Well, I think there are two issues here (for me anyway). One is the W being AWOL or not....I admit that link certainly casts doubt on it (for me) - I checked the NYTimes, and would have to pay to purchase the actual articles, so I think I will withold judgment until I see confirmation, but I do agree it looks possible that W was not AWOL, merely took advantage of his privileged status. If the (sole) link we have debunking this were from a reputable news source, I would have a lot more faith in it. Nontheless, bottom line is, if that link contains accurate info, W was likely NOT AWOL.
The second issue though is quite different - certainly Scott cannot claim that he was suddenly "right", because his argument was not "those claims have been examined and are untrue", but rather was "you can't be AWOL if you are not full-time military and your unit is not active". Although he apparently will never admit it, he was quite clearly wrong there.
It is as though I were arguing that W is not AWOL because AWOL means "Acting Without a License", and then when someone supports that W was not AWOL, I crow "see? I was right! Damned liberals!"
Well, I think there are two issues here (for me anyway). One is the W being AWOL or not....I admit that link certainly casts doubt on it (for me) - I checked the NYTimes, and would have to pay to purchase the actual articles, so I think I will withold judgment until I see confirmation, but I do agree it looks possible that W was not AWOL, merely took advantage of his privileged status. If the (sole) link we have debunking this were from a reputable news source, I would have a lot more faith in it. Nontheless, bottom line is, if that link contains accurate info, W was likely NOT AWOL.
I posted the full text of both the NYTimes piece and the WaPo piece in this thread. Seems to me that it's a little murkier than the Times makes it out to be, and that the WaPo did a little more digging.
It's pretty clear that this issue is at the very least debatable and unresolved, which means Jennings' presumption was unjustified and Clark's response was valid.
Good point Giant - I apologize for not having caught up on the thread before posting. The link definitely only presented the parts of the story that supported their contention, and neglected the parts that undermined it.
So I guess Scott is still definitely wrong on one point, and only probably wrong on another.
It's pretty clear that this issue is at the very least debatable and unresolved, which means Jennings' presumption was unjustified and Clark's response was valid.
So? Someone may have done something but there's nothing to support that someone may have done something so we have to consider it valid until it's proven.
Giant are you sure you didn't murder someone? There's no proof that you didn't so we have to consider it valid. Do you beat your wife and if not when did you stop?
So? Someone may have done something but there's nothing to support that someone may have done something so we have to consider it valid until it's proven.
You've got it all wrong. There not 'nothing to support' it. There are conflicting accounts and the documentation seems to suggest it. Sure, this may be a simple record keeping error (after all, he certainly moved around a lot), with the information I've seen (which is not much), it appears that there are indications he was AWOL.
Was he? I don't know and I don't really care. If I cared, maybe I would look into it enough to form an opinion, but I don't so I won't. What I do care about it the fact that this question was loaded, Clark answered it with as perfectly legitimate of a response as anyone could, and yet somehow it's a bad thing.
There are valid criticisms of clark, but this is just stupid.
How un-American of you giant to find someone guilty until proven innocent. Why do you hate the bill of rights?
Let's say some guy I know says, "You know that Clinton guy? He's a deserter. Here's some papers that indicate he didn't show up and some accounts that seem to support it." He shows me some papers, but I don't really look into it and that's the end of that. Then someone else asks me whether or not Clinton's a deserter, what is the proper response? "I don't know," or "I haven't looked at the facts." Something like that.*
Of course, politically, Clark screwed up, because people want candidates to take solid, simplistic stances on every issue under the sun, and Clark doesn't do this. He takes stances too rarely (something that makes it hard to back him), and this is probably why he is so far behind.
*of course, if it was clinton we were talking about you'd probably say I was being an apologist with this response.
Pssst. Hassan. Should we not apply Islamic law to Jihadis. Cut their tongues, hands, feet, gouge their eyes out. Dat what Ahmed is fighting for. Give em some joy. Dat what I say. Or bettah yet, let introduce him to his 72 celestial virgins.
Now we know they are all "jihadis"? Is this because they are Islamic looking? Do we have any idea what their religious or political affiliations are? (answer - no, because our own government won't tell us ANYTHING).
Also, you have a twisted idea of Islamic justice if you think that for some reason the punishment for - well, nothing nayone has been convicted of is lopping off hands etc.
Now we know they are all "jihadis"? Is this because they are Islamic looking? Do we have any idea what their religious or political affiliations are? (answer - no, because our own government won't tell us ANYTHING).
Also, you have a twisted idea of Islamic justice if you think that for some reason the punishment for - well, nothing nayone has been convicted of is lopping off hands etc.
Typical ignorant stereotype of Arabic people.
And that stupid accent that you wrote in BlueShift reveals how low your critique is . . . are you going to start using ebonics to 'parody' some misperception of African-Americans?!?!
Small comments like Hassans is not an invitation to let a thread wander off in all directions.
[moderatorhat=off]
When are one of you guys gonna say "well at least we agree that we disagree"? Scott and Chu: Do you really think you will ever get the other to agree with you or do you really think anyone else is reading the 20th response and saying "Wow that was really an impressive argument and I didn´t see that coming reading through the previous 19 posts"?
Pssst. Hassan. Should we not apply Islamic law to Jihadis. Cut their tongues, hands, feet, gouge their eyes out. Dat what Ahmed is fighting for. Give em some joy. Dat what I say. Or bettah yet, let introduce him to his 72 celestial virgins.
US should apply his own standarts. And the camp delta do not fit with any US standart of justice.
When you judge someone you apply your own standarts, and you do not apply the standarts of the people you judge.
In clear what you said was irrelevant.
Now let's go back in the topic (in wich i must confess, i am not so interested : there where already one in the past in AO).
US should apply his own standarts. And the camp delta do not fit with any US standart of justice.
When you judge someone you apply your own standarts, and you do not apply the standarts of the people you judge.
In clear what you said was irrelevant.
Now let's go back in the topic (in wich i must confess, i am not so interested : there where already one in the past in AO).
Not really. And I'm sure you're already familiar with the argument as to why not. Anyway. I'm just juxtaposing the two legal systems for Hassan's edification. Hassan likes to poke his finger at it. So I thought I might remind him a little of where he's coming from. It's all in good fun. Hassan will never take offence at it. He's got nothing invested in it. I'm sure Hassan will agree. Btw pfflam, why would you describe it as parody? Don't you think it's legitimate? Or is it that somehow you consider it inferior?
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
I think this is the point in the thread where the Bush haters (TM) have to ... admit they are wrong.
You're joking right? Has that EVER happened?
The second issue though is quite different - certainly Scott cannot claim that he was suddenly "right", because his argument was not "those claims have been examined and are untrue", but rather was "you can't be AWOL if you are not full-time military and your unit is not active". Although he apparently will never admit it, he was quite clearly wrong there.
It is as though I were arguing that W is not AWOL because AWOL means "Acting Without a License", and then when someone supports that W was not AWOL, I crow "see? I was right! Damned liberals!"
Fish
Originally posted by fishdoc
Well, I think there are two issues here (for me anyway). One is the W being AWOL or not....I admit that link certainly casts doubt on it (for me) - I checked the NYTimes, and would have to pay to purchase the actual articles, so I think I will withold judgment until I see confirmation, but I do agree it looks possible that W was not AWOL, merely took advantage of his privileged status. If the (sole) link we have debunking this were from a reputable news source, I would have a lot more faith in it. Nontheless, bottom line is, if that link contains accurate info, W was likely NOT AWOL.
I posted the full text of both the NYTimes piece and the WaPo piece in this thread. Seems to me that it's a little murkier than the Times makes it out to be, and that the WaPo did a little more digging.
Cheers
Scott
So I guess Scott is still definitely wrong on one point, and only probably wrong on another.
Fish
Originally posted by giant
It's pretty clear that this issue is at the very least debatable and unresolved, which means Jennings' presumption was unjustified and Clark's response was valid.
So? Someone may have done something but there's nothing to support that someone may have done something so we have to consider it valid until it's proven.
Giant are you sure you didn't murder someone? There's no proof that you didn't so we have to consider it valid. Do you beat your wife and if not when did you stop?
You know, I've always had my suspicions about him.
Originally posted by Scott
So? Someone may have done something but there's nothing to support that someone may have done something so we have to consider it valid until it's proven.
You've got it all wrong. There not 'nothing to support' it. There are conflicting accounts and the documentation seems to suggest it. Sure, this may be a simple record keeping error (after all, he certainly moved around a lot), with the information I've seen (which is not much), it appears that there are indications he was AWOL.
Was he? I don't know and I don't really care. If I cared, maybe I would look into it enough to form an opinion, but I don't so I won't. What I do care about it the fact that this question was loaded, Clark answered it with as perfectly legitimate of a response as anyone could, and yet somehow it's a bad thing.
There are valid criticisms of clark, but this is just stupid.
Originally posted by Scott
How un-American of you giant to find someone guilty until proven innocent. Why do you hate the bill of rights?
Wow. I'm glad the justice system from your world isn't the same one in ours. Otherwise, we'd never have a trial!
Originally posted by Scott
How un-American of you giant to find someone guilty until proven innocent. Why do you hate the bill of rights?
Pssst. Scott. Camp Delta.
Originally posted by Scott
How un-American of you giant to find someone guilty until proven innocent. Why do you hate the bill of rights?
Let's say some guy I know says, "You know that Clinton guy? He's a deserter. Here's some papers that indicate he didn't show up and some accounts that seem to support it." He shows me some papers, but I don't really look into it and that's the end of that. Then someone else asks me whether or not Clinton's a deserter, what is the proper response? "I don't know," or "I haven't looked at the facts." Something like that.*
Of course, politically, Clark screwed up, because people want candidates to take solid, simplistic stances on every issue under the sun, and Clark doesn't do this. He takes stances too rarely (something that makes it hard to back him), and this is probably why he is so far behind.
*of course, if it was clinton we were talking about you'd probably say I was being an apologist with this response.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Pssst. Scott. Camp Delta.
Pssst. Hassan. Should we not apply Islamic law to Jihadis. Cut their tongues, hands, feet, gouge their eyes out. Dat what Ahmed is fighting for. Give em some joy. Dat what I say. Or bettah yet, let introduce him to his 72 celestial virgins.
Also, you have a twisted idea of Islamic justice if you think that for some reason the punishment for - well, nothing nayone has been convicted of is lopping off hands etc.
Typical ignorant stereotype of Arabic people.
Originally posted by fishdoc
Now we know they are all "jihadis"? Is this because they are Islamic looking? Do we have any idea what their religious or political affiliations are? (answer - no, because our own government won't tell us ANYTHING).
Also, you have a twisted idea of Islamic justice if you think that for some reason the punishment for - well, nothing nayone has been convicted of is lopping off hands etc.
Typical ignorant stereotype of Arabic people.
And that stupid accent that you wrote in BlueShift reveals how low your critique is . . . are you going to start using ebonics to 'parody' some misperception of African-Americans?!?!
Small comments like Hassans is not an invitation to let a thread wander off in all directions.
[moderatorhat=off]
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Pssst. Hassan. Should we not apply Islamic law to Jihadis. Cut their tongues, hands, feet, gouge their eyes out. Dat what Ahmed is fighting for. Give em some joy. Dat what I say. Or bettah yet, let introduce him to his 72 celestial virgins.
US should apply his own standarts. And the camp delta do not fit with any US standart of justice.
When you judge someone you apply your own standarts, and you do not apply the standarts of the people you judge.
In clear what you said was irrelevant.
Now let's go back in the topic (in wich i must confess, i am not so interested : there where already one in the past in AO).
Originally posted by Powerdoc
US should apply his own standarts. And the camp delta do not fit with any US standart of justice.
When you judge someone you apply your own standarts, and you do not apply the standarts of the people you judge.
In clear what you said was irrelevant.
Now let's go back in the topic (in wich i must confess, i am not so interested : there where already one in the past in AO).
Not really. And I'm sure you're already familiar with the argument as to why not. Anyway. I'm just juxtaposing the two legal systems for Hassan's edification. Hassan likes to poke his finger at it. So I thought I might remind him a little of where he's coming from. It's all in good fun. Hassan will never take offence at it. He's got nothing invested in it. I'm sure Hassan will agree.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Pssst. Scott. Camp Delta.
Pssst. What's camp delta?