Some reasons Kerry lost

[Batman Jr.]

What an amazing string of specious logic...

I'm coming up on a couple of thousand posts here, repeatedly speaking out against slavery, intolerance, racism, war, extremism, and hate mongering, as well as promoting progressive causes, but you can 'jist tell' that I must be a conservative because I pointed out that the NY Times has a track record of being unreliable?


With mind reading abilities like that, you should get in line behind Varwoche to apply for the JREF million.

Strawman. My abilities to properly discern your political bias have nothing to do with the case of the aluminum tubes.

Originally posted by crimresearch
I never said that I was basing my opinion of the Times credibility on a single incident...(or on anything other than their track record)in fact, I specifically asked you how many incidents it would take for you to admit that they are unreliable.

How about you show me specifically how you came to the conclusion that the newspaper is so preoccupied with its initiatives on disinformation instead of asking me how many things I want listed? The question, even if I were to return an answer, wouldn't do much to facilitate the persuasiveness of your arguments. If I suggested you show me x number of incidents, and you came up with x number of incidents where the paper got the flavor of ice cream a child they were interviewing was eating wrong, that would be pretty silly.

Originally posted by crimresearch
I also very clearly separated the single issue of the Times' record of deceit from any analysis of your aluminum tubes premise...

Yes, why don't you show me where you did this so "clearly."

Originally posted by crimresearch
So far, even in the face of links to many more cases than Blair's, you remain adamant, and so far you have nothing more than blind faith, straw men, and ad hominem arguments on your side.

I don't see anything on TimesWatch objecting to stories about the aluminum tubes. Forget everything else about the paper. The watchdog site didn't even have anything to say about the article in question.

 

[Ed]

The closer an election, the more reasons there are for the outcome, i.e. if someone loses by 1 vote, a sneeze may have made the difference. Along those lines, here are three hyper stupid things that may have cost Kerry the election:

1) gay marriage flaps in MA and CA
2) his retarded Mary Cheney comment -- even if the comment itself didn't tip voters, it dominated the news cycle for several days down the critical stretch
3) swiftboat vet smear job

I was fully prepaired to vote for JFK (still give me thrills to use those initials ... BTW, good move NOT to use them) but he really came across as a coniving politition that would say anything to get elected.

Iraq is a mess and his position could have tipped it with me but this is what I took away...

He voted for Presidential powers to wage war but was somehow surprised that these powers were exercised (Duh). He would have proceeded differently from GW by ... neotiating more (?) getting concensus (?). Not really sure here but if this is what he was suggesting he had to explain why all of those UN resolutions did not constitute consensus etc.

OK, now we are militarily engaged, what to do. He did say that he hoped to reduce troop strength within a year (not pull out as some would suggest) but how? A consensus again (?) But who is going to help with the war being the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time? How did he hope to sell this one? No explination as far as I could see. And referring to the existing colition as the bribed and coerced would have been a toughie to skate over post inauguration.

I still remember Nixon promising that he "had a secret plan" to get us out of Viet-Nam. Fool that I was, I believed him and he got my vote. His plan: BUG OUT. Thanks Dick. Anyway, I really needed to hear Kerry's thoughts in detail.

These things might seem a bit muddled but by election this was my gestalt and what I was responding to. I somehow think that I was not alone.

Short answer: JFK needed to have three things that he made his own and that he had clear plans for. I did not get that at all.

Also, his balencing act, trying to propitiate liberals and hawks gave us the mess that I outlined above. I still don't know what the man really, really believed. Frankly, he could have sold me on either of two divergent viewpoints IF he had a plan and was not so clearly trying to be all things to all people.

It really was his to lose and he did. Idiot.

 

[crimresearch]

Strawman. My abilities to properly discern your political bias have nothing to do with the case of the aluminum tubes.

How about you show me specifically how you came to the conclusion that the newspaper is so preoccupied with its initiatives on disinformation instead of asking me how many things I want listed? The question, even if I were to return an answer, wouldn't do much to facilitate the persuasiveness of your arguments. If I suggested you show me x number of incidents, and you came up with x number of incidents where the paper got the flavor of ice cream a child they were interviewing was eating wrong, that would be pretty silly.

Yes, why don't you show me where you did this so "clearly."

I don't see anything on TimesWatch objecting to stories about the aluminum tubes. Forget everything else about the paper. The watchdog site didn't even have anything to say about the article in question.

Since anyone reading this thread is quite capable of seeing the first post in this exchange, where I made the clear distinction between any discussion of aluminum tubes, and discussing the NY Times reputation for dishonesty (pointing out that "There is hardly any need for..." addressing the former with apologetics, or anything else for that matter), your request for me to provide them twice a handful of posts later is a patently dishonest ploy...
Likewise for the already provided link addressing NY Times fabrications (not just innocent errors, as you imply above)

You on the other hand have failed miserably to provide a single shred of evidence to back up your claims that I said any of the fabricated words, conclusions, or positions you tried to put in my mouth.

But thanks for being a textbook example of a knee jerk reactionary who sees a sarcastic aside about the Times not always being reliable, and resorts to an outraged screed of lies and phony assertions at the heresy.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Since anyone reading this thread is quite capable of seeing the first post in this exchange, where I made the clear distinction between any discussion of aluminum tubes, and discussing the NY Times reputation for dishonesty (pointing out that "There is hardly any need for..." addressing the former with apologetics, or anything else for that matter), your request for me to provide them twice a handful of posts later is a patently dishonest ploy...
Likewise for the already provided link addressing NY Times fabrications (not just innocent errors, as you imply above)

Let's cut through the garbage, shall we? Does TimesWatch have any objection to the article in question! NO! Does any other "error" or "fabrication" attest to the truthfulness of the story we are discussing if the story was not found fault with by third-party fact-checkers? NO! Is the discussion I'm TRYING to have, at its fabric, concerned with what The New York Times' reputation is? NO! This is about the aluminum tubes. At this point, any attempt at diverting this conversation further by attacking other articles may be classified unequivocally as an ad hominem attack on the paper.

 

[hammegk]

.... This is about the aluminum tubes.

Kewl. SFAIK, there exist multiple versions of what "use" they might have been intended for by Iraq under Saddam.

Somehow I doubt that the NYT or ISIS have access to all discussions and data public and/or classified concerning them. You, I, or anyone else will most likely never know what the "intent" was, ever.

Now what?


Better luck next time on identifying an impeachable offense by Dubya.

 

[BPSCG]

At this point, any attempt at diverting this conversation further by attacking other articles may be classified unequivocally as an ad hominem attack on the paper.

Not unless the paper is made out of Soylent Green.

You could call it an ad paperium attack, however...

 

[Batman Jr.]

Kewl. SFAIK, there exist multiple versions of what "use" they might have been intended for by Iraq under Saddam.

And that's the problem. If you were to look up what people like Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush were saying during the months before the war, they were either completely disavowing or marginalizing to an egregious extent the opinions in opposition to the Uranium centrifuge explanation.

Originally posted by hammegk
Somehow I doubt that the NYT or ISIS have access to all discussions and data public and/or classified concerning them. You, I, or anyone else will most likely never know what the "intent" was, ever.

Yes, but the dissent in the scientific community publicly was huge. The IAEA even found tubes made to the exact specifications that had been anodized and everything fitted on conventional rockets in Iraq. How can Bush go unchallenged on such a thing? And why should we shirk our duties to hold the president accountable because there just might be some sort of classified missive out there exonerating him? Besides, if the initiative is taken seriously to question his actions, I'm sure any such a thing would be made public.

 

[varwoche]

Granted, NYT deservedly got a black eye for the Blair thing, and CBS deservedly got a black eye over the Killian memo.

Still, it's a bit susprising when some on this forum discount these sources entirely, seemingly in favor of random blogs and the like. Especially this poster, since he enjoys playing the role of uber skeptic.

So crim, based on the following link, I take it that you favor unheard of bloggers, and the WA Times (owned by the esteemed Rev Moon), over the NY Times?
thread

For the 2nd time: Crimresearch, is it your position that the WA Times is a valid news source, but not the NY Times?

I realize that uber-skeptic has me on ignore, but this is a degree of hypocrisy that is of another friggin' realm.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Sources can be credible and balanced, like _________, (hell if I know), or credible but biased, like ABC, FOX, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Economist, National Review, The Daily Show, New York Times, Washington Post, Al Franken, Drudge, Guardian, BBC, etc., OR biased and not very credible at all, like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc., OR extremely biased and completely not credible in the slightest, like NewsMax, Atlantis Rising, Michael Savage, etc.

Sure, this is my opinion, but most will agree with most of these, I think. Basically, my point is that in some cases, like Savage, you can attack the source with confidence. In most of the above cases, however, you have to judge each story on its own merit. It helps if multiple papers/channels/stations are reporting roughly the same thing.

Not really sure here but if this is what he was suggesting he had to explain why all of those UN resolutions did not constitute consensus etc.

I will tell you why: The penalty for not following the resolution 1441 was 'serious consequences'. Would you like to show me where a document exists spelling out what the consequences were, exactly, and signed by all the Council members? Or will you just admit that Bush decided what it meant himself?

He did say that he hoped to reduce troop strength within a year (not pull out as some would suggest) but how?

Why don't you ask Tony Blair, who reduced UK troop strength by ONE THIRD, for tips on how to do this?

 

[Ed]

I will tell you why: The penalty for not following the resolution 1441 was 'serious consequences'. Would you like to show me where a document exists spelling out what the consequences were, exactly, and signed by all the Council members? Or will you just admit that Bush decided what it meant himself?

Why don't you ask Tony Blair, who reduced UK troop strength by ONE THIRD, for tips on how to do this?

It is really not up to me to ask Tony Blair. If Kerry needed tips he should have been the one to have asked. If memory serves JFK backed off of the troop reduction notion. In any event his plans were not at all clear, at least to me.

Regarding 1441. I suspect that Bush determined that serious means serious. I don't really know, nor do you. What words did Clinton interpret when he sent troops to Kosivo? And why should we care about the UN in the first place?

 

[Dorian Gray]

If you use 1441 as your justification, you need to follow all the other guidelines too. You can't just pick and choose which rules to follow. You ESPECIALLY can't use 1441 as justification and then say "why should we care about the UN in the first place?"

And the point on Blair was that he reduced the UK troop strength by a third. How did he justify this? Can't we do the same?