DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Mucho on October 29, 2006, 11:32:14 AM
-
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=113303&ran=33810
James Webb's Navy Cross
The Virginian-Pilot
© October 27, 2006
Last updated: 5:10 PM
Editor's note: The Navy Cross is the nation's second-highest award for bravery in facing an enemy. James Webb has refused to use it in his campaign. We are publishing it with our endorsement of him because we believe it testifies to his character.
The Navy Cross is presented to James H. Webb, Jr., First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as a Platoon Commander with Company D, First Battalion, Fifth Marines, First Marine Division (Reinforced), Fleet Marine Force, in connection with combat operations against the enemy in the Republic of Vietnam.
On 10 July 1969, while participating in a company-sized search and destroy operation deep in hostile territory, First Lieutenant Webb's platoon discovered a well-camouflaged bunker complex which appeared to be unoccupied. Deploying his men into defensive positions, First Lieutenant Webb was advancing to the first bunker when three enemy soldiers armed with hand grenades jumped out.
Reacting instantly, he grabbed the closest man and, brandishing his .45 caliber pistol at the others, apprehended all three of the soldiers.
Accompanied by one of his men, he then approached the second bunker and called for the enemy to surrender. When the hostile soldiers failed to answer him and threw a grenade which detonated dangerously close to him, First Lieutenant Webb detonated a claymore mine in the bunker aperture, accounting for two enemy casualties and disclosing the entrance to a tunnel.
Despite the smoke and debris from the explosion and the possibility of enemy soldiers hiding in the tunnel, he then conducted a thorough search which yielded several items of equipment and numerous documents containing valuable intelligence data. Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade.
Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body.
Although sustaining painful fragmentation wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture and completely destroy the remaining bunker.
By his courage, aggressive leadership, and selfless devotion to duty, First Lieutenant Webb upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service.
-
Yeah, but what kind of man is he if he can't fight the enemy at home by stuffing severed deer heads into their mailboxes?
-
Yeah, but what kind of man is he if he can't fight the enemy at home by stuffing severed deer heads into their mailboxes?
"Two Louisa County sheriff's deputies who were on the force in the early '70s said in interviews with the Daily Press that they recall no complaints about severed animal heads. Retired Lt. Robert Rigsby said he was in charge of investigations in the early '70s, and any such report would have gone through him. 'I think that's a myth,' Rigsby said. Another veteran officer, Deputy William Seay, also could recall no such incident. Local authorities have stated that they do not know if records from so long ago would be preserved. A search of Louisa County's weekly newspaper, The Central Virginian, for the years 1972 through 1974 yielded no account of a severed animal head being discovered in a mailbox during the months that traditionally constitute deer season, October through January. The leader of the Louisa County chapter of the NAACP, Stewart Cooke, also said in a telephone interview that he had not heard of such an incident."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Allen_(U.S._politician) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Allen_(U.S._politician))
But of course, just because there is no evidence that it happened must be proof that it happened and there was a coverup, right?
-
<<But of course, just because there is no evidence that it happened must be proof that it happened and there was a coverup, right?>>
Well, there happens to be plenty of evidence that it happened. There is the evidence of one of the three members of the hunting party, which is what broke the story. There is the evidence of a friend of the second member (since deceased) of the hunting party, who heard the story of the severed deer's head (minus the racial element) from the dead man. And there is the collateral evidence of Sen. Macacawitz' racism and hostility to blacks ("Welcome to the real America, macaca.")
However, I do want to thank you for my first big laugh of the day - - your child-like faith that whenever a racist atrocity happened to a black family decades ago in a racist southern town, the very first thing that they would do would be to rush down to their friendly white racist police to complain. An action which would have no conceivable up-side for them, and, depending on the power and influence of whoever placed the deer head in the mailbox, might even get them killed for their trouble. ("Oh, but this is America, stuff like that couldn't happen in America.")
I guess you're living proof of what happens when you feed impressionable young minds on a steady diet of Walt Disney movies and God-Bless-America TV specials.
-
So Webb was also a psycho killer of freedom fighters? Should low lying fruit like that be elected to the Senate?
-
So Webb was also a psycho killer of freedom fighters? Should low lying fruit like that be elected to the Senate?
Better than deer beheaders , dontcha know?
-
Better than deer beheaders , dontcha know?
Deer are to held in higher respect than human beings?
You want to rethink that one?
-
<<So Webb was also a psycho killer of freedom fighters? Should low lying fruit like that be elected to the Senate?>>
Yeah, because I like the way the guy writes. It's not as if the racist ass-holes of Virginia have a real choice. It's between two racist psycho ass-holes. Let's face it, this IS representative government, isn't it? They are voting for somebody to represent them. Who should they pick for that great honour? A Jewish liberal from Columbia University? Basically a guy like Webb is what they deserve. He won't have any more regard for them than for the Vietnamese resistance fighters that he tortured and killed. He'll fuck them up the ass first and every chance that he gets and line his pockets while they go from bad to worse, till he gets caught, retires or dies. That's America. If they don't like it, they should have insisted on better candidates.
-
your child-like faith that whenever a racist atrocity happened to a black family decades ago in a racist southern town, the very first thing that they would do would be to rush down to their friendly white racist police to complain. An action which would have no conceivable up-side for them, and, depending on the power and influence of whoever placed the deer head in the mailbox, might even get them killed for their trouble. ("Oh, but this is America, stuff like that couldn't happen in America.")
Well, actually, I can document a large number of "racist atrocities" that happened in "racist southern towns" so it must be very conceivable that it would be documented. If a large number of them are indeed documented with police reports and news accounts, then I find it highly inconceivable that this one action went undocumented, especially if it was part of an ongoing series of events in his life, as you claim.
So, I guess you did take the "proof by lack of evidence" tack in this case as well.
-
Better than deer beheaders , dontcha know?
Deer are to held in higher respect than human beings?
You want to rethink that one?
Anyone would prefer brave men such as Kerry & Webb over cowards like Bush & Allen. Unless you were blinded by greed & tax-cit lust like most Repubs.
-
<<Well, actually, I can document a large number of "racist atrocities" that happened in "racist southern towns" so it must be very conceivable that it would be documented. >>
I think I see your problem. It is a basic ignorance of fundamental principles of logic. For instance, the number of racist atrocities that are documented is no proof at all that every racist atrocity is documented. Furthermore, since by definition, the number of racist atrocities that are NOT reported is virtually unknowable to you, your assertion that the number of racist atrocities that are reported is a "large number" is practically meaningless as there is nothing to compare it with. You can't argue, for example, that 99% of all racist atrocities were reported, therefore the odds of this one happening unreported is one in a hundred.
<<If a large number of them are indeed documented with police reports and news accounts, then I find it highly inconceivable that this one action went undocumented, especially if it was part of an ongoing series of events in his life, as you claim.>>
Well, we already established that your "large number," having nothing to be compared to, is meaningless. The theory that, as "part of an ongoing series of events in [Macacawitz'] life," this action would have to be documented, makes as little sense as the rest of your drivel. Unless his proud parents were following him around with a camera to record his every little deed, why would a drunken and illegal episode that occurred in the middle of the night with two hunting companions "have to be documented?"
There are several excellent courses on logic available in bookstores and probably in community colleges as well. I think you should start at the elementary level, the one that begins with the lesson "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore . . . " Soon you will come to understand why the absence of a police report in any circumstances (let alone racist hate crimes in a racist Southern community) is not necessarily proof that something did not occur.
It seems to me that you used to present much smarter arguments. What is happening to you?
-
Anyone would prefer brave men such as Kerry & Webb over cowards like Bush & Allen.
Apparently Mikey doesn't hold Webb in high regard. Perhaps he values human life over deer.
Basically a guy like Webb is what they deserve. He won't have any more regard for them than for the Vietnamese resistance fighters that he tortured and killed. He'll fuck them up the ass first and every chance that he gets and line his pockets while they go from bad to worse, till he gets caught, retires or dies.
-
It seems to me that you used to present much smarter arguments. What is happening to you?
I've dropped to the level of the person I'm debating.
Anyone that uses lack of evidence as "proof" that something happened is obviously not familiar with logic.
Most of your arguments among the last 2 years have been along the lines of "no evidence means it happened and there was a coverup" or "it is obvious."
It doesn't take much rigor to show either of those to be incorrect.
Perhaps when you start to present some actual sources and verifiable evidence, I'll respond in kind.
For instance, on this issue (deer heads in mailboxes) you have the word of one dead guy and one living guy that it happened. And the living guy doesn't remember Allen looking for a black neighborhood to drop the deer head off in (he claimed that they just did it at the first mailbox they came to after they thought up the idea), so the only evidence that it was racist is the dead guy, who can't be questioned about the incident. What a source. Also, the living guy is not sure it was Allen's idea to start with, he doesn't remember who came up with it.
And if you ask me for a source for my claim, I'm gonna use your quote from yesterday. Something along the lines of "if you want evidence, get off your lazy ass and look for it yourself instead of questioning me," wasn't it? Yeah, what intellectual rigor that statement holds.
-
Well, we already established that your "large number," having nothing to be compared to, is meaningless.
And at the same time, we have established that your claim that people don't report racist atrocities is also meaningless. You provided no hard numbers to back up your claim, after all.
-
<<Anyone that uses lack of evidence as "proof" that something happened is obviously not familiar with logic.>>
Oh, please. For the fifth or sixth time, the PROOF that it happened is the word of the hunting companion, who said they drove into the black neighbourhood deliberately, buttressed by the word of the guy who heard from the dead guy that Allen and he [the dead guy] and the guy who broke the story had suffed a deer head in a mail box. YOU are the one who raised the lack of police documentation as evidence that it DIDN'T happen and I merely countered your argument - - with logic that even YOU cannot refute - - that the absence of a police report is not proof that it couldn't happen.
So please quite using your bullshit line that I am arguing for the incident happening based on the absence of police reporting that it did. That's just not true and you know it.
<<Most of your arguments among the last 2 years have been along the lines of "no evidence means it happened and there was a coverup" or "it is obvious."
<<It doesn't take much rigor to show either of those to be incorrect.
<<Perhaps when you start to present some actual sources and verifiable evidence, I'll respond in kind.>>
Most of my arguments for the last two years were just as logical and coherent as this one, but stop trying to muddy the waters (a sure sign that you're losing this argument) and try to focus on what we're actually discussing in the here and now. I don't have to defend my record of two years of arguments on probably hundreds of different subjects just because you want to focus attention away from the utterly asinine position that you have just taken here.
<<For instance, on this issue (deer heads in mailboxes) you have the word of one dead guy and one living guy that it happened. >>
Oh, yeah that's right. Allen forgot to leave a hand-signed gift card with the deer's head and the hunting party did not wake up a dozen or so reputable citizens and bring them along to bear witness to this gallant act.
<<And the living guy doesn't remember Allen looking for a black neighborhood to drop the deer head off in (he claimed that they just did it at the first mailbox they came to after they thought up the idea),>>
That's not my recollection of the man's story at all. He said Allen asked where the black area was.
<< so the only evidence that it was racist is the dead guy, who can't be questioned about the incident. What a source.>>
Not my understanding. I read that the living member of the hunting party said that Allen was asking for directions to the black area.
<< Also, the living guy is not sure it was Allen's idea to start with, he doesn't remember who came up with it.>>
I don't recall that at all. More stupid logic, though. If one guy rallies a lynch mob, your stupid reasoning lets off the whole mob and blames only the guy who thought it up in the first place? Get a grip, for Christ sake.
<<And if you ask me for a source for my claim, I'm gonna use your quote from yesterday. Something along the lines of "if you want evidence, get off your lazy ass and look for it yourself instead of questioning me," wasn't it? >>
Fine by me.
<<Yeah, what intellectual rigor that statement holds.>>
There's a place for intellectual rigor, but that place is not a forum like this, where one's interlocutors are likely to ask for documented proof that shit runs downhill and the sun rises in the east. I'll bring as much intellectual rigor to the debate as the debate deserves, and frankly, I've already invested way too much. It's just completely ignored and I hear "with no evidence, Tee says . . . " as if nothing I ever dig up is evidence. Fuck that. I'm upset with myself for falling for that bullshit more than once. Your request for "evidence" is made in bad faith. You don't recognize it when it's produced and a few posts down you don't even admit any of it was produced. Fuck that. In the future, I will decide whether production of sources is warranted based on who is asking for it.
-
So please quite using your bullshit line that I am arguing for the incident happening based on the absence of police reporting that it did. That's just not true and you know it.
Actually, it is. There is no corroborating evidence that the event happened, yet you present the event as having been proven to have happened.
If it happened, why don't we have any evidence other than the word of a couple of people? You'd think that the family it happened to would have come forward by now as well. No police reports, no news reports, nothing. The people who claim it happened can't even pin down a date outside of a two year range. Any attorney worth his salt would have no problem dismissing their testimony for lack of credibility, yet you take it on faith. But with Byrd, there are physical letters written years after he claimed to have left the KKK, which you dismiss out of hand.
-
<<There is no corroborating evidence that the event happened, yet you present the event as having been proven to have happened.>>
What the hell is the matter with you? One guy was there and he saw it happen. He's corroborated by the guy who heard pretty much the same story from the other member of the party. They're further corroborated by other evidence of Allen's racist attitudes (the noose, the Confederate flags, the frequent use of the N-word.)
How much fucking corroboration do you need? People have been hanged on less.
<<If it happened, why don't we have any evidence other than the word of a couple of people? You'd think that the family it happened to would have come forward by now as well. No police reports, no news reports, nothing.>>
The family? Who the fuck knows that the family even knew about it? You think the guy who finds the deer head in the mailbox is gonna run back into the house, waving the thing triumphantly round over his head, wake up the wife and kids, "Hey look what I found in the mailbox kids!!! Santa came early this year!!! Whoooeee!!! Deer's head!" Why don't you just for ONCE try to figure out how real people act in real life instead of your bullshit fantasies, "Hmm. Deer head in mailbox. Very serious thing. Must take this down to police chief Bubba. Bubba will be very concerned. Why, this might be a hate crime. Bubba would really want to punish these guys." Jesus Fuck for once in your life, GET REAL. Try it. One time.
<<The people who claim it happened can't even pin down a date outside of a two year range.>>
One guy's dead, and I don't think Macacawitz entered this in his journal. They were all drunk at the time. It's not the sort of thing anyone would particularly want to remember, like your first kiss or the day you proposed to your wife. So if you want to attach any significance to a lack of precise date - - November 22, 1963! - - that's OK with me. It's actually very much in keeping with the rest of your deductive powers.
<<Any attorney worth his salt would have no problem dismissing their testimony for lack of credibility>>
If he were lucky enough to find one guy on the jury as dumb as you, maybe. Or, more in line with the real world, where people normally aren't that dumb, if he could get just one fucking racist on his jury. And we all know that acquittal by jury means it didn't happen, right? Just like poor persecuted OJ couldn't have killed Nicole and whatisname.
BTW, you can leave Byrd out of this. I don't have to defend him, he IS a fucking racist and the apology was bullshit. But it's got nothing to do with Macacawitz and the Republicans. Byrd is a last remnant of the racist Southern Democrats. The rest of them are Republicans. Most of them, anyway. There's never 100% migration of anything.
-
On 10 July 1969, while participating in a company-sized search and destroy operation deep in hostile territory, First Lieutenant Webb's platoon discovered a well-camouflaged bunker complex which appeared to be unoccupied. Deploying his men into defensive positions, First Lieutenant Webb was advancing to the first bunker when three enemy soldiers armed with hand grenades jumped out.
Reacting instantly, he grabbed the closest man and, brandishing his .45 caliber pistol at the others, apprehended all three of the soldiers.
Cool!
Is he likely to run for president later?
-
You think the guy who finds the deer head in the mailbox is gonna run back into the house, waving the thing triumphantly round over his head, wake up the wife and kids, "Hey look what I found in the mailbox kids!!! Santa came early this year!!! Whoooeee!!! Deer's head!"
Well, if a deer's head was stuffed into my mailbox, I'm pretty sure I'd remember it for years. Talk about it, even.
Funny that never happened. Coincidence, maybe?
-
You think the guy who finds the deer head in the mailbox is gonna run back into the house, waving the thing triumphantly round over his head, wake up the wife and kids, "Hey look what I found in the mailbox kids!!! Santa came early this year!!! Whoooeee!!! Deer's head!"
Well, if a deer's head was stuffed into my mailbox, I'm pretty sure I'd remember it for years. Talk about it, even.
Funny that never happened. Coincidence, maybe?
In the Old Testiment there are some very seriouls punishments for some infractions , but also there is a rule for trials such that no one may be convicted on the evidence of one witnesses testimony.
-
Anyone would prefer brave men such as Kerry & Webb over cowards like Bush & Allen.
Apparently Mikey doesn't hold Webb in high regard. Perhaps he values human life over deer.
Basically a guy like Webb is what they deserve. He won't have any more regard for them than for the Vietnamese resistance fighters that he tortured and killed. He'll fuck them up the ass first and every chance that he gets and line his pockets while they go from bad to worse, till he gets caught, retires or dies.
I do not have to like every Dem I vote for. I hold my nose to vote frequently. Right now we have many different choices among Dems. In this case, it is evil & cbravery vs the unmitigated evil and cowardice of the Bush administration.
-
<<Well, if a deer's head was stuffed into my mailbox, I'm pretty sure I'd remember it for years. Talk about it, even.
<<Funny that never happened. Coincidence, maybe?>>
No it's proof positive that the incident never happened. Every black man who ever had a deer head stuffed in his mailbox about it would not only blab to all his friends about it but make sure that the friends he told about it would make sure it got into the media either at the time or twenty years later when it became a public issue. How do we know this? Easy. It's because Ami says that's what he'd do, and we can't conceive of any individual on earth, let alone some terrorized black guy from Virginia, who wouldn't act EXACTLY the way Ami thinks he himself would act in the circumstances. Ami, you see, is the model for all of humanity. As Ami goes, so goes the entire human race.
Ami, did it ever occur to you that the guy after 20 years might be dead? That he might not have mentioned it to anyone? That whoever he mentioned it to is dead or in a nursing home?
What about the guy who was there? How do you explain his story? Say he's opposed to Macacawitz politically. Does that make him a liar? Does the guy who heard the story from the dead hunter also become a liar to save the first guy? Why? Have either of them ever concocted falsehoods before to disgrace someone they disagreed with politically? What are the odds that these two guys just happen to be "bad apples" - - evil liars who for some reason unknown only to themselves spontaneously decided to ruin the career of a great American (who keeps nooses and Confederate flags in his office and liberally uses the N-word,) the potential saviour of his country? Why?
There is your evidence and corroboration of these two guys. WHY are they lying? When did they ever lie before? Why wouldn't the second guy remember the racial element of the story if what he was confirming was all a concocted lie anyway?
I used to have more respect for your opinions. Lately you've just been all fulla shit. You don't think. You don't use your head. You adopt ridiculous unsustainable positions and you defend them past all reason (yet you have the fucking balls to accuse me, in another context, of tenacity.) Not only that, but as if to cover up the weakness of your own position, you consistently try to misrepresent mine. This fucking bullshit that I prove the case against Allen by the absence of evidence - - you KNOW that isn't true, but it doesn't stop you. There's more than enough evidence and you even take the trouble to try to debunk it, but you have no hesitation in claiming I rest my case solely on an absence of evidence. Fuck, man, pull up your fucking socks.
-
<<In the Old Testiment there are some very seriouls punishments for some infractions , but also there is a rule for trials such that no one may be convicted on the evidence of one witnesses testimony.>>
A good rule to follow when the consequences of an adverse judgment are death.
In this case, unfortunately, nobody is going to execute Sen. Macacowitz for being an ass-hole. So we conclude on evidence that may fall short of two eye-witnesses.
You might be interested to know that laws of criminal justice have evolved somewhat since the days of the Old Testament, as have many other areas of human knowledge and endeavour. For instance, the role of circumstantial evidence has been more appreciated over the years.
-
No it's proof positive that the incident never happened.
No, it's "proof positive" that there is no corroborating evidence.
If you have nothing other than the accusation of a couple people - who claimed that they were even drunk at the time - then just say so.
Of course, from now on, I assume you will take the word of anyone who makes accusations, even if they have no corroborating evidence, right? From any side?
I like how we're all supposed to take your viewpoints for granted, yet everyone else has to back up their statements.
What about the guy who was there? How do you explain his story? Say he's opposed to Macacawitz politically. Does that make him a liar? Does the guy who heard the story from the dead hunter also become a liar to save the first guy? Why? Have either of them ever concocted falsehoods before to disgrace someone they disagreed with politically? What are the odds that these two guys just happen to be "bad apples" - - evil liars who for some reason unknown only to themselves spontaneously decided to ruin the career of a great American (who keeps nooses and Confederate flags in his office and liberally uses the N-word,) the potential saviour of his country? Why?
It makes his story questionable. I'm sorry that you're upset that I would question someone who claims to be drunk at the time of the story they're relating, but you know, I don't have to accept their story on their or your say-so. And sometimes, people will lie to get their "15 minutes of fame."
Can you say Tawana Brawley?
-
<<No, it's "proof positive" that there is no corroborating evidence.>>
You obviously have no idea what corroborating evidence is. The two guys who tell the story aren't a team. They came forward independently and there is nothing to link one to the other.
The first guy's story is the primary evidence.
The second guy's story corroborates the first guy's.
The other evidence of Allen's racism further corroborates the first guy - - the nooses and Confederate flags in the office, the Confederate flag on the vehicle, the common use of the N-word.
So there are multiple pieces of corroborative evidence, not all of equal strength. Obviously every guy with a Confederate flag in his office doesn't go around stuffing deer heads in mailboxes.
<<If you have nothing other than the accusation of a couple people - who claimed that they were even drunk at the time - then just say so.>>
I have the corroborated story of one eye-witness who had consumed some alcohol and was probably showing the effects at the time. If you are aware of any psychological, toxicological or legal doctrine that says that nobody who was drunk can ever give a true account of what he witnessed in that condition, please let me know. It will be very surprising. Speaking as one who has been drunk on very few occasions in his life, I can assure you that I have been able to remember the salient points of each and every one of those evenings. Drunkenness (except in the world of right-wing crazies) is NOT a synonym for "total amnesia." I know that and you should know that. Please try to keep your arguments within the limits of common sense and common knowledge.
Senator Macacawitz, though drunk, was able to drive his car to and from the black part of town, stuff the mailbox and drive home, all without causing any accident or running the car off the road. Not only did his companion remember the salient points of the evening, so did the other guy, who either (1) forgot the racial element or (2) did not want to mention the racial element to his friend or (3) mentioned the racial element to his friend, who then forgot it. Regardless, you have the story of an eyewitness, and you have corroboration, by hearsay, from another eye-witness, now dead. If you want to rest your case on the speculation that the participants were so fucking wasted that one of them imagined the whole thing and the other one imagined the exact same thing, go ahead. But it won't fly. It's bullshit and most people would be able to recognize it as bullshit.
<<Of course, from now on, I assume you will take the word of anyone who makes accusations, even if they have no corroborating evidence, right? From any side?>>
Would you for the love of sweet suffering Jesus just buy yourself a fucking dictionary and look up the word "corroborate" before you continue to misuse it as ignorantly you have been doing? I'm not your fucking high-school teacher. If you don't know what a fucking word means, just look it the fuck up.
<<I like how we're all supposed to take your viewpoints for granted, yet everyone else has to back up their statements.>>
You don't have to take anything for granted. I suggest to you that you just learn what corroboration really means, ask yourself why these two guys are lying, ask yourself how many times you've been drunk, and of those times how many times were you so drunk that you don't know what happened? AND: use your fucking brain.
-
The first guy's story is the primary evidence.
The second guy's story corroborates the first guy's.
So, even though the stories are inconsistent with each other, they corroborate each other?
Also, three other teammates at the time of the alledged incident deny that it happened. They said none of the three ever mentioned it happening at the time.
-
<<So, even though the stories are inconsistent with each other, they corroborate each other?>>
Ami, if corroboration had to match the original down to every last detail, nothing would ever corroborate anything, it would just be a question of drilling ever deeper until one single discrepancy was found.
The gist of the story - - a hunting party, the night-time, the three persons present, the deer's head, the car, the driver, the booze and the mailbox all match. One detail missing: that it was a black guy's mailbox. Keeping in mind that the second guy was relating the story second-hand, it's natural that he wouldn't have as many details as the guy who was actually there.
<<Also, three other teammates at the time of the alledged incident deny that it happened. >>
There are teammates who deny that Allen used the N-word, which is meaningless. Just because they were on his team does not mean they heard every word the guy uttered while he was on the team. There wasn't ONE "alleged incident." He was said to have used the term on many occasions. Some guys heard, some didn't. That's about all you can take from that.
<<They said none of the three ever mentioned it happening at the time.>>
Well, that could be true, but even if it were, so what? Do I go tattling to everyone every time I hear a racial epithet? Do you?
You should also keep in mind, it wasn't just his team-mates who say he used the N-word. A girlfriend of his wife's also heard him use it regarding the edibility of turtles in his pond ("Only the niggers round here eat'em.") Was she lying too?
I remember Tawana Brawley, sure. That was a classic case of totally uncorroborated evidence from a single source.
-
The gist of the story - - a hunting party, the night-time, the three persons present, the deer's head, the car, the driver, the booze and the mailbox all match. One detail missing: that it was a black guy's mailbox. Keeping in mind that the second guy was relating the story second-hand, it's natural that he wouldn't have as many details as the guy who was actually there.
So, tell me what you thought of the accounts of the "Swift Boat Veterans" group?
-
<<So, tell me what you thought of the accounts of the "Swift Boat Veterans" group?>>
I thought they were bullshit, primarily because they were demeaning the heroism of somebody who had put himself in harm's way. I don't really know if Kerry behaves as heroically as his supporters claim he did or not, but the fact is, he had enough balls to be on a boat in a river where he could have been blown out of the water at any moment.
Guys like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz, Perle and the rest of them made God-damn sure they would never be in harm's way. Once a guy is in combat, some will duck, some will even run, nobody knows how he or she will behave under fire, but I give a great amount of credit to the courage of someone who has the balls to go as far as you have to go to find out how you will perform, because that in itself is going to a point from which you might never be able to come back. And I'm pretty sympathetic to the guy who, once in combat, freezes, or keeps his head down, or doesn't try to be John Wayne.
Kerry might be a self-promoting ass-hole who parlays a grazed finger into a third Purple Heart, but whatever grazed that finger could just as easily have severed his spinal column. He put his ass on the line. That he put his ass on the line in a criminal war of aggression makes him no better than an S.S. Oberleutnant with an Iron Cross, but nevertheless, it's a sleazy tactic to impugn his courage, and even more sleazy when employed on behalf of a bunch of draft-dodging cowards who never stuck their necks out at all.
-
I don't really know if Kerry behaves as heroically as his supporters claim he did or not, but the fact is, he had enough balls to be on a boat in a river where he could have been blown out of the water at any moment.
Those who questioned Kerry's heroics served along side him on the Swift Boats. The had their balls blown out of the water. They took fire from the shore.
To this day Kerry has still not released ALL his military records.
-
I thought they were bullshit, primarily because they were demeaning the heroism of somebody who had put himself in harm's way.
And yet, they are a similar testimony to Allen's drunk hunting buddies.
I think that you believe one and disbelieve another for purely partisan reasons.
At least I have doubts about both sets of testimonies. For similar reasons - neither of them can provide corroborating evidence. I also know that "eyewitness" testimony is usually far from accurate. Indeed, it's usually the worst of evidence.
-
"To this day Kerry has still not released ALL his military records."
Source?
-
Source?
Yeah, actually, he finally did last year. Well after the election.
Here's an article about it. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/)
-
<<And yet, they are a similar testimony to Allen's drunk hunting buddies.>>
You must be drunk yourself. How could you compare the recollection of men under fire, in combat, the most stressful sequence of rapid-fire (no pun intended) events possible, the fear of imminent death everywhere, all noise and screaming and scared shitless, to the recollection of two guys on a hunting trip? You're making an idiot of yourself. There's nothing similar at all between guys recalling combat and two guys remembering a hunting trip. That is just nuts to even suggest such a "similarity."
Besides which, one of Kerry's buddies remembers that Kerry saved his life under fire, the other guy remembers Kerry didn't even get off the boat. Everybody remembers something different, which, considering the stresses of combat, is not surprising. The two hunting guys seemed to have remembered pretty much the same story with only one exception, which could easily be explained by the fact that the second guy was re-telling the story second-hand.
<<think that you believe one and disbelieve another for purely partisan reasons.>>
Figures. Notwithstanding that I never said I disbelieved the Swift Boat Veterans, only that I found them incredibly sleazy AND irrelevant since Kerry's courage was established in my eyes just by the fact that he went into a combat zone. But you have it your way - - I believed the hunting party and I disbelieved the Swifties. Why should mere facts get in the way of your preconceived ideas?
<<neither of them can provide corroborating evidence.>>
OHHHH- KAY. Have it your way. There's no corroborating evidence. I haven't posted anything here in this thread about corroborating evidence. There was none. Doesn't exist. Feel better?
<<I also know that "eyewitness" testimony is usually far from accurate.>>
Good thinking. Eyewitness evidence is very fallible. So it has to be totally disregarded. Let's make it inadmissible in all the courts of the land. Eyewitness evidence? Fuck that, counsel. We don't admit that kind of shit in our courts no more. Show me what tea-readings you have in your favour, otherwise I'm going to have to dismiss. In Allen's case, I think we should hold out for nothing less than a signed confession, without that we have no way of knowing if this happened or not. A confession plus videotapes of him committing the actual act. We can't be too careful here. A Republican's reputation is at stake.
<<Indeed, it's [eyewitness evidence is] usually the worst of evidence.>>
Oh, totally. Worse than anonymous accusations scrawled on the backs of envelopes by grade-school children. Worse than the death-bed ravings of intoxicated mental patients pumped full of pentothal and translated from the Albanian by incompetent and inexperienced interpreters.
Worse than Patriot Act findings of anonymous bureaucrats handed down in secret to judges who aren't allowed to show them to defence counsel. Fucking eye-witnesses! They're the bane of the legal system.
-
Figures. Notwithstanding that I never said I disbelieved the Swift Boat Veterans,
You said that their claims were "bullshit." Is there a definition of "bullshit" that means "true"?
-
Worse than Patriot Act findings of anonymous bureaucrats handed down in secret to judges who aren't allowed to show them to defence counsel.
I see where the ACLU dropped all its lawsuts against the Patriot Act. Seems it wasn't unconstitutional after all.
This on the heels of the NY Times saying they never should have published the story about the SWIFT financial tracking program. Seems that wasn't illegal either.
You think both orgs are getting a bit cocky pre-election?
-
<<You said that their claims were "bullshit." Is there a definition of "bullshit" that means "true"?>>
I was using bullshit in the sense of the complaint itself not being genuine, whether it was true or not. In the sense that a civil rights worker in the Deep South might suddenly find himself under arrest for a 2-year-old parking ticket. The parking ticket might be "true" in the sense that the guy really was illegally parked two years ago, but the arrest is bullshit.
With the Swiftboaters, some of the allegations might be true. At least in theory. (I didn't really follow the actual facts too closely because the whole thing was bullshit, in the sense that there was no real issue even if the allegations were all true.) For instance, if they claimed that Kerry put himself in for a Purple Heart for a very trivial wound that other men would not demand a medal for. I don't give a shit, that's bullshit. Bullshit in the sense the guy is a hero, wounded or not, for putting himself in the line of fire. (Again I want to emphasize I am not saying this in an admiring way, because his cause was an evil one - - he's a hero in the same sense that one of Hitler's soldiers would be a hero, i.e., physically brave.) So it's bullshit to impeach the guy's heroism on grounds which have nothing to do with heroism - - that he was, allegedly, a self-glorifying medal hound, or put in for early exit from combat, etc. He put his ass on the line once, and that's more heroism than all of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wofowicz, Perle and the rest of the chicken hawks put together.
-
I was using bullshit in the sense of the complaint itself not being genuine, whether it was true or not.
Well, I find the claims of deer heads in black people's mailboxes to be similar bullshit.
I'll give a you a hint for my minimum qualifications for testimony to be even somewhat believeable. It needs to be specific enough for documentation to potentially be located. If it includes documentation of some sort, it's even better.
Vague claims that can't even nail down a year, much less a month or day, pretty much peg my bullshit meter.
-
Yeah, actually, he finally did last year. Well after the election.
Did he include his original discharge papers?
http://www.nysun.com/article/4040
-
<<It needs to be specific enough for documentation to potentially be located. If it includes documentation of some sort, it's even better.>>
Apart from the silliness of expecting this terrorized black guy to go with the deer's head to some racist southern sheriff for protection, what documentation would be appropriate for a severed deer's head left by a drunken hunter in a black man's mailbox?
I think at some point you have to come to grips with the simple facts of everyday life, which is that the old deer's head in the mailbox crime is rarely extensively documented. There are such things as undocumented hate crimes that occur in the dead of night. Whether you choose to believe in them or not is of little relevance.
<<Vague claims that can't even nail down a year, much less a month or day, pretty much peg my bullshit meter.>>
When twenty years have passed, it is not surprising that the exact year of an event like this can't be recalled. We have many cases of really traumatic events like sexual assaults on minors coming to light twenty years later and if the case turned on whether or not the victim could pinpoint the year, a lot of fucking perverts would be laughing. This event was nowhere near as traumatic as a sexual assault and, again, if anyone wanted to fake the whole event, faking a year and keying it to a life event (the year Donny was born, the year of our 20th anniversary, the year the Challenger blew up) would be the easisest thing in the world.
Once again, your position indicates complete lack of common sense, no experience with real human beings in real-life situations and an abnormal reliance on theory as opposed to experience.
-
Apart from the silliness of expecting this terrorized black guy to go with the deer's head to some racist southern sheriff for protection, what documentation would be appropriate for a severed deer's head left by a drunken hunter in a black man's mailbox?
The silliness is in the assuption that the local law enforcement were all racist.
And any documentation would suffice. None seems to be forthcoming, however.
When twenty years have passed, it is not surprising that the exact year of an event like this can't be recalled.
Again, it does seem surprising to me, as I can always work out the year that anything important enough to remember happened. But then, perhaps my memory is just a bit more efficient than yours. If the event were so minor to the involved persons that they did not remember the year, I find it hard to believe that they remembered the event at all. And after all, it happened during college. They don't remember what year of college they were in when it happened?
-
<<The silliness is in the assuption that the local law enforcement were all racist.>>
Too bad you weren't there at the time, Ami. You could have spoken to the man, reassured him as to how foolish and silly he was not to seek help from the white police force. He would have listened to you, Ami, because you seem like you really know what you are talking about. And then he would have taken his deer head down to Sheriff Bubba (probably never to be seen again alive.) You're hilarious, second-guessing some black guy from down south with a lifetime of experience dealing with white racist police - - but Ami knows better.
<<And any documentation would suffice. None seems to be forthcoming, however.>>
Which of course is conclusive proof that nothing happened. In the great United States of America, no crime ever goes unreported or undocumented. Lack of documentation is all the evidence you need that a crime never occurred. NEVER MIND that an eye-witness corroborated by the hearsay statement of a deceased eye-witness claims that it did - - it COULDN'T HAVE, because there is no documentation for it.
Do you have ANY IDEA how stupid that is?
<<Again, it does seem surprising to me, as I can always work out the year that anything important enough to remember happened. But then, perhaps my memory is just a bit more efficient than yours.>>
Oh, you're WAAAY too modest, Ami. Your memory is MUCH more efficient than mine. 200 gigs of memory compared to my measly 200 KB. You are the giant of remembrancers, Ami, a living legend of total recall. And that's really what it's all about, isn't it? It's all about Ami, the measure of all things, Ami the universal standard of comparison. If Ami could remember the date of an incident twenty years ago, then the hunter could remember it as well. Some people could have gone to college for twice as long as you went to college, ever think of that? I don't find it at all hard to believe that the guy DOESN'T remember the year even if he WAS in college at the time. Go figure.
-
[snip]
A post full of insults. Nothing cogent to contribute?
-
There's a place for intellectual rigor, but that place is not a forum like this, where one's interlocutors are likely to ask for documented proof that shit runs downhill and the sun rises in the east. I'll bring as much intellectual rigor to the debate as the debate deserves, and frankly, I've already invested way too much. It's just completely ignored and I hear "with no evidence, Tee says . . . " as if nothing I ever dig up is evidence. Fuck that. I'm upset with myself for falling for that bullshit more than once. Your request for "evidence" is made in bad faith. You don't recognize it when it's produced and a few posts down you don't even admit any of it was produced. Fuck that. In the future, I will decide whether production of sources is warranted based on who is asking for it.\
=====================================================================\
I agree with this remark.
Anyone that doubts a statement can easily look it up.
-
Anyone that doubts a statement can easily look it up.
So much for debate, which usually requires a person to provide sources for his / her claims.
Guess if we're not gonna worry about the truth, this area will just become a flamefest.
-
Anyone that doubts a statement can easily look it up.
So much for debate, which usually requires a person to provide sources for his / her claims.
Guess if we're not gonna worry about the truth, this area will just become a flamefest.
[][][][][][][][][][][]
Oh no!
Who would want that?
http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/
Mailbox Vandalism
When a customer’s mailbox is vandalized, the local police department is
often the first, and sometimes the only, law enforcement agency to whom
the event is reported. However, mailboxes are protected by federal law (18
USC 1705) and it is a crime to vandalize them (and to injure, deface, or
destroy any mail deposited in them). Therefore, any act of mailbox
vandalism should be reported to the Postal Inspection Service.
The Postal Inspection Service realizes that local police departments may
be involved in criminal investigations of a more serious nature and are not
able to assist in locating and apprehending mailbox vandals. The
perpetrators are often not identified in this type of crime.
Postal Inspectors do not have the resources to investigate every report of
mailbox vandalism or to conduct surveillances on Postal Service delivery
routes that have a mailbox vandalism problem. However, the Postal
Inspection Service will attempt to investigate mailbox vandalism when large
numbers of boxes are damaged or destroyed and will investigate when
there is evidence of tampering, rifling, or theft of mail from the vandalized
boxes.
Rural mailboxes are especially vulnerable to vandalism because they are
usually isolated, located on public thoroughfares, and frequently not visible
to mailbox owners from their homes. Non-rural residential mailboxes are
vandalized to a lesser degree. Teenagers are often responsible.