Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Hillary Clinton; I don't get it
Topic Started: Feb 6 2008, 04:15 PM (1,518 Views)
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Wichita
Feb 10 2008, 04:22 AM
Minuet
Feb 10 2008, 03:27 AM
Wichita
Feb 9 2008, 08:46 AM
Minuet
Feb 9 2008, 05:13 AM
Quote:
 
I found Minuet's commet posted earlier to be interesting because she used a very partisian source to "prove" that other sources were partisian. If conservative sources are going to be rejected, then liberal ones should be as well - and her source was VERY liberal.


For the record I didn't set out to "prove" anything and I specifically said that I was posting that source to show the other side of the story and provide some balance. In fact this is what I said

Quote:
 
I found out that a lot could be traced back to a particular book by a gentleman by the name of Gary Aldrich. While trying to get more information I came accross the following article from 2002. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the article, but I thought I would post it here in the interest of balance.

OK, but that doesn't make the source you used any less partisian. :shrug:

To provide some balance to your "balance" .... the same source recently devoted a considerable time, money and newspapers space to a multi-part series.

The subject? Iraqi and Afghanistan vets are violent time bombs - as a result of their military service - ready to go off.

It named 121 cases where veterans had been convicted or charged in cases where deaths had occurred.

Now, as someone who has seen Vietnam vets characterized as "violent killers", the intent to smear our current military members was clear and obvious.

I read two of the articles before being to disgusted to continue. In the first they presented the numbers. When you got past the headlines, you found the number of 121 included traffic accidents where someone died. In those cases, there was no evidence of violence or even of alcohol or drugs. Given the number of people who have served in the Middle East in the last 6 years, 121 didn't even make military equal to the stats on the general population in the same category, but they published the articles nonetheless

In the US, you can be charged with negligent homicide for an accident where you go too wide on a curve and hit a car or when you are speeding when an accident occurs. In fact, I know two people who have had relatives so charged. They were legally responsible for what they did but neither had an ounce of malice when they did it. They simply got careless and screwed up. Sadly, it could happen to any of the rest of us on any given day if we get distracted by the kids in the back seat or try and sneak in a cell phone call at the wrong time.

In the second article, they profiled a young National Guardsman who happened to be Mormon. They used the fact that he was Mormon to try and claim that he would have been like "this" if it weren't for his military service which made him like "that" The problem was that they didn't do their homework very welll.

I have many, many friends in the church who are in the Guard. I even know someone in the Guard who left to serve a 2-year mission. Before he left, he was required to provide the Guard with a letter signed by the leader of the ENTIRE LDS church that promised to recall him from his mission if his Guard unit was activated. His Guard unit was activated and he was recalled just as promised well before his Guard unit actually deployed. (In fact, he came home nearly a year before the unit actually deployed.)

The article tried to claim that he couldn't go on a mission because of his service which was completely incorrect.

The young man was not originally charged in the death of his wife, but confessed later. What the article glossed over was that he also was witnessing his parents long marriage disintegrate in the same period and was depondent over that as well.

By the time I was done reading, I wasn't convinced he actually killed her either. I don't doubt he has PSTD, but wondered if he was actually confessing to something that didn't ACTUALLY do because of his overall depression.

That was the balance that I thought of when I saw your source.

I never claimed the source was non-partisan.

The balance comment was because the accusations against Hillary all appeared to also come from very partisan sources.

Finding non-partisan sources is near impossible.

The second article I found, the one from snopes that debunked all the quotes was a source I would call much more non-partisan. I would bet that there is also information on that site debunking the misquotes and misrepresentations made of George W. Bush.

Honestly I think most of the nasty things said about politicians from either side are untrue. I find it sad that a lot of people seem to buy into what they hear without taking a critical look at things. (That last comment is not aimed at you Wichita - it's more of a general observation)

Ummmmm, Minuet ....

I NEVER claimed that you said the source was non-partisian.

You did, however, say that you were using it to provide "balance" to other sources. I simply was providing "balance" to your "balance".

After all, you just said:

Minuet
 
The balance comment was because the accusations against Hillary all appeared to also come from very partisan sources.


You certainly IMPLIED earlier that the other sources were partisian and here you confirm that, in fact, YOU saw them as partisian.

I saw your article as very partisian and said so as well.

You have to remember that Hillary Clinton has used the bogey man of a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" to try and excuse many, many of the mistakes of her and her husband. As your article demonstrated, the NTY, as well as some others, are more than willing to play along with her at every opportunity.

It is ONE of the reasons - her unwillingness to take responsibility for her own action even in little, relatively unconsequential things - that she is SO disliked by so many people. Which is the topic of the thread after all ... ;)

As I demonstrated earlier, I see it as very "handy" that the other sources are seen as "very partisian". The people MOST likely to have been the recipient of her attitude about military members are probably conservatives. But, we can't believe them because they ARE conservatives. Therefore we have no "proof" that it ever occured.

There is no chance that she would e-v-e-r treat a conservative military person different than a liberal military person. ;) :whistle: :angel:

After all, it not like she ever claimed that all members of the right were out to get her and her husband.

Oh, what a minute .... :lol:

Ok, back to being serious.....

I do have ONE question about what you said in your last two posts that I would appreciate you clearing up.

You said:

Minuet
 
I found out that a lot could be traced back to a particular book by a gentleman by the name of Gary Aldrich.


And ...

Minuet
 
I found references - but they were all refering back to one single source - the book I mentioned earlier that was authored by Gary Aldrich. Is that the book you read, or did you read a different book?


Which was it?

"A lot" or All"?

My research was a few days ago. Every reference I recall seeing was to Gary Aldrich's book. I did not find any first hand sources. I did read one message board reference where a person claimed thier nephew had a similar story. I consider that second hand, and frankly anyone can say anything on a message board.

If you could remember the name of the book you read or the name of the author I will gladly google it and take a look.

You yourself said you wouldn't read a book by Gary Aldrich - did you say that because you see him as too partisan?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
I just read over at CNN.com that Hillary Clinton has replaced her campaign manager. :chin:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Minuet
Feb 10 2008, 09:41 PM
You yourself said you wouldn't read a book by Gary Aldrich - did you say that because you see him as too partisan?

No.

I would use the word "opportunistic".

I don't recall the name of the book, but I will google the topic and see if I can find it.

Edit: Couldn't find which book, but the author was Robert Patterson, I think.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus