START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
 
 
Portrait of a Hypocrite! August 24, 2005 6:57 PM

Image hosted by Photobucket.com  [ send green star]
 
Ethical Failure! August 24, 2005 7:05 PM


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/08/sacrifice/index.html

Moral logic of common sacrifice

Monday, August 8, 2005

Mark Shields

The current war in Iraq is the first since the war with Mexico in 1846 that the United States has waged without a draft or tax increases.

War demands equality of sacrifice. Nobody knows that hard truth better than Jim Webb. Long before he was secretary of the navy in the Reagan administration, Webb was a 1968 graduate of the Naval Academy.

As a Marine platoon leader and company commander in Vietnam, he earned the Navy Cross, a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, two Purple Hearts and, after multiple surgeries, a medical discharge.

Webb has recognized the severing of the link between the people in power who make the decision to go to war and the people in uniform, who pay the price for that decision.

Deploring the habit of Washington policymakers to reduce flesh and blood to abstractions, Webb once corrected: "You don't use 'force,' you send people. You send young people who have dreams, who want a future."

The people who make the fateful decision for the nation to go to war are, themselves, subject to no personal consequences. Their children and the children of their friends are not at risk. Without apparent embarrassment, they champion a policy of military escalation with no personal participation.

As of this writing, 1,827 Americans have been killed in Iraq -- 1,686 of those deaths have occurred since President George W. Bush landed on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln under a banner proclaiming, "Mission Accomplished."

Military service in wartime is not a "job." Recruitment in peacetime mostly emphasizes the benefits of valuable training, college tuition, self-improvement, pay and adventure. Combat and casualties are not part of the pitch.

Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of enlistees come from the lower-middle-class and blue-collar families. The affluent stand above and apart from military service, especially from the enlisted ranks -- the privates and the sergeants, from whose ranks have come more than 90 percent of the casualties and fatalities.

This class exemption from service and from sacrifice produces an ethical failure that a democratic and moral people cannot tolerate.

Moral logic tells us that when the nation legally goes to war, it is everybody's war and it must be everybody's risk. But the elite of the country seeks to make war little more than a spectator sport.

Citizens on the home front who do not have loved ones in the service are asked to pay no price, to bear no burden. The Bush administration does not even ask us to pick up the cost of the war, already in the hundreds of billions. That burden will be borne instead by our children. We, patriots, will keep our tax cuts. Do our leaders think so little of us that they are afraid to ask us to make any real sacrifice?

That those who called most loudly for this war are not standing in line to volunteer at the recruiting offices is noted by the nation's premier military sociologist (and ex-Army draftee) Charles Moskos.

"Only when the privileged classes perform military service, only when elite youth are on the firing line, does the country define the cause as worth young peoples' blood and do war losses become acceptable," observes Moskos, adding that "the answer to what constitutes vital national interests is found not so much on the cause, itself, but in who is willing to die for that cause."

We act as a nation when, as a people, we truly share the obligations and the perils of our common security.

(emphasis mine)

 [ send green star]
 
So for the benefit of those... August 25, 2005 6:22 AM

...who were misled by the paranoid Don Quixote into believing that Sam H. controls every group on Care2 including the Petition Site, hereís the link to the thread that caused Don Quixote to desert.

There were specific challenges that our Don Quixote ran away from. There were specific steps that were asked of him. But our fearless Don Quixote ran away from the thread on the petition site because Sam H. Controls that thread and we were left wondering when our Don Quixote was going to ship his kids to Iraq.

So Don Quixote, the suspense is killing me. There are specific things you have to do. Donít come back with your usual nonsense. Answer the specific points asked of you. Donít come back with questions or proposals or anything other than the answers to the questions asked of you. If you are incapable of doing that for lack of courage or character, weíll understand.

Donít come back except to give the answers and make the pledges. Are you man enough to do that?

The link:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=155&pst=231273&archival=

 [ send green star]
 
And She Kept Her Word! Part 1 August 25, 2005 6:35 AM

However, our Resident HYPOCRITE LIAR is back and he is as shameless as he was when he left.

Quick trip to Iraq, huh!

Jeffrey, youíre not going to recover from being Care2ís Resident Liar. Thatís going on your tombstone. Sure! Go ahead blame us for being "hung up" on your lying. O.K. Iíll be easy on you; I will not take your words to mean that you are defending lying.

I thought youíre going to have the decency to come back and apologize for your lies, but I forgot that you are incapable of doing anything decent.

In spite of that, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, Jeffrey. Iím giving you a last chance to defend yourself, Jeffrey. After all, the last thing I want to be is your accuser, judge and executioner. We, liberals have soft hearts.

So letís all give Jeffrey a last chance to defend his HYPOCRISY.

Jeffrey, at about the same time you darted to the airport or shortly there after, you were asked a number of questions - questions that will help you take measurable concrete steps to send your kids to Iraq.

(Maybe our resident LIAR should explain why his two children are not in Iraq! Sure, they have minds of their own and he doesnít want to pressure them. O.K. LYING daddy, how about pressuring them as little as the recruiters pressure those poor kids with the promise of a good life? How about telling them theyíd lose their inheritance unless they volunteered for the war in Iraq? Isnít this the equivalent of a recruiter telling a poor kid that heíll never see college, or have food on the table, unless he enlisted in the army? Come on HYPOCRITE Daddy, LYING Daddy, letís have a plan to send your kids to Iraq. S.H.)

Thatís your last chance, Jeffrey. Youíre either going to take concrete steps to send you kids to Iraq or youíre going to prove to everyone what everyone already believes, that you are the biggest HYPOCRITE around.

Iím sure being Care2ís Resident LIAR and HYPOCRITE is nothing to be proud of. Forget about us. Just think of what your kids would think of you if they knew that youíre Care2ís Resident LIAR and biggest HYPOCRITE.

Steps you can take Jeffrey to convince us that youíre remorseful about all the LIES youíve been telling here and elsewhere.

Hereís your chance to come clean, Jeffrey. Come out Jeffrey and apologize for all the lies youíve been telling and promise to stop telling lies at least here at Care2.

  • Pledge in front of everyone that youíll identify and remove all your fake identities at Care2 and never to engage in that practice again.

Do that and Iíll forgive you for your past lies.

Then come back and tell us what specific steps youíve taken to send your kids to war. I know! I know! They have minds of their own, but weíre talking incentives, Jeffrey. You know about incentives, donít you? Youíre the percentage man after all. Give us the details of those incentives. Go ahead be generous. Donít let those recruiters put you to shame. Go ahead! Come back and brag about all these incentives youíre going to give your kids to have them volunteer for the war. Hell, your incentives will be on top of what those recruiters are going to give them anyway. Wow! Now they have a chance to double their benefits. Youíre not a quitter, Jeffrey. Donít let them out-slick you, Jeffrey. Come back waving your banner of success. With a big smile on your face, tell us you succeeded in sending your kids to war.

Be specific, Jeffrey. Give us the specific dates when theyíll be leaving for Iraq.

I hope you succeed, Jeffrey. I hope you can convince them, Jeffrey. Youíve been promoting this war and justifying this war. Go ahead prove your sincerity. Send your kids to fight this war, Jeffrey.

If you come back Jeffrey and tell us that in spite of your best efforts you still failed to persuade them to go to war, just tell us what specific steps you took to convince them. Give us the names of the recruiters they met with and on what days.

I donít enjoy calling you a LIAR and a HYPOCRITE, Jeffrey.

If after your best efforts to send them to war, you come back and tell us you failed, Iíll take note of your sincerity. Maybe by then youíll conclude that your sons know something you donít. Maybe by then you realize that this war is not worth fighting - a war that should not have been fought in the first place.

Iím leaving the possibility that you may see the light, Jeffrey. Iím hoping against hope that youíll realize that this war should never have been started.

Iíll tell you what, Jeffrey. If you come back declaring your failure with your kids, Iíll give you credit for your efforts. All I would ask from you then is to stop supporting this war. Stop cheering when those recruiters succeed in tricking those poor kids into going to war. Pledge that you will do that and I will stop calling you a HYPOCRITE

 [ send green star]
 
And She Kept Her Word! Part 2 August 25, 2005 7:04 AM

If you donít Jeffrey, then youíll know in your heart that youíre a HYPOCRITE. Whether I shout it out loud or whisper it in your ear, your heart will speak louder to you that than I can ever hope to.

Wish for other kids what you wish for you own, Jeffrey. Anything less will only make you a lesser man.

You know what you have to do now, Jeffrey. Iíll await your answers and those specific steps I talked about.

I will always tell you what I think of you. But if you take these specific steps, youíll give me a reason to think of you in a better light. LIARS and HYPOCRITES donít usually get a second chance. This is yours! Take advantage of it and try to redeem yourself!

And donít try to change the subject, Jeffrey. The subject will not go away!

 [ send green star]
 
 August 25, 2005 8:08 AM

Is this all I am going to read on this group†~the sqaubble of you disagreeing with one another or are there actual topics that someone will discuss without demoralizing everything someone writes.† If you're a hater then design a group for haters...

 [ send green star]
 
Well said Michelle! August 25, 2005 9:18 AM

 [ send green star]
(Member Is Blocked)
 
Well Said, George? August 25, 2005 9:42 AM

Funny coming from the author of "The Gaunlet Has Been Thrown.." thread. So, you're a hypocrite too .. surprise surprise !  [ send green star]
 
 August 25, 2005 9:47 AM

 [ send green star]
(Member Is Blocked)
 
Have You Seen Don? August 25, 2005 11:30 AM

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

  • Name: Don Quixote
  • DOB: Not sure, but acts like 3 years-old
  • Ht: Thinks he's a giant
  • Wt: lightweight self-described intellectual! Percentage Expert!
  • Hybridly Powered: by Gas and hot air
  • Sex: Not a Man
  • Missing: His self esteem
  • Personalities: Many fake ones all over Care2. Split personality many times over
  • Characteristics: politically disoriented, disingenuous, hypocrite, coward, liar...
  • Reasons for hiding: Feels he's not loved, cowardice†

If you have any information about Don, please contact Sam H. at Care2! Tell him all we want to do is just reform him. Sam loves you Don! Please come home! We'll make you the center of the universe.

Just come home, make some pledges, answer some questions and you'll be free.

I promise.

This is not Abu Ghraib. We'll be nice to you, nicer than those interrogators at Abu Ghraib!

 [ send green star]
 
anonymous  August 25, 2005 4:55 PM


This is interesting. You still are far from agreeing to a debate, but at least you seem willing to interact. I can work with that. You can delete and ban, and you are still refusing to discuss issues or answer questions, but on my side I have the ability to cite facts and use logic, so even under these disadvantages I should easily make my points. We shall soon see how you respond. To start, Iíll quickly correct your misinformation about the thread to which you linked. I just re-read it and found no questions for me that I did not directly answer. If you think there is a question remaining for me to address, just ask it again here and Iíll respond. And unlike you, I respond directly without evasion. Now for your, shall we say, curiously emotional post. Although it continues over two posts, it seems to have only one thrust: to assert Iím a hypocrite because my two sons are not in Iraq, and call on me to send them at once. If you had meant to put forth any additional ideas, they didnít survive intact through your seething, overwrought prose. There are several ways I could respond. The simplest would be to remind everyone that my younger son is only sixteen, and therefore ineligible to join the military; and my older just turned eighteen and is in school. But that simple answer would deprive me of the opportunity to probe the strange turn of thought that would have led you to such a bizarre position to begin with. And as it turns out, I have the time this evening to indulge myself. Letís begin by wondering at your underlying assumption that it would be hypocritical for somebody to support the war and yet not force his sons to join in the combat. As is your wont, you made no attempt to explain your reasoning for this assumption. As there is no direct argument for me to counter, Iíll just make some remarks about the absurdity of the thought in general. To support a war requires only a determination of the necessity of the conflict. I have argued the case for this war many times, and am happy to do so again. Once having recognized the necessity of the war, however, there is nothing that logically or morally compels one to make efforts that are not required in service of that war. The US military is professional and voluntary. This approach has served us well, and provides us the protection of the most capable and motivated army in the world. These professionals joined the military to perform those very duties they are now called upon to perform. That is their chosen purpose and their duty. It does not follow that everyone who supports the war need make that same choice to pursue the course of military professional. In fact your suggestion is no more logical than were you to insist that those who demand that the streets be free of crime force their sons to become police officers, or those who demand fire protection force their sons to become fireman. We live in a free society where each individual has the right to determine their own path through life. And practically, it would be impossible for anyone who desires protection from criminals, fire and foreign enemies to himself enter into the service of each respective organization simultaneously. The very absurdity of that situation points once again to the notion of division and specialization of labor. One not necessarily perform every service one requires. There is also a strange sort of irony to your logic. The implication that only those who either serve or have their children serve have the moral standing to support a war would also necessarily imply that only those same people could oppose the war. Were you to remain consistent with your premise, you also would lose your right to hold or express an opinion on this war. The consequence would be that anybody other than military personnel or their parents would be outside the legitimate frame of discussion. I suspect, however, youíre not quite ready to surrender your own claim of legitimacy to comment. There is also the notion of individual liberty. My sons are endowed with the same right of self-determination as any other human being, and neither you nor I have the right to demand they enter what is now a voluntary military. Your claim otherwise is absurd, childish, and indicative of some underlying, highly emotionalized motive that has caused your outburst to overrule your ability to think rationally. As you can see, I reject your very notion that not forcing my sons into the military implies any hypocrisy on my part. You have provided not even a hint of why I should accept your strange claim. Therefore, there will be no attempt on my part to influence my sonsí decisions on military service, and I simultaneously assert my right to conclude and argue that this war in Iraq is just and necessary. Should you wish to pursue this matter, you will need to first give us some rational justification for your premise.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
Jeffrey, August 25, 2005 6:50 PM

Sam said nothing about "forcing" your sons to do anything. What Sam clearly wrote was that because you support this war for others to go die for you should in the very least encourage by offering incentive to your son (no longer plural since one is just 16) to volunteer to serve in your war. Or don't you really believe that this war was absolutely necessary to secure this nation's freedoms from a bunch of third world bullies? Or does your support of this war stop just short of YOUR loved ones being put in a killing field so that Iraqis can have a Theocracy without equal rights? Or does your support of this war stop just short of YOUR loved ones being put in a killing field so that we can be saved from that mushroom cloud smoking gun Sleeza Rice was so sure would be her smoking gun? Oh well, never mind that one, there were no WMD, no poison factories, no nuke facilities, nada And, where is OBL anyway? Well, we know where he isn't and that is in Iraq .  [ send green star]
 
anonymous Katii August 25, 2005 6:54 PM

Once again, you sadly miss the entire point. Actually, Sam did call on my to cause my sons to go to Iraq. I already addressed the rest of you nonsensical post in my argument above, which you lazily, or dishonestly, chose to ignore. What you can't change in your post is the fact that I already addressed and overcame you claims. Deal with that instead.

Your use of Bin Laden in this context is what we call a red herring. You resort to that often when you're losing the argument. It would be more honest of you to try to stick to the point and present some sort of rational argument.
 [report anonymous abuse]
 
anonymous Katii August 25, 2005 6:56 PM

In Rebecca's absence, has Sam called on you to come rescue him? This was supposed to be a conversation between him and me. It looks like he ran again.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
Jeffrey, August 26, 2005 12:12 AM

You are the one who used the word "force" - not Sam - so I reminded you of what you'd just read yourself in Sam's post/s which you lazily, or dishonestly, chose to ignore if you construed it to mean you should "force" your son to go fight in Iraq. .  [ send green star]
 
anonymous  August 26, 2005 12:23 AM

No, Katii, that was clearly his intent.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
Jeffrey, August 26, 2005 12:27 AM

You'll have to quote Sam's use of the word "force" because I read his words thru twice and don't see it. .  [ send green star]
 
anonymous  August 26, 2005 12:28 AM

I didn't say he used that word. Have you ever heard of the word "synonym" Or intent of the author?  [report anonymous abuse]
 
Jeffrey, August 26, 2005 9:38 AM

For a man who insists everyone play his "literal game" you sure don't stick to the rules yourself. What you are doing now is your weak attempt to redirect so you can give an answer that avoids the question. Just take Sam's words as they are written ... then answer Or, quote Sam and show us what you think his "intent" or "synonym" is. So, are you encouraging your 18 year old or not? Offering incentives, or not? You see... "encourage" and "incentive" are the WORDS Sam used, so stop assuming he meant anything else, and answer his questions. If you're not going to, then just say so. That will be answer, and proof enough .  [ send green star]
 
anonymous  August 26, 2005 10:24 AM

Katii, learn to read. I addressed Sam's question directly with a no, and carefully explained the false premise of his question. From a false premise, you can draw no conclusion. For that reason, my answer will be proof of nothing at all.

I also do not play "literal games". You† have conveniently confused my insistance on facts with literal meaning. There is no relationship.

It is Sam who redirects (I see AP is at least expanding your vocabulary) with his habitual changing of the subject to some non-sequitur or irrelevancy. I directly answered his question, as I do yours. That is what frustrates you.
 [report anonymous abuse]
 
anonymous By the way. August 26, 2005 10:26 AM

Where is Sam? Yesterday when I wasn't online he seemed in such a hurry for my reply. Now he's nowhere to be found. I guess he can't find Rebecca to tell him what to write next.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
So, August 26, 2005 10:30 AM

that's a "no" you're not encouraging w/incentive your son to sign up? .  [ send green star]
 
 August 26, 2005 10:32 AM

Sam has always held himslef as the intellectual superior to anyone that does not hold his views. He is†the type of†left winger†who thinks he knows it all, and what is best for everyone.

He is condescending, and†he does not hold himself or his friends to the same standards he holds others too. He would be a terrible leader in any situation.

Sam, the portrait of the hypocrite is in your bathroom mirror.

 [ send green star]

 
anonymous  August 26, 2005 10:33 AM

You really must learn to read. I said so clearly twice that it is my sons' choice, and theirs alone. I also proved the fallacy of Sam's premise, making it impossible for you to conclude what you would like to from that.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
anonymous Buck August 26, 2005 10:35 AM

Actually, I disagre with you a bit. I am convinced that Sam knows quite well his intellectual shortcoming - and that is exactly why he refuses, almost to the point of panic, to debate. His reflex-like use of redirect, insult and non sequitur is a sure sign of his lack of confidence.†  [report anonymous abuse]
 
anonymous  August 26, 2005 10:36 AM

You are certainly right, however, in your characterization of him as a hypocrite.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
anonymous  August 26, 2005 10:46 AM


Katii, learn to read. I addressed Sam's question directly with a no, and carefully explained the false premise of his question. From a false premise, you can draw no conclusion. For that reason, my answer will be proof of nothing at all. I also do not play "literal games". You have conveniently confused my insistance on facts with literal meaning. There is no relationship. It is Sam who redirects (I see AP is at least expanding your vocabulary) with his habitual changing of the subject to some non-sequitur or irrelevancy. I directly answered his question, as I do yours. That is what frustrates you.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
No Jeffrey, August 26, 2005 10:54 AM

It's not your "son's" choice whether or not you encourage w/incentive to sign up. That's your choice. Or do you ask your kids for permission to speak? I'm pretty sure neigher would agree to sign up tho, and that's a good thing. But that's not the question - I'm certain Sam or anyone else would never wish for anyone one's son to fight an ignoble, unjust war that was based on trumped up bull. But the question wasn't what your son would do - it's would/did you encourage or offer incentive to your son to enlist - NOT whether or not you "demanded" or "forced" him to, as you are quite unsuccessfully trying to tell all who can read is the case and all who can read knows it's not. So, did you encourage and/or offer incentive to your beautiful son to enlist or not? That is a very simple question requiring only one word if the answer is "no." .  [ send green star]
 
anonymous Katii August 26, 2005 10:55 AM

Again, you really must learn to read. I clearly wrote that the choice to sign up is theirs, and theirs alone, and for that reason I don't encourage them one way or the other.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
anonymous  August 26, 2005 10:57 AM

Katii, I answered Sam's question, and have repeated the answer to you three times now. If you still cannot understand it, the problem lies totally with you.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
Jeffrey, August 26, 2005 10:58 AM

you learn to read. The question wasn't whether or not it's anyone's "choice" .. that's a given. As we all know but you keep pointing it out anyway, our military is an all volunteer military. .  [ send green star]
 
Where'd ya go, Jeffrey? August 26, 2005 12:18 PM

OTHER threads keeping you away? .  [ send green star]
 
anonymous Katii August 26, 2005 1:49 PM

Every once in a while I actually have to do some work in order to maintain my obsene profits. I'm back now, though.

Your last post has degenerated into pure nonsense. If you now concede that it is my sons' choice whether or not to enlist, what possible sense is there in the demand that I cause my sons to enter the military? Unintentionally, you have just underscored the strange illogic of Sam's post. Thanks.

 [report anonymous abuse]
 
Those amber alerts really work...Part 1 August 28, 2005 10:14 AM

...Mr. Don Quixote himself is here!

1. A Little Background

Letís give our friends a little background about our conversation. This conversation weíre continuing here started on the Petition Site, another one of those groups that I control.

The threadís title was: "But She Said..."

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=155&pst=231273&archival==

in reference to Cindy Sheehansís statement that she had to attend to her mother who had just had a stroke and her promise to return to Crawford to continue what she had started.

On that Petition Site there were two threads asking Cindy to go home. Some deranged person even started a petition asking Cindy to go home which Jeffrey signed. Some posters even ridiculed the way she chose to grieve.

2. Jeffreyís Lie Number One

On that same thread, in response to some people suggesting how Cindy Sheehan should grieve, I posted this: "Exactly... August 18, 2005 4:16 PM

...some people are even telling her to go home and mourn the way they see fit!

Do you believe that?"

Being the liar that he is, Jeffrey is always paranoid because he thinks others lie as he does. So what does he do? He posts: "No one told her how to mourn". We tried to ignore him! But he kept challenging us that we ran away and did not substantiate our claims. Well, in a moment of weakness, I responded to him with quotes from some sick people who were telling Cindy how she should mourn.

I will not repeat all the quotes of these people. But this one from Laura C. is significant. This is what Laura C. says about Cindy: "I understand she is grieving, but she needs to find a better, more productive way to do it."

Why is that significant? It is significant because Jeffrey did not only praise Laura C., but he also signed her petition asking Cindy to go home.

Again, that was another example of Jeffreyís lies of choice! And when got caught, he wondered why we were "hung up" on lying!

 [ send green star]

 
Those amber alerts really work...Part 2 August 28, 2005 10:33 AM

3. Jeffreyís Lie Number Two

Our Jeffrey says: "To start, Iíll quickly correct your misinformation about the thread to which you linked. I just re-read it and found no questions for me that I did not directly answer."

Wow, Jeffrey! You are amazing! "Just re-read it and found no questions for me that I did not directly answer.", really?

Jeffrey, the questions you attempted to answer here were re-posted here because you did not answer them there. Had you answered them there, there would have been no reason for this thread all together.

You have the audacity to come here and tell me to my face that you answered the questions I posted on that thread when in fact you gave no answers to those questions and it was only here that you attempted to give answers by justifying your hypocrisy.

The following timeline can be verified at this link:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=155&pst=231273&archival=

These are the two posts that you see here:

And She Kept Her Word! Part 1† Thursday, 6:35 AM

And She Kept Her Word! Part 2 Thursday, 7:04 AM

They were first posted in the "But She Said..." thread on the Petition Site on these dates:

And She Kept Her Word! Part 1 Wednesday, 4:08 PM

And She Kept Her Word! Part 2 Wednesday, 4:20 PM

Jeffrey came here on Thursday, 4:55 PM and posted: "To start, Iíll quickly correct your misinformation about the thread to which you linked. I just re-read it and found no questions for me that I did not directly answer."

The questions he didnít find are the ones he attempted to answer here. These are the same questions that he lied about. They were just re-posted here!

He had no reason to lie, but he still did. The questions were posted last Wednesday as you see in the timeline. He could have missed them and said so and I would have accepted that. He could have said he didnít want to answer and I would have accepted that. But no he had to come here and say: "To start, Iíll quickly correct your misinformation about the thread to which you linked. I just re-read it and found no questions for me that I did not directly answer."

Let me ask you, how many of you would have bothered to check whether he was telling the truth or not? How many new comers to Care2 or old timers would have given Jeffrey the benefit of the doubt and believed him?

Well, some may say this was a simple lie, why not let it go. After all lying is in Jeffreyís fabric. He cannot help it. He is incurable.

I donít get any satisfaction by calling him a liar, but I do get satisfaction by exposing him so others donít fall for his lies.

Do you think he only lies when heís talking to me?

He lied the same way in an exchange with Kathrine in that same thread. She asked him why he didnít answer her question. This was Jeffreyís response: "Kathrine August 18, 2005 11:19 PM
You didn't ask me a question."

Kathrine responds: "August 18, 2005 11:28 PM

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, wow, I didn't ask you a question? Why dont you go up a couple posts and read my first one... jeez

--me"

And when he gets caught, what does he do? Just read Jeffreyís answer for yourself: "Your and your friend sure are hung up on that word "liar"." Usually when you catch a liar he feels some remorse, some shame or something. Not our habitual liar. He has no sense of shame. Heís amazed why weíre "hung up" on his lies!

Shall I continue? Iíll save you the boredom. We still have Jeffreyís logic to contend with!

 [ send green star]
 
anonymous That was fascinating, Sam August 28, 2005 10:47 AM


It took you three days to come up with that? I see we're really discussing the important issues of the day now. From the best I can make of your ramblings, you seem to be claiming I'm a liar because I said we are not telling Mrs. Sheehan how to mourn, but rather are criticizing her political message and the dishonest way she presented it. After two days of trying, you did come up with two statements out of a couple hundred, one from a teenager, that did make very brief mention of Mrs. Sheehanís way of mourning. The overwhelming preponderance of the conversation, and 100% of my remarks, however, focused solely on Mrs. Sheehanís political stunt, not her mourning. It is you who resorts to dishonesty by mischaracterizing the conversation. It is telling that you would need to mischaracterize this very aspect of mourning. It is fatal to your position to allow attention to move from the emotional to the factual. Your entire enterprise was a cheap play to sympathy for Mrs. Sheehan, along with a resolute refusal to discuss anything of substance in her message or in the opposition to her message. You still betray a touch of hysteria in your attempt to keep the focus on mourning instead of message. Mrs. Sheehan is not mourning in Crawford; she is publicizing a political agenda. The two things are quite different. Her agenda is what is at issue, but what you continue to evade discussing. Why are you so afraid? As long as we have you here, letís discuss the real matter. Nobody could care less if you found two posts out of a couple hundred that mentioned mourning - the issue isnít about that. The issue is about Mrs. Sheehanís demand that the US immediately pull out of Iraq. If thatís the issue so important to her and her supporters, letís do her the favor of focusing on it. She went to a lot of trouble to bring it to our attention. Here is what I propose we do: letís have a discussion with just you and me. We will debate the merits and drawbacks of her demand. We will each go in turn, and Iíll even let you go first. Tell us the case for immediate withdrawal. And please, donít take another four days to do so. If you really have thought this through, you should be able to respond today. You can even have Rebecca write your response for you again, if thatís what it takes.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
Those amber alerts really work...Part 3 August 28, 2005 10:47 AM

4. Jeffreyís Ongoing Lie Number Three

And this is the lie that you Jeffrey have been perpetrating not only on me but on all the Care2 community. Your fake profiles that you spread around Care2 are nothing but one more example of your lies.

How many time have you been banned from Care2, Jeffrey?

How many of your fake IDís have been squished by other caring Care2 members?

This practice, Jeffrey, is nothing but a big lie. Lies that were meant only to disrupt and deceive.

You were asked to correct your behavior and pledge to stop this practice. You owe that not only to Sam H., but to the whole Care2 community. Itís your integrity on the line, Jeffrey. Are you going to come back, Jeffrey and tell us that you did not see a request to make such a pledge? Did you not see such a request the same way you did not see the questions asked of you on the other thread? Are you going to justify your fake IDís the same way you attempted to justify your hypocrisy, Jeffrey?

You may be surprised to know that we donít log every single lie you make, Jeffrey. All we need to do is establish the pattern of your behavior. The pattern is there. It is undeniable. You even admitted your lies by coming back wondering why we are so "hung up on your lying, Jeffrey. Yes, Jeffrey! Lying is a bad thing. You should try to live your life without lying. It will not be easy for you, but give it a try. Try it one day at a time. You may get the hang of it and regret all the time you were estranged from the truth.

Go ahead! Make the pledge! That should be easy for you. You donít have to put any of the young Williams lives on the line to come clean. Do it. Do it now! Do not try to justify your practice with another twisted argument.

5. Jeffrey the Hypocrite

You claim "to cite facts and use logic", Jeffrey. Letís examine your facts and your logic.

Off the bat, let me tell you how disappointed I was at the weakness of your argument. However, that was something I expected.

(But before I go any further, let me apologize to your children for dragging them into this discussion. They wouldnít have been, had you shown the same regard towards other peopleís children that you claim to have towards yours. And let me also wish your oldest a happy birthday and make him a promise that Iíll do my damnedest to try to bring peace to this world in spite of his dad.)

5.1 The Excuse of Childrenís Age and School

Now, with the projection that the war can go on for four more years, 16 is the right age to start getting ready to serve in Iraq. Being 18 is the prime age the recruiters look for. When youíre country needs you, being in school is hardly a reason not to rush to the aid of your country if you believe that your country is in the right. What if somebody used the excuse that they couldnít come to the aid of their country because they were flipping burgers? An excuse is just an excuse. If you believe in the cause of your country, nothing should stop you from coming to her aid. So neither burning midnight oil preparing for an exam, flipping burgers at your local food stand nor stripping at a nightclub is a valid excuse not to come to the aid of your country, if you believe in the cause of your country. So you are the one to blame for not providing any incentives for your son to join the war in Iraq that you so very much believe in. You are the hypocrite not your son. You are the one promoting this war and fishing for excuses instead of offering incentives for your son to sign up. Using school as an excuse is nothing but a transparent fig leaf, Jeffrey. If I thought youíre a hypocrite before you answered, now I think youíre twice that hypocrite I thought you were. Any of those 1,845 dead soldiers could have been doing something else that could have been used as an excuse to avoid going to war. The recruiter offered them an incentive. They fell for it and all those big dreams of theirs were smuggled back into the country in a flag-wrapped wooden box. I donít wish that fate on your children or any other human beingí children, Jeffrey.

5.2 Hypocrisy Redefined by Jeffrey

You donít see anything wrong with somebody promoting a war and refusing to EVEN encourage his son to fight in a war that he so wholeheartedly believes in! (Katii was so kind to point out that you were never asked to force your kids to join the war. And when she challenged you, you started talking about my intent and synonyms. Your fable attempts are just that, Jeffrey. Donít try them. Why did you find it necessary to interpret my intent? Maybe you want to tell me what my intent was when I called you a liar when you lied and a hypocrite when you were a hypocrite. Get off it, Jeffrey.)

You say that you argued the case for this war and "happy to do so again". You are missing the point, Jeffrey. Itís precisely because you are selling this war and not putting your money where your mouth is that I call you a hypocrite.

 [ send green star]
 
anonymous  August 28, 2005 10:56 AM

On the matter of my sons' service, you failed to make any additional points from last time, and rather conveniently ignored my arguments which showed your premise to be false.

If we were to accept your logic, we could justly demand that you stop your criticism of the war. Your lack of participation and sacrifice† would equally disqualify you from comment. Only those who serve would attain such status. Frankly, I'd be much more comfortable than you with letting the 82nd Airborne decide how much further to extend our efforts in Iraq. But logical consistency is a quality yet unknown to you.

Let's get on with our debate about the real issue: immediate withdrawal. I'll send periodic reminders throughout Care2 until you respond,
 [report anonymous abuse]
 
Those amber alerts really work...Part 4 August 28, 2005 10:59 AM

6. Jeffreyís Argument

You say: "Once having recognized the necessity of the war, however, there is nothing that logically or morally compels one to make efforts that are not required in service of that war."

6.1 The Morality

Iím going to agree with you that you "recognized the necessity of the war". You set your own morals, Jeffrey. Your morals tell you that there is nothing wrong with you supporting the war and cheering recruiters when they trick new recruits into joining the war while you shield your sons from these recruiters and refuse to as much as encourage them to join the war effort. Your morals are your morals, Jeffrey. My morals tell me anybody who says and does what youíre saying and doing is nothing but a hypocrite. Iím ready to meet St. Peter at the Pearly Gates with my set of morals, are you Jeffrey?

6.2 The ilLogic (Jeffreyís Disappearing Little Pea)

Letís go into the logic of your "once having recognized the necessity of the war" statement. Youíre an arms manufacturer, Jeffrey! Is there any war you donít see a necessity for? What does peace do to your bottom line?

If youíre a man who stands to reap the benefits of war by throwing war-business to a company thatís ready to give you deferred compensation for such a business, what stops you from starting unnecessary wars to pad your deferred compensation package? What war would be unnecessary under these circumstances? Youíre a fine man, Jeffrey. You wouldnít start an unnecessary war, right? Whatís our guarantee, your set of morals we talked about before?

By that logic, give any potential war profiteer the capacity to make war and war you will get. Since when do the interests of war profiteer and those of the country coincide? When your son rolls up his sleeves, carries his gun and leaves to defend his country, that war will be a just war. A war does not become a just war simply by you saying so. Only when you are ready to put your sonís life on the line, do I accept the characterization of war any war as just. But if by being a paper tiger youíre costing the Cindy Sheehanís of the country theirs sons, your game is neither logical nor ethical on these grounds alone. I take that back. Itís very logical from your perspective. You get to support the war and hug your son every day while Cindy hugs a folded flag. What can be more hypocritical than that?

Letís get to the heart of your argument, Jeffrey. Letís look at your so-called logic. Pay attention, now! This what you said: "Once having recognized the necessity of the war, however, there is nothing that logically or morally compels one to make efforts that are not required in service of that war." Go back and read it one more time, Jeffrey.

Now read this statement, Jeffrey: "Once having recognized the UNnecessity of the war, however, there is nothing that logically or morally compels one to make efforts that are not required in service of that war." Read it again, Jeffrey!

Wow, Jeffrey! Are you that guy at the street corner cheating people out of their money with your three thimbles and your disappearing little pea?

Jesus Christ, Jeffrey! I never knew you were such a pacifist. So you already established for us with your logic that there is no war that will compel you to send your kids to fight in whether necessary or unnecessary. And since logic is on your side, Jeffrey, letís give some of that logic to the potential Casey Sheehanís of America. Letís give that logic to the recruiters who prey on innocent kids. Iím glad you got logic on your side, Jeffrey. Letís arm the rest of America with that same logic. The world will be a more peaceful place then!

 [ send green star]
 
anonymous  August 28, 2005 11:00 AM

By the way, not that it has any relevance at all to the issue, but I have never been banned by Care2. Not even once. I'm sure Care2 would be willing to support me in that claim if you were to ask.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
anonymous This is going to be fun. August 28, 2005 11:02 AM

Let me know when you're finished.

Logic and argument are sure not your strong points. I see why you avoid debate, now.
 [report anonymous abuse]
 
anonymous Sammy? August 28, 2005 11:06 AM

Was that it, or do you have more coming? Since your thought process really doesn't lead anywhere, it's kind of hard to tell.

Let me know. If not, I'll return to this in a couple hours.

This will be fun.
 [report anonymous abuse]
 
Those amber alerts really work...Part 5 August 28, 2005 11:08 AM

6.3 Jeffreyís Efforts and Kids Not Required

Well, well, Jeffrey! Iím sure the Good Olí USA will survive without any efforts or contributions from you, but thatís not the point.

If this was a moral judgment, fine! We already established what your morals allow you to do. We do not need to belabor any further.

Letís look at why your kids are not required for the war that you so very much believe in.

  • Is it because the country was able to come up with the number of troops necessary to occupy Iraq as estimated by the professional experts?
  • Is it because the backdoor draft was a matter of choice for our troops?
  • Is it because this week they had to scrape up some 1,500 additional troops to supplement what we already have there?
  • Is it because the mission was accomplished? Or
  • Is it because the recruiters are having such an easy time scooping up more innocent kids?

What makes you think that the addition of your two kids will be such an insignificant contribution to the war? Do you have anything more valuable to contribute to this war that you believe in so very much?

Something escapes you here, Jeffrey. Even if you believe that your efforts are not required, is that a reason to hide from the war youíre promoting? What risks are you taking by promoting this war?

7. Specialization of Labor

Jeffrey, when youíre blinded by $, your logic suffers. You make the argument that you donít need to be a fireman to reap the benefits of the firemanís services or a policeman to enjoy a crime-free life.

Past the giggles, I have to remind you that business principles do not a country make!

If you are to apply what makes sense operationally in a business setting to the country, we may end up where Chrysler was in 1979-80

Letís use your logic and see where weíll end up. If you are looking at military service as specialized labor, then there is no reason in the world that we canít privatize these services. Once these services are privatized, there is no reason why these services cannot be outsourced. When these services are outsourced, there is no reason that these services can be oursourced to China or any other country.

Wait a minute! And if you contend that serving in the military is an honor, are you going to outsource your honor to the Chinese too?

Letís put your argument in some historical perspective, Jeffrey. Had the Vietcong taken your advice and relied on specialized labor rather than fight to death an invading force with everything they got, do you think they could have liberated their country from the superpowerís invading forces.

Was it the rosy promise that the Vietnamese recruiters made to the young Vietnamese kids that prompted them to fight for their country?

Why are you depriving your sons the same honor a Vietcong had in defending his country?

You owe that to your children, Jeffrey, if not to your country.

8. And a Final Note

You seem to be debate-deprived. I can see you waking up in the middle of the night tapping your wife on the shoulder and asking her for a debate. If she really wants a debate, sheíll be the one tapping you on the shoulder, Jeffrey.

And when she taps you on the shoulder, Jeffrey, you better be there! No matter how hard you try to weasel out of your duties, certain duties cannot be outsourced. Honor demands that, Jeffrey. You should look up the word!

You and I have different goals, Jeffrey. You seem to get your kicks from what you call debate. I get mine from joining hands with goodhearted people to plan and defeat those who rule our country. To accomplish that I donít need you. But you are always welcome to help my cause by continuing to do what you have been doing all along.

Finally, my apologies to all my friends who got caught in the cross fire and had to endure all of this. Iím reminded by self and friends that we have a lot of work to do to take our country back from the likes of Jeffrey! To that I say: YOU BET! Letís not waste another moment!

P.S. Some well-wishers wonder why I give Jeffrey the time of the day. I really donít. I do however, every now and then play with the guy for my selfish entertaining reasons.

And to those who think I should respond to Jeffreyís message and not to Jeffrey, I suggest they go respond to Bin Ladenís message and not to Ben Laden. When both the message and messenger are as corrupt, dealing only with the message will not stop future messages from coming your way.

 [ send green star]
 
anonymous The exposure of a charlatan. August 28, 2005 12:41 PM


A few brief comments will suffice in reference to your points. The fact is you really didnít provide any real argument beyond your first post. Points 1-3, to the extent they even are points, have already been addressed. Point 4. I have never been banned from Care2. If you are saying I have been, you are the one lying and slandering me. It never happened. All of my duplicate IDís were careful to disclose that I was the person. I did not use IDís ever to hide my identity. I have nothing to apologize for. I only have one ID now. Point 5. Once again you resort to cheap emotionalism in order to divert attention from your lack of an argument. Those who died in Iraq did so as volunteer professional soldiers. It is quite the same as those police officers who die as law enforcement professionals. If you were serious about your argument, and you are concerned that we keep crime to a minimum, we could make the same demand of you that you immediately become a police officer. It would be the height of hypocrisy for you to demand security in your home and on the streets, yet not do everything in your power to bring that about. The problems you face here are not just your lack of logical consistency, but the absence of any real syllogism at all. It does not logically follow that because one sees the need for an action, that that person actually be the one to take action. You falsely assert hypocrisy where none exists. In fact, I suspect you no more understand the meaning of that word than you did ďneoconservativeĒ. Hypocrisy means to preach one thing, but habitually act its opposite way. I, on the other hand, have never preached that everyone must join the military. I would, in fact, prefer that only those who have a genuine interest in the profession do so. Were I encouraging or demanding that others join the military, but encouraging my sons not to, we would have a case of hypocrisy. The fact is I have done no such thing. I support a purely voluntary military, and leave the decision to serve up to every individual to choose as he sees fit. You also falsely portray the soldiers as mindless children who have no ability to make this decision on their own. You are wrong, and dishonor people far better than you. Point 6. You start this by merely repeating your baseless assertion of hypocrisy. Since I have already refuted that above, I will ignore its repetition here. You then move into a couple classics of false logic. The first is the fallacy of the red herring; i.e. changing the subject to something irrelevant but shocking enough to distract from the real point. You make the odd statement that Iím an arms manufacturer. Of course Iím not, but it wouldnít make the slightest difference if I were. The case for war exists independently of my personal situation. This was nothing more than a dishonest attempt to turn the issue to my personal gain (which in reality, is nonexistent) rather than have the real debate I wish to have with you: whether the war is just, and the question of immediate withdrawal. Your continued evasion of that discussion well underscores your inability to defend your position. That is why you resort to such cheap, but transparent tricks. You then commit one of the most stunning examples of illogic Iíve ever seen. You took my original proposition, then twisted it into its opposite, and from that drew a false conclusion that you attribute to me: P1. ďOnce having recognized the necessity of the war, however, there is nothing that logically or morally compels one to make efforts that are not required in service of that war.Ē (My original premise) P2. ďOnce having recognized the UNnecessity of the war, however, there is nothing that logically or morally compels one to make efforts that are not required in service of that war.Ē (Your illogical reversal of my original premise) Conclusion. ďSo you already established for us with your logic that there is no war that will compel you to send your kids to fight in whether necessary or unnecessary.Ē Obviously, your conclusion does not follow from the premises. A large part of the problem is the false second premise, which corresponds to nothing in my position; but beyond that, you simply failed to apply the basic mechanics of a syllogism. In short, you presented utter nonsense. The real syllogism goes like this: P1. Once having recognized the necessity of the war, however, there is nothing that logically or morally compels one to make efforts that are not required in service of that war. P2. My sons are not required in service of this war. Conclusion: There is nothing that logically or morally compels service for my sons. If you wanted to attack that argument, you would either need to show how the major premise is false, or show how the war effort will fail without my sons. You have not succeeded in either. All you are left with is your expression of resentment that my sons are not serving, but you have in no way established any solid basis for the justification of you resentment. And I assure you, few people will act simply in accord with your resentment.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
anonymous The exposure of a charlatan, cont. August 28, 2005 12:44 PM


This resentment comes to the fore when you concede the truth of my premises, but then go into a rage about my sonsí choices: ďWell, well, Jeffrey! Iím sure the Good Olí USA will survive without any efforts or contributions from you, but thatís not the point. If this was a moral judgment, fine! We already established what your morals allow you to do. We do not need to belabor any further. Letís look at why your kids are not required for the war that you so very much believe in. ē Is it because the country was able to come up with the number of troops necessary to occupy Iraq as estimated by the professional experts? ē Is it because the backdoor draft was a matter of choice for our troops? ē Is it because this week they had to scrape up some 1,500 additional troops to supplement what we already have there? ē Is it because the mission was accomplished? Or ē Is it because the recruiters are having such an easy time scooping up more innocent kids?Ē As you tacitly concede you really had no counterargument, you retreat to your typical dishonest mode of slipping in false premises while attempting to attack the character of your opponent rather than address the issue. The facts are that the army did and does have the troop strength in Iraq that was demanded by the experts; those experts being the Pentagon Generals responsible for the conduct of the war. Those are the real experts, and they got the troop strength they requested. What you refer to as a ďback door draftĒ is of course no such thing, but no more than the terms under which these men enlisted. It should also be noted that re-enlistment among the troops in Iraq, as well as re-enlistment overall, is well ahead of this yearís target Ė a clear indication that the military is not relying on coercion to fill its ranks, nor are the soldiers suddenly discovering that they had been tricked by the recruiters. Your favorite slogans are once again shown to be untrue. Your last question about what risks Iím taking to promote this is thus shown to be irrelevant. I could ask you what risks you are taking to fight crime in your community. It just wouldnít mean anything. I am not morally or logically required to take any risks. We have professionals who volunteer to make that their lifeís work. And the re-enlistment rates show they do so fully in acceptance of these risks. By the way, the recruitment is going very well. The Marines, Navy and Air Force are overachieving their recruitment goals for 2005. The Army is at 89% of their goal, but lately recruitment has picked up. The active Army overachieved its monthly targets for June and July, and will likely do so again this month. Again, if you are trying to claim that there are not enough volunteers to meet our requirements, you are once more misrepresenting the facts. It appears your Mothers of America campaign has been a dismal failure. Point 7. Your attempt to make an economics point about specialization of labor is so nonsensical I canít even respond to it. Your masterpiece of illogic gone awry seems to rest on several bizarre premises. One is that specialization can only occur in private industry, when it is apparent to anybody that specialization has been a part of the public sector since its beginning. The second is that once privatized, it would necessarily be outsourced. Neither premise is valid. I wonder what you thought to prove with this. Certainly your conclusion that specialization of the military inexorably leads to our outsourcing to China is so ridiculous one can only gape in wonder at it. Your example of the Vietcong as proof that specialization in the military leads to failure is equally preposterous. Our failure in Vietnam was due to political weakness, not military weakness. We indisputably have the most powerful military in the world. This military is professional and specialized. Were your absurd claim true, we could not possibly be in that position of unchallenged strength. Point 8. This is where it gets interesting. In your post, you skirted around the real issue: is this war justified, and should we withdraw immediately? Several times you asserted that conclusion, but never once attempted to argue it. Even worse, you dishonestly assign profit motive as the real cause of this war, but again you never even attempt to back up your claim. Yes, debate is necessary, and your continued dishonesty clearly shows why. You almost hysterically avoid debate in order to conceal your total inability to defend your assertions. Even here, when you tried to turn this into an attack on me personally, you could not help but expose your lack of substance. You resorted to illogic, false premises and lies. Here are some facts that need repeating. Our professional military is the best in the world, and more than capable of handling our efforts in the Middle East. Recruitment for the military is not struggling, but actually overachieving its targets. Re-enlistment among those who know best what service in Iraq is about is overachieving expectation. In addition, there is no logical or moral case to be made that supporters of the war must necessarily serve or have family members serve. Your argument was non-existent, and left you with no more than an over-emotional expression of resentment.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
anonymous The exposure of a charlatan, conclusion August 28, 2005 12:45 PM


All of your effort was really to divert our attention from the real question of legitimacy of the war, and the need to continue. If you really were honest, you would be willing to confront that question with me directly. Every one of your actions has shown you to be the opposite. If you cannot do so, you clearly reveal yourself as a fraud Ė you have no clue what you are talking about, nor do you have any idea why the actions you pretend to initiate would be beneficial. Once again, I call on you to discuss the real issue. As I said in the earlier post, I will keep reminding you of this until you either admit you cannot, or you step up to the challenge. Pretending that you have more important things to do wonít suffice. You donít. What you have is a challenge to your credibility Ė a challenge from which you have long been running. I intend to expose you as the empty fraud you are.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
 August 28, 2005 1:56 PM

" what possible sense is there in the demand that I cause my sons to enter the military?" There were no demands and none were requested I'd say "want to try again"? but i'm done with you here. You've convinced me, thoroughly, that attempting discussion with you is a complete waste of time and resources (like the extra electricy spent posting to you). .  [ send green star]
 
anonymous  August 28, 2005 2:00 PM

It's amazing how completely you miss the point. By the way, your frustration in losing debate after debate is really starting to show.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
anonymous Sammy? August 28, 2005 2:01 PM


 [report anonymous abuse]
 
No Jeffrey, August 28, 2005 2:21 PM

I'm not losing any debate with you. In fact, It's impossible to lose a debate with you because truth always wins, whether or not the liar wants to admit it. .  [ send green star]
 
anonymous  August 28, 2005 2:23 PM

Truth relies on facts and logical argument. You have never provided either. It might be best if you run along and let Sam try to respond.

I'm sure he'll be here soon.
 [report anonymous abuse]
 
 August 28, 2005 4:04 PM

"facts and logical argument" NONE of which you possess. .  [ send green star]
 
anonymous  August 28, 2005 4:07 PM

Another one of those "so are you" responses. Why do you bother? They carry no rhetorical value at all.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
Let Me Clarify Something to You, Jeffrey... August 28, 2005 9:24 PM

...watch my finger. Iím pointing my finger upward. Follow the direction of my finger and go all the way to the title. Now read the title of this thread. Do you understand what it means? Let me try to explain that to you in simple terms.

I accused you of being a liar and a hypocrite. I would love to hear about your grandfather and his heroic deeds. But this thread is intended for one purpose only. It is intended to give you a chance to defend yourself from my accusations. The last thing I want to do is to falsely accuse you. If I made a mistake, Iíll be the first to admit it and youíll be the first to know about it.

What Iím not going to allow you to do is to hijack the thread and steer it into a different direction.

Letís get these things straight.

Jeffrey W. is the Accused.

Sam H. Is the Accuser.

Jeffrey W. is accused of being a Liar and a Hypocrite.

Jeffrey W. will be afforded the same rights he would have in a courtroom.

When asked a YES or a NO question, Jeffrey W. will answer with YES or NO.

The circumstances under which you lied are irrelevant. What we were discussing when you lied is irrelevant. Whether Cindy Sheehan is a hero or a traitor has no bearing on whether Jeffrey W. Is a liar or not. The circumstances under which you lied have no bearing on the fact that you lied. Remember you are under trial and your reputation is challenged.

It is in your interest to play by the rules to defend yourself. And remember his honor will strike from the record any non responsive answers.

Is it any clearer now? Go back and read it one more time. You are the accused. Iím your accuser. You are going to defend yourself by giving specific answers to specific questions.

What I donít need from you is a definition of what "is" is.

Remember we are NOT trying to determine if Cindy Sheehan is a hero or a traitor. We are trying to determine if Jeffrey W. Is a liar or not. Shall we proceed, Jeffrey?

Here we go!

  1. Did you, Jeffrey W, at any time, in reference to Cindy Sheehan, state something to the effect that no one told her how to mourn? Answer with YES or NO. _____
  2. Did I, Sam H, provide you with any evidence of how some people were telling Cindy Sheehan how to mourn? Answer with YES or NO. _____
  3. Were you, Jeffrey W, at any point questioned by Kathrine why you never answered her question? Answer with YES or NO. _____
  4. Did you, Jeffrey W, at any point, respond to Kathrine by saying something to the effect that she didn't ask you a question? Answer YES or NO. _____
  5. Did you, Jeffrey W, at any time post on this thread the following: "To start, Iíll quickly correct your misinformation about the thread to which you linked. I just re-read it and found no questions for me that I did not directly answer"? Answer YES or NO. _____
  6. Did I, Sam H, at any time post questions to you in the above referenced thread? Answer YES or NO. _____
  7. Did I, Sam H, at any time re-post those questions to you in this very same thread you are being interrogated on? Answer YES or NO. _____
  8. Did you, Jeffrey W, at any time attempt to respond to these to these questions prior to being re-posted here? Answer YES or NO. _____
  9. Did you, Jeffrey W, at any time have fake profiles here at Care2? Answer YES or NO. _____
  10. Did Care2 at any time ban/delete any of your fake profiles? Answer YES or NO. _____
  11. Did I, Sam H, at any time give you the opportunity to pledge not to engage in the creation of multiple profiles from this time forward? Answer YES or NO. _____
  12. Did you, Jeffrey W, ever pledge not to engage in the creation of multiple profiles from this time forward? Answer YES or NO. _____

*************************************

Instructions to the Accused

Copy questions 1 thru 12. Next to each question add only YES or NO in red.

 [ send green star]
 
anonymous Oh, oh August 28, 2005 9:26 PM

He's totally lost his mind. This is too funny!  [report anonymous abuse]
 
anonymous Sammy August 28, 2005 9:31 PM

I already addressed everything, and showed you to have no basis at all to your accusations. We are now past that and discussing the real issues.

I still await your response to why the war is unjust and and why say we should immediately withdraw. That is Mrs. Sheehan's message, and the one you support. And as usual, you go to very bizarre measures to avoid having that discussion with me.

You and I both know that is because I will expose you as the empty fraud that you are.

We will return every day, and remind the Care2 community every day, until you either admit you have no idea what you're talking about, or you confront the issues head-on with me here.
 [report anonymous abuse]
 
anonymous Rebecca August 28, 2005 9:34 PM

It's more than a lack of fiber. There is an unmistakable element of panic, hysteria and frustration in his post. He's trapped and he can't find a way out. His ealier attempts to save himself by deleting our posts didn't help. He's exposed and he knows we all know it.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
No this is interesting actually August 28, 2005 9:35 PM

††† Yes or no answers..?? † I think, were I playing Perry Mason to Aam's Hamilton Burger/Lt Tragg character, , I would state categorically that he is leading the witness.

 [ send green star]
(Member Is Blocked)
 
**Evil Grin** August 28, 2005 9:42 PM

††† So in the interests of fair play, is the accused entitled to representation?  [ send green star]
(Member Is Blocked)
 
anonymous Robbi August 28, 2005 9:42 PM

But pointlessly. That trial is over, the closing arguments already given, and I am shown to be innocent. These aren't leading questions any more, they're the desperate flailing away of a man who has already lost the fight.

I remember when I used to actually physically fight. There would be guys who were badly beaten, and couldn't accept it. Rather than end the fight, they would cowar away for a bit, then re-attack with wild, reckless punches that would serve no purpose at all, but leave them unprotected against counterpunches. The more trouble they got themselves in this way, the more impossible it became for them to reason the best course out of their predicament. The end result was increasingly insane attacks until the were so badly beaten they couldn't continue. I recognize that same reaction in Sam. I've seen it many times.† I think we pushed him so far he can no longer control his action.
 [report anonymous abuse]
 
So Rebecca August 28, 2005 9:45 PM

In the interests of Socratic Irony.. which is of course my life..
Tell me.. what do you mean by the fiber comments?? Spell it out for those of us who don't understand your subtle humor.
 [ send green star]
(Member Is Blocked)
 
Now That You Had Your Chance, Jeffrey... August 28, 2005 9:45 PM

...to defend yourself, this thread is closed.

I accused you of being a liar and a hypocrite. I gave my evidence.

I gave you a chance to defend yourself and you did.

There is nothing more I can offer you.

You were given every chance to apologize for your lies and hypocrisy.

Yo responded and defended yourself the way you did.

These are my accusations and those are your defenses.

As we have other more important things to deal with, Jeffrey to me is yesterdayís news.

This thread is now closed.

I could not find anything more fitting to close this thread with than those words:

Ps.101

[7] No man who practices deceit
shall dwell in my house;
no man who utters lies
shall continue in my presence.

God luck to you, jeffrey! Now go interpret what this means!

 [ send green star]
 
heh heh.,. August 28, 2005 9:46 PM

†I am doing one of my best† impressions..† any guesses??  [ send green star]
(Member Is Blocked)
 
anonymous Too funny August 28, 2005 9:47 PM

Sam runs away again.  [report anonymous abuse]
 
"heh heh" August 28, 2005 10:13 PM

with a chimp smirk.. that would be the village idiot! .  [ send green star]
 
  New Topic              Back To Topics Read Code of Conduct

 

This group:
Republican Party Official Site
70 Members

View All Topics
New Topic

Track Topic
Mail Preferences