NationStates Jolt Archive

No Flaming!!!!

Easy... George Walker Bush (e.g. George Bush II.)

I don't think he was the worst traitor ever, but I think he's definitely up there.

Do they have to be a convicted traitor or just a traitor to the values of America in hindsight. Cause I'd have to say either McCarthy or Roy Cohn, although they were never technically convicted.

You people really have no idea what is a treachery...

Do they have to be a convicted traitor or just a traitor to the values of America in hindsight. Cause I'd have to say either McCarthy or Roy Cohn, although they were never technically convicted.

How the hell were they traitors!? They wanted to remove anti-Americans and communists from the government, they wanted to stop the government from betraying our allies and aiding our enemies, etc. How the HELL does that make them traitors?

You people really have no idea what is a treachery...

Corrini, you voted 'other.' Who did you have in mind?

How the hell were they traitors!? They wanted to remove anti-Americans and communists from the government, they wanted to stop the government from betraying our allies and aiding our enemies, etc. How the HELL does that make them traitors?

Because they ran roughshod over the Constitution and turned the entire country into little better than an ugly mob to do it!

Because they ran roughshod over the Constitution and turned the entire country into little better than an ugly mob to do it!

You're definitely entitled to your opinion, but I think McCarthy was an American hero. He was a 100% Americanist patriot, and what he did took a lot of guts. He knew he would be flamed, blamed, denounced, condemned, hated, vilified, and possibly destroyed, and he didn't care. He risked his very reputation and everything else trying to do what he thought was right.

Any politician that didn't make a sincere attempt in following up in the promises they said they would fulfil in their run for the office.


(just for a dose of humor)

Any politician that didn't make a sincere attempt in following up in the promises they said they would fulfil in their run for the office.


(just for a dose of humor)

Lol... :D That would be most of 'em!

Lol... :D That would be most of 'em!
No, that would be all of them.
lol

No, that would be all of them.
lol

True!

I would have to say John Kerry. He marched in Moscow for Communism. He is honored in the Veitnamese war museums for aiding in the defeat of America. He was also on the FBI's Communist watch list.

He spent a whopping 4 months in Vietnam. He was injured 3 times, 2 of which were self inflicting wounds. But he got purple hearts for all 3 times. I hate to see what they give to a real soldier. He did kill a certain Vietnamese soldier though...But who cares...The soldier was wounded and retreating and Kerry shot him in the back, thats all. No big kill. Then he came home and went anti-war. Thats not what a true soldier does. I know that it is hard on them to fight wars, and I respect them all for protecting my freedoms, but I loose all respect for them if they come home and protest the war they just fought in.

The man is full of flip-flops. He votes for the war in Iraq, but he then YET AGAIN goes anti war and goes against the war, and votes against the 87 billion dollars that would be used to aid our troops in Iraq AND Afghanistan.

That is why I feel that Kerry is a traitor.

EDIT: BTW, where is John Walker Lynn...At least, I think that was his name. He was the American in the Taliban. Hm...I still think Kerry is worse....

I had to vote John Kerry only because when he came back from vietnam after 4 whole months he immediately became an anti-war protestor and now keeps brining up his war record to try and sway the public.

I would have to say John Kerry. He marched in Moscow for Communism. He is honored in the Veitnamese war museums for aiding in the defeat of America. He was also on the FBI's Communist watch list.

He spent a whopping 4 months in Vietnam. He was injured 3 times, 2 of which were self inflicting wounds. But he got purple hearts for all 3 times. I hate to see what they give to a real soldier. He did kill a certain Vietnamese soldier though...But who cares...The soldier was wounded and retreating and Kerry shot him in the back, thats all. No big kill. Then he came home and went anti-war. Thats not what a true soldier does. I know that it is hard on them to fight wars, and I respect them all for protecting my freedoms, but I loose all respect for them if they come home and protest the war they just fought in.

The man is full of flip-flops. He votes for the war in Iraq, but he then YET AGAIN goes anti war and goes against the war, and votes against the 87 billion dollars that would be used to aid our troops in Iraq AND Afghanistan.

That is why I feel that Kerry is a traitor.

I agree he's a traitor, one of the biggest. However, I think Hanoi Jane is an even bigger one.

I had to vote John Kerry only because when he came back from vietnam after 4 whole months he immediately became an anti-war protestor and now keeps brining up his war record to try and sway the public.

Good point. It reeks of hypocrisy, does it not?

bump

Good point. It reeks of hypocrisy, does it not?


It really makes me sick that people are to stupid to see past it. According to most of the people in his unit. He isn't what he is claiming to be. :) I just cannot remember which paper I read it in.

All I know is that Kerry is a jack@$$.

Mccarthy accused many americans as being corrupt Socialists. He used this to crush his running oponents. many were deported and jailed.

Have you read the Thread of the Silkworm? A Chinese engineer who studied at US's best universities and was the leader of the US Missile developing Department? He worked very hard but was accused of being a Communist and was deported to China. He then got very mad at how they treated him after years of work so he became hina's Leading missile engineer who invented the Silkworm Missile which to this day is a threat to the United States. You can say he was a traitor too, but the country he lived in betrayed him, damn McCarthy.

Now to be serious- In Michael Moore's newest film, he bashed on Bush for waiting 6 minutes to respond to the 9/11 emergency, apparently. (I didnt see the film and hope never to, but thats how the film went, did it not?)

Here's the thing:
When the second plane hit the second tower at approx. 9:03 AM, Senator Kerry sat down with his colleagues in a building close to the Pentagon, tried to think, couldn't, and then "he heard the explosion" from the plane hitting the Pentagon.

The Pentagon was hit at 9:43 AM.

So Kerry sat around for FORTY MINUTES, more than 6x longer than Bush did.

Why couldn't the Democrats find a better candidate than Kerry? I mean, c'mon....

LMMFAO you know most people do not know who these two people are :)

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg *makes bomb noise*

Mccarthy accused many americans as being corrupt Socialists. He used this to crush his running oponents. many were deported and jailed.

Have you read the Thread of the Silkworm? A Chinese engineer who studied at US's best universities and was the leader of the US Missile developing Department? He worked very hard but was accused of being a Communist and was deported to China. He then got very mad at how they treated him after years of work so he became hina's Leading missile engineer who invented the Silkworm Missile which to this day is a threat to the United States. You can say he was a traitor too, but the country he lived in betrayed him, damn McCarthy.

Did McCarthy himself personally accuse that Chinese engineer, or did others?

I would have to say John Kerry. He marched in Moscow for Communism. He is honored in the Veitnamese war museums for aiding in the defeat of America. He was also on the FBI's Communist watch list.

He spent a whopping 4 months in Vietnam. He was injured 3 times, 2 of which were self inflicting wounds. But he got purple hearts for all 3 times. I hate to see what they give to a real soldier. He did kill a certain Vietnamese soldier though...But who cares...The soldier was wounded and retreating and Kerry shot him in the back, thats all. No big kill. Then he came home and went anti-war. Thats not what a true soldier does. I know that it is hard on them to fight wars, and I respect them all for protecting my freedoms, but I loose all respect for them if they come home and protest the war they just fought in.

The man is full of flip-flops. He votes for the war in Iraq, but he then YET AGAIN goes anti war and goes against the war, and votes against the 87 billion dollars that would be used to aid our troops in Iraq AND Afghanistan.

That is why I feel that Kerry is a traitor.

EDIT: BTW, where is John Walker Lynn...At least, I think that was his name. He was the American in the Taliban. Hm...I still think Kerry is worse....

I wish I read this before I voted, damn it.

Originally Posted by Knight Of The Round
I had to vote John Kerry only because when he came back from vietnam after 4 whole months he immediately became an anti-war protestor and now keeps brining up his war record to try and sway the public.
Good point. It reeks of hypocrisy, does it not?Not at all. What it shows is that a person can serve honorably in a war he later realizes was unnecessary and immoral. The original service shows a sense of honor. The protest afterward shows a sense of thoughtfulness about the fallacious reasons for that war.

I forgot about John Walker Lynn...well, if he's your choice, vote 'Other.'

By the way, my vote is for either Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen. Or the sonofabitch who outed Valerie Plame for political revenge.

Not at all. What it shows is that a person can serve honorably in a war he later realizes was unnecessary and immoral. The original service shows a sense of honor. The protest afterward shows a sense of thoughtfulness about the fallacious reasons for that war.

That's not what I meant. I meant that it's hypocritical that he denounced, flamed, and smeared our vets, gave moral aid to the enemy, rubbed elbows with communists, threw away medals (whether they were his or not), and helped cover up evidence that POWs are still alive and being held captive, then he turns around and says he's proud of his military service and expects Vietnam veterans to support him.

By the way, thanks for not flaming. You are one of the nicest and one of the most mature people I've seen in this forum.

I forgot about John Walker Lynn...well, if he's your choice, vote 'Other.'

NEVER!!! Like I said, Kerry is worse lol.

By the way, my vote is for either Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen. Or the sonofabitch who outed Valerie Plame for political revenge.

None of those names ring a bell. Please elaborate.

LMMFAO you know most people do not know who these two people are :)

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg *makes bomb noise*

I know, they were my vote. ;) They truly WERE traitors.

and helped cover up evidence that POWs are still alive and being held captive, then he turns around and says he's proud of his military service and expects Vietnam veterans to support him.




I have seen a bumper sticker on cars riding around that says "Veitnam Vets against Kerry". I would get one if I was a vet lol.

I know, they were my vote. ;) They truly WERE traitors.

Agreed!

Here's what I'd say to them if they were alive right now: :upyours:

I have seen a bumper sticker on cars riding around that says "Veitnam Vets against Kerry". I would get one if I was a vet lol.

Same here! :D

None of those names ring a bell. Please elaborate.

Aldrich Aims...spy for many years.

Robert Hannsen...FBI agent turned spy in exchange for sex.

Valery Plame was hardly the "secret" agent they are making her out to be. her name was printed in the CIA directory. To say that her employment with the CIA was a "secret" and then have her name printed in a CIA phone directory is odd is it not? I would say the whole thing is political alright, but not in the way it is portrayed.

Wow nice to know that I come back after six months and people are still unchanged :)

I chose the ones who decided to give the bomb away.

Aldrich Aims...spy for many years.

Robert Hannsen...FBI agent turned spy in exchange for sex.

Valery Plame was hardly the "secret" agent they are making her out to be. her name was printed in the CIA directory. To say that her employment with the CIA was a "secret" and then have her name printed in a CIA phone directory is odd is it not? I would say the whole thing is political alright, but not in the way it is portrayed.

Thanks! :)

I have seen a bumper sticker on cars riding around that says "Veitnam Vets against Kerry". I would get one if I was a vet lol.

Well, I am a vet, but not Vietnam and the ONLY stickers that might go on my car are scuba stickers.

Wow nice to know that I come back after six months and people are still unchanged :)

I chose the ones who decided to give the bomb away.

Kwangi!!! Good to see you back!

Let me just get this off my chest:

YOU'RE WRONG! :)

Well, I am a vet, but not Vietnam and the ONLY stickers that might go on my car are scuba stickers.

You're a vet? Cool! Which war?

I have seen a bumper sticker on cars riding around that says "Veitnam Vets against Kerry". I would get one if I was a vet lol.

I saw another one that said "Flush the Johns" LOL

In order, I think it would be Benedict Arnold, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, John Walker Lynn.

I vote Arnold because he Truely did betray his country

Why is the Walker family not included? They spied for the Soviets for years and gave away many naval secrets.

Given that the US seceeded from the British empire
And that George Bush and Tony Blair are buddy
It has to be Bush.

:)

Well, I am a vet, but not Vietnam and the ONLY stickers that might go on my car are scuba stickers.

Its a personal decision to put stickers on your car. Most people wouldnt because they like their cars too much. But I would put stickers on my car, it it was standing up for what I believed in.

you ask for no flaming but you put bush and kerry on the list

you guys need to look up what traitor means

im thinking the rosenburgs but wasnt there a scientist at los alamos working as a spy for the soviet union who passed them all our big time nuclear secrets? no name is coming to mind

I had to vote John Kerry only because when he came back from vietnam after 4 whole months he immediately became an anti-war protestor and now keeps brining up his war record to try and sway the public.

Oh and Bush never mentions his war record eh? Wonder why?

I saw another one that said "Flush the Johns" LOL

In order, I think it would be Benedict Arnold, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, John Walker Lynn.

I vote Arnold because he Truely did betray his country

Agreed.

Other people I would have added to the poll if enough space was provided: Franklin Roosevelt, Edward Mandell House, Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Bush I, Nixon, Ford, LBJ, Ike, Truman, Dulles (both of 'em), Edward Lansdale, Dean Acheson, George Marshall, Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Harry Hopkins, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, JFK, etc.

You're a vet? Cool! Which war?

Libya - 1986

Desert Shield/Storm - 1990/91

Operation Southern watch - 1996, 1998, 1999

Operation Northern Watch - 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000

Kosovo - 1999

Plus various other things that are not yet public. ;)

Why is the Walker family not included? They spied for the Soviets for years and gave away many naval secrets.

Sorry, but I haven't heard of them. If I had, undoubtedly they would have been on the list.

Actually, Osama bin Laden could be reasonably called a pretty big US traitor. Although I suppose he's more of a mercenary.

I can't really see how Kerry would be a traitor, though. I mean, he volunteered to fight for his country to keep another country down to defend Americo-French imperialism, and won three Purple Hearts doing so.

And calling Bush a traitor is misleading, as he never displayed allegiance to his country to begin with, so there wasn't really anything to betray.

Oh and Bush never mentions his war record eh? Wonder why?

Because his National Guard unit was not called up. Good try though.

Oh and Bush never mentions his war record eh? Wonder why?

Hey listen Regime Change! Bush actually believes in NOT attacking someone's military service. Kerry has attacked Bush on his!

Kerry opened his big yap and is using his Vietnam Record in his campaign. This makes his Vietnam Record open to scrutiny. That is why we are going through this all now.

I find it sad but open they mouth and insert foot in it. Kerry is learning that fast and now he can't dodge this.

Libya - 1986

Desert Shield/Storm - 1990/91

Operation Southern watch - 1996, 1998, 1999

Operation Northern Watch - 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000

Kosovo - 1999

Plus various other things that are not yet public. ;)

Well, you certainly have my respect! ;) No one on earth is more respected by me than veterans are! :)

Oh and Bush never mentions his war record eh? Wonder why?


Because he doesnt need to gloat about it to get elected.

Given that the US seceeded from the British empire
And that George Bush and Tony Blair are buddy
It has to be Bush.

:)
lol that must be the dumbest reason I've ever heard.
You're blaming Bush for something that happened over two centuries ago.
You might want to move out of America, because it's full of "traitors," seeings how we are on excellent terms with the British.

Sorry, but I haven't heard of them. If I had, undoubtedly they would have been on the list.

http://www.wasc.noaa.gov/wrso/security_guide/walker.htm

you ask for no flaming but you put bush and kerry on the list

you guys need to look up what traitor means

im thinking the rosenburgs but wasnt there a scientist at los alamos working as a spy for the soviet union who passed them all our big time nuclear secrets? no name is coming to mind

I do believe there was such a scientist. As for the Rosenbergs, I think there have been much bigger traitors--Aaron Burr and John C. Calhoun come to mind. These guys plotted war against the United States, whereas the Rosenbergs simply aided and abetted a hostile power.

To people who picked 'other': Who did you have in mind?

I do believe there was such a scientist. As for the Rosenbergs, I think there have been much bigger traitors--Aaron Burr and John C. Calhoun come to mind. These guys plotted war against the United States, whereas the Rosenbergs simply aided and abetted a hostile power.

Calhoun? He never plotted a war against the United States. He was simply an ardent believer in states' rights (whether that's good or bad is up to your discretion).

Easy... George Walker Bush (e.g. George Bush II.)

Alger Hiss, Ethel and Julias, Truman, Clinton, and Carter are among my top picks.

Libya - 1986

Desert Shield/Storm - 1990/91

Operation Southern watch - 1996, 1998, 1999

Operation Northern Watch - 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000

Kosovo - 1999

Plus various other things that are not yet public. ;)

Thanks for fighting for the freedoms of the USA and letting me sleep safly at night.

Btw, im not familiar with Operation Southern or Nother Watch. Could somebody tell me what they were?

http://www.wasc.noaa.gov/wrso/security_guide/walker.htm

Thanks! :)

Well, you certainly have my respect! ;) No one on earth is more respected by me than veterans are! :)

Oh it was an easy life...I miss it actually. A lot of travel, but a lot of good times too. You should try it.

Thanks for fighting for the freedoms of the USA and letting me sleep safly at night.

Btw, im not familiar with Operation Southern or Nother Watch. Could somebody tell me what they were?

They were the allied enforcement of the no-fly zones after ODS. These missions had a few downed MiGs, Iraqi radars and AA systems targeting fighters and getting blown up, etc. Mostly it was US & UK aircraft.

Alger Hiss, Ethel and Julias, Truman, Clinton, and Carter are among my top picks.

Those are all fine choices! :)

Hey listen Regime Change! Bush actually believes in NOT attacking someone's military service. Kerry has attacked Bush on his!

Kerry opened his big yap and is using his Vietnam Record in his campaign. This makes his Vietnam Record open to scrutiny. That is why we are going through this all now.

I find it sad but open they mouth and insert foot in it. Kerry is learning that fast and now he can't dodge this.

Just what we need: a president whose core beliefs are:
1) Not attacking the military service of an opponent
2) Jesus
3) Taking from the poor and giving to the rich

But it's OK to attack the opponent's running mate for being as experienced as President Bush was four years ago.

Aldrich Aims...spy for many years.

Robert Hannsen...FBI agent turned spy in exchange for sex.

Valery Plame was hardly the "secret" agent they are making her out to be. her name was printed in the CIA directory. To say that her employment with the CIA was a "secret" and then have her name printed in a CIA phone directory is odd is it not? I would say the whole thing is political alright, but not in the way it is portrayed.
If Plame wasn't a big deal, then why did a Republican Attorney General recuse himself from the investigation, an investigation that has so far forced both the VP and the President to lawyer up and be questioned? Methinks you're full of crap on this one too, Biff.

Because his National Guard unit was not called up. Good try though. Not that he'd have been around to go if they had been called up, though.

Corrini, you voted 'other.' Who did you have in mind?

Actually no one from them. Bush is a president, doing everything for US. We can say, his (and his team's) will forms it, so takling about a "treachery" is senseless. Kerry is a veteran and hero of yours, it would be a mere primitive insult for him to vote him just because he is against Bush. Hiss is proven that he had no connection with KGB. Rosenbergs came with hysteria of losing chance when Russians made the bomb of the bombs. They were sacrificial lambs. Kurcatov was a perfect Nobel-prized physician, I would say Rosenbergs did only minimum, if not nothing important. General Arnold was born under english crown, so there was no "patriotism" in his generation. Only will to make something new, country and nation did not exist then yet. He was indecisive, but not a traitor. Jane Fonda was an actress, doing everything for money and popularity. With parties, they are same here as Bush. They form the will of nation, being opposed to it doesn't mean treachery. You yanks are so weird...

They were the allied enforcement of the no-fly zones after ODS. These missions had a few downed MiGs, Iraqi radars and AA systems targeting fighters and getting blown up, etc. Mostly it was US & UK aircraft.


Oh, ok. Thanks.

Thanks for fighting for the freedoms of the USA and letting me sleep safly at night.

Btw, im not familiar with Operation Southern or Nother Watch. Could somebody tell me what they were?

The no fly zones were actually quite busy. Every US or UK aircraft that flew in was fired on, but not one was ever hit. 12 years those operations went on and that was 12 years too long.

I'm very sorry if this sounds like a flame, but I'm amazed that people actually voted for the bottom choice.

Alger Hiss, Ethel and Julias, Truman, Clinton, and Carter are among my top picks.

How in the HELL was Truman, Carter, or Clinton a traitor?

Actually no one from them. Bush is a president, doing everything for US. We can say, his (and his team's) will forms it, so takling about a "treachery" is senseless. Kerry is a veteran and hero of yours, it would be a mere primitive insult for him to vote him just because he is against Bush. Hiss is proven that he had no connection with KGB. Rosenbergs came with hysteria of losing chance when Russians made the bomb of the bombs. They were sacrificial lambs. Kurcatov was a perfect Nobel-prized physician, I would say Rosenbergs did only minimum, if not nothing important. General Arnold was born under english crown, so there was no "patriotism" in his generation. Only will to make something new, country and nation did not exist then yet. He was indecisive, but not a traitor. Jane Fonda was an actress, doing everything for money and popularity. With parties, they are same here as Bush. They form the will of nation, being opposed to it doesn't mean treachery. You yanks are so weird...

Wrong. Hiss was a Soviet spy.

lol that must be the dumbest reason I've ever heard.
You're blaming Bush for something that happened over two centuries ago.
You might want to move out of America, because it's full of "traitors," seeings how we are on excellent terms with the British.
You mistook my attempt at humour it seems. And I might not want to move out of America because some guy on a forum asked me to.

Wrong. Hiss was a Soviet spy.

It is widely believed he was a spy...but there are a lot of questions...

http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blalgerhiss1.htm?terms=Alger+Hiss

How in the HELL was Truman, Carter, or Clinton a traitor?

Truman sold us out to the Soviets with his embracements of commie's in his administration and throughout the government and his actions in Korea. He should have listened to MacArthur.

Carter for his completely unacceptable way of treating the situation with our embassy in Iran and for his anti-military and thus pro-weakness policies.

Clinton for all his disregards for national security, losing his launch codes, watching a golf game instead of making important decisions on national security, selling secrets to China, etc.

How in the HELL was Truman, Carter, or Clinton a traitor?

Truman- Not letting us win the Korean War, refusing to remove communists and pro-communists from the federal government. Letting the communists take Poland, China, etc. CURSE YOU, TRUMAN!!!!!!!! :upyours:

Carter- Panama Canal, anyone? Hostage crisis, too. Not to mention betraying allies such as Iran, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, and Taiwan. Being a member of the CFR and TC. Gutting the hell out of our military. CURSE YOU, CARTER!!!!!!!! :upyours:

Clinton- Chinagate, anyone? Kosovo, as well. Not to mention his cozy relationships with nations such as Russia, China, and Syria. Being a member of the CFR and TC. Not doing diddly-squat about terrorism (of course, that applies to this administration, too). Appointing ultra-leftist, anti-American extremists like Mort Halperin and Anthony Lake to the federal government. CURSE YOU, CLINTON!!!!!!!! :upyours:

Those are all fine choices! :)

There are probably what 100,000 more to list ;).

You mistook my attempt at humour it seems. And I might not want to move out of America because some guy on a forum asked me to.
Ah...... humor...... my bad........
ô¿ô

There are probably what 100,000 more to list ;).

Well, there are more to list than I could possibly name, that's for sure.

Because he doesnt need to gloat about it to get elected.

He has a lot of money from his daddy and his daddy's pals so he could win and unfortunatly may with this election. The sad fact seems to be that more money gives a much greater chance of winning. And on the subject isn't it funny a large proportion of his cabinet is daddy's oil buddies?

Well, there are more to list than I could possibly name, that's for sure.

Oh yeah and if we get Mr. Kerry in office I guarantee it'll be like Clinton all over again with combinations of Truman, Carter, and Ford (he's a puss I have to say it!).

Here's an idea-
Traitors are those who use the free speech right, given in the Bill of Rights/Constitution, to say that the Constitution is the product of nutcases and thus should be destroyed or such.
Those people scare me.

He has a lot of money from his daddy and his daddy's pals so he could win and unfortunatly may with this election. The sad fact seems to be that more money gives a much greater chance of winning. And on the subject isn't it funny a large proportion of his cabinet is daddy's oil buddies?

If it only came down to money, kerry would be in office tomorrow. He is FAR richer than the Bushes ever will be.

Oh yeah and if we get Mr. Kerry in office I guarantee it'll be like Clinton all over again with combinations of Truman, Carter, and Ford (he's a puss I have to say it!).

Now there's a scary thought!

He has a lot of money from his daddy and his daddy's pals so he could win and unfortunatly may with this election. The sad fact seems to be that more money gives a much greater chance of winning. And on the subject isn't it funny a large proportion of his cabinet is daddy's oil buddies?

Isn't it funny that Kerry isn't asking the Pentagon to release ALL of his records but yet some of his democratic Buddies sued to get Bush's?

I'll vote for Benedict Arnold, probably because he's the only traitor on the list that I'm old(and smart) enough to know. Of course I know Kerry and Bush but, I won't go as far as saying either of them are treacherous.

He has a lot of money from his daddy and his daddy's pals so he could win and unfortunatly may with this election. The sad fact seems to be that more money gives a much greater chance of winning. And on the subject isn't it funny a large proportion of his cabinet is daddy's oil buddies?
Oh, and Kerry isn't using his family's money (the money his family used for a multi-million dollar private jet and five mansions across the country) for his running?

I had to vote John Kerry only because when he came back from vietnam after 4 whole months he immediately became an anti-war protestor and now keeps brining up his war record to try and sway the public.
Which makes him a traitor how? The first part means he fought for what he believed was defending his country, then changed his mind, or, if you prefer, flip-flopped--I call it being capable of complex thought. If new shit comes to light, you change your mind.

Bringing up his war record to try to sway the public is not treason; it's pandering.

Bringing up his war record to try to sway the public is not treason; it's pandering.

But yet the Dems are trying to use Bush's record against him! Double Standard here if you ask me!

Kerry is running on his time served in Nam and only that. Why shouldn't it get scrutinize and why hasn't his records been released?

Which makes him a traitor how? The first part means he fought for what he believed was defending his country, then changed his mind, or, if you prefer, flip-flopped--I call it being capable of complex thought. If new shit comes to light, you change your mind.

Bringing up his war record to try to sway the public is not treason; it's pandering.

If Kerry was capable of "complex thought," he would change his views to match that of George W. Bush's.

Truman- Not letting us win the Korean War, refusing to remove communists and pro-communists from the federal government. Letting the communists take Poland, China, etc. CURSE YOU, TRUMAN!!!!!!!! :upyours:

Carter- Panama Canal, anyone? Hostage crisis, too. Not to mention betraying allies such as Iran, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, and Taiwan. Being a member of the CFR and TC. Gutting the hell out of our military. CURSE YOU, CARTER!!!!!!!! :upyours:

Clinton- Chinagate, anyone? Kosovo, as well. Not to mention his cozy relationships with nations such as Russia, China, and Syria. Being a member of the CFR and TC. Not doing diddly-squat about terrorism (of course, that applies to this administration, too). Appointing ultra-leftist, anti-American extremists like Mort Halperin and Anthony Lake to the federal government. CURSE YOU, CLINTON!!!!!!!! :upyours:
I don't see anything that's traitorous here. You might disagree with their policy but that doesn't make them traitor.

Truman- Not letting us win the Korean War, refusing to remove communists and pro-communists from the federal government. Letting the communists take Poland, China, etc. CURSE YOU, TRUMAN!!!!!!!! :upyours:

Carter- Panama Canal, anyone? Hostage crisis, too. Not to mention betraying allies such as Iran, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, and Taiwan. Being a member of the CFR and TC. Gutting the hell out of our military. CURSE YOU, CARTER!!!!!!!! :upyours:

Clinton- Chinagate, anyone? Kosovo, as well. Not to mention his cozy relationships with nations such as Russia, China, and Syria. Being a member of the CFR and TC. Not doing diddly-squat about terrorism (of course, that applies to this administration, too). Appointing ultra-leftist, anti-American extremists like Mort Halperin and Anthony Lake to the federal government. CURSE YOU, CLINTON!!!!!!!! :upyours:
Of course Truman let the Communists take Poland, China, etc.--they were our ALLIES in the case of Poland, and in the case of China, what else would we do? The Soviet Union was a superpower, and by the way, letting them take China was the right thing to do anyway.

As for Carter: Betraying allies is totally different from betraying one's own country. We are talking about betyrayal of the United States.

Clinton: I don't see how Kosovo would qualify as betrayal. Intervening against genocide is different from betraying one's country. And I wouldn't single out Clinton for cozy relationships with certain nations. Every administration has had its peculiar cozy relationships. He never once appointed an anti-American extremist to the federal government, and when you say "ultra-leftist", you mean "moderate".

And of course, Clinton did plenty about terrorism. This is one of those lies that just get repeated enough that they won't die.

In any case, shortcomings in government are not the same as betrayal.

If Kerry was capable of "complex thought," he would change his views to match that of George W. Bush's.
Elaborate, please.

But yet the Dems are trying to use Bush's record against him! Double Standard here if you ask me!

Kerry is running on his time served in Nam and only that. Why shouldn't it get scrutinize and why hasn't his records been released?

I'm not defending the Dems, but I deny moral equivalence between the extent to which they use dishonorable tactics and the fact that the Republicans' survival as such is incumbent upon such tactics.

I think Kerry's campaign is horseshit, but if it gets him elected I'm for it, because I think he'd make a good president.

As for Bush's record, he's lying about his record, so why shouldn't they use it against him? They're calling his bluff, as it were.

I'm not defending the Dems, but I deny moral equivalence between the extent to which they use dishonorable tactics and the fact that the Republicans' survival as such is incumbent upon such tactics.

Then why are they going after bush's records but yet call foul when Kerry's gets scrutinize?

I think Kerry's campaign is horseshit, but if it gets him elected I'm for it, because I think he'd make a good president.

It is crap at least we can agree there and the rest is your opinion that is well stated

As for Bush's record, he's lying about his record, so why shouldn't they use it against him? They're calling his bluff, as it were.

How is he lying about it? Kerry could be lying about his too but yet when people start calling Kerry's into question, they are calling foul but not the other way around. Why?

Oh and Bush never mentions his war record eh? Wonder why?

Maybe because he has none and he has stated that he was only in the air national guard. DUH!

Truman sold us out to the Soviets with his embracements of commie's in his administration and throughout the government and his actions in Korea. He should have listened to MacArthur.

Carter for his completely unacceptable way of treating the situation with our embassy in Iran and for his anti-military and thus pro-weakness policies.

Clinton for all his disregards for national security, losing his launch codes, watching a golf game instead of making important decisions on national security, selling secrets to China, etc.

1) We're arguing BIGGEST TRAITORS. Someone who fails to govern effectively is not a traitor, let alone one of the biggest.

2) Clinton did NOT disregard national security. He was our strongest president on national security and foreign policy, I'd say, since Richard Nixon.

3) Opposing military redundancy is not necessarily anti-military. Could it be Carter felt that the military was too big? Not that he was necessarily right, though I happen to agree that it is.

4) Truman did not "embrace" communists in the government. He invented the phrase "godless Communism". Perhaps he just loved freedom and felt that people's politicoeconomic views should not be grounds for persecution.

Maybe because he has none and he has stated that he was only in the air national guard. DUH!

Agreed and he wasn't called up either. But people don't seem to get that through there heads.

I actually know Robert McNamara's son and grandchildren personally. Very nice people.

1) We're arguing BIGGEST TRAITORS. Someone who fails to govern effectively is not a traitor, let alone one of the biggest.

I can agree on this

2) Clinton did NOT disregard national security. He was our strongest president on national security and foreign policy, I'd say, since Richard Nixon.

Clinton did disregard National Security or haven't you forgotten Missiles that wound up in China's hands. That was actually Clintons doing and Ronald Reagan did more on Foreign Policy and National Security than Nixon did!

3) Opposing military redundancy is not necessarily anti-military. Could it be Carter felt that the military was too big? Not that he was necessarily right, though I happen to agree that it is.

Our military couldn't move under Carter. We were a paper tiger under Carter. Our military budget was the lowest during his administration and it hampered our abilities to defend. That is why a Pacifist should never be incharge of a country.

Of course Truman let the Communists take Poland, China, etc.--they were our ALLIES in the case of Poland, and in the case of China, what else would we do? The Soviet Union was a superpower, and by the way, letting them take China was the right thing to do anyway.

As for Carter: Betraying allies is totally different from betraying one's own country. We are talking about betyrayal of the United States.

Clinton: I don't see how Kosovo would qualify as betrayal. Intervening against genocide is different from betraying one's country. And I wouldn't single out Clinton for cozy relationships with certain nations. Every administration has had its peculiar cozy relationships. He never once appointed an anti-American extremist to the federal government, and when you say "ultra-leftist", you mean "moderate".

And of course, Clinton did plenty about terrorism. This is one of those lies that just get repeated enough that they won't die.

In any case, shortcomings in government are not the same as betrayal.

No, by 'ultra-leftist' I mean what I say. And, yes, he did indeed appoint many anti-Americans to the federal government, as almost every 20th century President has done.
How was giving up China was 'the right thing to do.' Betraying a loyal ally is bad enough; but betraying it to a bunch of totalitarian, genocidal tyrants is far worse.
As for Carter, yes, giving up the Panama Canal WAS treason. And betraying our allies was treason, because it increases the list of enemies of our nation.
Kosovo was betrayal because Clinton made U.S. soldiers serve under a UN commander. Their job is not to impose the New World Order, stop genocide, break up scuffles and make the world behave. Their job is to defend America, nothing else. And Clinton was not 'moderate.' He was militantly anti-gun, radically internationalistic, pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-communist, and wanted socialized medicine in the U.S. That hardly qualifies him as 'moderate.'

The biggest traitor in American history is Benedict Arnold. That is more than enough said :)

Then why are they going after bush's records but yet call foul when Kerry's gets scrutinize?

Short answer: Because they're hypocrites.
Long answer: Although they are hypocrites, their position is perfectly defensible. Bush's records are suspect at best, whereas Kerry's are rock-solid, and the ones who happen to be "scrutinizing" them at the moment are making things up.


It is crap at least we can agree there and the rest is your opinion that is well stated

Fair enough.


How is he lying about it? Kerry could be lying about his too but yet when people start calling Kerry's into question, they are calling foul but not the other way around. Why?
See above. As for whether he is lying about his record, I suppose that's a stretch. But look: the man supported the war in Viet Nam and conscription but dodged the draft in favor of shirking his duties in the Texas Air National Guard, or so all the evidence indicates. And it's not as though he can lean on the defense that his mind would be of better use to his country than his body. :)

1) We're arguing BIGGEST TRAITORS. Someone who fails to govern effectively is not a traitor, let alone one of the biggest.

2) Clinton did NOT disregard national security. He was our strongest president on national security and foreign policy, I'd say, since Richard Nixon.

3) Opposing military redundancy is not necessarily anti-military. Could it be Carter felt that the military was too big? Not that he was necessarily right, though I happen to agree that it is.

4) Truman did not "embrace" communists in the government. He invented the phrase "godless Communism". Perhaps he just loved freedom and felt that people's politicoeconomic views should not be grounds for persecution.

Nixon, strong on security and foreign policy? You're kidding, right? What about SALT I, the Paris 'Peace' Talks, aid and trade to the Soviet Union, etc.? And yes, Truman did embrace communists in the government. Contrary to what liberals say, Truman's anticommunism was phonier than a three-dollar bill.

oh for god's sake...bush and kerry aren't traitors...

This poll is pathetic...

oh for god's sake...bush and kerry aren't traitors...

This poll is pathetic...

Yes, they are traitors. Read some of the posts and see for yourself.

Short answer: Because they're hypocrites.
Long answer: Although they are hypocrites, their position is perfectly defensible. Bush's records are suspect at best, whereas Kerry's are rock-solid, and the ones who happen to be "scrutinizing" them at the moment are making things up.

And Kerry's isn't lying about his? Come on Frishland, your being hypocritical yourself and you never truely answered my question. Why is Kerry's record not questioned, though it is now, and why is Bush is?

Reason? Kerry is a democrat! That is why.

See above. As for whether he is lying about his record, I suppose that's a stretch. But look: the man supported the war in Viet Nam and conscription but dodged the draft in favor of shirking his duties in the Texas Air National Guard, or so all the evidence indicates. And it's not as though he can lean on the defense that his mind would be of better use to his country than his body. :)

He did join the National Guard! How is that dodging the draft? I have an uncle that joined the AFA but got drafted but said he was in the AFA and it was taken back! Was that dodging? Kerry volunteered to go over there, spent 4 months, came back, and then denounced the war and called everyone over there Babykillers and rapists and war criminals and ADMITTED he COMMITED WAR CRIMES! Why isn't the press reporting that?

I would think that Ronald Reagan was the strongest on National Security matters. For those of us who grew up in the 1980's can remember all the TWA planes that kept getting hijacked and so on. It seemed like every week there was one although it wasn't. He is the one who built up the Military. CLINTON DESTROYED THE US MILITARY! Base closings all over the country. And you cannot deny these facts. In Michigan he shut down Oscoda Air Force base. Which for those of you who don't know. Was a B-52 base basically.

Yes, they are traitors. Read some of the posts and see for yourself.

I read the posts, "roach-busters"...just because they're there doesn't mean they make sense. Once the lot of you gain some intelligence, then you can comment on who the worst traitor is.

bump

I read the posts, "roach-busters"...just because they're there doesn't mean they make sense. Once the lot of you gain some intelligence, then you can comment on who the worst traitor is.

Once you gain some manners, then you can comment on how much/little sense we make.

I would think that Ronald Reagan was the strongest on National Security matters. For those of us who grew up in the 1980's can remember all the TWA planes that kept getting hijacked and so on. It seemed like every week there was one although it wasn't. He is the one who built up the Military. CLINTON DESTROYED THE US MILITARY! Base closings all over the country. And you cannot deny these facts. In Michigan he shut down Oscoda Air Force base. Which for those of you who don't know. Was a B-52 base basically.


Ok if the Soviets are gone, why would you need every base?

Clinton digitised the military. That is a bad thing?

No, by 'ultra-leftist' I mean what I say. And, yes, he did indeed appoint many anti-Americans to the federal government, as almost every 20th century President has done.
How was giving up China was 'the right thing to do.' Betraying a loyal ally is bad enough; but betraying it to a bunch of totalitarian, genocidal tyrants is far worse.
As for Carter, yes, giving up the Panama Canal WAS treason. And betraying our allies was treason, because it increases the list of enemies of our nation.
Kosovo was betrayal because Clinton made U.S. soldiers serve under a UN commander. Their job is not to impose the New World Order, stop genocide, break up scuffles and make the world behave. Their job is to defend America, nothing else. And Clinton was not 'moderate.' He was militantly anti-gun, radically internationalistic, pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-communist, and wanted socialized medicine in the U.S. That hardly qualifies him as 'moderate.'

I never said Clinton was "moderate"; I said he appointed moderates, and I stick by that. But he was not pro-communist, nor was he radically internationalistic. He was as internationalistic as Colin Powell and George Bush (I). Moreover, he governed to the right of Richard Nixon (though that's not really saying a whole lot, I suppose).

If you want to get into betraying our allies being treason, just about every 20th-century president has done it.

And please provide examples of ultra-leftist, anti-American appointees, if you really don't mean "moderate". I suspect, however, that you do mean what I would call "moderate". But that's a relative term; I base my judgments on position relative to current American political trends, though these are tough to gauge, as they are so jumbled with meaningless rhetoric.

I say letting Mao (not the Soviet Union) take China was the right thing to do because it was incremental progress beyond imperial China. I also would rather live under Lenin than under the Romanovs.

And finally, I would reiterate that we are arguing who is the BIGGEST traitor, so alleged indirect treason through policy failure is pretty low on the list.

Regarding Kosovo, your statement about what their job is is incorrect. The job of the military is to obey the commander-in-chief. And I would argue that defending America is not the only job of the commander-in-chief, but if you'd like to take that premise and argue political theory, then participation in the United Nations is defensible as part of defending America through global alliances.

Ok if the Soviets are gone, why would you need every base?

Clinton digitised the military. That is a bad thing?

It is not just the base closings.. It was the slashing of funds. Now when we are in a wartime position again we are scrambling to catch up. So yes it is a bad thing what Clinton did.

I never said Clinton was "moderate"; I said he appointed moderates, and I stick by that. But he was not pro-communist, nor was he radically internationalistic. He was as internationalistic as Colin Powell and George Bush (I). Moreover, he governed to the right of Richard Nixon (though that's not really saying a whole lot, I suppose).

If you want to get into betraying our allies being treason, just about every 20th-century president has done it.

And please provide examples of ultra-leftist, anti-American appointees, if you really don't mean "moderate". I suspect, however, that you do mean what I would call "moderate". But that's a relative term; I base my judgments on position relative to current American political trends, though these are tough to gauge, as they are so jumbled with meaningless rhetoric.

I say letting Mao (not the Soviet Union) take China was the right thing to do because it was incremental progress beyond imperial China. I also would rather live under Lenin than under the Romanovs.

And finally, I would reiterate that we are arguing who is the BIGGEST traitor, so alleged indirect treason through policy failure is pretty low on the list.

Regarding Kosovo, your statement about what their job is is incorrect. The job of the military is to obey the commander-in-chief. And I would argue that defending America is not the only job of the commander-in-chief, but if you'd like to take that premise and argue political theory, then participation in the United Nations is defensible as part of defending America through global alliances.

You make some very excellent points, all without flaming. For that, you have my thanks and my respect. Clinton was pro-communist, though. His relationship with China verifies that. He appointed many radicals to the government: Warren Christopher, Anthony Lake, Mort Halperin, etc. Kosovo, his adamant support of NAFTA, the WTO, the UN, and NATO, and his CFR and TC memberships are ample proof of his radical internationalism. Some of Clinton's treason was indeed direct (Chinagate).
Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts, which were intelligently put and courteous.

Section. 3.

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. .

And Kerry's isn't lying about his? Come on Frishland, your being hypocritical yourself and you never truely answered my question. Why is Kerry's record not questioned, though it is now, and why is Bush is?

Reason? Kerry is a democrat! That is why.

Kerry's record is questioned now. Bush's wasn't questioned until 2000, when he ran for president, and Kerry's wasn't questioned until 2004, when he ran for president. Seems fair to me.

And if you're talking about the mainstream media not questioning Kerry's record, that's because it hasn't made a big enough story, not because he's a Democrat. (While I reject the accusations of liberal media and conservative media as overly simplistic, there is a strong tendency in many major news networks to favor the Republican Party, as well as a failure by investigative journalists to look into outrageous lies by Republicans.




He did join the National Guard! How is that dodging the draft? I have an uncle that joined the AFA but got drafted but said he was in the AFA and it was taken back! Was that dodging? Kerry volunteered to go over there, spent 4 months, came back, and then denounced the war and called everyone over there Babykillers and rapists and war criminals and ADMITTED he COMMITED WAR CRIMES! Why isn't the press reporting that?
George Herbert-Walker Bush got a deferment for his son to the Air National Guard, and his son failed miserably to attend. I call that dodging the draft.

Kerry saw the hell of the war firsthand, and presumably learned more about it, and decided he was against it. And that has been reported in the press, as has mention of attack ads against Kerry. Investigative journalism is selective by its nature, and if we want to get into what needs to be investigated, it's not wild goose chases about Kerry's military record; it's lie after lie after lie by the vast right-wing conspiracy.

You can say that again about people being nice in this topic Roach Busters. I think you have set a record :)

IF we followed that Goober, Lynn would be charged with treason because what he did was actually treason

It is not just the base closings.. It was the slashing of funds. Now when we are in a wartime position again we are scrambling to catch up. So yes it is a bad thing what Clinton did.
What slashing of funds? He put much more into the military in any meaningful sense than, mm, say, Reagan. Yes, he defunded the Missile Defense System, but I can't see how that was a bad thing. And our military budget is too bloated anyway; we need to overhaul how the money is spent, more than how much is spent. So much goes to waste on needless development of weapon after weapon far beyond our defense needs.

I read the posts, "roach-busters"...just because they're there doesn't mean they make sense. Once the lot of you gain some intelligence, then you can comment on who the worst traitor is.
Amen!

Kerry's record is questioned now. Bush's wasn't questioned until 2000, when he ran for president, and Kerry's wasn't questioned until 2004, when he ran for president. Seems fair to me.

If they questioned it in 2000, why are they still questioning it now when he never ran on his military service? Kerry is running on it and thus its getting scrutinize and they are calling foul. Your right, it is fair that both have theirs questioned but alas, the Dems questioned Bush's first and now when people questioned Kerry's they are labeled as evil people out to vilify a war hero.

And if you're talking about the mainstream media not questioning Kerry's record, that's because it hasn't made a big enough story, not because he's a Democrat. (While I reject the accusations of liberal media and conservative media as overly simplistic, there is a strong tendency in many major news networks to favor the Republican Party, as well as a failure by investigative journalists to look into outrageous lies by Republicans.

It is a big story actually. It has blown into one. It is making the media runs now. You cannot deny that what is going on is not a big story. Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long for this to happen.

George Herbert-Walker Bush got a deferment for his son to the Air National Guard, and his son failed miserably to attend. I call that dodging the draft.

I hope you have proof to back this up. As far as I'm concerned, if you serve in the national Guard, you served your country.

Kerry saw the hell of the war firsthand, and presumably learned more about it, and decided he was against it. And that has been reported in the press, as has mention of attack ads against Kerry. Investigative journalism is selective by its nature, and if we want to get into what needs to be investigated, it's not wild goose chases about Kerry's military record; it's lie after lie after lie by the vast right-wing conspiracy.

How is what these people that SERVED WITH KERRY, a lie? We won't know till Kerry's campaign responds. So Far, the DNC Lawayers have sent a letter threatening Television stations that they will be subject to libel if they ran the ad. That is a scare tactic to me and that isn't right. The veterans that served with Kerry have their right to speak out. They served in the same division and along side him. Doesn't that tell us that they know more than what Kerry is telling us? We need to hear all sides as well as the records.

What slashing of funds? He put much more into the military in any meaningful sense than, mm, say, Reagan. Yes, he defunded the Missile Defense System, but I can't see how that was a bad thing. And our military budget is too bloated anyway; we need to overhaul how the money is spent, more than how much is spent. So much goes to waste on needless development of weapon after weapon far beyond our defense needs.

He cut the military Budget. The Missile Defense System is to protect us from a NUCLEAR ATTACK! Bases closed thus people lost jobs. No Pay raises under CLinton. Placed our forces under UN Command (which is a grave breach of protocal and one the Military really hated)!

Reagan increased the Military. Gave us pay raises and did more for the military in 8 years than Clinton did in 8 years. i think you have revisionist history.

What slashing of funds? He put much more into the military in any meaningful sense than, mm, say, Reagan. Yes, he defunded the Missile Defense System, but I can't see how that was a bad thing. And our military budget is too bloated anyway; we need to overhaul how the money is spent, more than how much is spent. So much goes to waste on needless development of weapon after weapon far beyond our defense needs.


Let me see. Closing bases is slashing of funds. Lowering the amount of men and women in the armed forces is a slashing of funds. He cut back on much needed equipment for the troops. THINK BODY ARMOR. Now democrats like John Kerry blame Bush for not having enough to go around. After 8 full years of cutting defense spending you cannot just rebuild a military overnight. As for needless spending? That would fall under paying some man or woman $50,000 a year to test the flow rate of ketchup. Yes folks there is such a job. Wouldn't you like to have it?

OH LET US NOT FORGET THAT CLINTON CUT THE CIA BUDGET! TO CONENTRATE ON ELECTRONIC SURVELANCE.. spelling on that.

You can say that again about people being nice in this topic Roach Busters. I think you have set a record :)

Are you being sarcastic, or are you serious? (Sorry, but since people can't see each others' expressions or hear their voices, it's harder to tell than it would be were they to talk to each other in person)

I would have to say John Kerry. He marched in Moscow for Communism. He is honored in the Veitnamese war museums for aiding in the defeat of America. He was also on the FBI's Communist watch list.

He spent a whopping 4 months in Vietnam. He was injured 3 times, 2 of which were self inflicting wounds. But he got purple hearts for all 3 times. I hate to see what they give to a real soldier. He did kill a certain Vietnamese soldier though...But who cares...The soldier was wounded and retreating and Kerry shot him in the back, thats all. No big kill. Then he came home and went anti-war. Thats not what a true soldier does. I know that it is hard on them to fight wars, and I respect them all for protecting my freedoms, but I loose all respect for them if they come home and protest the war they just fought in.

The man is full of flip-flops. He votes for the war in Iraq, but he then YET AGAIN goes anti war and goes against the war, and votes against the 87 billion dollars that would be used to aid our troops in Iraq AND Afghanistan.

That is why I feel that Kerry is a traitor.

EDIT: BTW, where is John Walker Lynn...At least, I think that was his name. He was the American in the Taliban. Hm...I still think Kerry is worse....


Em... what is your source material for these allegations?

As for the "flip-flops"... virtually EVERY Congressman or Senator has voted on a bill and that bill is returned for revision. When the revised bill hits the floor, then it may get an opposing vote to the original since it may contain language that counters its original intent.

And Max Cleland is anti-war. Do you think losing an arm and both legs might give you a similar impression?

Are you being sarcastic, or are you serious? (Sorry, but since people can't see each others' expressions or hear their voices, it's harder to tell than it would be were they to talk to each other in person)


I was being 100% serious. There I had to edit this because it didn't make sense lol. Never chat, type and talk on the phone.

If they questioned it in 2000, why are they still questioning it now when he never ran on his military service? Kerry is running on it and thus its getting scrutinize and they are calling foul. Your right, it is fair that both have theirs questioned but alas, the Dems questioned Bush's first and now when people questioned Kerry's they are labeled as evil people out to vilify a war hero.

Again, I never said the Democrats weren't hypocritical. I argue, however, a vast gulf in the extent to which the two parties are willing to engage in nasty tactics that are detrimental to public debate. Bush did run on his military service in 2000, though not to the sickening extent Kerry is doing now.


It is a big story actually. It has blown into one. It is making the media runs now. You cannot deny that what is going on is not a big story. Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long for this to happen.



I hope you have proof to back this up. As far as I'm concerned, if you serve in the national Guard, you served your country.



How is what these people that SERVED WITH KERRY, a lie? We won't know till Kerry's campaign responds. So Far, the DNC Lawayers have sent a letter threatening Television stations that they will be subject to libel if they ran the ad. That is a scare tactic to me and that isn't right. The veterans that served with Kerry have their right to speak out. They served in the same division and along side him. Doesn't that tell us that they know more than what Kerry is telling us? We need to hear all sides as well as the records.
These people did not serve with Kerry any more than John McCain did. They were in Vietnam, but not in the sense those in his gunboat did. In any case, all the evidence supports the claim that they are indeed making things up. And while Kerry's military service is well-documented, Bush's is not, as the White House has mysteriously destroyed records thereof (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3880141.stm). But when it was well-documented, the overwhelming evidence showed that Mr. Bush rarely showed up for duty, as verified by his commanding officer. And while I do not have sources on hand for this or for his getting a deferment, there are certain things that were reasonably enough well known that one can be expected to find the sources oneself. These things have been mentioned in the press.

And I still don't see a problem with media coverage of Kerry's military service. The criticisms that have been made are being addressed.

when you ask thing like your poll does you can only expect a relult against bush. the people who do nationstates are mostly around 14-20. while i am 15 i think that my couligues are idiots. they think the world is all fun and games. this is called nieve and those are the people who hate bush.

He cut the military Budget. The Missile Defense System is to protect us from a NUCLEAR ATTACK! Bases closed thus people lost jobs. No Pay raises under CLinton. Placed our forces under UN Command (which is a grave breach of protocal and one the Military really hated)!

Reagan increased the Military. Gave us pay raises and did more for the military in 8 years than Clinton did in 8 years. i think you have revisionist history.
The Missile Defense System is not well enough researched to warrant the outrageous amount of funding it receives. Clinton funded some things and defunded others. The ones Reagan funded happened to be ridiculously antiquated, and the ones Clinton funded were not. But then neither of us has provided evidence to back up these claims, so we could go on for hours like this. And how about Bush I giving the shaft to Gulf War I veterans, or Bush II giving the shaft to Gulf War II veterans? If you want to blame someone, how about the guy who's in office now?

I for one am really sick of all the negative ads from all sides. There is one while cute is just plain wrong. It has John Kerry as a weather vane flip flopping all over the place. Funny yes. Wrong yes.

He cut the military Budget. The Missile Defense System is to protect us from a NUCLEAR ATTACK! Bases closed thus people lost jobs. No Pay raises under CLinton. Placed our forces under UN Command (which is a grave breach of protocal and one the Military really hated)!

Reagan increased the Military. Gave us pay raises and did more for the military in 8 years than Clinton did in 8 years. i think you have revisionist history.

A nuclear attack by..... who? You realize how arms races are triggered, one side sees a weakness and scrambles to make up for it, and the two sides continue to catch up on each other until either they come to their senses, or a war is born. Germany built it's Hochesfleete to "protect" it's overseas Empire (Strange since it was based in Whilmshaven and Kiel), but that is obviously not how Britain saw it (and probably saw it right), had Germany never embarked on that race it was destined to lose, she might have only had to fight the French in WWI, and though they would have put up a brave fight, the French would succumb before 1916.

Now you have a shield that could make one nation and it's allies completely safe from nuclear attack, the only retaliation for a nuclear attack, what, do you think the other powers are just going to sit by and trust the Americans.

How is what these people that SERVED WITH KERRY, a lie? We won't know till Kerry's campaign responds. So Far, the DNC Lawayers have sent a letter threatening Television stations that they will be subject to libel if they ran the ad. That is a scare tactic to me and that isn't right. The veterans that served with Kerry have their right to speak out. They served in the same division and along side him. Doesn't that tell us that they know more than what Kerry is telling us? We need to hear all sides as well as the records.

They did not serve in the same division (as far as I know, the Navy does not have Divisions like the Army), and they did not serve along side him. Most of them never even saw him, and those that did were on other swift boats. Look at what the people who were on his ship say about him, it's drastically different then what the other veterans who never knew him or served under him say. Or review his commanding officers recommendation that he be awarded a metal, it certainly doesn't sound like he was talking about a horrible officer.

Again, I never said the Democrats weren't hypocritical. I argue, however, a vast gulf in the extent to which the two parties are willing to engage in nasty tactics that are detrimental to public debate. Bush did run on his military service in 2000, though not to the sickening extent Kerry is doing now.

Not as bad though! He made it a non-issue and never used it in the for front!

These people did not serve with Kerry any more than John McCain did.

These people sure as hell served WITH KERRY! For God's sake Frishland, they served in the same squadron/Division as Kerry and went on missions with him. That is serving with him. You need to understand that.

They were in Vietnam, but not in the sense those in his gunboat did.

Yea they were. AS STATED and something that I guess your not hearing because its been stated, they served in the same Division, Coastal Division 11. They went on missions with Kerry. How is that NOT SERVING with him?

In any case, all the evidence supports the claim that they are indeed making things up. And while Kerry's military service is well-documented, Bush's is not, as the White House has mysteriously destroyed records thereof (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3880141.stm). But when it was well-documented, the overwhelming evidence showed that Mr. Bush rarely showed up for duty, as verified by his commanding officer. And while I do not have sources on hand for this or for his getting a deferment, there are certain things that were reasonably enough well known that one can be expected to find the sources oneself. These things have been mentioned in the press.

I don't believe that for a second. How would we know unless Kerry asks the Pentagon to release his records. That would settle this arguement once and for all but I do not see that happening. If he has nothing to hide and is proud of his service and wants to shut these people up, He should ask the Pentagon to release those records. If he doesn't, people will cry cover-up.

I'm not saying that these people are telling the truth, nor am I saying they are lying. I don't trust BBC and I don't trust any network. I do my own investigation when I hear a comment and frankly, I'm hearing the exact opposite that Kerry is saying. Anyone that has seen combat, DOESN"T TALK ABOUT IT! My dad hasn't said one word about his action in the 1st Gulf War and I bet the same with this war.

They did not serve in the same division (as far as I know, the Navy does not have Divisions like the Army), and they did not serve along side him. Most of them never even saw him, and those that did were on other swift boats. Look at what the people who were on his ship say about him, it's drastically different then what the other veterans who never knew him or served under him say. Or review his commanding officers recommendation that he be awarded a metal, it certainly doesn't sound like he was talking about a horrible officer.

ACtually they did! It was either Coastal Division 11 or Coastal Squadron 11! Either way, they served in the same squadron or division! I don't know what source your quoting but everything I'm seeing and hearing is that they did! Easy way to check is for the records to be released but I don't see that happening.

I was being 100% serious. There I had to edit this because it didn't make sense lol. Never chat, type and talk on the phone.

Thanks! :)

ACtually they did! It was either Coastal Division 11 or Coastal Squadron 11! Either way, they served in the same squadron or division! I don't know what source your quoting but everything I'm seeing and hearing is that they did! Easy way to check is for the records to be released but I don't see that happening.

Divisions can contain up to 15,000 men, hell, I could serve in the same division with Charlie Manson and not even know about it. Squadrons and Division are miles apart, and they served in CTF-116, which was Kerry's unit, but they did not serve under him, and barely even with him, most had never even met him. The closest one came to serving with him was in a swift boat 50 yards from Kerry's.

Nobody ever thinks of this guy as a traitor, but I don't know how else you can describe someone who actually waged a war against the United States:

Jefferson Davis.

I realize a lot of people consider him an American hero, and I'm not looking to start an argument here. But as far as traitors are concerned, nothing much beats fighting a war against the USA, does it?

And you don't need his records to prove this, military records and reports available for viewing can be used to prove this. The military will tell you what unit he served in, and his command.

Once you gain some manners, then you can comment on how much/little sense we make.

Manners? I fail to see how saying please and thank you would help in your case. Bush and Kerry are not traitors. Nothing they have done has ever associated them with traitors. On that note Clinton was not a traitor either. Changing the US is not the same as being a traitor to the US.

Nobody ever thinks of this guy as a traitor, but I don't know how else you can describe someone who actually waged a war against the United States:

Jefferson Davis.

I realize a lot of people consider him an American hero, and I'm not looking to start an argument here. But as far as traitors are concerned, nothing much beats fighting a war against the USA, does it?


I wouldn't think of him as a traitor because the south did leave the union in the manner they thought was legal. They had some valid points. They just shouldn't have fired first :)

To all you geezers out there who complain about Hanoi Jane and all that shit:

Dude, that was thirty years ago. Nobody knows or cares what the hell you're talking about. Besides, why do you even care? Your whole generation is dying everyday from heart attacks and lung disease and in 20 years, you'll almost be certainly in a catatonic state of delierium. Why not sit this one out? In twenty years, Ill be in 'fall of my lifetime' but in the meantime, so what happens to this election will determine how the next century will turn out. Do you see what Im talking about? This is our time, not yours. You had Vietnam, suck on it, its over! But this bullshit war has just begun, and we are smarter, and we dont FUCKIN WANT IT!

So, why dosent the "The Angriest Generation" go and fuck off?!

Divisions can contain up to 15,000 men, hell, I could serve in the same division with Charlie Manson and not even know about it. Squadrons and Division are miles apart, and they served in CTF-116, which was Kerry's unit, but they did not serve under him, and barely even with him, most had never even met him. The closest one came to serving with him was in a swift boat 50 yards from Kerry's.

oh my god! you are definitely a liberal and don't like anyone that calls your man a lier, though he has lied on numerous occassions.

These men DID SERVE with Kerry in the same squadron (or a Naval division which is vastly different than an army division but if you don't know about the military you wouldn't know that) and worked alongside kerry including the Medical Officer who was the only one in the area. He treated Kerry for a wound that resulted in a purple heart.

Didn't serve with him? give me a break! Besides this really has no issue on this thread so I'm going back to the issue at hand.

I still think that Benedict Arnold is the worst traitor of all.

'm not saying that these people are telling the truth, nor am I saying they are lying. I don't trust BBC and I don't trust any network. I do my own investigation when I hear a comment and frankly, I'm hearing the exact opposite that Kerry is saying. Anyone that has seen combat, DOESN"T TALK ABOUT IT! My dad hasn't said one word about his action in the 1st Gulf War and I bet the same with this war.

What!? Do you think the movie Hell and Back was made up of fiction, of course not, Audie Murphy didn't just talk about it, he made a book and movie about it. People who were in combat talk about it a lot, it is usually the defining moment of their lives. Some people never talk about it, and some others are incapable of talking about it becuase of what it did to them. My father was a medic in the Korean War and I've heard almost every war story he has.

What!? Do you think the movie Hell and Back was made up of fiction, of course not, Audie Murphy didn't just talk about it, he made a book and movie about it. People who were in combat talk about it a lot, it is usually the defining moment of their lives. Some people never talk about it, and some others are incapable of talking about it becuase of what it did to them. My father was a medic in the Korean War and I've heard almost every war story he has.


That is right most do talk about it. My brother served in Afghanistan and is in Iraq right now. He was on a 15 day leave 2 weeks ago and all he kept talking about was what was going on. The only person I never heard a war story from was my friends dad. He was a doser operator in Vietnam. If you asked him he would just get up and walk away.

oh my god! you are definitely a liberal and don't like anyone that calls your man a lier, though he has lied on numerous occassions.

These men DID SERVE with Kerry in the same squadron (or a Naval division which is vastly different than an army division but if you don't know about the military you wouldn't know that)

I don't know how the military works, what part of this aren't you getting. Let's say I'm all well and dandy, living in my little town, I get in a car crash which was not my fault, say the other guy came into my lane. This is like if someone two towns over who was in their town during this said "He was swerving all over the place, the other guy had to swerve into his lane to avoid him"

and worked alongside kerry including the Medical Officer who was the only one in the area. He treated Kerry for a wound that resulted in a purple heart.

This is the most glaring problem, the medical officer who is quoted is NOT the doctor who treated Kerry for his first purple heart wound. Military records show that he did not treat him, the doctor was in the same base as the doctor who treated him and worked alongside him, but he did not treat Kerry.

Didn't serve with him? give me a break! Besides this really has no issue on this thread so I'm going back to the issue at hand.

Yes, didn't serve with him. They served in the same Coastal Division as him, but they did not serve on his boat, the ones who did sound nothing like what these people spout.

What!? Do you think the movie Hell and Back was made up of fiction, of course not, Audie Murphy didn't just talk about it, he made a book and movie about it. People who were in combat talk about it a lot, it is usually the defining moment of their lives. Some people never talk about it, and some others are incapable of talking about it becuase of what it did to them. My father was a medic in the Korean War and I've heard almost every war story he has.

Did he do it out of the kindest of his heart? Did he reluctently do it?

If they talk about it alot then why is there so few based on actual events war films? If they talked about it, then we would see more war movies than are actually out there.

Some People do talk about it but there is a difference in talking and making a profit. Kerry is trying to profit off of his Vietnam Record. Now its called into question and needs to be looked at. If Kerry hadn't made Vietnam is running theme, none of this would be happening. If weren't in a war, I don't think this would be happening. Problem is Kerry IS USING his Vietnam Record to get elected because his Senate Record isn't worthy of mentioning.

Now his record is getting a closer look. If you don't want something to get exposed, don't run on something that would get it exposed. That is a simple fact of life.

I don't know how the military works, what part of this aren't you getting. Let's say I'm all well and dandy, living in my little town, I get in a car crash which was not my fault, say the other guy came into my lane. This is like if someone two towns over who was in their town during this said "He was swerving all over the place, the other guy had to swerve into his lane to avoid him"

I do know how the military works quite well. Everyone knows whats going on in your unit. Kerry's unit had these guys in it thus they know Kerry and what was going on.

This is the most glaring problem, the medical officer who is quoted is NOT the doctor who treated Kerry for his first purple heart wound. Military records show that he did not treat him, the doctor was in the same base as the doctor who treated him and worked alongside him, but he did not treat Kerry.

Because the person that signed off was a Corpman and a corpman is not a doctor! This guy did see kerry and he was the only doctor around. I'm not surprised that your hearing what the DNC want you to hear.

Yes, didn't serve with him. They served in the same Coastal Division as him, but they did not serve on his boat, the ones who did sound nothing like what these people spout.

Just because they didn't serve on his boat, I think one did and is also speaking out, didn't mean that they served with him. They did serve with him but not on the same boat but they did go out on missions together. I think that they would know what goes on too as well as Kerry.

Now his record is getting a closer look. If you don't want something to get exposed, don't run on something that would get it exposed. That is a simple fact of life.He's happy to get it exposed, I'm happy that it gets exposed, but what neither he, nor I, nor any liberal worth a damn can stomach are the lies.

Did he do it out of the kindest of his heart? Did he reluctently do it?

If they talk about it alot then why is there so few based on actual events war films? If they talked about it, then we would see more war movies than are actually out there.

Becuase most people do not go through enough events to make a good movie, and it's not like they all come back and immediately go to Hollywood to sell their idea. Besides, you can only make so many war movies (and there is a huge amount of them, World War II alone has several based on actual events, A Bridge Too Far, Patton, The Longest Day, The Battle of Britain, Bridge Over The River Kwai, Midway, Toro,Toro,Toro, Eleven Minutes Over Tokyo, Band of Brothers and that is just the well-known ones.

Some People do talk about it but there is a difference in talking and making a profit. Kerry is trying to profit off of his Vietnam Record. Now its called into question and needs to be looked at. If Kerry hadn't made Vietnam is running theme, none of this would be happening. If weren't in a war, I don't think this would be happening. Problem is Kerry IS USING his Vietnam Record to get elected because his Senate Record isn't worthy of mentioning.

So he can't use the fact that he was considered a good officer (aka, a leader) when he is campaigning for the most important leader in the country..... explain please?

Now his record is getting a closer look. If you don't want something to get exposed, don't run on something that would get it exposed. That is a simple fact of life.

Ok, fine, don't believe me, read through this whole article.


http://snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

Manners? I fail to see how saying please and thank you would help in your case. Bush and Kerry are not traitors. Nothing they have done has ever associated them with traitors. On that note Clinton was not a traitor either. Changing the US is not the same as being a traitor to the US.

I was talking about the 'until you gain some intelligence...etc.'

Likewise, the manners thing applies to myself as well. I humbly apologize.

To all you geezers out there who complain about Hanoi Jane and all that shit:

Dude, that was thirty years ago. Nobody knows or cares what the hell you're talking about. Besides, why do you even care? Your whole generation is dying everyday from heart attacks and lung disease and in 20 years, you'll almost be certainly in a catatonic state of delierium. Why not sit this one out? In twenty years, Ill be in 'fall of my lifetime' but in the meantime, so what happens to this election will determine how the next century will turn out. Do you see what Im talking about? This is our time, not yours. You had Vietnam, suck on it, its over! But this bullshit war has just begun, and we are smarter, and we dont FUCKIN WANT IT!

So, why dosent the "The Angriest Generation" go and fuck off?!

In case you couldn't read, my first post said, "NO FLAMING"

i'm not going to argue Kerry's record here! This is not the thread for it! That is a totally seperate thread.

I am not dodging but I will not have this person's thread Highjacked because people on here don't like what is going on.

I for one will return to the subject of this thread.

Thank you.

I do know how the military works quite well. Everyone knows whats going on in your unit. Kerry's unit had these guys in it thus they know Kerry and what was going on.

That largely depends on which unit you are talking about. Sure, you may know your Division is moving out to somewhere, but you don't know what every single man in the division is doing. You don't even start to actually know people until you get to Platoon or Company level. Take the miniseries Band of Brothers, they were part of Easy Company, but how many times do you hear them talking about the rest of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment on a personell level, or the rest of the 101st Airborne, or the various Corps or Armies they were attached to?


Because the person that signed off was a Corpman and a corpman is not a doctor! This guy did see kerry and he was the only doctor around. I'm not surprised that your hearing what the DNC want you to hear.

The man who signed off was a certified doctor, the man who is quoted in the ad is a doctor as well, but he did not treat Kerry, and he was not the only doctor around, it's a blatant lie, you have nothing to back this up. no where have I ever read only one doctor was available at the time Kerry returned.


Just because they didn't serve on his boat, I think one did and is also speaking out, didn't mean that they served with him. They did serve with him but not on the same boat but they did go out on missions together. I think that they would know what goes on too as well as Kerry.

One person that was on his swift boat has spoke out against him, but not that he was a bad leader, just that he may not have been as great as he says he was. The rest of his crew all attest that he was a great officer, and his CO also agreed.

cliton

Do they have to be a convicted traitor or just a traitor to the values of America in hindsight. Cause I'd have to say either McCarthy or Roy Cohn, although they were never technically convicted.

Gods above and below, Berkylvania and I agree on something. :)

Though personally I think Oliver North heads the list in my book

To all the people who call Bush I and II, Nixon, Clinton, and Truman traitors, stop reading Ann Coulter or Michael Moore, both of them are completely partisan lunatics. Mismanaging a country is not treason, even not helping out your allies cannot be considered treason. Otherwise George Washington would be considered a traitor because he said we should have peaceful relations with all but entangling alliances with none. Every single United States President was doing what they thought was best for the people of America and I can't fault them for that, I can disagree with someone's policies but I will not call them a traitor, because like it or not the United States is in bed with a lot of bad countries, both Communist and Anti-Communist, (Iran-Contra affiar anyone?). To call Truman a traitor for not having Doug McArthur start a full scale war against China is ludacrious, because the war would have definately spread and escalated into a conflict in which the Soviet Union. Clinton cut the military because the Soviet Union was no longer in existence, so there was not a monolithic threat to our naiton. Now in hindsight it may have been foolish, at the time it seemed to make sense. Every single president has had foreign policy SNAFU's but to call them traitors for not dealing with them in a way which satisfies your particular idealogy is outright foolish.

By the way in my humble opinion Benadict Arnold would be the biggest traitor, followed by Aaron Burr, who while he was the vice president tried to start a civil war against the US government.

To all the people who call Bush I and II, Nixon, Clinton, and Truman traitors, stop reading Ann Coulter or Michael Moore, both of them are completely partisan lunatics. Mismanaging a country is not treason, even not helping out your allies cannot be considered treason. Otherwise George Washington would be considered a traitor because he said we should have peaceful relations with all but entangling alliances with none. Every single United States President was doing what they thought was best for the people of America and I can't fault them for that, I can disagree with someone's policies but I will not call them a traitor, because like it or not the United States is in bed with a lot of bad countries, both Communist and Anti-Communist, (Iran-Contra affiar anyone?). To call Truman a traitor for not having Doug McArthur start a full scale war against China is ludacrious, because the war would have definately spread and escalated into a conflict in which the Soviet Union. Clinton cut the military because the Soviet Union was no longer in existence, so there was not a monolithic threat to our naiton. Now in hindsight it may have been foolish, at the time it seemed to make sense. Every single president has had foreign policy SNAFU's but to call them traitors for not dealing with them in a way which satisfies your particular idealogy is outright foolish.

By the way in my humble opinion Benadict Arnold would be the biggest traitor, followed by Aaron Burr, who while he was the vice president tried to start a civil war against the US government.
very well put

BUMP :) and I'm out of here.

Thanks KD4, I like discussing history compared to trading insults with someone who belongs to a different political party than mine. :cool:

Any politician that didn't make a sincere attempt in following up in the promises they said they would fulfil in their run for the office.YEAH!!

To all the people who call Bush I and II, Nixon, Clinton, and Truman traitors, stop reading Ann Coulter or Michael Moore, both of them are completely partisan lunatics. Mismanaging a country is not treason, even not helping out your allies cannot be considered treason. Otherwise George Washington would be considered a traitor because he said we should have peaceful relations with all but entangling alliances with none. Every single United States President was doing what they thought was best for the people of America and I can't fault them for that, I can disagree with someone's policies but I will not call them a traitor, because like it or not the United States is in bed with a lot of bad countries, both Communist and Anti-Communist, (Iran-Contra affiar anyone?). To call Truman a traitor for not having Doug McArthur start a full scale war against China is ludacrious, because the war would have definately spread and escalated into a conflict in which the Soviet Union. Clinton cut the military because the Soviet Union was no longer in existence, so there was not a monolithic threat to our naiton. Now in hindsight it may have been foolish, at the time it seemed to make sense. Every single president has had foreign policy SNAFU's but to call them traitors for not dealing with them in a way which satisfies your particular idealogy is outright foolish.

By the way in my humble opinion Benadict Arnold would be the biggest traitor, followed by Aaron Burr, who while he was the vice president tried to start a civil war against the US government.

For clarity, Clinton downsized the military and at the same time increased deployments on such a massive scale that our soldiers were fighting with one hand tied behind their back and a blindfold on one eye. Dereliction of Duty.

Really they all are or many of them anyway. I choose other.