Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1015161718192021 LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 419
  1. #381  
    I tried to stay out of this, but just can't help myself...


    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    Bush didn't attack Farenheit 9/11 directly because his team wisely advised him to avoid giving it extra publicity.
    For whatever reason PRESIDENT BUSH DID NOT ATTACK FARENHEIT 9/11. That is the point being made, why do you try to qualify it???



    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    Several conservative groups, however, did try to get the movie banned. And there also was a legal debate over whether or not commercials for the film could be shown, because they might be considered campaign commercials. It was a very weak arguement, and they quickly dropped it out of embarrassment.

    Does anyone else remember this?
    Yes I remember this, but as you point out "several consertive groups" did this, not President Bush. GW has no control over what groups or indiiduals who support him do in his name, but again the point is that PRESIDENT BUSH DID NOT TRY TO GET THE MOVIE BANNED NOR PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC DEBATE.


    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    Notice, few conservatives went after Moore for slander, however. They tried to contest the "seven minutes" as exaggerated, until Moore produced the original tape with all seven minutes included. But that was the only thing they questioned.
    I'm sorry but that is NOT what I remember. Unlike Kerry, conservative's contested in the media nearly every point the Moore movie tried to make. They argued the content over and over again and provided reasonable argument against that content. By contrast, I have heard very little reasonable argument from the left to contest the Swift Boat adds. The primary focus is to just call the vets liars, atack the messengers, and calling for the adds to be stopped (banned). Back to the point, unlike the conservative response to the Moore movie, IT IS JOHN KERRY HIMSELF WHO CALLED THE VETS LIARS AND FOR THE ADDS TO BE PULLED.


    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    So it was best to let it pass, rather than getting the media into a frenzy over it, which only would have encouraged more people to watch it.
    Sounds like that would have been good advice to John Kerry.
  2. #382  
    tjd414,

    Awww, you went with your mother? That gets this woman's vote of approval You won't be single long...women love a guy in uniform
  3. #383  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Whether or not you agree with Senator Kerry, take one step back and say, how do they back up what they say? Why does Senator Kerry have to prove what is already down in black and white and recorded in the history books, rather than the person who claims the information is false? The last time I heard, the plaintiff always has to PROVE his case, the defendant doesn't have to disprove it. In case you forgot, this is how they do it in France ... you are assumed to be guilty and must prove your innocence. It's called the Napoleanic Code. So, are these vets following our code, or the French code?
    Thanks!
    You don't stop laughing because you grow old. You grow old because you stop laughing.
    -Michael Pritchard
  4. #384  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tribalenvy
    tjd414,

    Awww, you went with your mother? That gets this woman's vote of approval You won't be single long...women love a guy in uniform
    Send pics ... lol
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  5. #385  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Facts require incontrovertible proof. If you do not have proof, then it is rumor, opinion or slander.
    If they were in a court of law, the Swift Boat guys would have strong evidence. People are convicted of murder with a lot less evidence than these vets have presented. These vets, who also deserve our respect as much as Kerry does, are stating their personal recollections of what happened and what they saw Kerry do. Then they form conclusions based upon their personal experiences.

    Your definitions of "rumor, opinion or slander" are wrong.
    "Rumor" is telling something without personal knowledge.
    "Opinion" is a conclusion based upon personal knowledge or belief.
    "Slander" - a bit more complicated, but it has nothing to do with "incontrovertible proof", but instead deals with the nature of the allegations, truth, and intent. Kerry has zero chance at prevailing on a slander claim against these guys. Zero.

    You talk about having an open mind regarding Moore's movie. Where is your "open mind" when listening to the personal recollections, opinions, and conclusions of the Swift Boat vets? An open mind means being open to their statements, too, instead of simply claiming they have no "incontrovertable proof".
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  6. #386  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Apparently you did not see the movie.

    There are no claims made without proof in the form of actual video footage of this adminstration saying certain things.

    The movie is nothing but a compilation of video segments, narrated by Moore, and arranged in a certain fashion that most of us would call "progressive." In other words, he takes tape, and shows a subsequent tape and then another showing how the events unfolded.
    Arranged in a certain fashion so as to make the viewer agree with a particular point of view, what I would call not "progressive" but "propganda". This is what all of Moore's movies have done. He is a master of the trade. One on the best examples of this is the clip of GW on the golf course. It was edited so that the viewer thought President Bush was talking about al Qaeda when he was in fact talking not about al Qaeda, but Hamas, which had suicide-bombed in Israel hours before.

    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    The difference between Fahrenheit 9/11 and the Swift Boat Vets is a simple one: Moore used videotape to document his allegations and claims. The vets have no solid facts. Facts require incontrovertible proof. If you do not have proof, then it is rumor, opinion or slander.
    If you believe that the video clips in Moores movie constitute incontrovertible proof for anything, then there is nothing I can say that will make any differnce to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Whether or not you agree with Senator Kerry, take one step back and say, how do they back up what they say? Why does Senator Kerry have to prove what is already down in black and white and recorded in the history books, rather than the person who claims the information is false?
    Because what is down in black and white does not constitute a good reason to make him our president as he wanted to make us believe.
  7. #387  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Your definitions of "rumor, opinion or slander" are wrong.
    Exactly. I wanted to go there but couldn't put it together.

    Applying your definitions to the vets...

    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    "Rumor" is telling something without personal knowledge.
    Not Guilty - All the vet have personal knowledge


    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    "Opinion" is a conclusion based upon personal knowledge or belief.
    Guilty - This is what makes the adds so powerful. The add is not some anonymous voice but real people expressing their honest "opinions", based on their personal experience with the subject at hand.


    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    "Slander" - a bit more complicated, but it has nothing to do with "incontrovertible proof", but instead deals with the nature of the allegations, truth, and intent. Kerry has zero chance at prevailing on a slander claim against these guys. Zero.
    Not Guilty - Questioning what someone claims to be true and his subsequent actions is in no way slander. What John Kerry said about thousands of Vietnam vets is much closer to slander than anything the swift boat vets have or ever will do.
  8. #388  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    If they were in a court of law, the Swift Boat guys would have strong evidence. People are convicted of murder with a lot less evidence than these vets have presented. These vets, who also deserve our respect as much as Kerry does, are stating their personal recollections of what happened and what they saw Kerry do. Then they form conclusions based upon their personal experiences.

    Your definitions of "rumor, opinion or slander" are wrong.
    "Rumor" is telling something without personal knowledge.
    "Opinion" is a conclusion based upon personal knowledge or belief.
    "Slander" - a bit more complicated, but it has nothing to do with "incontrovertible proof", but instead deals with the nature of the allegations, truth, and intent. Kerry has zero chance at prevailing on a slander claim against these guys. Zero.

    You talk about having an open mind regarding Moore's movie. Where is your "open mind" when listening to the personal recollections, opinions, and conclusions of the Swift Boat vets? An open mind means being open to their statements, too, instead of simply claiming they have no "incontrovertable proof".
    As a veteran, I am open to their claims. And I do respect them. And I will continue to do so, regardless of my belief one way or the other about their statements. But all they have are "recollections" and "conclusions" (your choices). Point to one hard FACT that can be verified and you can begin to sway me.

    I appreciate the time you took to look up rumor, opinion and slander for me ... I just used those terms based on my "recollection" of what they meant. So to continue to this in a friendly tone, here are some definitions I did look up for all of us (dictionary.com):

    Recollection:
    1. The act of recollecting, or recalling to the memory; the operation by which objects are recalled to the memory, or ideas revived in the mind; reminiscence; remembrance.
    2. The power of recalling ideas to the mind, or the period within which things can be recollected; remembrance; memory; as, an event within my recollection.

    Conclusion
    1. The close or last part; the end or finish.
    2. The result or outcome of an act or process.
    3. A judgment or decision reached after deliberation. See Synonyms at decision.
    4. A final arrangement or settlement, as of a treaty.
    Abbr. con. Law. The close of a plea or deed.
    5. The proposition that must follow from the major and minor premises in a syllogism.
    6. The proposition concluded from one or more premises; a deduction.

    So there is no misunderstanding, let's define these words (again, from dictionary.com):

    Rumor
    1. A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth.
    2. Unverified information received from another; hearsay.

    Opinion
    1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
    2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
    3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
    4. The prevailing view: public opinion.

    Slander
    1. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
    2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

    Now, I might be out of line with this, but I'm going to say it anyway. The only difference between your interpretation of rumor, opinion and slander and how I used them is that I have a source for mine that you can check. IMHO, my use of the words was much closer to the real meaning of the words than were yours. Of course, if you can quote your source that shows your definitions are correct as you stated them, I will cede this point to you, I will agree we are both right. Something my divorce attorney told me was good .

    But what has happened now is a "he said, she said." No one can win this game, just ask any divorce attorney.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  9. #389  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Send pics ... lol

  10. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #390  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    I tried to stay out of this, but just can't help myself...


    For whatever reason PRESIDENT BUSH DID NOT ATTACK FARENHEIT 9/11. That is the point being made, why do you try to qualify it???
    I was trying to compliment Bush's team for handling Farenheit better than Kerry is handling the Swift Boaters. I think he's a better politician. The movie made him look bad, but crying about it would have made him look worse.


    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Yes I remember this, but as you point out "several consertive groups" did this, not President Bush. GW has no control over what groups or indiiduals who support him do in his name, but again the point is that PRESIDENT BUSH DID NOT TRY TO GET THE MOVIE BANNED NOR PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC DEBATE.
    If you think that Bush has no control over the people who do things in his name, then what does that say about his capacity to lead? If his so-called friends fly off the handle to his detriment, and he doesn't have the political strength to quell them, then how does that make him look as the leader of the free world?

    Personally, I think Bush has pretty strong controls on every one of those groups, or at least his political advisers do. Just as Kerry could easily have a quick "chat" with the MoveOn people and get them to do pretty much whatever he wants.

    Seems naive to to think he has no influence over them. He's a politician, after all. And a good one, at that.


    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    I'm sorry but that is NOT what I remember. Unlike Kerry, conservative's contested in the media nearly every point the Moore movie tried to make. They argued the content over and over again and provided reasonable argument against that content. By contrast, I have heard very little reasonable argument from the left to contest the Swift Boat adds. The primary focus is to just call the vets liars, atack the messengers, and calling for the adds to be stopped (banned). Back to the point, unlike the conservative response to the Moore movie, IT IS JOHN KERRY HIMSELF WHO CALLED THE VETS LIARS AND FOR THE ADDS TO BE PULLED.
    You and I must be reading different newspapers. I saw nothing in the main stream press that suggested that anyone had done a point-by-point debunking of Farenheit. The only thing I read were reviews, and the stories about the banning of commercials. And that small bit about the seven minutes, which Moore quickly answered. Of course, I can't read everything, so I assume I just missed that.

    Same must be true of the Swift boat ads. Because I've read, heard, and seen lots of news articles everywhere from network news to CNN to The New York Times, to my local papers, suggesting that the Swift Boaters' claims were at least suspicious. Ties to Bush's lawyer, the other guy who resigned, several other veterans who have come forward to discredit some of the guys in the commercial, a check of military records which suggested that many of the men in the commercial hadn't actually "served" with Kerry, in the sense that they served next to him in the boat, but instead were on other boats. The one guy who says he wasn't in Cambodia, but Nixon's own tapes reveal him telling the president he was in Cambodia. And so on. Some of those stories have been linked in this very thread.

    Who knows where the truth is, but the Swift Boaters' claims are at least as far from being crystal clear truth as Kerry's are.

    And yes, John himself is calling the vets liars. And I do think that's a mistake, politically. But I can see why personally he feels compelled to answer when someone calls him a liar. I just wish he had done it quietly and let it go.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Sounds like that would have been good advice to John Kerry.
    That was my original point.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  11. #391  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Arranged in a certain fashion so as to make the viewer agree with a particular point of view, what I would call not "progressive" but "propganda". This is what all of Moore's movies have done. He is a master of the trade. One on the best examples of this is the clip of GW on the golf course. It was edited so that the viewer thought President Bush was talking about al Qaeda when he was in fact talking not about al Qaeda, but Hamas, which had suicide-bombed in Israel hours before.

    If you believe that the video clips in Moores movie constitute incontrovertible proof for anything, then there is nothing I can say that will make any differnce to you.


    Because what is down in black and white does not constitute a good reason to make him our president as he wanted to make us believe.
    Now, now, you have taken what I wrote out of context.

    I stated "progressive" and then continued on to clearly define what I that meant to me
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    In other words, he takes tape, and shows a subsequent tape and then another showing how the events unfolded
    Perhaps I should have said that it was a series of videos, in progression from oldest to newest.

    I challenge you to find my quote or exact words where I stated that "because what is in down in black and white constitutes a good reason to make him our president" or any words to that effect.

    On the videos ... most Americans will only believe things if they can see it on TV.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  12. #392  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tribalenvy
    I'm waiting ....
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  13. #393  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Now, I might be out of line with this, but I'm going to say it anyway. The only difference between your interpretation of rumor, opinion and slander and how I used them is that I have a source for mine that you can check. IMHO, my use of the words was much closer to the real meaning of the words than were yours. Of course, if you can quote your source that shows your definitions are correct as you stated them, I will cede this point to you, I will agree we are both right.
    That's ok, I just made the definitions up from the top of my head.

    No one can win this game, just ask any divorce attorney.
    Ha ha - that's quite funny, because I actually used to be a divorce attorney.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  14. #394  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    That's ok, I just made the definitions up from the top of my head.



    Ha ha - that's quite funny, because I actually used to be a divorce attorney.
    So, how many of your clients got the gold mine and how many of the other guy's got the shaft??!!

    Gotta say it though, mine was really, really good and worth every penny I paid her.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  15. #395  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    I'm waiting ....
    Still waiting ...

    Just trying to get my post count back up
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  16. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #396  
    I think you guys are still missing the point that no one is "taking these guys to court" for slander. The legal actions that may or may not take place over this controversy all center around campaign finance law.

    The Dems are barking about the Swift Boaters being liars, but that's just another opinion. They know they have no legal recourse in that regard, because it all comes down to one man's word over another's. All the paperwork and medical records in the world aren't going to prove anything for either side. These guys have lawyers. They know this.

    And none of that matters, anyway, because the SwiftBoaters have already accomplished their mission of discrediting Kerry anyway. They planted the seed of doubt, which is all they could have hoped for. The poor reaction from the Democrats is just a bonus.

    Now if it turns out that Karl Rove and his crew somehow did something illegal in regards to the funding of the Swift Boaters that can be proven with paperwork (and I think he's too smart to have done that), THEN we'll see a court battle. Otherwise, all this stuff with Max Cleland and letters is a waste of time, and worse, a prolonging of the distraction from the real issues.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  17. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #397  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    If they were in a court of law, the Swift Boat guys would have strong evidence. People are convicted of murder with a lot less evidence than these vets have presented.
    And others have gotten away with murder with far more. (do a Google search on Simpson, O.J. for details)
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  18. #398  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    I think you guys are still missing the point that no one is "taking these guys to court" for slander.
    Except that Kerry's guys have sent demand letters from their lawyers to station owners threatening lawsuits if the stations run the ads. Whether it is a filed case or just a threat, the litigation hammer is raised.

    And others have gotten away with murder with far more.
    lol - Touche. I though O.J. was out looking for the real killer.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  19. #399  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Still waiting ...

    Just trying to get my post count back up
    You don't want a pic of me, tjd414, I'm a bit too geeky You want a picture of my girlfriend...she's a stunner
  20. #400  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tribalenvy
    You don't want a pic of me, tjd414, I'm a bit too geeky You want a picture of my girlfriend...she's a stunner
    Ok, waiting ...
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad

Posting Permissions