Was Murtha "swift boated"?

Do you have any evidence that Murtha later actually took a bribe?

 

Nope. Just evidence he intended to.

As I said: "to all but the blindest and most biased."

It appears you are placing yourself in that group.

 

But he never did, right?

That's a fallacious argument known as "poisoning the well" - if you don't agree with me, you are totally ignorant and pig-headed.

 

Intending to do anything but not doing it is a sin against God but not a crime. Any proof he did more than that? Then you are slandering the Congressman.

 

Not at all. Just blinded by your ideology.

 

As long as Murtha keeps his mouth shut and stops trying to demoralize our armed forces, he is now off my radar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111600514_pf.html

Democrats Elect Hoyer as New Majority Leader

By Lois Romano and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 16, 2006; 12:38 PM

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) was elected House majority leader this morning, defeating Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi's candidate, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).
Hoyer won the No. 2 leadership job easily -- 149 to 86. But the showdown divided the Democrat House caucus only a week after its party won a majority of seats in the Congress that begins meeting in January, and prompted numerous complaints that Pelosi and her allies used strong-arm tactics and threats to try to elect Murtha to the job.

 

I wonder exactly what they expected of Pelosi?

She's tough... and IMO dirty. But she's not alone in that. I can fully understand why she would want to establish some discipline right away. The fact that she wasn't able to might be a bad sign for her ability to "get things done"... which of course is a great relief to the rest of us.

Of course it could have been a backroom deal where she got to placate Murtha while not actually having him as a pain in the neck embarrassment.

 

Why dirty?

 

I am sure he is glad of that! I mean really to have you against him, it was almost unbearable.

You guys kill me, pointing fingers at someone that hasn't done anything wrong. Would he? I don't know I can't read between the lines like you seem to have the gift to do. Why punish or attempt to punish someone for something they haven't even done? Have we lasped into that movie with Tom Cruise where they "see" you commit the crime before it happens and arrest you for it before you commit it?

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Do you slander other people in the same manner?


Jamie

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
....he is now off my radar.

I hope so, but I'm sure he won't stay there. He seems to have a knack lately for belittling the efforts of our armed forces.

Perhaps doing Pelosi's bidding didn't pay off this time, but maybe it will next time.

 

Thank you! I then consider that a compliment. And, if that is how you describe those that disagree with you when you are wrong, how do you describe yourself?

PS. If that description is much worse that what you used here, please remember that we are representing Jesus on this Board.

:jesus:

 

EG, I wasn't actually calling anyone that but giving an example of the well-known fallacy, "Poisoning the Well", as well as spoofing carpro's similar contention.

 

Sorry, I thought the answer was self-evident since I had answered it on the previous page. I was actually addressing the larger and more important point.

If you would understand the issue outside of your political ideology, it would be very apparent that Murtha is at best of questionable character. He did not report the attempted bribe as he should have done (a fault of character). He did not turn it down because it was wrong (a fault of character). He turned it down because he wasn't sure he could trust the people involved.

A man of character would have said firmly no without taking any time whatsoever to talk to the people involved. He would have reported the bribe as he was legally required to do, if I recall correctly.

So what seems clear is that your understanding "character" is deficient. Having the high standards that I do, I have a serious problem with Murtha for this, as well as for other reasons.

 

I think technically it is not poisoning the well. Poisoning the well is when you say the bad stuff first about the person, and reason that since he is a certain way (ignorant, etc), his conclusion will be faulty.

What was done here was assert the faulty conclusion, followed by an ad hominem attack. Poisoning the well is a type of ad hominem attack, but I am not sure it fits here.

 

Pastor Larry,

You still didn't answer my yes/no question........

Regards,
BiR

 

Hum ... (I hate colors but I will use them here to point out the time line.)

You said on page 3: Did Congressman Murtha accept a bribe?

On page 1 I had said "Murtha was videotaped rejecting an offered bribe "for now" waiting until he had done more business with them. In short, he wanted to guard himself so as not to get caught."

So I had answered your Yes/No question before you asked it. And so when said the first time that I hadn't answered it I replied, I thought the answer was self-evident since I had answered it on the previous page.

So the truth is that I did answer your question and pointed you to the answer when I said it was on the previous page. I am not sure why you are claiming that I didn't answer your question when the answer was clearly given on page 1.

If your objection is that I didn't answer in response to you, you are technically correct ... but that is a cheesy way to try to win an argument. My answer to your question was clearly given on page 1 of this thread.

 

Just curious, why do you purposely avoid answering a simple yes/no question? You have spent a considerable amount of bandwidth not answering the question. I didn't think it was that difficult of a question.....

And what are you doing on the board so early? I am sitting at the airport and have nothing better to do. I would rather be sleeping.

I have to board my plane now, so I will chat with you later.

Make it a great Friday,
BiR

 

I've seen a couple of variances in the explanation of this. I chose this one:

Carpro's and my examples are of the abusive variety.

 

It was so easy I answered it on page one. I am not sure why you keep asking what I have already answered.

To quote myself yet again, I said Murtha was videotaped rejecting an offered bribe.

How is that not an answer to your question?

I would like to say that I am disciplined to get up early in the morning for prayer and study. The reality is that it is rather late here why I am (11pm). I will be boarding a plane tomorrow to return to a civilized time...or at least the time I am used to.

Friday is over for me. It was a good day. I finished teaching a class, gave a test, cruised around on a motorcycle, went to the beach, played basketball, and went out for pizza. And now I have to pack for an 18 hour trip home. It is worse than it sounds ... It looks good on paper. I leave here Saturday at 8am and get home Saturday at 10am. Somehow, it feels longer than two hours though.

Hope your flight was shorter than mine and hope your weekend is good.

 

:laugh:
Welcome to BiRs question/answer chase game.