this one has been mercifully free of trolling and adhominem attacks

Yeah, that's always nice.

I'd like to say it's been free of strawman arguments (another great phrase) but I am not quite sure what that means.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed."

~Steve

http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/003469.html#003469

http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/003465.html#003465

http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/003463.html#003463

http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/003456.html#003456

http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/003435.html#003435

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 14, 21:59.

Why don't you look at the full story and comments,

Why don't you quote Fox News quoting a Republican denying the allegations and act like you've proven something?

Anyway, I'm not about to get tangled up in this thread. The post-debate polls paint the picture pretty clearly, I don't feel like doing the legwork to spell it out for a few stubborn bluesnewsers itching for a fight. I just hope the country is paying attention and makes the right decision.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 14, 12:20.

Since you feel you need to point out Bush's faults and "lies". I encourage everyone to go to this site and watch the trailer:

Go for it. Investigate all you want. I don't pretend that Kerry is perfect, but I'm confident that Kerry won't come out worse by a long shot.

And to counter-point the "trashing of voter registration" it has been going on on both sides.

Really? Like the story I linked to? I don't think so. Back up your claim. Another example of the "but both sides are doing it!" claim, and I still think it's wrong.

They are pointing out equal errors by both candidates.

Yes, they are. But there aren't equal errors from both candidates.

~Steve

It's pretty easy to bitch about how you hate both candidates and how they both lie, but I don't think this paints an accurate picture of reality. There have been lots of articles online criticizing media sources that, in an attempt to appear "neutral" or "balanced," like to point out the way that both candidates distort the truth. Yes, they both do, but that doesn't mean they do it equally. For example, a headline might read "Bush and Kerry make misleading statements during debate," when Kerry makes 2 misleading statements and Bush tells 8 egregious lies. The media's handling of the campaign has been pretty reprehensible on many counts. No candidate is perfect, but acting like these two candidates are equally imperfect seems ridiculous.

I was disappointed with Kerry for missing some opportunities to score points last night, but after watching his performances in all three debates I have gained a ton of respect for him, and I know this opinion is shared by many, including the all-important undecided voters. Last night we saw Kerry give clear, direct answers, while Bush smirked, raised his eyebrow, and danced around nearly every question posed to him. How did he manage to talk about education in his responses to every other non-education question? I was particularly impressed with Kerry's comments about the importance of Roe v. Wade and not imposing one's beliefs on others. But hey, Bush loves it when people pray for him, because he "can just feel it." And Bush didn't say that we wasn't concerned about Osama Bin Laden, right?

In 2002 Bush said: “Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I--I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

In other news, I'm not sure how many have already heard about this story, but it sounds like a new low:

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/36221

~Steve

Once again, I'll gladly concede the point that he has been quoted contradicting himself. What I'm still trying to point out is that this is irrelevant. Bush has been quoted doing the exact same thing in no less damning terms. More damning in fact; I frankly don't find Kerry's opinions on the Vietnam war all that pertinent, relatively. I do find this relevant, however:

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"

The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.

During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must "stay the course."

Not to mention the others found here, all of which deal with the current problems facing this country rather than a war fought in the 1960s:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/politics/main646142.shtml

So again, how is Kerry's Vietnam stance meaningful here, especially in light of his opponent?

I'll say again that Kerry being a "flip-flopper" is such a frequent issue because the Bush campaign has beaten everyone over the head with it. Bush supporters, finding it a convenient and simple idea, turn around and beat non-Bush supporters over the head with it. It's simply not a very valid or relevant line of argument and I'm sick of hearing it.

I won't say that it isn't a good technique -- Bush is trying to make his failure look like a success, and Kerry's intelligence look like weakness. Bush wants to contrast Kerry's "flip-flopping" to his own "resolve," when in fact Kerry's positions are calculated responses to developing events and Bush's are stubborn and arrogant attempts to project an image of pride or "toughness." Again, Kerry's stances are in no way any more of an appeal to voters than Bush's. Bush and his team are counting on his everyman, cowboy, straight-talking, tough guy, "it's hard work," stay the course, kill-the-brown-terrorists, God-bless-America image appealing to certain demographics in this country, and it seems to be working. Unfortunately, though these qualities may be likeable to many people, they are not necessarily the qualities of a responsible leader and should not be the ones people consider in making their decision. I think this couldn't be more transparent, and as such continue to be frustrated when people seem unable or unwilling to see through it.

EDIT: <tangent> Here's an interesting link I stumbled upon today which is quite applicable to the Bush administration and their decision-making processes:

http://www.abacon.com/commstudies/groups/groupthink.html

</tangent>

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 4, 15:02.

Warhawk, those quotes would probably seem more pertinent if they were shorter and had more ellipses. Then we'd be getting the whole picture.

Do you work for Fox news or something? You can say that Kerry "changes his mind with the political winds" all you want, but how does he do it any more than Bush, or most other politicians? You're just harping on it because the Bush campaign has done so.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 4, 13:09.

warhawk, you could do much to improve your signal to noise ratio. It's a pretty good tactic, pasting paragraph after paragraph of someone else's text followed by a brief conclusion of your own; you present the illusion of thorough research, perhaps prompting the reader to accept your quotations as truthful and assume that they provide support for your conclusion. This is not often the case, however.

For refutations of some of your points and more fine examples of deceptive propoganda and how it can be proven false, consult the following links:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

Read the original articles quoted by snopes. Sound pretty convincing on their own, don't they? Then read the explanatory text. "Oh," you say. "Looks like there was more to it than that." Who'd have thunk it?

More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry

~Steve

this conversation is over

Whew! So you're not here to be fed opinions, you come to your very own conclusions, but you feel that the burden is on me to discredit the opinions being fed to you by warhawk? I see. Well, good luck with this decision making thing, it's all so very difficult. I hope you find a candidate whose supporters will be nice enough to you!

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 4, 00:56.

tron, please, it's not necessary to act like warhawk's links represent the totality of information available on the subject or that you're incapable of forming opinions based on anything that's not being laid out explicitly here. Do your own legwork. I'm not trying to engage in a copy and paste competition.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 3, 23:56.

Once again, the problem is people like you latching onto things like this meaningless, overblown "flip-flopper" meme and using at as an excuse to write Kerry off.

Firstly, Kerry has made it abundantly clear - he believed the president that Saddam Hussein was a threat, he trusted the president to use the intelligence wisely and to conduct the operation properly, and he doesn't think these things happened. I don't see why this is difficult to understand. I'm sure there are a great many people in this country who initially supported the war and now oppose the way it's being handled. Kerry is hardly lying through his teeth, and acting as though he's more of a flip-flopper than anyone else, or that this idea is detrimental to his ability to lead, is foolish. The man is a politician; no one denies that. I don't think there's a single politician that couldn't be quoted in a way that would seem self-contradictory. Do you honestly think Bush is better? Here's an article entitled "Bush's Top 10 Flip Flops"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/politics/main646142.shtml

And even if Bush were somehow measurably "more consistent," it would be due to his asinine hubris and refusal to deal with reality rather than propoganda.

As Kerry pointed out in the debate, President Bush is far too certain of everything. This is *not* a virtue or a quality of a good leader. It's laughable that Kerry fighting in Vietnam and then later opposing the war is used as evidence against him. This shows that the man is not mindless! Intelligent people learn from their mistakes, re-evaluate situations, and change their opinions! They question and criticize authority. But, according to Bush, questioning authority is disrespectful, or sends "mixed messages." What a nice subtle way to present authoritarian ideas. I'd much rather have a "flip-flopper" for a president than an irresponsible, incompetent, and arrogant leader.

~Steve

i guess his point is just supposed to magically appear in the minds of these so-called "intelligent readers".

Yeah, that was basically the point. If you can't see the problems of context, editorializing, and missing details in warhawk's overly verbose posts, I don't have the time to make it clear to you.

Lookit, we've come full circle and ended up with another condescending and exasperated liberal. Good job guys.

EDIT:

what, exactly, *is* your point? as far as i can tell you have so far not made one statement in support or defense of Kerry

See, drawing attention to the fact that you don't get it isn't making me look bad, it only makes you seem obtuse. <spelling it out> The point had nothing to do with Kerry, I was only commenting on the importance of considering the source and the context and accumulating a broad base of information based on as many facts as possible rather than latching onto easily digestible and largely meaningless over-reductions like "Kerry is a flip-flopper!" Sigh. </spelling>

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 3, 19:56.

Is it not obvious to you that you're only reinforcing my point by example? It just takes me a lot less words to make the same thing clear.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 3, 18:30.

Don't play dumb. Sure, quotations can be viewed as objective reality, but in these situations it's all in the context and interpretation. It wouldn't be hard to demonstrate this, and I'll assume that most readers here have enough intellect that I don't need to do so. Acting as though your previous statements are ultimate truth rather than a slanted and possibly misleading summary is ridiculous.

~Steve

Not gonna bother to take that one apart. Just be careful of buying into slanted over-simplifications. The spin is usually much easier to digest than the reality.

~Steve

and i have to say that lately i have been hearing a lot of extremely liberal folks have the sentiment: "bush is a dumbass, if you believe anything he says, you are a dumbass as well. only a moron would vote for him".

I think if you look a little deeper you'll find that many "liberals" have just become extremely frustrated with not only the conduct of Bush and Co., but the willingness of a portion of the population to cut them so much slack/turn a blind eye to what's going on.

i may not like everything about Bush - but i know who he is and what i'll be getting if he wins. what am i getting by voting for Kerry? i don't know yet...

And part of my point was that I think the Republicans have unfortunately made a lot of people not care to know about Kerry. People simply unconsciously adopt the opinion being constantly fed to them by the Bush campaign. Of course you know more about Bush, he's the incumbent. But look into Kerry, don't just stop at the impressions you receive about him from wherever. One reason I think he did so well in the debate, especially among independents, is that he had a chance to go head to head with Bush, and he laid out his opinions very articulately. Before people would just assume he had nothing worthwhile to say because of a vague (and negative) idea about him that they'd developed (again from hearing it every day ad infinitum) and not actually know any details. I just think, and apparently Bush does not agree, that it's important to be extremely critical, analytical, and careful both as a leader and as a citizen electing a leader. I've done my best to do so, and because of that I'm firmly in favor of Kerry.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 2, 22:41.

So, you decide to vote for a candidate based on how much you like other people who support that candidate? Very logical.

EDIT: I still don't see why you can't understand the difference between attacking a person and a statement made by that person. In any case, my intention was not to make an ad hominem attack, I am just seriously irritated by the sentiment you expressed; I think it's entirely irrational and I think the fact that a significant number of people seem to buy into it is a direct result of the relentless and dirty tactics employed by the Bush campaign.

But like I said the first time, it wasn't meant to be personal. Have a nice day.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 2, 17:58.

so calling me stupid is not insulting?

I didn't call you stupid, for fuck's sake, but I'm about ready to. Yes, I think the particular point you made was stupid, and I've explained why. If you need to halt a discussion and digress into some ridiculous meta-argument every time someone thinks one of your points is stupid, you shouldn't bother in the first place.

Your analogy is irrelevant, you're continuing to misconstrue my comment, and frankly I couldn't care less at this point. You're not being mature, you're being overly sensitive and self-victimizing. This was a discussion about the election until you had to make it about yourself with this silly display. Get over it.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 2, 14:36.

Sigh, stfu. I didn't insult you at all, I told you I think that particular line of argument is bewilderingly stupid. Spare me the bullshit strawmen about not allowing your opinions.

~Steve

What's so difficult with it?

Because we know what we're getting, and we know it's a defective product. Bush's concept of good leadership is unwavering hubris and lack of critical analysis, which is an idiotic way to lead. Knowing what you're getting is in no way a good argument in support of Bush, despite the fact that it's exactly what Rove and Co. are hoping that we'll think.

I don't think Kerry is more intelligent, just a much better public speaker. There's a big difference.

Yes, he's obviously a better public speaker, and no, that doesn't necessarily mean he's more intelligent, but I still think it's pretty clear that he is. Bush's attitudes reek of intentional arrogance and ignorance.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 2, 13:29.