|
|
|
|
treesail
Nov 2, 2004, 2:53 AM
Post #1 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2004
Posts: 204
|
> > Democrats
> > * Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
> > * David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
> > * Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
> > * Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army
>journalist in 20th Engineer
> > Brigade.
> > * Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
> > * Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
> > * John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V,
>Purple Hearts.
> > * Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
> > * Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star &Bronze Star, Vietnam.
> > * Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
> > * Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
> > * Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
> > * Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign
>ribbons.
> > * Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars,
>and Soldier's Medal.
> > * Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and
>Legion of Merit.
> > * Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
> > * Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze
>Star with Combat V.
> > * Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
> > * Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
> > * Chuck Robb: Vietnam
> > * Howell Heflin: Silver Star
> > * George McGovern: Silver Star &DFC during WWII.
> > * Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but
>received #311.
> > * Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
> > * Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
> > * John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
> > * Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul
>Wallenberg.
> > Republicans
> > * Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
> > * Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
> > * Tom Delay: did not serve.
> > * Roy Blunt: did not serve.
> > * Bill Frist: did not serve.
> > * Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
> > * Rick Santorum: did not serve.
> > * Trent Lott: did not serve.
> > * John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
> > * Jeb Bush: did not serve.
> > * Karl Rove: did not serve.
> > * Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max
>Cleland's patriotism.
> > * Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
> > * Vin Weber: did not serve.
> > * Richard Perle: did not serve.
> > * Douglas Feith: did not serve.
> > * Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
> > * Richard Shelby: did not serve.
> > * Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
> > * Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
> > * Christopher Cox: did not serve.
> > * Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
> > * Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
> > * George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got
>assigned to Alabama so he
> > could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show
>up for required medical
> > exam, disappeared from duty.
> > * Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making
>movies.
> > * B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
> > * Phil Gramm: did not serve.
> > * John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart
>and Distinguished Flying
> > Cross.
> > * Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
> > * John M. McHugh: did not serve.
> > * JC Watts: did not serve.
> > * Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for
>8 years.
> > * Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
> > * Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
> > * George Pataki: did not serve.
> > * Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
> > * John Engler: did not serve.
> > * Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
> > * Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
> >
Pundits &Preachers
> > * Sean Hannity: did not serve.
> > * Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
> > * Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
> > * Michael Savage: did not serve.
> > * George Will: did not serve.
> > * Chris Matthews: did not serve.
> > * Paul Gigot: did not serve.
> > * Bill Bennett: did not serve.
> > * Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
> > * John Wayne: did not serve.
> > * Bill Kristol: did not serve.
> > * Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
> > * Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
> > * Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
> > * Ralph Reed: did not serve.
> > * Michael Medved: did not serve.
> > * Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
> > * Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot
>back.)
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Nov 2, 2004, 12:15 PM
Post #2 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
maybe the rebublican bishots believe in words instead of actions??? :?
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Nov 2, 2004, 12:45 PM
Post #3 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
Maybe you could cite the source of this info? It's obviously a copy-paste job, so fess up where you found it.
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
Nov 2, 2004, 2:09 PM
Post #4 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
In reply to: Maybe you could cite the source of this info?
Jesus, reno, this tactic of screeching for sources on something you don't want to believe is ineffectual. It would be much better to refute it by actually researching it yourself and then posting opposing data. It is MUCH more effective to totally slam someone on something you've just proven them wrong on than to ask for sources and allow them to prove you wrong.
In the case that your research actuallly proves your own position wrong, then you can refrain from posting and just hope that the thread will die so that you can go on living in your fairytale.
UB
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Nov 2, 2004, 2:26 PM
Post #5 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
edit: delete.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Nov 2, 2004, 2:27 PM
Post #6 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
It works for me. Why? Because people frequently post hollow non-sense that can't be verified. Doing research to prove this non-sense is, in fact, non-sense is idiotic. The burden of proof should lie with the person making the original assertion.
If I say your girlfriend is a crackwhore, who works the DC housing projects, shouldn't the burden of proof be mine?
I think this ties into the general premise supporting our libel laws.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Nov 2, 2004, 2:30 PM
Post #7 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Also, it's nicer than just calling someone a lying sack of shit!
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Nov 2, 2004, 2:37 PM
Post #9 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: In reply to: Maybe you could cite the source of this info? Jesus, reno, this tactic of screeching for sources on something you don't want to believe is ineffectual. It would be much better to refute it by actually researching it yourself and then posting opposing data. It is MUCH more effective to totally slam someone on something you've just proven them wrong on than to ask for sources and allow them to prove you wrong. In the case that your research actuallly proves your own position wrong, then you can refrain from posting and just hope that the thread will die so that you can go on living in your fairytale. UB
Your stance also flies in direct contrary to any semblence of logic or science. The basic foundation of scientific debate (and logic, and personal non-scientific debate, for that matter,) is that you, the person who states a position, must support that postition. It's not MY job to prove you're wrong, it's YOUR job to prove you're right.
If I said "The Earth is flat" and didn't prove it, would you believe me? Of course not. You'd say "Oh yeah? Prove it."
Why so many people fail to grasp this simple concept is beyond me.
Either support your statements with a citation of evidence (i.e. where did the info come from?) or be willing to have that statement dismissed as worthless drivel.
(Note that I did not refute the information provided in the original post... I'm only asking where it was cut-pasted from.)
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Nov 2, 2004, 2:45 PM
Post #10 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
Abu Nidal
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Nov 2, 2004, 3:35 PM
Post #12 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: In reply to: It works for me. What, like friday last week when you spent 7 pages insisting that a 200-page multi-disciplinary statistical report published in The Lancet was wrong/flawed/unreliable, despite your complete lack of knowledge of or qualifications in statistics, and your similarly complete absence of any evidence to support your assertions?
You do have a talent for distorting the facts. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
BTW Considering the piranha-like behavior of our media, I wonder why no one has covered this report???
|
|
|
|
|
monkey_toes
Nov 2, 2004, 3:42 PM
Post #13 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 197
|
If only the RNC had nomindated this guy
John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
There would of been a landslide election. Instead we are going to be at the mercy of judges and lawyers again :(
|
|
|
|
|
cosmokramer
Nov 2, 2004, 3:46 PM
Post #14 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2004
Posts: 191
|
You forgot one category.
>Democrats who have received televised endorsements from terrorists:
>JOHN KERRY
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
Nov 2, 2004, 5:18 PM
Post #15 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
In reply to: It works for me. Why? Because people frequently post hollow non-sense that can't be verified. Doing research to prove this non-sense is, in fact, non-sense is idiotic. The burden of proof should lie with the person making the original assertion. If I say your girlfriend is a crackwhore, who works the DC housing projects, shouldn't the burden of proof be mine? I think this ties into the general premise supporting our libel laws.
The burden of proof might be on them in a court of law. But this is a court of public opinion, and it is simply a poor tactic. The guy asking for sources looks far stupider when the OP comes back with the source than if the challenger simply debunked it himself. Simply saying, "What's your source???" simply projects lazy ignorance masking disagreement.
Don't you think it more effective, if you're going to be posting opinions on a discussion board, to NOT depend on your adversery to prove you right? Hello??
In the case of my girlfriend, where you are foolish enough to make up something so ridiculous, simply making a joke at your expense and walking away is the preferred strategy. No sane person thinks she does what you say, and I don't care what insane people think.
UB
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
Nov 2, 2004, 5:25 PM
Post #16 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Maybe you could cite the source of this info? Jesus, reno, this tactic of screeching for sources on something you don't want to believe is ineffectual. It would be much better to refute it by actually researching it yourself and then posting opposing data. It is MUCH more effective to totally slam someone on something you've just proven them wrong on than to ask for sources and allow them to prove you wrong. In the case that your research actuallly proves your own position wrong, then you can refrain from posting and just hope that the thread will die so that you can go on living in your fairytale. UB Your stance also flies in direct contrary to any semblence of logic or science. The basic foundation of scientific debate (and logic, and personal non-scientific debate, for that matter,) is that you, the person who states a position, must support that postition. It's not MY job to prove you're wrong, it's YOUR job to prove you're right. If I said "The Earth is flat" and didn't prove it, would you believe me? Of course not. You'd say "Oh yeah? Prove it." Why so many people fail to grasp this simple concept is beyond me.
It's not a failure to grasp your concept, it is because its ineffective. Especially in this case, where the evidence is so easily obtainable, so readily available, that you just look like you will live in your fairy tale, no matter what evidence comes back. You're lazy.
In reply to: Either support your statements with a citation of evidence (i.e. where did the info come from?) or be willing to have that statement dismissed as worthless drivel. (Note that I did not refute the information provided in the original post... I'm only asking where it was cut-pasted from.)
Assuming you disagree with the facts posted, or don't like those facts, then what you did was waste intellectual ammo. You could've let this die, or you could have posted a refutation, which would have been a coup against your adversery. Now you just look desperate and hopeful that your chosen party operatives look like cowards.
Doesn't anyone read the Art of War anymore?
UB
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
Nov 2, 2004, 5:29 PM
Post #17 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
In reply to: The basic foundation of scientific debate (and logic, and personal non-scientific debate, for that matter,) is that you, the person who states a position, must support that postition.
A bit more...sorry for the double reply.
So you're saying that if someone in a debate offered this information, you'd simply say: "What's your source?" And let them go on?? You'd be an easy target.
UB
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Nov 2, 2004, 5:32 PM
Post #18 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: The burden of proof might be on them in a court of law. But this is a court of public opinion, and it is simply a poor tactic. The guy asking for sources looks far stupider when the OP comes back with the source than if the challenger simply debunked it himself. Simply saying, "What's your source???" simply projects lazy ignorance masking disagreement.
"Stupider"... now that's funny.
Why is it so hard for you to get this, UB? I'm asking "Where did you find this, so that I might go there myself and look it over. I'm not blindly accepting this, nor am I stating it's wrong. I just want to read it myself."
You, of all people, should support this stance. Aren't you one of the folks that refuses to blindly accept what your President says? Haven't you said time and time again (words to the effect) "Go read the facts for yourself... go make up your own mind." Or do I have you confused with a different Unabonger?
By your logic, of blind acceptance of all that is posted unless someone else comes along and refutes it, I'm in for a heck of a good week. After all, I just got three e-mails: One from horny college web-cam girls that want to meet ME!, one for free Cialis (not that I need it, but that's neither here nor there,) and one that allows me to get Xanax and Vicodin without a prescription.
Heck, since nobody has refuted the validity of these, they MUST BE TRUE!
Woot.
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
Nov 2, 2004, 7:18 PM
Post #19 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
In reply to: Why is it so hard for you to get this, UB? I'm asking "Where did you find this, so that I might go there myself and look it over. I'm not blindly accepting this, nor am I stating it's wrong. I just want to read it myself." You, of all people, should support this stance. Aren't you one of the folks that refuses to blindly accept what your President says? Haven't you said time and time again (words to the effect) "Go read the facts for yourself... go make up your own mind." Or do I have you confused with a different Unabonger? By your logic, of blind acceptance of all that is posted unless someone else
Who said anything about blind acceptance?
UB
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Nov 2, 2004, 7:20 PM
Post #20 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Who said anything about blind acceptance? UB
Keep backpeddaling. Keep backpeddaling.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Nov 2, 2004, 7:42 PM
Post #21 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: The burden of proof might be on them in a court of law. But this is a court of public opinion, and it is simply a poor tactic. The guy asking for sources looks far stupider when the OP comes back with the source than if the challenger simply debunked it himself. Simply saying, "What's your source???" simply projects lazy ignorance masking disagreement. Don't you think it more effective, if you're going to be posting opinions on a discussion board, to NOT depend on your adversery to prove you right? Hello??
It is more effective to call BS and immediately prove it. However, in many cases it's a complete waste of time to try and disprove something that is pure fiction. Just think of the difficulty of debunking all the tripe on Snopes.com, without access to Snopes or similar sites. Why do you think the standards commonly used by the scientific and legal fields don't apply here?
|
|
|
|
|
sharpender
Nov 2, 2004, 8:14 PM
Post #22 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 663
|
cosmokramer wrote:In reply to: You forgot one category. >Democrats who have received televised endorsements from terrorists: >JOHN KERRY
While this is obviously a distortion of the reality. (Huh what else is new from you?) It is easy now to reply with a category for the other side.
Axis of evil nations who endorse Bush. Iran.
Now, while you reality TV minions are at it how about holding your punidts, Hannity, et al to the standard of proof?
|
|
|
|
|
g
Deleted
Nov 2, 2004, 8:27 PM
Post #23 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
If it helps all you lazy people, HERE. That took a whole minute of my life, but that does nothing towards proving this stuff. Bob Dole served, and he'll let you know it too.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Nov 2, 2004, 8:45 PM
Post #24 of 24
(1577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Thanks g. It's interesting that 90 of the 100 Senators in the 108th congress never saw combat action. What a bunch of shirker cowards. :x
|
|
|
|
|
|
