Our Differences...
Topic: Retort
There are great distinctions between conservatives and liberals. One of the main difference (besides conservatives being spoiled little cry babies (that was a personal attack but I'll explain later)) is the propensity for conservatives to not understand the difference between what constitutes a personal attack and what is substantive and topical argument.

I think the distinction is so great because there is a hereditary gene that persists amongst conservatives that causes them to blindly follow their perceived leaders. Loyalty is an admirable characteristic in many places except when it's blind and especially when it's applied to our democratic leaders.

I'll give you an example:

"George W. Bush has never had a mandate because he actually lost the popular vote by over 500,000 votes".

You see that statement is an opinion based upon a fact. There was nothing personal about that statement.

"George W. Bush's policies have caused tremendous division both domestically and abroad".

Again a statement of opinion.

"George W. Bush is a selfish and stupid man, who's inadequacies, which probably include a very small penis, cause him to violently impose his will on others".

Now that was a personal attack because it didn't include any facts (except for the small penis remark).

The way that you can tell the difference between a personal attack and a substantive argument is within the content of the statement. If for instance, the statement includes characteristics of an individual the statement is most likely personal. One the other hand, if someone makes a statement about the actions of an individual, their argument, in general, would not be personal. The way to be assured that the argument is not personal is to verify if a fact is being used in the statement.

There is a clarifying point that needs to be made here. If a person is attempting to use a fact, which is in fact, not a fact, then most likely that person would be carrying out a personal attack.

For example when Larry Thurlow says:

"...I distinctly remember we were under no fire from either bank."

The statement is clearly a personal attack against John Kerry. While it would seem that this is the expert opinion of an eyewitness, the fact is that Thurlow was saved that day by Chief Petty Officer Robert E. Lambert *corrected- the facts are important*, who also received a bronze star for his actions in that incident. In the supporting paperwork, which is corroborated by other eyewitnesses (including the commanding officer who is apart of this partisan personal attack) and a Naval investigation, it states that there was, in fact, enemy small arms fire.

So in this case, as it would be a court of law, the events of that day can not be shown to differ from the account given by John Kerry because the men making the accusations have been shown to be contradicting their own earlier statements. Because this statement attempts to impugn the character of the man, this is clearly a personal attack.

Yes, sometimes it is hard to distinguish between a personal attack and a substantive argument but when people concern themselves only with the facts the distinction becomes clear.

Just Nuke Em'
Topic: Satire

... that is all, carry on.

The Decision Was Made
Topic: Iraq
Store this in the vault of overwhelming evidence that Iraq NEVER posed a threat to the United States. Iraq NO Threat

Remember this:

"I think it didn't even constitute an imminent threat to its neighbors at the time we went to war." Greg Thielmann, Director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs (they're responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat. "He and his staff had the highest security clearances, and saw virtually everything - whether it came into the CIA or the Defense Department".)

Which Hat?
Topic: Iraq
The other day, after seeing it a couple of times, I finally broke down and read this article on CBSNews.com: A Traitor To His Class

In the article, the author, Victor Davis Hanson, tries to make the point that "liberals" hate Bush because he was one of them and now he acts like a cowboy, I'm sorry, I meant to say neo-conservative. He assumes that "much of the invective is irrational, fueled by emotion rather than reason". He's basically says "liberals" hate the man and could care less about his policies. He's absolutely right!

If "liberals" would only open their eyes to the actions of the man they might learn to love him. That statement would be true if the connotative meaning of "liberal" were actually the true meaning of the word and not what conservatives have been trying to turn the word into.

Everybody thinks they know what "liberal" means. It means a spendthrift, a weakling and a sympathizer of convicted pedophiles. Come on admit it, this is what YOU think of when you think about the word "liberal". You think someone who wants to dismantle the military, someone who would like to raise your taxes and give it all to the crack-whoring mothers who have foster children and go on welfare just for the money. "Liberals" are a bunch of fancy pants from the northeast or West coast, who drive expensive imported cars, buy their coffee at Starbucks and have privilege and power because of their family status and education.

If this is what it meant to be a "liberal" then George W. Bush would definitely have the "liberal" vote.

Not unlike many conservative mental masturbation opinion pieces, this one make a lot of fatal presumptions. Among the many is that all "liberals" go to Universities like Yale and Harvard, and they all come out with the same mindset, courtesy of the vast left wing conspiracy to brainwash the elite.

An interesting tidbit about this article's author, is that he is a member of the academic elite, having received a Ph.D from Stanford University.


I'm just wondering when I get to see the article, written by a conservative, that praises Bush for standing up for all the things that they believe. The points made in this article only go to show why "liberals" should love Bush, and they only wind up showing why conservatives should hate him.

"...no other president has selected an African-American secretary of State and national-security adviser or pledged so many billions for AIDS relief in Africa. Liberals talk of social programs starved, but domestic spending under Bush increased at annual rates greater than during any Democratic administration in recent history. Just read howls of conservatives who worry about Bush's Great Society-like programs."

But why stop there? Why not talk about his pre-emptive war foreign policy, his inability to balance a budget, "no child left behind" that he didn't fully fund, the prescription medicare plan that cost $150 billion more than advertised, slashing health benefits for veterans, and his immigration policies? Why not mention his politicizing, and flip-flopping, on making a constitutional amendment to limit rights?

With policies like these "liberals" don't have to mention a President sitting in the classroom for 27 minutes after learning the "nation is under attack". Or "Mission Accomplished". Or the fact that he wanted to invade Iraq from day one. Or that he mislead the country about a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda. Or "record vacation time". Or weakened alliances and reputation. Or thousands dead. Or many more terrorists. Or no end in sight. This is not an invective, this is the facts.

The problem is that no one hears the howls because there are none. The conservative Republicans have lined up behind Bush and to steal a line from Ron Reagan "Bush could show up on video canoodling with Paris Hilton and still bank their vote".

The real problem is that this is not a matter of "conservative" versus "liberal". It's a matter of what's best for this country. George W. Bush does not ACT in the best interest of the United States. Liberals don't like him because they DO look at his actions not his rhetoric and conservatives shouldn't like him because of both his actions and his rhetoric.

The Independent Voice's First Post
Topic: Personal
I figured that in my first post I'd be diplomatic. Unlike the original "Independent Voice", where I came right out of the box swinging, this time, and probably only this time, I'm going to be nice. This will be the only time that someone won't find a problem with the content of my writing.

Well I've got a lot to say, and statistically speaking I probably have only 43 years left to live, so let me get to it because I don't have much time.

Thanks for visiting and visit often because things are going to get interesting.

P.S. Please check out some of the sites on the left.