Originally posted by trumptman
Again, put down the crack pipe.
I've not claimed that the 527's on the left mirror SwiftVets. I've claimed they are much, much worse. They are outright being used by a few mega-rich people to inject millions of unaccountable cash into a presidential elections.
As for using past events for attempting to discredit candidates and their respective plans for the future of the United States, you tell me if you can find a report questioning Kerry's service that dates earlier than all the media harping about Bush and the National Guard. You seem to imply that Kerry has been investigated in a manner that Bush has not. That's just not true. Bush faced the National Guard issue in both the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.
As for legitimate political debate, I've also posted a thread on these forums about Kerry and what changes he would bring about to Iraq. So it isn't as if I am ducking contemporary issues. Maybe my voice gets lost in the 90+% of the members of these forums who are hard left, but that doesn't mean I don't address them. We've had a huge thread on here about environmentalism and it isn't like I was sitting there changing "What about vietnam" over and over in either thread.
The reality is that Kerry can't change the number of troops in Iraq. He's tried to play up his war credentials to give the impression that he can do something different.
On the domestic front Kerry claims he can cut the budget deficit in half, stop jobs from being exported (by cutting corporate taxes BTW), and spend $200+ billion more a year all while keeping most of the tax cuts and only raising income taxes on those who earn more than $200k a year.
That smells like 100% pure bullshit no matter who mouths it. You know it.
Meanwhile I've busted on Bush about immigration reform, trade reform, running deficits and allowing Congress to spend like mad.
I've even said I would vote for a Democrat who addressed the issues of deficits, trade or immigration.
So perhaps it is you who needs to take off the blinders and do a little critical analysis of candidate Kerry. Because be it Vietnam, Iraq, or domestic issues, his words and promises don't add up.
I'd be happy to address the real issues in the threads devoted to them. This thread is about the evidence that the swift boat vets are lying.
You made a decision to throw your lot in with the sleaziest of Rove's attack modes. You continued to claim that these attacks had some relevance to the campaign after having your attention directed to self-contradicting statements by the vets themselves, further testimonies in support of Kerry from people who were really there, not just in same country, and the investigative process that underlies awarding of medals (as opposed to the simply ridiculous "Kerry put himself in for the Bronze star and somehow controlled the Navy's
investigation into not just his own but another guy's medal that day.
None of which have you "addressed".
So given that you support the worst sleaze the political process has to offer, and your best defense (as always) is some kind of vague notion of "parity" on the left (again, very simply untrue), do you really find it surprising that people might start to get a little brusque with you?
Pretty much everybody on these boards can see this for what it is, and how, as ever more evidence accrues to confirm this episode as the shabby piece of gutter politics that it is, you start to want to change the subject: to how much money MoveOn.org spends, or whether or not Bush's guard duty got similar play, or how you're complaints about Bush's errors prove open-mindedness.
That being the case, why go down the muddy road with the Swifties? Supporting Bush over Kerry doesn't require it, you can, and have, argued the case on the merits.
This isn't a debate over taxation and distribution of wealth, or the role of government in day to day life, or the possibility of building a more egalitarian society vs. letting the free market have its way.
Those are points of contention worthy of debate, which we do, and which is part and parcel of the nature of political argument. Though I might berate you for being obtuse or short sighted for not seeing my enlightened viewpoint of anyone of these issues, I would grant you the assumption that you are arguing on behalf of what's best for the country.
The swift boat slur is entirely another matter. Nobody obliged you to enthusiastically embrace their claims. I can't see where doing so could arise out of any real ideological stance other than "we will beat you with whatever club presents itself".
As long as this shit is still in play I will continue to present evidence that it is bullshit. As long as you continue to act as if it had bearing on Kerry's fitness to be president, I will address you under the assumption that you're a whore who values winning over ethics.