies "reveal something indelible about the man who shot them - the tall, thin, handsome Naval officer seen striding through the reeds in flak jacket and helmet, holding aloft the captured B-40 rocket. The young man so unconscious of risk in the heat of battle, yet so focused on his future ambitions that he would reenact the moment for film. It is as if he had cast himself in the sequel to the experience of his hero, John F. Kennedy, on the PT-109."
"John was thinking Camelot when he shot that film, absolutely," says Thomas Vallely, a fellow veteran and one of Kerry's closest political advisers and friends.
NEW YORK TIMES bestselling author Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson in his new book RECKLESS DISREGARD, details one of the claimed Kerry reenactments for film:
"On February 28, 1969, now in charge of PCF 94, Kerry came under fire from an enemy location on the shore. The crew's gunner returned fire, hitting and wounding the lone gunman. Kerry directed the boat to charge the enemy position. Beaching his boat, Kerry jumped off, chased the wounded insurgent behind a thatched hutch, and killed him. Kerry and his crew returned within days, armed with a Super 8 video camera he had purchased at the post exchange at Cam Ranh Bay, and reenacted the skirmish on film."
Filed By Matt Drudge
|
| begeegs |
Posted - 07/16/2004 : 15:47:54
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
we will be baack
great debate!
here is the iran link promise if bush is re-elected...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1181969,00.html |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/16/2004 : 14:33:46
we will be baack |
| begeegs |
Posted - 07/16/2004 : 02:07:06
Here are a bunch of links for Mr. Dick Cheney and W and their past 4 years....
Abu-Gharib Cover-Up
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=541472
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/press/prison.htm
Iraq Body Count
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Secrecy of Administration and Corruption
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53164-2004Jul15?language=printer
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml
Energy Task Force - http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml
Scientists Accuse Bush Admin of Distorting facts - http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?client=ca-nytimes_article_var&random=1089967932755&hints=Science%2Band%2BTechnology&adsafe=high&format=ca-nytimes_flex&output=html&channel=ar_science&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2004%2F02%2F18%2Fscience%2F18CND-RESE.html%3Fex%3D1090123200%26en%3D64614a617e10c844%26ei%3D5070%26hp
I could keep going on and on, but this is just a few of the articles. I could have posted how the Administration was trying to classify flipping burgers as 'manufacturing jobs' or how Bush has presided over the worst job creation (read negative job creation) since President Harding, who, incidently, presided over the Great Depression.
I could have posted how the Bush Admin asked for an inquiry in 9/11 and then blocked and stonewalled the investigation.
I could have posted how the Senate Intelligence Panel looking into intelligence (recently posted to their web site) plans on investigating how the intelligence was used in the Bush Administration until AFTER the elections. (Gee - I wonder why)...
I think that the point is, under the Bush Administration, the country is heading for the toilet, if they aren't already standing on the rim of it. I really don't understand how anyone will attack us because we don't know our candidates when they themselves are ignoring the people in power and what they have done. America and the world can't take another 4 years of King George.
|
| darwin |
Posted - 07/15/2004 : 21:50:35
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
That has nothing to do with monitors. He could have read from the the monitors, but, he didnt.
From NYT:
Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: "She said at 3, `I'm fine.' She said at 4, `I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing O.K.' Five, she said, `I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, `I need out.' "
He was reading from a monitor (not a crystal-ball). A fact that you originally left out. |
|
|
