09-06-2004, 06:25 AM
"Your charge is false, based on the evidence."
Well, uh, maybe, but that doesn't make his argument any better, and that was what I'm objecting to. Clearly, the argument that Mr. Die-A-Lot is a noonyhead is specious. But the notion "You can't argue against being X because you haven't even admitted to being X yet!" is not exactly valid reasoning.
Evidence is another thing. It doesn't seem to me to be anywhere near as clear cut as you put it. Being "not maximally pro-military" does not qualify a man to be "anti-military". But, then, I'm anti-military, so what looks bad to you probably doesn't look quite so awful to me. I will say, however, that at least Mr. Kerry's military experience holds some weight, however variable. Knowing what Bush did, even given the benefit of the doubt, I wouldn't trust him to fire a rifle at tin cans, let alone lead a nuclear-armed military on a crusade against evil halfway across the world.
But, Bush clearly protects your country from terrah, whereas all John Kerry can do is flip-flop, like that whole going to 'nam and coming back disillusioned. What up with that? Didn't he notice all that creeping communism, or the proud and noble stature of the South Vietnamese democracy?
Jester
Well, uh, maybe, but that doesn't make his argument any better, and that was what I'm objecting to. Clearly, the argument that Mr. Die-A-Lot is a noonyhead is specious. But the notion "You can't argue against being X because you haven't even admitted to being X yet!" is not exactly valid reasoning.
Evidence is another thing. It doesn't seem to me to be anywhere near as clear cut as you put it. Being "not maximally pro-military" does not qualify a man to be "anti-military". But, then, I'm anti-military, so what looks bad to you probably doesn't look quite so awful to me. I will say, however, that at least Mr. Kerry's military experience holds some weight, however variable. Knowing what Bush did, even given the benefit of the doubt, I wouldn't trust him to fire a rifle at tin cans, let alone lead a nuclear-armed military on a crusade against evil halfway across the world.
But, Bush clearly protects your country from terrah, whereas all John Kerry can do is flip-flop, like that whole going to 'nam and coming back disillusioned. What up with that? Didn't he notice all that creeping communism, or the proud and noble stature of the South Vietnamese democracy?
Jester