John Kerry's hipocracy

[jegs2]

On Kerry not responding and his fellow Congressmen not being able to think, Kerry's statement seems to show that inability to react taking place before the assault on Washington, as prior to the Pentagon being hit they were watching a plane slam into one of the twin towers. Indeed, once the Pentagon was hit, they all seemed to be pulled out of their respective states of shock. Slamming Bush for not instantly reacting is a below-the-belt punch, given the state of the country prior to 9/11. Few had any reason to believe that such an event would occur. Let us leave cheap shots to Michael Moore and his ilk, as there are much more substantive issues to discuss.

[Talon Karrde]

Stravo, if Kerry wasn't in a pressure filled situation, as the president was, and he still couldn't think, why do you think he would think any more clearly when loads of pressure are immediately put upon him?

Moron, when do you think you'll get around to answering my point that if you are so stressed that you can't think straight, you are LESS likely to carry through with a public-relations function?

Maybe I should start all my posts like you.

Moron, I'm getting to your posts, I obviously have a lot more to write a rebuttal to than just yours.

Now, that being said, I don't think your a moron. I think your very opinionated, as I am, just on the reverse side of my opinions.

As to your point, what exactly is your point? Your telling me that it would have been better for John Kerry not to been able to think, that way he would have instead gotten up and attended to the issue? I guess I see kind of what your saying here, but this is purely hypothetical, and a stretch I think as well. When Kerry litterally tells Larry King, "we sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think", you think if he was the president when he "couldn't think" he would have gotten up?[/i]

[Darth Wong]

Stravo, if Kerry wasn't in a pressure filled situation, as the president was, and he still couldn't think, why do you think he would think any more clearly when loads of pressure are immediately put upon him?

Moron, when do you think you'll get around to answering my point that if you are so stressed that you can't think straight, you are LESS likely to carry through with a public-relations function?

Maybe I should start all my posts like you.

Moron, I'm getting to your posts, I obviously have a lot more to write a rebuttal to than just yours.

Hey dumb-shit, YOU WROTE ANSWERS TO MY POSTS, but you didn't address my points. Don't give me this "I'm getting around to it" bullshit. If you didn't have time to answer my points, you shouldn't have replied at all. Instead, you replied, but with blatant evasions.

Now, that being said, I don't think your a moron. I think your very opinionated, as I am, just on the reverse side of my opinions.

The difference is that I don't answer posts without addressing the points therein, whereas you answer without saying anything and then wonder why people think you're a moron.

As to your point, what exactly is your point? Your telling me that it would have been better for John Kerry not to been able to think, that way he would have instead gotten up and attended to the issue? I guess I see kind of what your saying here, but this is purely hypothetical, and a stretch I think as well. When Kerry litterally tells Larry King, "we sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think", you think if he was the president when he "couldn't think" he would have gotten up?[/i]

My point, for the third fucking time, is that you are claiming A is a direct contradiction of B even though it is not.

[Talon Karrde]

Wong, I have tried to defend my argument. I'm sick of repeating it. I think since John Kerry was unable to think at the time of the attacks, he would have responded no more quickly than Bush. I don't understand why you just ignore this and say I'm not trying to defend my point. This is my point. Where is the miscommunication here?

[Darth Wong]

Wong, I have tried to defend my argument. I'm sick of repeating it. I think since John Kerry was unable to think at the time of the attacks, he would have responded no more quickly than Bush.

You don't need to be able to think clearly to cut short a public-relations stunt, for fuck's sake. What part of this do you not understand?

I don't understand why you just ignore this and say I'm not trying to defend my point. This is my point. Where is the miscommunication here?

The "miscommunication" is your moronic assertion that if you are shocked and can't think straight, you will smoothly carry through with a public-relations function instead of aborting it and freaking out.

[Talon Karrde]

My point, for the third fucking time, is that you are claiming A is a direct contradiction of B even though it is not.

And when I make my response about Kerry not being able to think and thinking he could better responded than Bush, you immediately call it wrong and thus my points are rendered void. My point can carry just as much water as yours, you just choose to disregard it.

[Darth Wong]

My point, for the third fucking time, is that you are claiming A is a direct contradiction of B even though it is not.

And when I make my response about Kerry not being able to think and thinking he could better responded than Bush, you immediately call it wrong and thus my points are rendered void. My point can carry just as much water as yours, you just choose to disregard it.

Obviously, you're still as stupid as a fucking brick. If you claim that A contradicts B and someone calls you on it, you have to explain your claim instead of simply REPEATING it! YOU have made a claim; YOU are supposed to back it up. Your idiocy is breathtaking.

Even freaking out and running to the chopper without any clear plan of what to do would have been a better response than just sitting there and carrying through with a public-relations stunt, moron.

[Talon Karrde]

Wong, I have tried to defend my argument. I'm sick of repeating it. I think since John Kerry was unable to think at the time of the attacks, he would have responded no more quickly than Bush.

You don't need to be able to think clearly to cut short a public-relations stunt, for fuck's sake. What part of this do you not understand?

I don't understand why you just ignore this and say I'm not trying to defend my point. This is my point. Where is the miscommunication here?

The "miscommunication" is your moronic assertion that if you are shocked and can't think straight, you will smoothly carry through with a public-relations function instead of aborting it and freaking out.

But then how is freaking out going to help anything? Bush himself said the reason that he stayed calm and carried it out for the next 5 minutes was because he didn't want to instill a fear into Americans. You can bet that if he immediately jumped up and went ape nuts his actions would have been on the news, and people would have questioned whether he was fit to lead.

[Darth Wong]

But then how is freaking out going to help anything?

Irrelevant to your claim. You claimed that Kerry's statement that he wouldn't have just sat there playing public-relations is somehow a direct contradiction with his statement that he was stunned into shock by the events of 9/11. I don't have to prove that Kerry would have done something fantastic instead; I only have to show that the two statements are NOT in contradiction, and they're not.

[Talon Karrde]

My point, for the third fucking time, is that you are claiming A is a direct contradiction of B even though it is not.

And when I make my response about Kerry not being able to think and thinking he could better responded than Bush, you immediately call it wrong and thus my points are rendered void. My point can carry just as much water as yours, you just choose to disregard it.

Obviously, you're still as stupid as a fucking brick. If you claim that A contradicts B and someone calls you on it, you have to explain your claim instead of simply REPEATING it! YOU have made a claim; YOU are supposed to back it up. Your idiocy is breathtaking.

Even freaking out and running to the chopper without any clear plan of what to do would have been a better response than just sitting there and carrying through with a public-relations stunt, moron.

You claim A has nothing to do with B, I believe it does. It's as simple as that. You have no proof that it has nothing to do with each other since it is purely hypothetical, nor do I since it is purely hypothetical. I'm not trying to crucify Kerry here, I'm simply saying I believe he would have reacted similarly to Bush's reaction, which I see nothing wrong with.

[Talon Karrde]

But then how is freaking out going to help anything?

Irrelevant to your claim. You claimed that Kerry's statement that he wouldn't have just sat there playing public-relations is somehow a direct contradiction with his statement that he was stunned into shock by the events of 9/11. I don't have to prove that Kerry would have done something fantastic instead; I only have to show that the two statements are NOT in contradiction, and they're not.

Darth, when someone admits to being shocked and not knowing what to think, I believe that person is going to sit and think while continuing what he's doing if he's in a public setting, therefore not to act to quickly, and calm yourself before doing something to rash. That's just how I see it.

[Stravo]

But then how is freaking out going to help anything? Bush himself said the reason that he stayed calm and carried it out for the next 5 minutes was because he didn't want to instill a fear into Americans. You can bet that if he immediately jumped up and went ape nuts his actions would have been on the news, and people would have questioned whether he was fit to lead.

WHAT Americans was he trying to remain calm for? A class of second graders? What would piss off Americans more? Sitting for 7 minutes as Americans are plummetting to their deaths because they chose a fall against burning to death and reading Billy the fucking Goat? Or excusing himself and getting on his fucking chopper.

You have not addressed any points other then repeat your assertions and cry like a little bitch about the way you are treated.

If you hate it here so much then fucking leave you will not be missed otherwise would you prefer we politely tell you you're a moron?

[Darth Wong]

You claim A has nothing to do with B, I believe it does. It's as simple as that.

Enough with the revisionist history, asshole. You started this thread by making a claim. YOU have to back it up. And this is not about A having "nothing to do with B", so stop changing the subject. It is about you claiming a DIRECT CONTRADICTION even though I have easily presented a simple scenario where both statements could be simultaneously true, thus disproving your contradiction.

You have no proof that it has nothing to do with each other since it is purely hypothetical, nor do I since it is purely hypothetical. I'm not trying to crucify Kerry here, I'm simply saying I believe he would have reacted similarly to Bush's reaction, which I see nothing wrong with.

Again with the revisionist history. Anyone can look at your first post and see that you're attacking Kerry, and pretending that A and B are in direct contradiction.

[Darth Wong]

But then how is freaking out going to help anything?

Irrelevant to your claim. You claimed that Kerry's statement that he wouldn't have just sat there playing public-relations is somehow a direct contradiction with his statement that he was stunned into shock by the events of 9/11. I don't have to prove that Kerry would have done something fantastic instead; I only have to show that the two statements are NOT in contradiction, and they're not.

Darth, when someone admits to being shocked and not knowing what to think, I believe that person is going to sit and think while continuing what he's doing if he's in a public setting, therefore not to act to quickly, and calm yourself before doing something to rash. That's just how I see it.

Ah, so when people freak out, they always act as though nothing happened. Gotcha

[Talon Karrde]

But then how is freaking out going to help anything? Bush himself said the reason that he stayed calm and carried it out for the next 5 minutes was because he didn't want to instill a fear into Americans. You can bet that if he immediately jumped up and went ape nuts his actions would have been on the news, and people would have questioned whether he was fit to lead.

WHAT Americans was he trying to remain calm for? A class of second graders? What would piss off Americans more? Sitting for 7 minutes as AMericans are plummetting to their deaths because they chose a fall against burning to death and reading Billy the fucking Goat? Or excusing himsrlf and getting on his fucking chopper.

You have not addressed any points other then repeat your assertions and cry like a little bitch about the way you are treated.\

If you hate it here so much then fucking leave you will not be missed otherwise would you prefer we politely tell you you're a moron?

First off, if you read my posts with Darth, I am trying to explain myself. Just because you don't want to acknowledge that doesn't mean I'm not.

Secondly, are you really going to pretend your being polite? I'll take that as being sarcastic, as I truly hope it is.

Thirdly, I'm not saying it would have been wrong either to get on a chopper, although I do believe he needed to display calm, and the way he did it he believed to be the best at the time. I'm saying the very thing Kerry is making an issue out of, he could have responded in the same way.

[Talon Karrde]

Darth, I'm not trying to attack Kerry. IMO, sometimes you can be hypocritcal without meaning to be.

Secondly, it seems to me Kerry was the one blasting the way the president handled it. I'm pointing out that it is entirely possible Kerry could have done the same thing.

Thirdly, I have to go get a pizza now, the fam is getting impatient.

[Darth Wong]

Talon Karrde, it's clear that you don't understand the underlying logic here. My mistake was in assuming that I could point out the hole in your claim and you would attempt to answer this accusation in some fashion rather than simply ignoring it or attempting to dismiss it as mere competing opinion.

So let me explain some basic logic:

• If someone is a "hypocrite" for saying both A and B, then A and B must be contradictory.
• If A contradicts B, then it is impossible for A and B to be simultaneously true.
• If a realistic scenario can be produced in which both A and B are simultaneously true, then A does not contradict B. One does not have to prove that this scenario must occur; one need only show that it is possible in order to prove that A and B are not in contradiction.
• If it can be shown that A and B are not in contradiction, then someone is not a "hypocrite" for saying both things simultaneously.

The reason people assail you for idiocy is that you actually don't seem to understand these very simple precepts of logic, so you figure you can just say Kerry is a hypocrite for saying A and B at the same time and then dismiss any challenge to that position as a mere opinion, with no more or less validity than yours.

[Talon Karrde]

Talon Karrde, it's clear that you don't understand the underlying logic here. My mistake was in assuming that I could point out the hole in your claim and you would attempt to answer this accusation in some fashion rather than simply ignoring it or attempting to dismiss it as mere competing opinion.

So let me explain some basic logic:

• If someone is a "hypocrite" for saying both A and B, then A and B must be contradictory.
• If A contradicts B, then it is impossible for A and B to be simultaneously true.
• If a realistic scenario can be produced in which both A and B are simultaneously true, then A does not contradict B. One does not have to prove that this scenario must occur; one need only show that it is possible in order to prove that A and B are not in contradiction.

Ok, here in lies our disagreement. I believe that you can find some correlation between these two events. I believe that if Kerry was "unable to think" for 40 minutes, that doesn't just change if he's in a different position. Being "unable to think" doesn't have anything to do with your political importance, it's just whether or not you respond to it or are just baffled.

This is why I believe A and B do complement each other, they are not seperate issues. Maybe hypocrisy was too strong a word, I may have made a mistake there. However, if I'm John Kerry, I'm not telling America that I would have made better decisions in that 5 minute period when it IS possible that he would have done the same thing. Hindsight is 20/20, and it seems to me that he is ignoring the fact that he was "unable to think" for 40 minutes.

[Frank Hipper]

Karrde claims Kerry sat immobilsied for the forty minutes in between the second strike at the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon, what makes him so sure that they watched the second plane hit in New Yorck on live television and that forty minutes elapsed between the two events? Can he prove it?

[Talon Karrde]

Karrde claims Kerry sat immobilsied for the forty minutes in between the second strike at the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon, what makes him so sure that they watched the second plane hit in New Yorck on live television and that forty minutes elapsed between the two events? Can he prove it?

Um... read his quote perhaps? He says after the plane hit the WTC and they found out, they sat and "couldn't think" and then before they knew it all of a sudden the pentagon was hit behind them. Between the two attacks was a period of 40 minutes... comprende?

[Frank Hipper]

Karrde claims Kerry sat immobilsied for the forty minutes in between the second strike at the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon, what makes him so sure that they watched the second plane hit in New Yorck on live television and that forty minutes elapsed between the two events? Can he prove it?

Um... read his quote perhaps? He says after the plane hit the WTC and they found out, they sat and "couldn't think" and then before they knew it all of a sudden the pentagon was hit behind them. Between the two attacks was a period of 40 minutes... comprende?

Are you unaware that you're helping to disprove your own case in showing that the period of time was brief between them seeing an event broadcast on TV and an actual event happening outside the windows of the office they were in?

Again, can you prove that there was a precise 40 minute interval between the televised attack in New Yorck and actual attack outside the office window? Can you prove they watched the New Yorck event live?
If not, you're asking us to take this on good faith, and good faith doesn't exist in a character asassination like this.

[DPDarkPrimus]

How many more threads of this shit before a ban poll is started?

[Darth Wong]

How many more threads of this shit before a ban poll is started?

I don't think he's trolling, DP. I think he's actually stupid enough to think his bullshit makes sense.

[DPDarkPrimus]

How many more threads of this shit before a ban poll is started?

I don't think he's trolling, DP. I think he's actually stupid enough to think his bullshit makes sense.

How does that make a difference?

[Darth Wong]

Ok, here in lies our disagreement. I believe that you can find some correlation between these two events. I believe that if Kerry was "unable to think" for 40 minutes, that doesn't just change if he's in a different position. Being "unable to think" doesn't have anything to do with your political importance, it's just whether or not you respond to it or are just baffled.

And now you resort to outright lies. Let us look at Kerry's original quote again:

I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting - we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation.

Nope, it says nothing about being immobilized, inactive, or unable to think for the entire duration between the aircraft hit and the Pentagon hit. Instead, it says that they were trying to hold meetings about these events, and they had just realized that they couldn't think straight during those meetings.

This is why I believe A and B do complement each other, they are not seperate issues. Maybe hypocrisy was too strong a word, I may have made a mistake there. However, if I'm John Kerry, I'm not telling America that I would have made better decisions in that 5 minute period when it IS possible that he would have done the same thing. Hindsight is 20/20, and it seems to me that he is ignoring the fact that he was "unable to think" for 40 minutes.

At least you're admitting that it was bullshit to call it "hypocrisy". But you're also lying about what he said.