NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear all this talk about kerrys senate record. what did bush have behind him when he first ran for president? failing buisnesses, texas governer, and a very influencial father.

now for kerry: mediocre senate performance. average military record. fresh blood for the white house.

and for bush while he was in office: divided the country. 2 wars. backing out of treaties that took decades to get together. minor dip in the economy. largest increase of government spending ever. most secrative administration ever (based on bills he has passed trying to keep actions secret) and in many cases denying freedom of information act from doing its duty. trying to destroy national parks and reserved land. however there is one good thing he has brought to the white house. and that is his twin daughters the pretty hot one and the lesser hot one but has bigger boobs.

hmm well both canidates are weak. I dont like to be placed in categories but I stand in the ABB category. anybody but bush.

I hear all this talk about kerrys senate record. what did bush have behind him when he first ran for president? failing buisnesses, texas governer, and a very influencial father.

You forgot alcoholic and drug addict.

ok i just gotta say i don't like either, Kerry nor Bush but I can assure you that me not liking the choices this election isn't because of millitary records. Its that both are incredible idiots, and the sad thing is that the guy who i'd vote for every election is never running. So lets let the subject go lets just presume that all kerry supporters think bush is an idiot and accomplished only hurting our country and bush supporters think kerry will do nothing i think it's stupid that an election nowadays is more for voting against somebody than for somebody i'd like to see an add that was positive and wasn't about a purple heart. :headbang:

However, here is how to analyize a fitrep!

http://www.sportsmenforkerryedwards.com/fitrep_analysis.htm

Even comes with analysis!

However, I know steph and zep won't bother but, if they are as educated as they seem to be, they will.

Corneliu. I was never arguing with you as to whether he was the best swift-boat commander in the navy. I was arguing the points you asserted which were completely false.

Let us revisit again:

Points:
1) You claim to know how to interpret Fitreps better than other people here.
2) You claimed that the Fitreps released did not release his ones from combat. They Did.
3) You claimed that the fitreps were a cherry-picked set to make him look good.
4) THEN you claimed that it was a set, but that it it made him look bad.
5) FINALLY you point to an anti-Kerry site to make your point that the fitreps that you first said were not there, then said make him look good, in fact make him look average.

I hope you note how points 2 thourgh 5 make you look damn silly in asserting point number 1.

So, I DID establish what I set out to at first.

That being demonstrating that you are completely full of shit.

Now, to look at this "analysis" that you dredged up.

First, even an anti-Kerry site points out that three of the fitreps are what the Navy calls "walks on water" fitreps. i.e. Excellent ratings.

Even then this site tries to smear Kerry with wild accusations after one of the ratings:

Another "walk-on-water" Fitrep. However the high rating must be consider in light of possible external influences as noted below:

This Fitrep refers to a letter from a Mr. Kenneth D. Clements, dated Oct 9, 1967. It is most unusual that a civilian should play a role in the assessment of an officer's fitness. In the WWII Navy, such interference would have very likely raised valid, career-limiting questions of political influence on behalf of the subject officer. The Clements letter was not furnished with the file. Attempts to identify Clements were inconclusive: the only information recovered was that there is/was a psychotherapist with that name in Altadena, CA.

The letter raises the question: What was the basis for the letter, and if it was taken into consideration by the rating officer and figured in the rating, why was the letter not attached to the materials released on the web? Finally, were there other communications received from Clements that are also not displayed in the file?


Wow. With no basis it A) assumes this report was "influenced" by somebody - i.e. an assertion that the rating was not really warranted. and b) claims that the only Kenneth D Clements to be found is a psychotherapist - hinting that Kerry is unstable?

That is trying to have it both ways. That he got political influence and/or is unstable. What's the old maxim? Throw enough mud and hope some will stick?

Interestingly enough, the second fitrep by that same commander they again try to paint an image of political influence, but note that his reccommendation slipped a bit. IF the commander was feeling influenced - the marks would not have slipped would they?

Here is a thought. Go to http://find.intelius.com/search-name.php and search for this mythical Kenneth D Clements. You will get a whole page of results. And a lot of people are not neccessarily listed under their full first name. Try Ken and get a ton more hits.


THAT bit of text in their "analysis" my friend, is called a deliberate bit of missinformation.

Things go downhill from there.

Incidentally, isn't trying to paint there possibly being a political element to Kerry's career a hilarious thing to try and get to stick to him when compared to GW getting a plum assignment in the National Guard to avoid active service in combat?

And nowhere does even this blatantly anti-Kerry site state that records show what Hannibal claimed to be contained. You DO remember that quote don't you?

"He was a washout who had a serious issue with following direct orders from his lead swift boat commanders. His CO would not have him on the bridge on his own ship."

Do you see any indication on this web site that goes THAT far? Nope.

You see, unlike you I never tried to paint him as the best naval officer going. I just pointed out that YOU were full of shit when you said that none of his combat Fitreps were in the file. And pointed out that Hannibal's assertion was also false.

You know - you might actually become good debators if you could learn not to bullshit so much. But it always trips you up.

So far, by the site you linked to - even if we accepted their analysis I still stand completely vindicated becaue I was not trying to "prove" KErry to be a war god. I was just defending him against false claims - which both of you made.

You and Hannibal on the other hand come accross as people perpetuating a smear with false statements.

And, to paraphrase your little dig - if you are as educated as YOU claim to be, then you will have to acknowledge that fact as well. At least to yourself.

-Z-

I knew it wouldn't convince you Zep but that is how you interpret the fit rep, exactly how this is totally stated. Pretty much what I stated actually. That he is unfit. It was well written and actually wasn't biased. It was stated matter of factly. I've read on THREE seperate webpages regarding his fit reps and they were all basically the same.

Why was he highly recommended for ONE promotion then subsequently was marked DOWN for others including one that stated and I quote "He was recommend for promotion, but significanly, not for promotion ahead of his peers

Read the analysis of his fitrep from the website posted. It basically went with what I've said just more detailed and better than I ever could.

I knew it wouldn't convince you Zep but that is how you interpret the fit rep, exactly how this is totally stated. Pretty much what I stated actually. That he is unfit. It was well written and actually wasn't biased. It was stated matter of factly. I've read on THREE seperate webpages regarding his fit reps and they were all basically the same.

Why was he highly recommended for ONE promotion then subsequently was marked DOWN for others including one that stated and I quote "He was recommend for promotion, but significanly, not for promotion ahead of his peers

Read the analysis of his fitrep from the website posted. It basically went with what I've said just more detailed and better than I ever could.

Like I said - at worst you can infer from these that he was an average officer. That does not counter the claims of what happened in action to earn him his medals. Indeed his COs specifically complement him for several of his actions which gives MORE credence to his side of the claims.

Perhaps he just became one of many in-country in Vietnam who "went native" a bit in dress style and was under a spit-and-polish co. I can;t answer that and nor can you.

The point being - you are just trying to smear a guy, and your story keeps changing as the thread continues.

So, let us end with the following:

Why did you say that the combat fitreps were not in the pile?
Why did you at first claim that they made him look good but now assert that they make him look bad?
And what do any of these say to back up the swift-vets accounts of his actual actions that earned him his medals?

Because so far, like I said, you are just trying to smear the guy with nothing better than "he wasn't the best officer in the Navy".

You know something - Kerry has never claimed that either.

And, as you yourself commented earlier - THAT ISN'T AN ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO HIS FITNESS TO BE PRESIDENT.

So WHY the hell are you bothering?



-Z-

I knew it wouldn't convince you Zep but that is how you interpret the fit rep, exactly how this is totally stated. Pretty much what I stated actually. That he is unfit. It was well written and actually wasn't biased. It was stated matter of factly. I've read on THREE seperate webpages regarding his fit reps and they were all basically the same.

Why was he highly recommended for ONE promotion then subsequently was marked DOWN for others including one that stated and I quote "He was recommend for promotion, but significanly, not for promotion ahead of his peers

Read the analysis of his fitrep from the website posted. It basically went with what I've said just more detailed and better than I ever could.
you have already been shut down by a far more intelligent debater and person, please shut the hell up now

and before you do cite said sites and let's see which doesnt have a political or at least not anti-kerry bias

Chess you can't tell me what to do.

WHat I posted is an analysis of his fitrep.

To understand how to read a fitrep there are crucial things to understand. First, only the highest scores are indicators of good performance. Each mark below the hisghest rating is a ding against the subject. A mark two blocks below the highest is considered a red flag against the subject and begins to be career limiting. And second, what is not said in the narrative section is as important as what is said. For the superlative officer, there should be a comment that says "recommended for accelerated promotion." if a Block 21 says only "Recommended for promotion" this is faint praise. It means that the subject should be considered for promotion with his OCS class peers. It does not mean that the should be immediately considered for promotion. Presence of neither of these lines indicates a problem for the subject as he may not be considered for promotion with his class.

That is how a fit rep is read.

The conclusions are:

1. The documents presented on the web are incomplete collection, omitting many possibly significant aspects of the subject's naval career. They appear to have been rather carefully selected, to present only the subject's best side as well as to confuse researchers, although there seems to have been serious errors in selection (e.g. obvious gaps, references to political influence).

2. The documents show the subject consciously using political influence to further his career, beginning with his first shipboard assignment. Gaps in the record preclude developement of further evidence of politcal influence.

3. The long period elapsing between the subject's first wound and the award of the Purple Heart raises questions of the legitimacy of that award, especially in light of allegations concerning the absence of appropriate medical documentation.

4. These considerations raise important questions concerning the veracity of the subject's war record. That he was in VietNam is beyond doubt and truly laudable. What he did there will remain forever a subject of dispute, about which only his shipmates can comment-as they already have, most emphatically. This survey of the record, as published by the subject's staff, definitely tends to support their rather unequivocal judgments.

To answer your questions. NO, his record is NOT fully disclosed and they should be. If he is running on his Vietnam Record then all of it should be disclosed.

And Yea I did look at johnkerry.com and basically, this is an analysis of his 29 pages of fit reps. The investigation continues into Kerry's Vietnam War Record.

Corneliu, I would quit now before you are made to look even more foolish then Zeppistan has already made you look. At least your sister is on some level able to concede when she's been backed into a corner, it appears you can't. Any one with an IQ over 40 sees that Zeppistan just (for lack of a better word) pwned you! , just get over it and move on. You lost. Deal with it. Trying to redeem the flip flops in your argument just seems sort of sad and pathetic.

Chess you can't tell me what to do.

WHat I posted is an analysis of his fitrep.

To understand how to read a fitrep there are crucial things to understand. First, only the highest scores are indicators of good performance. Each mark below the hisghest rating is a ding against the subject. A mark two blocks below the highest is considered a red flag against the subject and begins to be career limiting. And second, what is not said in the narrative section is as important as what is said. For the superlative officer, there should be a comment that says "recommended for accelerated promotion." if a Block 21 says only "Recommended for promotion" this is faint praise. It means that the subject should be considered for promotion with his OCS class peers. It does not mean that the should be immediately considered for promotion. Presence of neither of these lines indicates a problem for the subject as he may not be considered for promotion with his class.

That is how a fit rep is read.

The conclusions are:

1. The documents presented on the web are incomplete collection, omitting many possibly significant aspects of the subject's naval career. They appear to have been rather carefully selected, to present only the subject's best side as well as to confuse researchers, although there seems to have been serious errors in selection (e.g. obvious gaps, references to political influence).

2. The documents show the subject consciously using political influence to further his career, beginning with his first shipboard assignment. Gaps in the record preclude developement of further evidence of politcal influence.

3. The long period elapsing between the subject's first wound and the award of the Purple Heart raises questions of the legitimacy of that award, especially in light of allegations concerning the absence of appropriate medical documentation.

4. These considerations raise important questions concerning the veracity of the subject's war record. That he was in VietNam is beyond doubt and truly laudable. What he did there will remain forever a subject of dispute, about which only his shipmates can comment-as they already have, most emphatically. This survey of the record, as published by the subject's staff, definitely tends to support their rather unequivocal judgments.

To answer your questions. NO, his record is NOT fully disclosed and they should be. If he is running on his Vietnam Record then all of it should be disclosed.

And Yea I did look at johnkerry.com and basically, this is an analysis of his 29 pages of fit reps. The investigation continues into Kerry's Vietnam War Record.
unlike zep i have not read the fitrep, but i dont need to to realise you are full of shit and spewing ignorant propaganda, all i have to do to do that is read your "conclusions"

you also cleverly evaded my question of the other sites you visited to gain your information

Corneliu, I would quit now before you are made to look even more foolish then Zeppistan has already made you look. At least your sister is on some level able to concede when she's been backed into a corner, it appears you can't. Any one with an IQ over 40 sees that Zeppistan just (for lack of a better word) pwned you! , just get over it and move on. You lost. Deal with it. Trying to redeem the flip flops in your argument just seems sort of sad and pathetic.

No he hasn't Stephistan. He has no clue as to how to read one of these things. That is a valid link on how to interpret it including its interpretations. If my dad was here, he will say the exact same thing. There are gaps in the record that need to be filled and they are not getting filled.

As for owning me, you people can think that all you want. When my dad gets home, I will show him kerry's fit rep and see what he says about it. Only someone that has ANY experience in these can interpret these correctly but how to analysis them is all over the internet.

I do have some knowledge in these because we have a similar form in an organization I belong too called Civil Air Patrol. We have a form that is called a Form 50 (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_082503131807.pdf) I had to fill this out on numerous occassions for positions in the chain of command. A few didn't get the job because of this evaluation. Though this is more straight foward than the one the military fills out, its still an evaluation of a person and evaluates just about the same as the military does. Even I was evaluated using one of these. Got outstanding marks too and was cadet commander till I had to step down due to age.

That doesn't mean that I can interpret them correctly. However, on some of the locations on those FitReps I can interpret correctly just not all of it and I will admit that.

No he hasn't Stephistan.

Sorry, but he most certainly did. He has all you past posts from the last two days to prove it too. Just move on, you can't win them all.

unlike zep i have not read the fitrep, but i dont need to to realise you are full of shit and spewing ignorant propaganda, all i have to do to do that is read your "conclusions"

you also cleverly evaded my question of the other sites you visited to gain your information

Talk about propaganda. This is how you interpret a fitrep Chess Squares. You can't make up an interpretation as you go along. If he was as outstanding as he claims he was then why the hell was he only a lt? which is captain in any other branch. They are a dime a dozen. From what i've read, his commanders didnt think him worthy enough for such positions. ANd he was only made Lt the day before he left the service. If he was outstanding as he claims he was Chess Squares, he would've been much higher in the ranks than he was. I've spent my whole life around the military and I know of several people that were like Kerry, go nowhere. I've had a few cadets that were like Kerry and they went nowhere either. You cannot trust someone with Kerry's attitude to lead because it'll end in disaster. Trust me, I've seen it happen and it was not a pretty sight.

And what about people with Bush's Military record?

Sorry, but he most certainly did. He has all you past posts from the last two days to prove it too. Just move on, you can't win them all.

Steph, in this case, there is no winners or losers, just opinions. My opinion is that Kerry is not fit to be CO of the US Armed Forces. He is mediocre when it comes to leadership. His fitreps even prove as such. He is not fit to lead. If he was Stephistan, he would've been promoted faster and would've had a better command. Instead he got backwater command. Why? Because his attitude and abilities really weren't what Kerry makes them out to be. That is what his fit rep is stating.

Now I must leave because I'm going out to dinner with family.

Talk about propaganda. This is how you interpret a fitrep Chess Squares. You can't make up an interpretation as you go along. If he was as outstanding as he claims he was then why the hell was he only a lt? which is captain in any other branch. They are a dime a dozen. From what i've read, his commanders didnt think him worthy enough for such positions. ANd he was only made Lt the day before he left the service. If he was outstanding as he claims he was Chess Squares, he would've been much higher in the ranks than he was. I've spent my whole life around the military and I know of several people that were like Kerry, go nowhere. I've had a few cadets that were like Kerry and they went nowhere either. You cannot trust someone with Kerry's attitude to lead because it'll end in disaster. Trust me, I've seen it happen and it was not a pretty sight.
and you cant sit there and bullshit about only the best marks mean good and everything below best marks are bad, that is propagandist bullshit meant to slander kerry, he was a Lt JG, same rank as george bush sr, and everyone else sense eisenhower has only ranked him by one or 2 bars

why dont you give me a link to his fitreps and ill shove more of your bullshit down your throat with zep

Steph, in this case, there is no winners or losers, just opinions. My opinion is that Kerry is not fit to be CO of the US Armed Forces. He is mediocre when it comes to leadership. His fitreps even prove as such. He is not fit to lead. If he was Stephistan, he would've been promoted faster and would've had a better command. Instead he got backwater command. Why? Because his attitude and abilities really weren't what Kerry makes them out to be. That is what his fit rep is stating.

Now I must leave because I'm going out to dinner with family.
lmfao, we are NOT making kerry a fucking 5 star general, we are making him president of the united states, an honorary head of the military. and if we want to go on military alone since your so big on it, bush was in the national guard, he barely did that and saw no action, kerry is infinitely more qualified than bush to lead a fighting force.

Steph, in this case, there is no winners or losers, just opinions. My opinion is that Kerry is not fit to be CO of the US Armed Forces. He is mediocre when it comes to leadership. His fitreps even prove as such. He is not fit to lead. If he was Stephistan, he would've been promoted faster and would've had a better command. Instead he got backwater command. Why? Because his attitude and abilities really weren't what Kerry makes them out to be. That is what his fit rep is stating.

Now I must leave because I'm going out to dinner with family.


Actually Corneliu. He requested Swift Boat duty. He could have left the service after his first tour on the Gridley, but he re-upped and asked for service on those boats.

Perhaps becauseit was the closest thing to JFK's PT Boats - I dunno. He WAS young and JFK WAS a hero of his so that seems a likely scenario. He hasn't, to my knowledge, ever said why he selected those.

But to characterize it as an assigned "backwater command" is yet another in your long series of bullshit statements.

Oh yes - and he has never called himsef "outstanding". He HAS however, acknowledged that he served his country when it was required. If the guy that he rescued thinks he is the greatest thing since slice bread and says so - well, can you blame the guy? You might too under similar circumstances.

Thanks for playing. Again.

Can some one remind me what exactly made Bush fit to run the military, given he never served a day in combat in his life?

He shouldn't have. He stole the election, remember?

and you cant sit there and bullshit about only the best marks mean good and everything below best marks are bad, that is propagandist bullshit meant to slander kerry, he was a Lt JG, same rank as george bush sr, and everyone else sense eisenhower has only ranked him by one or 2 bars

why dont you give me a link to his fitreps and ill shove more of your bullshit down your throat with zep

I have viewed his fitrep. All of it! It is mediocre. Average. He also bounced around. Though that isn't unusual, the amount of time he spent in one place before he transferred is unusual. He wasn't around long enough before he bounced to a different location. He spent more time in school than he did anywhere else.

Kerry was Actually made a Lieutenant which is Captain in the other 3 Branches. A Lt. Junior Grade is a 1st Lt, and he only got that the day before he left the service.

Want to shove it down my throat be my guest, but I'm drawing on a COMBINED 41 Years worth of Experience! Sixty, if you want to toss my dad into the mix. I DO have some experience in these matters as well because of my position in CAP. I can read a FITREP and interpret parts of it. Some of it would need to be explained but from the parts that I CAN interpret, he is really an average joe person that wouldn't have gotten above the rank of LT. His marks are proof of that.

lmfao, we are NOT making kerry a fucking 5 star general, we are making him president of the united states, an honorary head of the military. and if we want to go on military alone since your so big on it, bush was in the national guard, he barely did that and saw no action, kerry is infinitely more qualified than bush to lead a fighting force.

Kerry is unfit to lead because of his fitrep. His leadership skills are constantly called into question in his fitreps as indicated by the marks he got. He was constantly downgraded in those areas.

Fit to lead? I don't think so. I've seen people like Kerry around Base and they go nowhere. The cadets that have that attitude, go nowhere and they either quit or they change. They mostly changed and that was also reflected in their evaluations. Kerry will not make a good CIC of the US Armed Forces. That is who we are electing. NOT just someone that can handle the economy, but someone that can lead our military forces. Kerry won't be able to run the military. He is unfit to lead the military.

And what makes Kerry so qualified to head our forces? Because he saw combat? LOL! Sorry, even people that saw combat still get rated in a fitrep. Kerry's have to be the shoddiest I've ever seen. He is not fit to lead the US Military.

Actually Corneliu. He requested Swift Boat duty. He could have left the service after his first tour on the Gridley, but he re-upped and asked for service on those boats.

Perhaps becauseit was the closest thing to JFK's PT Boats - I dunno. He WAS young and JFK WAS a hero of his so that seems a likely scenario. He hasn't, to my knowledge, ever said why he selected those.

But to characterize it as an assigned "backwater command" is yet another in your long series of bullshit statements.

Oh yes - and he has never called himsef "outstanding". He HAS however, acknowledged that he served his country when it was required. If the guy that he rescued thinks he is the greatest thing since slice bread and says so - well, can you blame the guy? You might too under similar circumstances.

Thanks for playing. Again.

Did I say he didn't volunteer for it? No I never said that! What I am saying is that his fitreps state that he isn't fit to lead. That is it in a nutshell. Anyone that has any knowledge, even a little, can tell you what some of those marks on his rep says.

He shouldn't have. He stole the election, remember?

And this line here is getting old. The more its said, the more pissed off people get and that in and of itself could cause Kerry to lose the election.

Kerry is unfit to lead because of his fitrep. His leadership skills are constantly called into question in his fitreps as indicated by the marks he got. He was constantly downgraded in those areas.

Fit to lead? I don't think so. I've seen people like Kerry around Base and they go nowhere. The cadets that have that attitude, go nowhere and they either quit or they change. They mostly changed and that was also reflected in their evaluations. Kerry will not make a good CIC of the US Armed Forces. That is who we are electing. NOT just someone that can handle the economy, but someone that can lead our military forces. Kerry won't be able to run the military. He is unfit to lead the military.

And what makes Kerry so qualified to head our forces? Because he saw combat? LOL! Sorry, even people that saw combat still get rated in a fitrep. Kerry's have to be the shoddiest I've ever seen. He is not fit to lead the US Military.


Ok...

...so what makes Bush more capable?

ok guys heres what i am getting tired of seeing so let me add a new dimension.

1) he was in the navy for 2 years (Feb 1966-Jan 1968). he was promoted 3 times in the officer ranks. a little FYI for you guys there are 10 officers ranks and 4 of them are generals! I dont know if you got promoted faster in the Veitnam era but that is a fairly quick promotion rate.
2) promotions take time to earn. you dont become a major or a colonel over 4 years.
3) even the average joe gets promoted in due time.

Guys right now shouldn't we care more about you know the economy or peace relations. Not who would lead our forces better in war. I mean its a quality that is sorta useless in a president. I mean sure they lead us to war but whats that got to do with whether you've been shot at or not. Or maybe i'm just naive thinking that soldiers not the president get put on the front lines i just don't see the point and anyone who does please tell me and. Anyone who hasnt seen this cartoon


go to www.jibjab.com :confused: :confused:

Kerry is unfit to lead because of his fitrep. His leadership skills are constantly called into question in his fitreps as indicated by the marks he got. He was constantly downgraded in those areas.

Fit to lead? I don't think so. I've seen people like Kerry around Base and they go nowhere. The cadets that have that attitude, go nowhere and they either quit or they change. They mostly changed and that was also reflected in their evaluations. Kerry will not make a good CIC of the US Armed Forces. That is who we are electing. NOT just someone that can handle the economy, but someone that can lead our military forces. Kerry won't be able to run the military. He is unfit to lead the military.

And what makes Kerry so qualified to head our forces? Because he saw combat? LOL! Sorry, even people that saw combat still get rated in a fitrep. Kerry's have to be the shoddiest I've ever seen. He is not fit to lead the US Military.
lets try this again

Bush did not see combat, hell he barely did anything in the national guard, he was campaigning for his friend in alabama, and admitted he wewnt back after that.

Kerry saw action, as you said, kerry mad Lt, equivolent of a cpt.

you are sitting there telling me bush is more qualified to be the commander of all armed forces than kerry is?

and let me reiterate
COMMANDER OF THE MILITARY IS AN HONORARY POSITION AS PRESIDENT, IT HAS NOT BEEN EXCERCISED SINCE ANDREW JACKSON. issuing presidential orders to go attack countries is not excercising your power as commander in chief, and on that matter, some one who saw combat will obviously do it far more intelligently


i dont know what bullshit propaganda is filling your brain that has you believing kerry is less fit to lead this country, hell, lead the military, than george bush is

I really don't give a shit about Kerry's military record. Or Bush's, for that matter. Or anyone else's.

If I gotta hear about relations to the freaking military while I'm deciding whether to vote for someone, how about make it relevant? Like which invasions and military bills the guy voted for?

lets try this again

Bush did not see combat, hell he barely did anything in the national guard, he was campaigning for his friend in alabama, and admitted he wewnt back after that.

And this disqualifies Bush how? Just because he didn't see combat? Boy you really are short sighted.

Kerry saw action, as you said, kerry mad Lt, equivolent of a cpt.

However, he only got that on his last day. He had several fitreps according to what i've read with One Highly recommended for accelerated Promotion. That was to Lt. J.G. After that he had 3 recommended for promotions. He was only pinned on Lt the day before he left. What happened to the other recommendations for promotion? Even for his last promotion, a fitrep wasn't given to the Promotion Board.

you are sitting there telling me bush is more qualified to be the commander of all armed forces than kerry is?

Yes I am because Bush has the leadership attributes that Kerry doesn't have and that is what we need in a Commander. Kerry has low marks in this area.

and let me reiterate
COMMANDER OF THE MILITARY IS AN HONORARY POSITION AS PRESIDENT, IT HAS NOT BEEN EXCERCISED SINCE ANDREW JACKSON. issuing presidential orders to go attack countries is not excercising your power as commander in chief, and on that matter, some one who saw combat will obviously do it far more intelligently

It actually really isn't honorary. The President still has to make the decisions to go in and sometimes, He and he alone, can make a decision to issue the orders to attack. Honorary? You need to study more on this issue. Nixon ordered Linebacker. LBJ limited our bombing runs. Nixon ordered the attack on Libya, Bush ordered Panama, Clinton ordered the bombing of the Asprin Factory, Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox, Clinton sent in the forces to Kosovo, Bush ordered Afghanistan, and Bush ordered Iraq. It is not an honorary role Chess Squares. He gives the orders and people jump to do it unless it is an illegal order.


i dont know what bullshit propaganda is filling your brain that has you believing kerry is less fit to lead this country, hell, lead the military, than george bush is

Actually Chess Squares, my head isn't filled with propaganda. Judging by his fitreps, Kerry has lousy leadership abilities as well as lousy Military bearing. Leadership is everything in a leader. If you have lousy leadership ability, your going to be a lousy leader. I should know, I've seen it time and again.

If I gotta hear about relations to the freaking military while I'm deciding whether to vote for someone, how about make it relevant? Like which invasions and military bills the guy voted for?

In that case, don't vote Kerry. Kerry even said that if you vote for the war don't vote against funding it. What does he do? Voted for the war then voted against funding it.

And this disqualifies Bush how? Just because he didn't see combat? Boy you really are short sighted.



However, he only got that on his last day. He had several fitreps according to what i've read with One Highly recommended for accelerated Promotion. That was to Lt. J.G. After that he had 3 recommended for promotions. He was only pinned on Lt the day before he left. What happened to the other recommendations for promotion? Even for his last promotion, a fitrep wasn't given to the Promotion Board.



Yes I am because Bush has the leadership attributes that Kerry doesn't have and that is what we need in a Commander. Kerry has low marks in this area.



It actually really isn't honorary. The President still has to make the decisions to go in and sometimes, He and he alone, can make a decision to issue the orders to attack. Honorary? You need to study more on this issue. Nixon ordered Linebacker. LBJ limited our bombing runs. Nixon ordered the attack on Libya, Bush ordered Panama, Clinton ordered the bombing of the Asprin Factory, Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox, Clinton sent in the forces to Kosovo, Bush ordered Afghanistan, and Bush ordered Iraq. It is not an honorary role Chess Squares. He gives the orders and people jump to do it unless it is an illegal order.




Actually Chess Squares, my head isn't filled with propaganda. Judging by his fitreps, Kerry has lousy leadership abilities as well as lousy Military bearing. Leadership is everything in a leader. If you have lousy leadership ability, your going to be a lousy leader. I should know, I've seen it time and again.


let me reiterate, it is an honorary position, putting out executive orders to what the military can do is not excercising the right of commander in chief, the position itself has not been excercised since andrew jackson


and your telling me bush is a better leader and better suited to be in command in a combat situation, even though he never saw combat and was only in the air nationla guard, and during alot of that time was helping afriend campaign. and he is a better military leader than kerry who saw action and worked swift boats


if thats right you dont even qualify for swiss cheese logic, hell, you dont qualify for ANY logic

let me reiterate, it is an honorary position, putting out executive orders to what the military can do is not excercising the right of commander in chief, the position itself has not been excercised since andrew jackson

It is Chess Squares. By issueing the orders, which are actually military orders and not executive order, he is telling his generals what to do. It is NOT honorary. IT IS HIS JOB!

and your telling me bush is a better leader and better suited to be in command in a combat situation, even though he never saw combat and was only in the air nationla guard, and during alot of that time was helping afriend campaign. and he is a better military leader than kerry who saw action and worked swift boats

If we are going to use Combat as a litmus test for presidents, Clinton never SERVED A DAY in the military. Bush was in the service and he did his duty. Kerry was in the service and did his duty. Kerry though is only running on Vietnam because he can't run on his senate record. Kerry was constantly marked down in leadership. Why? Obviously his COs thought that his leadership skills wheren't there.

if thats right you dont even qualify for swiss cheese logic, hell, you dont qualify for ANY logic

Actually, your the one that is blinded and filled with Propaganda. My mother(who is an independent and a non-voter) taught me how to look at both sides of an issue and render my own conclusions. I've done investigation into both his FitRep AND his Senate Record. Frankly, I don't like his Senate Record and that is why I'm voting for Bush. NOT because of Vietnam but because of his Senate Record.

I'll be honest with you Chess Squares, I was leading towards Lieberman for President. If it was Lieberman Running, I probably would've voted for him. He stuck by his record whereas Kerry isn't. Lieberman is more down to earth than Kerry is and frankly, I like how Lieberman acts.

I was leading towards Lieberman for President. If it was Lieberman Running, I probably would've voted for him. He stuck by his record whereas Kerry isn't. Lieberman is more down to earth than Kerry is and frankly, I like how Lieberman acts.

I would have voted for Lieberman as well...or McCain, but alas, not enough others agreed. Now I have looked at Kerry and Bush....and Kerry scares me far more than Bush does.

I would have voted for Lieberman as well...or McCain, but alas, not enough others agreed. Now I have looked at Kerry and Bush....and Kerry scares me far more than Bush does.

I know! That is why I'm voting Bush. I don't trust Kerry to lead the most powerful nation on earth. Lieberman would've been a much better choice than Kerry.

I know! That is why I'm voting Bush. I don't trust Kerry to lead the most powerful nation on earth. Lieberman would've been a much better choice than Kerry.

Others OUTSIDE the US do not like Bush so they prefer Kerry. In the end they might not like him either...LOL

Kerry seems to think that by electing him everyone will suddenly like the US. What kind of logic is that? Elect me so others will like us? Yeah...thats my main concern in the world right now. LOL

Others OUTSIDE the US do not like Bush so they prefer Kerry. In the end they might not like him either...LOL

I know people don't like Bush but they have to tolerate it. Kerry could be worse than Bush and infact, I'm betting on it.

Kerry seems to think that by electing him everyone will suddenly like the US. What kind of logic is that? Elect me so others will like us? Yeah...thats my main concern in the world right now. LOL

LOL!!! I know. That is stupid and very immature. I'm nearly 22 and even I know that will never happen.

It is no logic at all. Some nations just won't like us no matter who is president, France comes to mind. Kerry will not do anything without the UN Go ahead thus France can stimy whatever the US wants to do. Nothing will get done because of it. Our forces would be bound by UN Commanders and not our own and the generals of the Armed Forces will not like that at all.

LOL!!! I know. That is stupid and very immature. I'm nearly 22 and even I know that will never happen.



It is no logic at all. Some nations just won't like us no matter who is president, France comes to mind. Kerry will not do anything without the UN Go ahead thus France can stimy whatever the US wants to do. Nothing will get done because of it. Our forces would be bound by UN Commanders and not our own and the generals of the Armed Forces will not like that at all.

That other countries will not like us is a given.

The UN is a joke and turning to them is ALWAYS a mistake. The US has veto power anyway, so if they passed a resolution condemning the US for Iraq, we could simply veto it. France did that when the UN called for them to not test their nukes in the early 90's. US troops will NEVER be placed under the command of the UN...nope, not going to happen.

That other countries will not like us is a given.

The UN is a joke and turning to them is ALWAYS a mistake. The US has veto power anyway, so if they passed a resolution condemning the US for Iraq, we could simply veto it. France did that when the UN called for them to not test their nukes in the early 90's. US troops will NEVER be placed under the command of the UN...nope, not going to happen.

France doesn't like us Period. Other nations just don't like us because of our strength and prosparity.

The UN is definitely a joke because they don't do anything. They had an obligation to the Iraqi people and they blew that. They're not doing anything with Sudan. Our forces was under a UN Commander at one time under Clinton and a soldier got court-martial because he REFUSED to wear the blue armband.

France doesn't like us Period. Other nations just don't like us because of our strength and prosparity.

The UN is definitely a joke because they don't do anything. They had an obligation to the Iraqi people and they blew that. They're not doing anything with Sudan. Our forces was under a UN Commander at one time under Clinton and a soldier got court-martial because he REFUSED to wear the blue armband.

I don't believe they were actually under UN command. It takes an act of congress to authorize that and there would be so much anger over a decision like that I doubt they would actually go through with it.

I could be wrong though....

I don't believe they were actually under UN command. It takes an act of congress to authorize that and there would be so much anger over a decision like that I doubt they would actually go through with it.

I could be wrong though....

Who knows.

I had an arguement with Chess Squares over wether or not that the President's title is Honorary or not. I told him it wasnt with a list of examples but he still says it is.

These people on here just don't like listening to reason that goes against their train of thought. That is sad.

Who knows.

I had an arguement with Chess Squares over wether or not that the President's title is Honorary or not. I told him it wasnt with a list of examples but he still says it is.

These people on here just don't like listening to reason that goes against their train of thought. That is sad.

No, it is not honorary...the President IS the Commander In Chief of ALL the armed forces of the US...period.

No, it is not honorary...the President IS the Commander In Chief of ALL the armed forces of the US...period.

*sighs*

Did you see the debate in this thread I've had with Zep and Chess Squares and Stephistan?

You talk about blinding.

*sighs*

Did you see the debate in this thread I've had with Zep and Chess Squares and Stephistan?

You talk about blinding.

Yes, well there will ALWAYS be those who will believe what they will. Liberal Canadians cannot be expected to know EVERYTHING about the US, no matter how often they think they do.

I have 20 years service in the USAF that says the President was my commander-in-chief over what ANYONE else has to say.

France doesn't like us Period. Other nations just don't like us because of our strength and prosparity.

The UN is definitely a joke because they don't do anything. They had an obligation to the Iraqi people and they blew that. They're not doing anything with Sudan. Our forces was under a UN Commander at one time under Clinton and a soldier got court-martial because he REFUSED to wear the blue armband.
being a inconsiderate, self righteous, pompous ass, or bieng led by one, isnt going to help us in the world at large

and oh yeah, who is doing shit about sudan? not the usa. wasnt it sudan also helping terrorists?

Yes, well there will ALWAYS be those who will believe what they will. Liberal Canadians cannot be expected to know EVERYTHING about the US, no matter how often they think they do.

So true. I may not be a Poli Sci expert but I do know how our elections work and what to look for in a leader. Kerry does not fit that bill to lead our forces.

being a inconsiderate, self righteous, pompous ass, or bieng led by one, isnt going to help us in the world at large

Ask most people if the fact that most countries do not like us and see if they honestly care. Really? Does that change the fact that we all have lives to lead and problems to deal with? No it does not...so worrying about it is just silly.

Sudan? let France and Germany help them out...or Italy. That area was a colony of theirs at one time.

Yes, well there will ALWAYS be those who will believe what they will. Liberal Canadians cannot be expected to know EVERYTHING about the US, no matter how often they think they do.

I have 20 years service in the USAF that says the President was my commander-in-chief over what ANYONE else has to say.

Half my family has served in the US Military and in the oath it even states to obey the order of the Commander-in-Chief I believe.

So true. I may not be a Poli Sci expert but I do know how our elections work and what to look for in a leader. Kerry does not fit that bill to lead our forces.
which makes no sense because he is running against some one with no leadership experience basically

Half my family has served in the US Military and in the oath it even states to obey the order of the Commander-in-Chief I believe.

People will believe what they will....the President IS the commander -in-chief...but there are limits to what he can do. He cannot declare war, but he can authorize military actions for 90 days without congressional approval.

People will believe what they will....the President IS the commander -in-chief...but there are limits to what he can do. He cannot declare war, but he can authorize military actions for 90 days without congressional approval.

That is so true Biff. That has too.

Ask most people if the fact that most countries do not like us and see if they honestly care. Really? Does that change the fact that we all have lives to lead and problems to deal with? No it does not...so worrying about it is just silly.

Sudan? let France and Germany help them out...or Italy. That area was a colony of theirs at one time.
worrying about it is not silly, making more enemies is ignorant and foolish, not to mention it practically aids and abets the terrorists we are trying to get rid of

worrying about it is not silly, making more enemies is ignorant and foolish, not to mention it practically aids and abets the terrorists we are trying to get rid of

Worrying about it is silly! Nothing is gained by worrying about what other nations think about us. I for one don't care.

Worrying about it is silly! Nothing is gained by worrying about what other nations think about us. I for one don't care.
good job ignoring the point i was making

worrying about it is not silly, making more enemies is ignorant and foolish, not to mention it practically aids and abets the terrorists we are trying to get rid of

I think you are reading too much into the situation...France and germany are not our enemies...they do not like our actions, but they are not going to become enemies.

I think you are reading too much into the situation...France and germany are not our enemies...they do not like our actions, but they are not going to become enemies.
EXPAND YOUR MINDS
I am NOT talking about france OR germany

EXPAND YOUR MINDS
I am NOT talking about france OR germany

Look, there are so many countries out there that have some sort of problem with us. So what? We have problems with what a lot of other countries are up to. Iran, Syria, North Korea. If you actually think that by electing Kerry, these problems will go away and the flowers will suddenly bloom, I have news for you....the world will be the same. Kerry is NOT going to suddenly make everyone like us.

Look, there are so many countries out there that have some sort of problem with us. So what? We have problems with what a lot of other countries are up to. Iran, Syria, North Korea. If you actually think that by electing Kerry, these problems will go away and the flowers will suddenly bloom, I have news for you....the world will be the same. Kerry is NOT going to suddenly make everyone like us.

Here here Biff! The world's problems won't go away if Kerry is elected. They'll still be there and still no one will act on these problems.

Here here Biff! The world's problems won't go away if Kerry is elected. They'll still be there and still no one will act on these problems.

Kerry keeps trying to make some sort of point that HE can get the UN and other countries to suddenly like us again. Who cares what the UN thinks any more? I certainly don't. The UN has NO power to do anything. Nothing....nada. The UN was a good idea, but it has broken down and is so corrupt i would not want to be associated with it in any way, shape or form.

We are better off bucking the UN than we are with trying to wrangle anything from the UN. UN was good at one point but not anymore and no, the USA did not make it obsolete, it made itself obsolete.

Look, there are so many countries out there that have some sort of problem with us. So what? We have problems with what a lot of other countries are up to. Iran, Syria, North Korea. If you actually think that by electing Kerry, these problems will go away and the flowers will suddenly bloom, I have news for you....the world will be the same. Kerry is NOT going to suddenly make everyone like us.
DUH

but the point is bush makes it worse without consideration of the consequences

and im not even talking about the UN

DUH

but the point is bush makes it worse without consideration of the consequences

and im not even talking about the UN

Ok. How did Bush make things worse? From what I've seen, Clinton could've done more and didn't. Did he make things worse by ATTACKING the terrorists with our soldiers instead of missiles?

DUH

but the point is bush makes it worse without consideration of the consequences

and im not even talking about the UN

Well, sometimes a country HAS to act in it's own interests without regard to what others think. Kerry would try to get permission from the UN before he did anything. Imagine the mess that would be. No, we NEED a strong president who will put the people HE represents first. Not one who will cater to the wishes of those he doesn't.

Well, sometimes a country HAS to act in it's own interests without regard to what others think. Kerry would try to get permission from the UN before he did anything. Imagine the mess that would be. No, we NEED a strong president who will put the people HE represents first. Not one who will cater to the wishes of those he doesn't.
bush does NOT put the needs of his people first, he puts his personal beliefs, agendas, and opinions ahead of anything and everything, he is dangerous to the world, the people and himself.

we need some one who WILL put the needs of the PEOPLE ahead of everything, that includes looking at the rest of the world intelligently, you cannot go around pissing off every damned country just because you can, good relations with other nations is necesary and not only that going around pissing everyone off just helps terrorism, which bush is supposedly the master of stopping

Ok. How did Bush make things worse? From what I've seen, Clinton could've done more and didn't. Did he make things worse by ATTACKING the terrorists with our soldiers instead of missiles?
no, he made it worse by treating the war on terror like what it isnt and what he claims the terrorists arnt: a war on a numbered body of trained fighters under a person or nation

terrorism is an idea, not an army, you can kill plenty of people, it will not stop terrorism, it will aid their cause by making martyrs and helpnig them recruit. it must be treated like what it is a war on an ideal, we must broadcast propaganda of our own and infiltrate them, we cannot go around blowing things up saying we are stopping terrorism, it hasnt worked for israel for what a hundred or so years, why would it work for us

bush does NOT put the needs of his people first, he puts his personal beliefs, agendas, and opinions ahead of anything and everything, he is dangerous to the world, the people and himself.

I do hope that you have proof of such because that is definitely baseless claims. He did put the nation first when he attacked Afghanistan. He DID put the nation first when we went into Iraq. He DID put the nation first after 9/11. He has put the NATION FIRST in most of everything he's done. Kerry won't.

we need some one who WILL put the needs of the PEOPLE ahead of everything, that includes looking at the rest of the world intelligently, you cannot go around pissing off every damned country just because you can, good relations with other nations is necesary and not only that going around pissing everyone off just helps terrorism, which bush is supposedly the master of stopping

You right we do need someone that will put us first and that person is Bush, not Kerry. As for pissing other nations off, they have pissed us off too. Other nations claimed to be our allies then Backstab us. Some nations say they are our allies then do nothing. Kerry will not change this. I trust Bush's leadership in this case over Kerry's leadership because Bush has a better understanding of how the WORLD works than Kerry does.

bush does NOT put the needs of his people first, he puts his personal beliefs, agendas, and opinions ahead of anything and everything, he is dangerous to the world, the people and himself.

we need some one who WILL put the needs of the PEOPLE ahead of everything, that includes looking at the rest of the world intelligently, you cannot go around pissing off every damned country just because you can, good relations with other nations is necesary and not only that going around pissing everyone off just helps terrorism, which bush is supposedly the master of stopping

Of course this is your opinion. We do not see what is going on behind the scenes. I used to and believe me, it is a very scary world out there. There is so much going on that is not seen by many people. That you say Bush is not putting the PEOPLE first is a broad statement that of course you cannot back up without knowledge of WHY he has taken such actions. Oh, we can speculate and argue all day about it, but we do not KNOW for certain. Also you must know that world leaders say and do things for their public consumption. Their statements and their actions are often at odds with each other. i am not worried about what other countries SAY about the US or our president...I am more concerned with their ACTIONS, and so far, those have been largely supportive.

I do hope that you have proof of such because that is definitely baseless claims. He did put the nation first when he attacked Afghanistan. He DID put the nation first when we went into Iraq. He DID put the nation first after 9/11. He has put the NATION FIRST in most of everything he's done. Kerry won't.
how did he put the nation first by going into iraq? that was not a fight that needed to be fought at the time and cost us billions of dollars rebuilding their nation and fighting the pointless war. after 9/11 what did he do? sign into law acts that limits the freedoms of anybody that some one feels like accusing of terrorism

and where is the proof kerry wont put the nation first? since you are so into proof, i want documents evidence kerry wont put this nation first

we have already seen bush carry out or try to carry out his own agenda despite what anyone else wants: ban gay marriage, no funding stem cel lresearch, invading iraq during a whole nother engagement without finishing it, enacting laws that limit the freedom of citizens



You right we do need someone that will put us first and that person is Bush, not Kerry. As for pissing other nations off, they have pissed us off too. Other nations claimed to be our allies then Backstab us. Some nations say they are our allies then do nothing. Kerry will not change this. I trust Bush's leadership in this case over Kerry's leadership because Bush has a better understanding of how the WORLD works than Kerry does.

YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION, bush completely disregards other nations and international relations, he opposes any and all acts that have to do with the us. we do NOT need a damned unctrolled cowboy in office who does whatever he wants despite consequences.


bush has a better understanding how the world works? bullshit, i doubt he knows how a fucking lead pencil works. he has had no international experience but that as president, and that proved he is horrible at relations, where as kerry was put forward in his evil fitreps as a a good choice for diplomatic relations with other countries

Well....this has broken down to a slugfest. Without ANY background information being available, yes, there is ALWAYS a LOT of background information and intelligence that is not available to the public for obvious reasons.

Bush was acting on information that he had. Did he TRY to get the UN to act? Yes he did, they were not interested yet they passed resolution after resolution. So he acted on information he had at the time. So to say WHY he acted without knowing the background intel is disingenuous at best.

how did he put the nation first by going into iraq? that was not a fight that needed to be fought at the time and cost us billions of dollars rebuilding their nation and fighting the pointless war. after 9/11 what did he do? sign into law acts that limits the freedoms of anybody that some one feels like accusing of terrorism

Hussein has violated 17 UN Resolutions and many of those authorized member states to continue war with Iraq. Under intel from the Brits, Russians, and our own intel all state that he was a threat. Bush asked Congress for authorization and got it because he as well as congress thought Hussein was a threat to us. So yes, he did put the nation first when it came to Iraq. Though the intel was exaggerated, Congress still probably would've approved the war. In war Chess Squares, and you should've learned this in History Class but it appears you didn't, some freedoms are taken away. Ab Lincoln jailed and shut down newspapers during the Civil War and Media was censored during WWII. As for our freedoms being limited, I haven't seen it. I still have my freedoms to do what I want to do. Travel, speak out against the President, Organize Protests (though I haven't done this), and just carry on as a normal US Citizen. So what liberties have been taken away?

and where is the proof kerry wont put the nation first? since you are so into proof, i want documents evidence kerry wont put this nation first

Look at Kerry's Senate Record. Most notably his votes on defense. Voted to cut B-2 Funding (defeated), voted against some of our most advanced weaponry we have today. How is that putting our country first? It doesnt. If those failed to pass, then our military wouldn't be what it is today. Not to mention trying to cut the Intel budget after the 1st WTC attack.

we have already seen bush carry out or try to carry out his own agenda despite what anyone else wants: ban gay marriage, no funding stem cel lresearch, invading iraq during a whole nother engagement without finishing it, enacting laws that limit the freedom of citizens

Gay marriage is a state's issue and it is being decided by the states, even I was against the FMA and wasn't surprised when it was defeated. I believe it was no goverment funded stem cell research. Invading Iraq was justified as stated above and Afghanistan is on the verge of elections as is Iraq. Again, what laws limit our freedoms?

YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION, bush completely disregards other nations and international relations, he opposes any and all acts that have to do with the us. we do NOT need a damned unctrolled cowboy in office who does whatever he wants despite consequences.

From what i've seen, your the one not paying attention. Who cares what other nations think of us. I don't. As for Bush being a cowboy, he still needed congressional approval for what he did and he got it. Frankly, I take Bush's cowboy stance over Kerry's let the UN run us mentality.

bush has a better understanding how the world works? bullshit, i doubt he knows how a fucking lead pencil works. he has had no international experience but that as president, and that proved he is horrible at relations, where as kerry was put forward in his evil fitreps as a a good choice for diplomatic relations with other countries

He does have a better understanding because of his stint as governor and being on the border with Mexico no less. Its nice to see your hatred for Bush but swearing isnt winning you any pointers. Bush does have international Experience because Texas borders Mexico and had to deal with the issues there. As for Kerry and his fitreps, his leadership is called into question time and again.

Hussein has violated 17 UN Resolutions and many of those authorized member states to continue war with Iraq. Under intel from the Brits, Russians, and our own intel all state that he was a threat. Bush asked Congress for authorization and got it because he as well as congress thought Hussein was a threat to us. So yes, he did put the nation first when it came to Iraq. Though the intel was exaggerated, Congress still probably would've approved the war. In war Chess Squares, and you should've learned this in History Class but it appears you didn't, some freedoms are taken away. Ab Lincoln jailed and shut down newspapers during the Civil War and Media was censored during WWII. As for our freedoms being limited, I haven't seen it. I still have my freedoms to do what I want to do. Travel, speak out against the President, Organize Protests (though I haven't done this), and just carry on as a normal US Citizen. So what liberties have been taken away?

this is NOT a war, and if you wantred to pretend it was still it was declared over more than a year ago. yeah you can speak out against the president, as long as you are 2 miles away, and there are people prevented from travel, protests can be held, miles away form the thing being protested, and didnt oregon pass a thing making these illegal.

and i dont recall bush saying we are going to war because saddam has threatened the world and violated rules and is a bad person. i DO recall us sayign he has ready to use stockpiles of WMDs, and thats about it. oh yeah, and the implication that he helped attack us on 9/11

Look at Kerry's Senate Record. Most notably his votes on defense. Voted to cut B-2 Funding (defeated), voted against some of our most advanced weaponry we have today. How is that putting our country first? It doesnt. If those failed to pass, then our military wouldn't be what it is today.
do i need to give you cheney's record? it's not pretty



Gay marriage is a state's issue and it is being decided by the states, even I was against the FMA and wasn't surprised when it was defeated. I believe it was no goverment funded stem cell research. Invading Iraq was justified as stated above and Afghanistan is on the verge of elections as is Iraq. Again, what laws limit our freedoms?
bush is trying to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to ban gay marriage and civil unions and basically any homosexual rights. didnt i say no funded stem cell research. and gay marriage cant be a state issue because of the full faith and credit clause, abortion can be a state issue, anything that doesnt have to cross statelines can be a state issue, but some one can get married and get benefits in one state but if they move they lose those benefits, that is neither fair nor legal nor constitutional



From what i've seen, your the one not paying attention. Who cares what other nations think of us. I don't. As for Bush being a cowboy, he still needed congressional approval for what he did and he got it. Frankly, I take Bush's cowboy stance over Kerry's let the UN run us mentality.
no, YOU are not paying attention, bush is doing nothing in our best interest, you keep ignoring my point about terrorism and making enemies. there isnt just the UN to take into consideration




He does have a better understanding because of his stint as governor and being on the border with Mexico no less. Its nice to see your hatred for Bush but swearing isnt winning you any pointers. Bush does have international Experience because Texas borders Mexico and had to deal with the issues there. As for Kerry and his fitreps, his leadership is called into question time and again.

he was the governor of texas, whats your point, he got that position by having people pull strings, he got everything his whole life through string pulling: yale, national guard duty, texas governor, managar of the baseball team

wrong, it doesnt matter if texas borders 20 nations, texas is a state nad bush is a governor, as governor of texas he does not have the legal ability to negotiate with mexico, states do NOT have the ability to negotiate individually with other nations, only the president has that ability

really, you want to cite where his leadership was called into question?

Geeze people, I know we are all partisan, but really, you make Kerry sound like he's an ex-drunk and drug-addict or some thing who is unfit to lead.. oh wait, sorry that was Bush!

Geeze people, I know we are all partisan, but really, you make Kerry sound like he's an ex-drunk and drug-addict or some thing who is unfit to lead.. oh wait, sorry that was Bush!

And yet...for all that, he IS leading....LOL

Maybe kerry should do some drugs or something....;) He might be less stiff if he did, the guy makes Al Gore look like a party animal.

Oh...and I was a Libertarian until I found this forum.

And yet...for all that, he IS leading....LOL

Maybe kerry should do some drugs or something....;) He might be less stiff if he did, the guy makes Al Gore look like a party animal.

Oh...and I was a Libertarian until I found this forum.

Ah, you're kewl, I just have to get my digs in where I can..*LOL* ;)

Ah, you're kewl, I just have to get my digs in where I can..*LOL* ;)

We all gotta get our digs in but I try to make sure that my digs are civil just like yours are most of the time :p

And Steph, I'm a moderate that will cross party-lines when given a reason too.

We all gotta get our digs in but I try to make sure that my digs are civil just like yours are most of the time :p

And Steph, I'm a moderate that will cross party-lines when given a reason too.

Yeah, ok, but you do paint Kerry like the world will come to an end if he gets elected, that is a little bit dramatic don't you think? I doubt he would of got as far as he has if he was unfit. You may choose or even believe Bush is a better choice, that's fine, but you make Kerry sound like some evil creepy guy who can't be trusted with children..lol

I just thought it was prudent to point out it is Bush not Kerry who had a problem with drugs and alcohol..I can tell you right now, I personally wouldn't leave my children alone with an ex-drunk or drug addict.. would you?

people have made the army release W's

I think its only fair they relsease kerry's

Yeah, ok, but you do paint Kerry like the world will come to an end if he gets elected, that is a little bit dramatic don't you think? I doubt he would of got as far as he has if he was unfit. You may choose or even believe Bush is a better choice, that's fine, but you make Kerry sound like some evil creepy guy who can't be trusted with children..lol

Well there are questions I want answered and he isn't answering them. Besides, his senate record is enough for me NOT to vote for him.

I just thought it was prudent to point out it is Bush not Kerry who had a problem with drugs and alcohol..I can tell you right now, I personally wouldn't leave my children alone with an ex-drunk or drug addict.. would you?

I did see that steph, but that was like a couple of decades ago so I don't really look at that sort of thing. I go by experience and leadership qualities and who I think would be better to lead our country. This time, I have to go with President Bush and not John Kerry.

people have made the army release W's

I think its only fair they relsease kerry's

I believe Zeppistan has shown that it has all been released. Some were under the misunderstanding that they had not been, but from what Zeppistan has shown, they have been. Unlike Bush's, Kerry's didn't get lost or destroyed either.. ;)

people have made the army release W's

I think its only fair they relsease kerry's
what are you babbling about

people have made the army release W's

I think its only fair they relsease kerry's

I agree with you Schrandtopia but Bush is a Republican thus is fair game to have his questioned but question Kerry's military service and you get labeled as questioning Kerry's patriotism!

The press jumped all over Bush's record but when someone comes out and jumps on Kerry's record, the guy that did the jumping gets slammed and slandered by the press.

Yeah, ok, but you do paint Kerry like the world will come to an end if he gets elected, that is a little bit dramatic don't you think? I doubt he would of got as far as he has if he was unfit. You may choose or even believe Bush is a better choice, that's fine, but you make Kerry sound like some evil creepy guy who can't be trusted with children..lol

I just thought it was prudent to point out it is Bush not Kerry who had a problem with drugs and alcohol..I can tell you right now, I personally wouldn't leave my children alone with an ex-drunk or drug addict.. would you?

But you portray Bush being reelected as the end of the world. The US will be in far worse shape with Kerry in office. The man is not fit to be president, not by a long shot.

I did see that steph, but that was like a couple of decades ago so I don't really look at that sort of thing. I go by experience and leadership qualities and who I think would be better to lead our country. This time, I have to go with President Bush and not John Kerry.
and john kerry had those "leadership problems" when he was younger, now he is older, wiser and more experienced, thus you have invalidated your own argument

I believe Zeppistan has shown that it has all been released. Some were under the misunderstanding that they had not been, but from what Zeppistan has shown, they have been. Unlike Bush's, Kerry's didn't get lost or destroyed either.. ;)

HAHA!! Not all of it has been released. Where is the paperwork for his purple hearts? I don't see that! Where is Kerry's Medical Records for said purple hearts? I don't see those either! I see all 5 citations but where is the paperwork for the citations? Not all records have been released Steph.

I believe Zeppistan has shown that it has all been released. Some were under the misunderstanding that they had not been, but from what Zeppistan has shown, they have been. Unlike Bush's, Kerry's didn't get lost or destroyed either.. ;)

No...Kerry refuses to release the medical records pertaining to his three purple hearts. I wonder why?

and john kerry had those "leadership problems" when he was younger, now he is older, wiser and more experienced, thus you have invalidated your own argument

Kerry was marked down on FITREPs. From my understanding, Bush's problems took place BEFORE he joined the military.

and john kerry had those "leadership problems" when he was younger, now he is older, wiser and more experienced, thus you have invalidated your own argument

Is he? he did virtually nothing for 19 years in the Senate....so where is his leadership experience coming from? Boy scout leader?

No...Kerry refuses to release the medical records pertaining to his three purple hearts. I wonder why?

Probably because they would show that at least 2 were not warrented?

Is he? he did virtually nothing for 19 years in the Senate....so where is his leadership experience coming from? Boy scout leader?

LOL! No wonder he isn't running on his Senate Record. He didn't do anything there! LOL

But you portray Bush being reelected as the end of the world. The US will be in far worse shape with Kerry in office. The man is not fit to be president, not by a long shot.
but thats an assumption, you ASSUME the US will be in far worse shape, you cant make that assumption because kerry has not been president where as we have seen what bush can and will do

Is he? he did virtually nothing for 19 years in the Senate....so where is his leadership experience coming from? Boy scout leader?
you dont have leadership positions in the senate, your a fucking senator, so are 99 other people, what are you going to lead, especially as a junior senator

But you portray Bush being reelected as the end of the world. The US will be in far worse shape with Kerry in office. The man is not fit to be president, not by a long shot.

I believe Kerry is the better choice. I do believe Bush has already damaged America's credibility and respect around the world. However, I don't believe the world will come to an end if Bush gets re-appointed or even elected this time.... I just don't think it will be helpful to your country.. but that's my opinion. I just don't think Bush thinks ahead when he acts, proof being the Iraq war. He went to war and hadn't a clue what to do after it was over nor did he think it would appear of what might happen after the major conflict part was over. It's just certainly the way it appears.

However, no, I don't believe it will be the end of the world if the world has to put up with Bush for 4 more years, at least we can take a sigh of relief that he will never be able to hold office again if he does. I'll shut up about it as soon as the election is over, one way or the other. No matter who wins.

Kerry was marked down on FITREPs. From my understanding, Bush's problems took place BEFORE he joined the military.

Bush didn't quit drinking and find "Jesus" till he was 40. Just how much do you know about Bush? It seems like not a lot.

you dont have leadership positions in the senate, your a fucking senator, so are 99 other people, what are you going to lead, especially as a junior senator

He can still write bills, He can still sponser and co sponser bills. Did he in his 19 years? I don't think he did. In otherwords, he did nothing in the US Senate except vote and even then he'll get hammered because of how he voted, most notably on intel and defense.

Bush didn't quit drinking and find "Jesus" till he was 40. Just how much do you know about Bush? It seems like not a lot.

Steph, frankly I don't care what he did in the past. They tried running that in October, 2 weeks before the election ironically enough and Bush Still won the election.

I go by what he does in office. I went with what Kerry did in the Senate. Frankly, I vote bush because Kerry's record in the Senate is ludicrous.

you dont have leadership positions in the senate, your a fucking senator, so are 99 other people, what are you going to lead, especially as a junior senator

Really? I would call McCain a Senate leader....as well as Lieberman. Also there are many other actual leadership positions in the Senate...every committee has a leader.

Bush didn't quit drinking and find "Jesus" till he was 40. Just how much do you know about Bush? It seems like not a lot.

Everyone can change in life...one day you might become more conservative. ;)

He can still write bills, He can still sponser and co sponser bills. Did he in his 19 years? I don't think he did. In otherwords, he did nothing in the US Senate except vote and even then he'll get hammered because of how he voted, most notably on intel and defense.

You obviously guess at this stuff, because you sure haven't looked it up. Kerry was one of the key players in exposing the Iran/Contra scandal, why don't you look up his record instead of taking guesses. I think the Iran/Contra scadal was pretty damn big, hardly "nothing"

Really? I would call McCain a Senate leader....as well as Lieberman. Also there are many other actual leadership positions in the Senate...every committee has a leader.

Agreed Biff. I don't think Kerry was ever in a leadership position in the US Senate! Why?

He can still write bills, He can still sponser and co sponser bills. Did he in his 19 years? I don't think he did. In otherwords, he did nothing in the US Senate except vote and even then he'll get hammered because of how he voted, most notably on intel and defense.
some one actually provided a list of some thing he sponsored

Everyone can change in life...one day you might become more conservative. ;)

:eek: Okay, now you're just freaking me out.. *LOL*

You obviously guess at this stuff, because you sure haven't looked it up. Kerry was one of the key players in exposing the Iran/Contra scandal, why don't you look up his record instead of taking guesses. I think the Iran/Contra scadal was pretty damn big, hardly "nothing"

Did he sponser bills? Did he co-sponser bills? The answer is no he didn't! Fine he broke some scandel but it really wasn't all that much. Equipment with no spare parts. Yea big scandal! LOL! If it was so remarkable Steph, then answer me this!

Why isn't he running on him being a key player in exposing Iran/Contra?

But you portray Bush being reelected as the end of the world. The US will be in far worse shape with Kerry in office. The man is not fit to be president, not by a long shot.

Let's see, we currently have a president on anti-depressants for his mood.

A man who claims to be a Christian but then goes to talk at Bob Jones University, which opposes almost all Christian religions, including Catholicism.

A man who won't come clean on his drug record but does admit to having been an alcoholic.

A man who refused to show up for his stint in the National Guard.

A man who giggles at putting a born again Christian to death in Texas.

A man who can't string a coherent sentence together and then, with a smirk, informs the American public that his administration is looking at new ways to harm the American people.

A man who apparently can't ride a bike or eat a pretzel.

A man who can't take responsibility for any of his wrongdoings or mistakes while president.

A man who has damaged the American reputation throughout the world to new lows.

But yeah, for some reason Bush enthusiasts can still say Kerry would be worse. We have a monkey as our president....Koko the gorilla is smarter.

some one actually provided a list of some thing he sponsored

yeah...he renamed some federal buildings....but nothing of substance. Thats why he is not running on his record in the Senate.

some one actually provided a list of some thing he sponsored

What? one or two bills? whoopie do! How many bills did he actually write? how many did he actually sponser? how many did he actually Co-sponsered?

Let's see, we currently have a president on anti-depressants for his mood.

A man who claims to be a Christian but then goes to talk at Bob Jones University, which opposes almost all Christian religions, including Catholicism.

A man who won't come clean on his drug record but does admit to having been an alcoholic.

A man who refused to show up for his stint in the National Guard.

A man who giggles at putting a born again Christian to death in Texas.

A man who can't string a coherent sentence together and then, with a smirk, informs the American public that his administration is looking at new ways to harm the American people.

A man who apparently can't ride a bike or eat a pretzel.

A man who can't take responsibility for any of his wrongdoings or mistakes while president.

A man who has damaged the American reputation throughout the world to new lows.

But yeah, for some reason Bush enthusiasts can still say Kerry would be worse. We have a monkey as our president....Koko the gorilla is smarter.

And yet...he is STILL better than Kerry could ever be. Simply amazing at how bad Kerry truly is.

Agreed Biff. I don't think Kerry was ever in a leadership position in the US Senate! Why?

...And what did Bush do before he became President? He was a half assed Governator of Texas for 6 whole years. His major accomplishment was putting more people to death in state prisons then any one elese in the country, yay Bush, oh and wrecked the school system, they're still trying to re-build the damage he did there.

So tell me, what has Bush ever done to be considered "fit"

All you're doing is guess work, you can't say Kerry will make a lousy president, because you don't know that, he's never been president, so all you are doing is assuming and guessing. Heck you don't even know any thing about Bush by the sounds of it.

Funny how you can't actually point to anything truthful to back up your claim Biff.

...And what did Bush do before he became President? He was a half assed Governator of Texas for 6 whole years. His major accomplishment was putting more people to death in state prisons then any one elese in the country, yay Bush, oh and wrecked the school system, they're still trying to re-build the damage he did there.

Then why did the state of texas elect him twice to govern them? Obviously they thought he was doing a good job? Why did he overwhelmingly win the STate of Texas in 2000? Because they thought he will make a good president.

So tell me, what has Bush ever done to be considered "fit"

Bush is doing what is necessary to make sure that the US is a safer place. Kerry has not done a thing, outside of nam (even that is questionable), to help that. He voted AGAINST half of our modern weapons, he TRIED to cut the intel Budget twice.

All you're doing is guess work, you can't say Kerry will make a lousy president, because you don't know that, he's never been president, so all you are doing is assuming and guessing. Heck you don't even know any thing about Bush by the sounds of it.

What I say is not guess work. I've looked at his record, both Senate and Nam, and the Senate record is enough to make ME vote Bush. He has done nothing in the US Senate. Has held no leadership positions and has tried to handcuff Intel and our military. That is why Kerry isn't fit to lead our country.

First off let me say I care about the state of this country, and I for one don’t want to see it flushed down the toilet by Kerry!

Kerry is a piece of $heet, he's always been a piece of $heet, and he always will be a piece of $heet.

I'm 24 years old and I remember the lies he told and the people he spit on during Viet Nam. Why is it so many people so soon forget?

I served my time in the military... honorably! What’s the big deal? If he wants to wear his military record as a badge of honor, then why shouldn’t we be able to look at his wonderful record?

That’s just my two cents... and if you don’t like it you can smell my fart!

See ya

Funny how you can't actually point to anything truthful to back up your claim Biff.

Kerry is too aloof on the issues...no substance there. This will catch up to him in the debates and after the Republican convention. Just wait.....

Kerry is too aloof on the issues...no substance there. This will catch up to him in the debates and after the Republican convention. Just wait.....

Your right Biff!

Good ideas Kerry does have but alas, hasn't explain HOW he will do these things let alone pay for it.

*Looks at the budget*

Larger budget deficit anyone?

Then why did the state of texas elect him twice to govern them? Obviously they thought he was doing a good job? Why did he overwhelmingly win the STate of Texas in 2000? Because they thought he will make a good president.

Err, or maybe because Texas always votes Republican even if Satan were their candidate (pretty close comparison between the two of them right now too.)

Bush is doing what is necessary to make sure that the US is a safer place. Kerry has not done a thing, outside of nam (even that is questionable), to help that. He voted AGAINST half of our modern weapons, he TRIED to cut the intel Budget twice.

Is outing an agent inside of al-Qaeda the kind of thing that Bush is doing to make us safer? Taking down an inside operative in an organization that has been extremely difficult to penetrate? This makes us safer? I wonder why the terror alerts have been happening with more frequency as Bush's poll numbers go lower? Noticed the amounts?

Kerry has not voted against half of our modern weaponry. I believe I've already debunked this in another thread but as that's a bullet issue from the RNC, then just think about the fact that Cheney was against those weapons! I am pretty sure that Zeppistan posted some numbers about Kerry's voting record, showing how positive Kerry's voting has been for our military.

What I say is not guess work. I've looked at his record, both Senate and Nam, and the Senate record is enough to make ME vote Bush. He has done nothing in the US Senate. Has held no leadership positions and has tried to handcuff Intel and our military. That is why Kerry isn't fit to lead our country.

You've not looked beyond the Republican bullet points. Look at the actual record, not just the talking points.

But if you want bullet points to make an argument, then consider the fact that Bush has consistently cut veterans benefits as well as benefits for active military and their families. Spending on the military includes the families too, and if you never help them then you can't say that you are strong for our military.

Kerry is too aloof on the issues...no substance there. This will catch up to him in the debates and after the Republican convention. Just wait.....

Aloof is your proof? Sigh....

Your right Biff!

Good ideas Kerry does have but alas, hasn't explain HOW he will do these things let alone pay for it.

*Looks at the budget*

Larger budget deficit anyone?

Larger than the record deficits we're having now...please.

Aloof is your proof? Sigh....

TRY to get him to answer a question on ANYTHING. Does he own any SUV's....YES he tells the auto unions.....NO he tells the environmentalists. Well, which one is it? When confronted....it is his family that owns them...not him. :rolleyes:

Larger than the record deficits we're having now...please.
So your saying tons of new programs won't result in higher spending?

The only reason the deficit would go down would be because of more revenue. If the economy/taxes were stagnant, the deficit would go up, even with the plan to fleece the rich.

Then why did the state of texas elect him twice to govern them? Obviously they thought he was doing a good job? Why did he overwhelmingly win the STate of Texas in 2000? Because they thought he will make a good president.

Oh, so because the people elected him twice he must be damn fine and fit to run the country, got ya. Well in the same breath the people have elected Kerry to the Senate a hell of a lot more times then twice, so I guess he's even more fit by your logic.

You do realize you do this right? You constantly invalidate your own arguments..

I believe Kerry has addressed how he would pay for it, had you paid attention.

Eliminate the tax break that was never supposed to be permanent in the first place (until Bush worked to make it a permanent cut). Gee, seems like Kerry is doing what Bush promised to do before he needed to flip flop to keep his base constituency happy.

Err, or maybe because Texas always votes Republican even if Satan were their candidate (pretty close comparison between the two of them right now too.)

Then explain how he upset a popular incumbent Governor? They don't always vote republican my friend.

Is outing an agent inside of al-Qaeda the kind of thing that Bush is doing to make us safer? Taking down an inside operative in an organization that has been extremely difficult to penetrate? This makes us safer? I wonder why the terror alerts have been happening with more frequency as Bush's poll numbers go lower? Noticed the amounts?

Idon't think that was the Bush administration that outed it Thunderland. I don't know who did but I'll bet good money it wasn't the bush administration.

Kerry has not voted against half of our modern weaponry. I believe I've already debunked this in another thread but as that's a bullet issue from the RNC, then just think about the fact that Cheney was against those weapons! I am pretty sure that Zeppistan posted some numbers about Kerry's voting record, showing how positive Kerry's voting has been for our military.

I'll go through the records again but rest assured, I wasn't talking about JUST defense. I've mentioned Intel too. Frankly, I trust Bush on intel and on defense more than Kerry.

You've not looked beyond the Republican bullet points. Look at the actual record, not just the talking points.

I read no one's talking points. I make my own decisions based on research. Don't assume that I read bullet points because I don't! I find them to be full of pap.

First off let me say I care about the state of this country, and I for one don’t want to see it flushed down the toilet by Kerry!

Kerry is a piece of $heet, he's always been a piece of $heet, and he always will be a piece of $heet.

I'm 24 years old and I remember the lies he told and the people he spit on during Viet Nam. Why is it so many people so soon forget?

I served my time in the military... honorably! What’s the big deal? If he wants to wear his military record as a badge of honor, then why shouldn’t we be able to look at his wonderful record?

That’s just my two cents... and if you don’t like it you can smell my fart!

See ya
What lies did Kerry tell? We did do bad things in Veitnam, are you angry he told truth? You served honorably? YOU are better than Bush lol, wanna be Prez.
Sorry, I'll light it for you though, I don't smell them.


Bush is doing what is necessary to make sure that the US is a safer place. Kerry has not done a thing, outside of nam (even that is questionable), to help that. He voted AGAINST half of our modern weapons, he TRIED to cut the intel Budget twice.
He voted against the bill because it hada addendum that changed where the funding was from. The Intl budget was needed for schools and other important things(sadly schools didn't get much but that is always the case), at the time US people seemed more important.
Voted against some weapons that Cheney also voted against gee you do know Cheney is vice prez.
Name one thing Bush has done to make us safer: if you listen, he makes us more fearful and less safe since Afganistan conflict ended.
After Afgan conflict we lowered troops there and so we lost most terroritories to Warlords, gosh I'm safer except that would be like-
Each state owned by a militia and not the govt, that would make us less safe so you see how bad Afgan is.
Where did the troops go? Iraq, in fact only best troops go to Afgan, a war we didn't have to fight. It was a war of choice, we chose to fight. We were not forced to do it.

Ya know, I don't really give a shit about Kerry's military record.

But sure, why not?
I agree totally.
what I would like them to do is talk about his voting record in the Senate.

Idon't think that was the Bush administration that outed it Thunderland. I don't know who did but I'll bet good money it wasn't the bush administration.

Are you not paying attention? They released information about the operative in Pakistan. Then, when asked to confirm the name of the operative to a reporter, they did.

This is the second time they've done this. Its a national disgrace.

Amen to that
One of the many reasons why i dont like kerry.
Because now instead of everyone hating on clinton, their hating on bush, and kerry is using only that as his stance. Fact everything he says is pretty much a lighter version of bush. I dont kno. I believe we need to take care of some shit in the middle east before we begin making ourselves dirt rich and proseperous again. Its just people expect change, an entire cutlural change to happen over night, and it will never be that way. It takes dedication. If kerry gets elected there will be NO dedication. Hes already talkin about having no troops in iraq by the end of his term, how stupid is that shit?! There will ALWAYS be a us presence in iraq now, no matter what we want. People need to deal with it. But god kno's once bush is out of office(after his second term hopefully), i will be voting for whoever the democrat may be. Dick cheney will never get my vote.

In politics it dosen't matter what really is it matters what the masses think it is.That just shows how smart of a politician Kerry is.

Oh, so because the people elected him twice he must be damn fine and fit to run the country, got ya. Well in the same breath the people have elected Kerry to the Senate a hell of a lot more times then twice, so I guess he's even more fit by your logic.

You do realize you do this right? You constantly invalidate your own arguments..

I guess you don't know much about politics with your Poli Sci degree do you? No I thought not!

The people re-elected Bush because they LIKED what Bush was doing. If the State of Texas didn't like what Bush was doing in the State of Texas, do you really think that they would've re-elected him to another term? The answer Steph, is NO they wouldn't.

The people have elected John Kerry because Kerry no one has challenged Kerry's senate record. He can't run on his Senate record because its ludricous. There is also a big difference between a Senate Race and Presidential Race and a Governors Race. Kerry doesn't have to talk about his record in the Senate because people don't care about what Kerry or Kennedy do. As Governor, Bush answered to the people. The people now however, are looking at what he has done in the Senate. It has come out about his record on how ludricous it is. That is why Kerry isn't really going anywhere in the polls. The debates will show this when they take place.

Look for a Bush Victory in 2004 and it'll be the best thing to happen to the US if Bush wins this election.

I agree totally.
what I would like them to do is talk about his voting record in the Senate.

You'll be waiting awhile Chairslaying because he can't talk about his record because he hasn't done anything in the US Senate worth talking about.

Your right Biff!

Good ideas Kerry does have but alas, hasn't explain HOW he will do these things let alone pay for it.

*Looks at the budget*

Larger budget deficit anyone?
you guys go ahead and sit around patting each other on the back for spewing bullshit remarks, mgiht want to step up to fellatio for congratulations

you guys go ahead and sit around patting each other on the back for spewing bullshit remarks, mgiht want to step up to fellatio for congratulations

Actually between Defense and his Healthcare plan, it comes out to roughly 1.5 trillion dollars. That isn't including Education, Agriculture, Treasury, Commerce, Labor, and all the other cabinet positions.

Still think that Kerry will be spending less than Bush? Your dreaming!

First off let me tell you who I am. I joined the Air Force when I turned 18, I was stationed at the army post Fort George G. Mead, and I've met both the current president bush and his father.

From my experience, father bush was a great man. He would get onto Air Force One and before he woule eat he would make sure each and every Secret Service member, assistant, or crew member ate before he would even order his own food.

As for his son. The president has done the best he could given the information he was given. Sometimes your given information and its just simply wrong. But what is more important to me is not what he did but why he did it.

You can look at the abortion of a child and you know its bad. But then when you throw in that the mother wouild have died had she given birth to the child and its not so bad is it?

Mr. Bush makes his choices NOT based on what will give him the highest vote (like some other people) but because he believes they are right! Even if he makes the wrong choice I'd MUCH rather have someone who does things because he believes they are right then because he is trying to gain votes.

But all people see is what the media wants to say. If you want to talk about Iraq? Lets talk about Iraq... I as an Active Duty member of the Air Force would rather stand in Iraq holding a gun and KNOW people are shooting at me, then sit in my lazy boy in my home in the US and WONDER if someone might shoot at my famly.

And if any of you think Iraq is WORSE now because of what we did? Your a puppet to the media. Take it from someone who's been there (well not me, but someone who has like 90% of my military friends have :-) its much better off now!

Joe

And if any of you think Iraq is WORSE now because of what we did? Your a puppet to the media. Take it from someone who's been there (well not me, but someone who has like 90% of my military friends have :-) its much better off now!

Joe

Well, we don't really know if Iraq will be better off or not yet, that part of history is yet to be written. What we do know is the war on Iraq was the poster child for Al Qaeda to recruit new members. Perhaps Iraq is safer now then before (I doubt it) but America sure isn't. Iraq created more terrorists and it didn't have to happen. Iraq was a war of choice, not one of need.

Actually between Defense and his Healthcare plan, it comes out to roughly 1.5 trillion dollars. That isn't including Education, Agriculture, Treasury, Commerce, Labor, and all the other cabinet positions.

Still think that Kerry will be spending less than Bush? Your dreaming!

BUT bush cut taxes and then INCREASED SPENDING, thus fucknig up the future of this nation, i rather pay more in taxes if there is a intelligent health care plan, and it was 900billion, not 1.5 trillion, your adding numbers

Well, we don't really know if Iraq will be better off or not yet, that part of history is yet to be written. What we do know is the war on Iraq was the poster child for Al Qaeda to recruit new members. Perhaps Iraq is safer now then before (I doubt it) but America sure isn't. Iraq created more terrorists and it didn't have to happen. Iraq was a war of choice, not one of need.

You missed the point didn't you....where are the terrorists going to fight the US? In iraq and Afganistan, not here in the US. What better way to fight a war on an enemy without a state...draw them to you on foreign soil. They are religious zealots and will run to Iraq to run the infidels out of the "holy" lands. It is brilliant to the point of genius, but people do not see it for what it is thanks to the media.

What lies did Kerry tell? We did do bad things in Veitnam, are you angry he told truth? You served honorably? YOU are better than Bush lol, wanna be Prez.
Sorry, I'll light it for you though, I don't smell them.





First off BULLSHIT, the only thing we did WRONG in Viet Nam was LISTEN to the lies KERRY told to congress! Its because of the lies he, and people like him told to congress that we fucked up!

Did we kill kids? Yes, war is hell, and guess what, there were people giving kids bombs and telling them to walk into a group of GI's and push the button. WE HAD TO DO WHAT WE DID!

You tell me ONE thing we did wrong that WASNT caused directly or indirectly by the lies told to congress or by congress trying to flex its power and try to run the war from washington!

Get your head out of your ass and smell my fart becuase you dont have a clue what your talking about!

BUT bush cut taxes and then INCREASED SPENDING, thus fucknig up the future of this nation, i rather pay more in taxes if there is a intelligent health care plan, and it was 900billion, not 1.5 trillion, your adding numbers

He cut taxes....9-11 happened and he had to increase spending. If he had taken the tax cuts back the economy would have fallen much further than it did.

He cut taxes....9-11 happened and he had to increase spending. If he had taken the tax cuts back the economy would have fallen much further than it did.

Actually he cut taxes after 9/11, sorry, just being nit picky.. :cool:

BUT bush cut taxes and then INCREASED SPENDING, thus fucknig up the future of this nation, i rather pay more in taxes if there is a intelligent health care plan, and it was 900billion, not 1.5 trillion, your adding numbers

Oh my god you did NOT read my numbers did you! I said BETWEEN Healthcare AND defence its 1.5 Trillion dollars!

A 900 BILLION dollar Healthcare plan
A 450 BILLION dollar Defense Department
Equals ok 1.35 Trillion!

We still haven't gotten to the rest of the cabinet positions!

As for Cutting taxes, we did not know that we were going to fight a war. The big one was signed BEFORE 9/11 with smaller ones afterwards. We had corporate scandals and now those Criminals are being punished using our tax money. If it hadn't been for our tax cuts, our economy would've been worse than it was.

To pay for what Kerry wants to do, he's gotta do a couple of things. 1) Raise Taxes. Good luck in getting that passed through Congress and 2) Cut funding elsewhere. The question is where will he cut that funding. That is what scares me because I'm willing to place good money that he will try to cut money from the Defense Department as well as the Intelligence Bureau.

Actually he cut taxes after 9/11, sorry, just being nit picky.. :cool:

Well, the bill was before Congress before then was it not? Or am I wrong?

Mr. Bush makes his choices NOT based on what will give him the highest vote (like some other people) but because he believes they are right! Even if he makes the wrong choice I'd MUCH rather have someone who does things because he believes they are right then because he is trying to gain votes.


Not exactly true. He bases his beliefs on Religion and guess who has the largest influence on the Republican party? He does things to placate his supporters just like everybody else.

Can you give an example where he stared down his party to grant something he belived was right?

He cut taxes....9-11 happened and he had to increase spending. If he had taken the tax cuts back the economy would have fallen much further than it did.

You are correct Biff. Doesn't take an economics degree to know this.

Well, we don't really know if Iraq will be better off or not yet, that part of history is yet to be written. What we do know is the war on Iraq was the poster child for Al Qaeda to recruit new members. Perhaps Iraq is safer now then before (I doubt it) but America sure isn't. Iraq created more terrorists and it didn't have to happen. Iraq was a war of choice, not one of need.

Bullshit. Bush didnt WANT to go to Iraq! Open your eyes, this was no ones choice.

Let me tell you a little bit about Iraq. Do you know how they won there last war against Iran? They used WMD. Do you know why NO ONE has gone to war with Iraq since then? Becaues EVERYONE believed they had more WMD. Iraq even lies to there own neigbors and tells them they have nukes hidden where the inspectors cant find them and if they cause a problem they will use the nukes on them.

Those who forget the past are bound to relive it. Do you remember what happened the last time we let something like this happen and we DIDNT do something about it? Its called World War 2.

So were the bad guy, we've always been the bad guy and guess what, as long as we are the stongest country on this earth and have the freedom to cry about how bad our president is we will always be the bad guy.

Its the lack of freedom of information that causes people to hate us, not our politics. These people have very few TV's and the have no papers or written press that supports us, so all they know is what they see written by people who dont like us because they want what we have. Pure and simple.

Like smell my fart said, get your head out of your ass and smell my fart!

(catchy isnt it)

Not exactly true. He bases his beliefs on Religion and guess who has the largest influence on the Republican party? He does things to placate his supporters just like everybody else.

Can you give an example where he stared down his party to grant something he belived was right?

Yes religion. beliefs... wow

In case you had not notice the most honorable people on this earth are influenced by religion.

Ok so tell me what is wrong with basing your beliefs on someone who is unable to tell a lie and choose a higher power for guidence?

Oh my god you did NOT read my numbers did you! I said BETWEEN Healthcare AND defence its 1.5 Trillion dollars!

Ok, instead of all this "guess" work you keep trying to do here, why don't you actually read Kerry's plan and how he plans to pay for it before you start freaking out over some thing you clearly have no knowledge on. I'll even help you. Here is the link where you can download the whole plan and how he will pay for it. May I suggest you go read it and then come back to argue what is wrong with it when you actually have a clue of what the plan actually is. This rhetoric and blatantly false allegations are starting to get old.

http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Bullshit. Bush didnt WANT to go to Iraq! Open your eyes, this was no ones choice.

Let me tell you a little bit about Iraq. Do you know how they won there last war against Iran? They used WMD. Do you know why NO ONE has gone to war with Iraq since then? Becaues EVERYONE believed they had more WMD. Iraq even lies to there own neigbors and tells them they have nukes hidden where the inspectors cant find them and if they cause a problem they will use the nukes on them.

Those who forget the past are bound to relive it. Do you remember what happened the last time we let something like this happen and we DIDNT do something about it? Its called World War 2.

So were the bad guy, we've always been the bad guy and guess what, as long as we are the stongest country on this earth and have the freedom to cry about how bad our president is we will always be the bad guy.

Its the lack of freedom of information that causes people to hate us, not our politics. These people have very few TV's and the have no papers or written press that supports us, so all they know is what they see written by people who dont like us because they want what we have. Pure and simple.

Like smell my fart said, get your head out of your ass and smell my fart!

(catchy isnt it)

Joe,

One thing I've learned about Stephistan is that she is a Canadian Liberal and doesn't much Care for the Bush Administration and is adamently against the Iraq War. Say something that violates her way of thinking and she pounces on you like bees on pollen.

Keep up the Good Work Joe. These forums need more like you. Thanks for serving our country.

As to what you say, you are absolutely right. I wish others would see this but they are clouded by what they see on TV. I for one do know what we've been doing over there and I'm glad we are doing what we are doing.

Yes religion. beliefs... wow

In case you had not notice the most honorable people on this earth are influenced by religion.

Ok so tell me what is wrong with basing your beliefs on someone who is unable to tell a lie and choose a higher power for guidence?

That's lovely, however it's not suppose to be how one governs a free country that has some thing called the 1st Amendment. You know, that Separation of Church & State stuff. :rolleyes:

Ok, instead of all this "guess" work you keep trying to do here, why don't you actually read Kerry's plan and how he plans to pay for it before you start freaking out over some thing you clearly have no knowledge on. I'll even help you. Here is the link where you can download the whole plan and how he will pay for it. May I suggest you go read it and then come back to argue what is wrong with it when you actually have a clue of what the plan actually is. This rhetoric and blatantly false allegations are starting to get old.

http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

I've got a plan... Its called:

VOTE FOR BUSH

One thing I've learned about Stephistan is that she is a Canadian Liberal and doesn't much Care for the Bush Administration and is adamently against the Iraq War. Say something that violates her way of thinking and she pounces on you like bees on pollen.

Yes, if you know me as well as you seem to know Bush and Kerry, I guess that means you don't know me at all.. *funny*

I've got a plan... Its called:

VOTE FOR BUSH

Then you go right ahead. I'm fine with it, it's your right and your choice. I just don't like it when people spout lies and half truths and talk about things they haven't a clue about. I'm not saying that is what you're doing, but it is certainly what Corneliu and his sister do on this forum.. every once in a while my husband takes great glee in slapping them back to reality.

However, if Bush is your man, by all means vote for Bush.. just don't lie and you and I will never have a problem :)

Ok, instead of all this "guess" work you keep trying to do here, why don't you actually read Kerry's plan and how he plans to pay for it before you start freaking out over some thing you clearly have no knowledge on. I'll even help you. Here is the link where you can download the whole plan and how he will pay for it. May I suggest you go read it and then come back to argue what is wrong with it when you actually have a clue of what the plan actually is. This rhetoric and blatantly false allegations are starting to get old.

http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Steph, don't insult me. I've seen what he has planned. It does not impress me. I can only see tax hikes in my future and that'll be BAD for the US Economy.

Steph, I'm a Bush Supporter. I don't like Kerry. Kerry scares the hell out of me. If he is elected President, I fear on how our soveriegnty is going to suffer. Right now, our soveriegnty isn't tied to the Scandalous UN but Kerry would handcuff us to the UN. That will not go over well with the generals because we DO NOT and SHALL NOT answer to ANY FOREIGN COMMANDER. That goes against our time honored Military Tradition. We didn't in WWI, we didn't in WWII, We didn't in the First Gulf War, We didn't in this Gulf War, We didn't in Kosovo. It goes against everything our military stands for.

Then you tried to oppress us a second time and that one ended in a cease fire!

i'm honestly curious as when you're referring to here, as my napoleonic american history is slightly shaky.

That's lovely, however it's not suppose to be how one governs a free country that has some thing called the 1st Amendment. You know, that Separation of Church & State stuff. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, lets talk about that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

NOWHERE in that does it say that the president should not or can not base his decisions on religion. In fact, this country was built so we could EXERCIZE RELIGION FREELY!

Oh but some of you seem to have forgotten that.

I've got a plan... Its called:

VOTE FOR BUSH

HERE HERE!! WE should start a group Gas!

NS Nations for Geoge Bush! :)

Yes religion. beliefs... wow

In case you had not notice the most honorable people on this earth are influenced by religion.

Ok so tell me what is wrong with basing your beliefs on someone who is unable to tell a lie and choose a higher power for guidence?

Changing the subject? You said he doesn't do anything to please supporters. I said no he does as the Christian base is the dominate force of the Republicans so he does things to appease them.

Honor is not defined by ones belief in God.

There are many examples of deeply Relgious people that have no Honor!

Honor is something you have or you don't. It can't be given too you and it can't be taken from you.

i'm honestly curious as when you're referring to here, as my napoleonic american history is slightly shaky.

She was talking about the War of 1812 that ended with first a cease fire followed by the Treaty of Gehnt in 1814! Really has no bearing here but there is your quick explanation.

Changing the subject? You said he doesn't do anything to please supporters. I said no he does as the Christian base is the dominate force of the Republicans so he does things to appease them.

Honor is not defined by ones belief in God.

There are many examples of deeply Relgious people that have no Honor!

Honor is something you have or you don't. It can't be given too you and it can't be taken from you.

name for me ONE great athiest! Just one!

Oh yes, lets talk about that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

NOWHERE in that does it say that the president should not or can not base his decisions on religion. In fact, this country was built so we could EXERCIZE RELIGION FREELY!

Oh but some of you seem to have forgotten that.

You also have to look at the intent. The establishment clause is designed to keep the Goverment Relgious Neutral! It should not endorse nor should it discrimate.

The President can use his own Moral code to do things. However, when he starts doing things for the sake of Christianity, then he is wrong.

A theocracy is far worst form of Goverment.

Oh yes, lets talk about that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

NOWHERE in that does it say that the president should not or can not base his decisions on religion. In fact, this country was built so we could EXERCIZE RELIGION FREELY!

Oh but some of you seem to have forgotten that.

I know you're probably to busy to read case law, but the Supreme Court most certainly has ruled and does recognize the separation of church & state based on the 1st Amendment. Read up on it, it's actually quite interesting.

The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion.

-- George Washington & John Adams

Oh yes, lets talk about that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

NOWHERE in that does it say that the president should not or can not base his decisions on religion. In fact, this country was built so we could EXERCIZE RELIGION FREELY!

Oh but some of you seem to have forgotten that.
there is excercising religion, then there is enacting religion

true he can worship how he wants i guesst ake time off for religious holidays if he has the time, eh can pray speak at churches go to church

but he cannot makes laws based specifically in his religion. would you want a muslim president to ban the eating of pork?

name for me ONE great athiest! Just one!

Athiesm has nothing to do with honor.

You can have athiests that are honorable. Just has you can have Christians that have no honor.

Athiesm has nothing to do with honor.

You can have athiests that are honorable. Just has you can have Christians that have no honor.

Hey, I think George Carlin is great. He's one of my favorite athiests!!! *LOL*

But if you want serious, how about Albert Einstein!

You also have to look at the intent. The establishment clause is designed to keep the Goverment Relgious Neutral! It should not endorse nor should it discrimate.

The President can use his own Moral code to do things. However, when he starts doing things for the sake of Christianity, then he is wrong.

A theocracy is far worst form of Goverment.

Last time I checked, all religions can worship freely. A theocracy is where one religion is RECOGNIZED and the others persecuted. I don't see that happening in the USA.

name for me ONE great athiest! Just one!
John Locke, you know, the guy who's philosphy this coutnry was based on

She was talking about the War of 1812 that ended with first a cease fire followed by the Treaty of Gehnt in 1814! Really has no bearing here but there is your quick explanation.


Thank you!

Thank you!

Your Welcome Cianoi

Last time I checked, all religions can worship freely. A theocracy is where one religion is RECOGNIZED and the others persecuted. I don't see that happening in the USA.

It still is and I was not suggesting it was the practice in the US.

It was nothing more then a statement. The worst attrocities of man against man usually are done in the name of God(s).

It has happened here. Before the Consititution, our "beloved" Pilgrims had a quasi-theocratic goverment.

You also have to look at the intent. The establishment clause is designed to keep the Goverment Relgious Neutral! It should not endorse nor should it discrimate.

The President can use his own Moral code to do things. However, when he starts doing things for the sake of Christianity, then he is wrong.

A theocracy is far worst form of Goverment.

First off if you think hes doing things "for the sack of Christianity" your full of shit and a puppet of modern media. Second off give me an example of how he is discriminating against any religoin. If you think Sadam was a Muslim then you better check your history books. He was just as much a stalinist as Hitler was.

It still is and I was not suggesting it was the practice in the US.

It was nothing more then a statement. The worst attrocities of man against man usually are done in the name of God(s).

It has happened here. Before the Consititution, our "beloved" Pilgrims had a quasi-theocratic goverment.

no you just implied it which is just as bad as suggesting that it was so! LOL!

I will give you the benefit of the doubt! :)

no you just implied it which is just as bad as suggesting that it was so! LOL!

I will give you the benefit of the doubt! :)

As you can guess from my spelling, I am not the most adept writer! ;)

As you can guess from my spelling, I am not the most adept writer! ;)

LOL! I noticed! ;)

John Locke, you know, the guy who's philosphy this coutnry was based on

John Locke was a Puritan. Just because he taught to challenge the motives of the church doesnt mean he himself did not have a faith.

First off if you think hes doing things "for the sack of Christianity" your full of shit and a puppet of modern media. Second off give me an example of how he is discriminating against any religoin. If you think Sadam was a Muslim then you better check your history books. He was just as much a stalinist as Hitler was.

Changing the subject again?

You asked what is wrong with doing things from your Relgious beliefs. I said there was nothing wrong with doing that. However, it is wrong for the President to do things for the sake of the Religion.

Hmmm Hitler was a Stalinist? :D

John Locke was a Puritan. Just because he taught to challenge the motives of the church doesnt mean he himself did not have a faith.

Joe is right here. He was a Puritan. I had to read an excerpt in my political and Social philosphy class and we debated this and Steph, my professor was a liberal but he listened to me and we did give and take. :p

Joe is right here. He was a Puritan. I had to read an excerpt in my political and Social philosphy class and we debated this and Steph, my professor was a liberal but he listened to me and we did give and take. :p

I never said any thing about Locke, sorry, wrong poster.

Changing the subject again?

You asked what is wrong with doing things from your Relgious beliefs. I said there was nothing wrong with doing that. However, it is wrong for the President to do things for the sake of the Religion.

Hmmm Hitler was a Stalinist? :D

Tell me how he's doing things for the sake of religion. I've lived in this country all my life and I'd really like to know.

Tell me how he's doing things for the sake of religion. I've lived in this country all my life and I'd really like to know.

Ok one more time.

You know the establishment clause.

There is nothing wrong with the Shrub following his own moral code.

Ok now read this twice.

The President would be wrong to enact things for the sake of Religion.

Is that better? ;)

Who gives a crap about his record. Its in the past. Bush was a total failure, and did lots of drugs b4 he became president, but do democrats make a big deal? No. Republicans make a huge fuss about when kerry took a piss in 1969 bc they are low life scumbags who know their candidate is a friggin idiot.

Kerry has a military record and the best place to find out how he was seen during vietnam was from those that served with him. Visit www.swiftvets.com for a little light on the situation.

Who gives a crap about his record. Its in the past. Bush was a total failure, and did lots of drugs b4 he became president, but do democrats make a big deal? No. Republicans make a huge fuss about when kerry took a piss in 1969 bc they are low life scumbags who know their candidate is a friggin idiot.

Thank you for showing your liberalism against Bush and the Republican Party! I guess somewhat forgot to mention to YOU that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Press made a FUSS over BUSH's record but when the tables got turned, they slambasted the people that question Kerry's record!

Kerry has a military record and the best place to find out how he was seen during vietnam was from those that served with him. Visit www.swiftvets.com for a little light on the situation.

I did take a look and I'm looking foward to the book that is coming out. It should be interesting to see how Kerry responds to this, if he has the guts to respond.

Yes but democrats thankfully do not stoop so low as to run ads comparing Kerry and Michael moore to hitler. Face it, republicans are scum. Their the rich fighting to get richer. They dont give a crap about the average people in america. They want to run the world so they can do whats best for them.

Yes but democrats thankfully do not stoop so low as to run ads comparing Kerry and Michael moore to hitler. Face it, republicans are scum. Their the rich fighting to get richer. They dont give a crap about the average people in america. They want to run the world so they can do whats best for them.


Thank you for making this thread slightly less intelligent by placing unsupported flame and generalizations that do nothing but reflect poorly on your openmindedness and intellect.

Yes but democrats thankfully do not stoop so low as to run ads comparing Kerry and Michael moore to hitler. Face it, republicans are scum. Their the rich fighting to get richer. They dont give a crap about the average people in america. They want to run the world so they can do whats best for them.

I haven't heard Moore getting called Hilter. Be advised, Moveon.org also called Bush Hitler too. I guess because a democrat funded group labeling Bush hitler is ok. I know that a commercial came out with the same against Kerry but that too was pulled.

As for the rich getting richer, take alook at the ticket your party has. It has more money than the Bush/Cheney ticket. LOL I guess you did not know that either.

If I'm wrong, then why dont we have universal healthcare. Because Bush is president. Clinton did the right thing by making steps in that direction. Why dont we have tighter environmental laws? Because Bush doesnt want to impede on his rich buddies. Its not a generalization, bush is leader of republicans, they act through him.

John Kerry..miltary record...haha..okay so he do go over to veitnam, thats great I am proud of all the 120 days he was there..yeap thats it...oh and john should know that while shooting himself in the hand got him out of veitnam it won't get him out of hot water in the whitehouse. Also If he wants to brag about his miltary experiance why shouldn't the records be made public, if does not want anyone to know what really went on there, he should not talk about it. Also John Kerry was the one who said we should not judge out politicans based on who went to vietnam and who did not, but that was before it could help him. What makes him think that a kernal is quilified to be commander in cheif, Kernals make no orders...all they do is follow and pass down orders

I haven't heard Moore getting called Hilter. Be advised, Moveon.org also called Bush Hitler too. I guess because a democrat funded group labeling Bush hitler is ok. I know that a commercial came out with the same against Kerry but that too was pulled.

As for the rich getting richer, take alook at the ticket your party has. It has more money than the Bush/Cheney ticket. LOL I guess you did not know that either.
wrong, moveon.org is not a democrat funded group, it is a third party independent, unlike swift boat vets against kerry which is run by a nixon attack dog and die hard republican

If I'm wrong, then why dont we have universal healthcare. Because Bush is president. Clinton did the right thing by making steps in that direction. Why dont we have tighter environmental laws? Because Bush doesnt want to impede on his rich buddies. Its not a generalization, bush is leader of republicans, they act through him.

Universal Healthcare won't work in our society. Its not working anywhere to be honest. When the government runs something important, the Government screws it up. I could point to examples but I don't think you'll understand.

Yes but whereas your vice president has his hands dirty with halliburton, ours came from a rural childhood. He knows what its like being in the middle class.

John Kerry..miltary record...haha..okay so he do go over to veitnam, thats great I am proud of all the 120 days he was there..yeap thats it...oh and john should know that while shooting himself in the hand got him out of veitnam it won't get him out of hot water in the whitehouse. Also If he wants to brag about his miltary experiance why shouldn't the records be made public, if does not want anyone to know what really went on there, he should not talk about it. Also John Kerry was the one who said we should not judge out politicans based on who went to vietnam and who did not, but that was before it could help him. What makes him think that a kernal is quilified to be commander in cheif, Kernals make no orders...all they do is follow and pass down orders
whoah look, bullshit


why would he pull some bullshit to get himself out of vietnam? he VOLUNTEERED to go into vietnam, twice. TWICE> there is a little form, theres a checkbox about volunterring for serive, john kerry checked yes, bush checked NO

and the word is COLONEL, kernals are in popcorn

name for me ONE great athiest! Just one!

- John Adams

- Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain"

- Thomas Edison

- Albert Einstein

- Sigmund Freud

- Thomas Jefferson

- Freidrich Nietzsche

You want more?

If I'm wrong, then why dont we have universal healthcare. Because Bush is president. Clinton did the right thing by making steps in that direction. Why dont we have tighter environmental laws? Because Bush doesnt want to impede on his rich buddies. Its not a generalization, bush is leader of republicans, they act through him.


We don't have universal healthcare because IT DOESN'T WORK. Canada has universal healthcare and they have: not enough doctors, huge waiting lists for simple procedures, and a general lack of funding across all areas. Many border Canadians even have doctors in america because they want someone who can compentently treat them.

Yes but whereas your vice president has his hands dirty with halliburton, ours came from a rural childhood. He knows what its like being in the middle class.

where the hell are you from..in America's VP is still Cheney (sp?) you can't say "our" vp and "your" vp thats not the way it works

Universal Healthcare won't work in our society. Its not working anywhere to be honest. When the government runs something important, the Government screws it up. I could point to examples but I don't think you'll understand.
screw it up how? control the insane price ranges and force the industry to modernize?

wrong, moveon.org is not a democrat funded group, it is a third party independent, unlike swift boat vets against kerry which is run by a nixon attack dog and die hard republican

Oh then I guess George Soro's contributions don't count? Funny! Last time I checked, he was an outspoken Democrat that wants GWB ousted. SO YES it is funded by democrats, powerful ones too.

screw it up how? control the insane price ranges and force the industry to modernize?


you can't do both..the industry as you say... will say they need money to mondernize and they do, and where is that money going to come from if your cutting prices?

where the hell are you from..in America's VP is still Cheney (sp?) you can't say "our" vp and "your" vp thats not the way it works

Hommen he's coming from the Rep VP (Cheney) and the Dem VP candidate (Edwards)! That is what he's talking about!

Cheney is the VP of the USA!

Hommen he's coming from the Rep VP (Cheney) and the Dem VP candidate (Edwards)! That is what he's talking about!

Cheney is the VP of the USA!

yes, I know this..its jsut from every America wheter they like it or not....Cheney is the VP...you can't say he is not , he is...you can say you hope he won't be soon, but he is now

you can't do both..the industry as you say... will say they need money to mondernize and they do, and where is that money going to come from if your cutting prices?
most of the outrageous pricing comes from drug companies and insurance companies, and 2 the modernizations would pay for themselves within a couple years, thats been proven across every field

yes, I know this..its jsut from every America wheter they like it or not....Cheney is the VP...you can't say he is not he is...you can say he hope he won't be soon, but he is now

I know but liberals still think that Al Gore won the election so you can take it from there.

I know but liberals still think that Al Gore won the election so you can take it from there.

yeah and Al Gore thinks he invented the Internet...so everyone can indulge in their dreams for all I care...

Oh then I guess George Soro's contributions don't count? Funny! Last time I checked, he was an outspoken Democrat that wants GWB ousted. SO YES it is funded by democrats, powerful ones too.

Hey, even Warren Buffet who has been historically Republican edorses Kerry, but I guess you must think Warren Buffet doesn't know much about the economy huh.. *LOL* :rolleyes:

most of the outrageous pricing comes from drug companies and insurance companies, and 2 the modernizations would pay for themselves within a couple years, thats been proven across every field


ah yes, but all anyone has to say is why should I take that risk? As a bussiness they have the right to say no I won't take that risk that it will pay for itslef...free market..liassez faire...goverments leave the bussiness alone..its better that way

wrong, moveon.org is not a democrat funded group, it is a third party independent, unlike swift boat vets against kerry which is run by a nixon attack dog and die hard republican

Whom would that be?

Whom would that be?

For once The Black Forrest and I are in agreement! Who is it?

ah yes, but all anyone has to say is why should I take that risk? As a bussiness they have the right to say no I won't take that risk that it will pay for itslef...free market..liassez faire...goverments leave the bussiness alone..its better that way
everybody whines about people not being perfect so communism cant work

doesnt anyone realise that laissez faire doesnt work unless in a perfect system

other wise the companies runnig around making ure they have no competition and with no competition they can charge whatever how much they want for products and withotu government control they can employ whoever they want for as little as they want

it has been discussed several times in this thread and another, well i think this thread.

but i cant remember his name, but its been rbrought up on these forusm already several times

For once The Black Forrest and I are in agreement! Who is it?

John O'Neill; he was originally dispatched to attack Kerry by Nixon's crew.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405040004
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/jk-rumors.html

The people funding it are generally Texas republicans, several with ties to Bush.

John O'Neill; he was originally dispatched to attack Kerry by Nixon's crew.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405040004
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/jk-rumors.html

The people funding it are generally Texas republicans, several with ties to Bush.

Oh because they have ties to bush, they can be written off? Please, Hypocracy can only go so far.

Now do you have conclusive proof outside of these 2 website with one of them attached to John Kerry?

Oh because they have ties to bush, they can be written off? Please, Hypocracy can only go so far.

Nice straw man you've got there, build it yourself?

You asked who was running it, I told you. Anything else you found there, you brought.

Nice straw man you've got there, build it yourself?

You asked who was running it, I told you. Anything else you found there, you brought.

however, one is attached to john kerry so that site can be questioned. The other one is monitoring the situation.

As for a strawman, why can the press critize bush's record but not Kerry's?

however, one is attached to john kerry so that site can be questioned. The other one is monitoring the situation.

As for a strawman, why can the press critize bush's record but not Kerry's?

Could you rephrase your statements to make slightly more sense? I'm not sure what you're driving it.

The media in my world has been very critical of a number of Kerry's actions.

Are you saying it's unfair of the media to examine the record of the incumbent?

Could you rephrase your statements to make slightly more sense? I'm not sure what you're driving it.

The media in my world has been very critical of a number of Kerry's actions.

Are you saying it's unfair of the media to examine the record of the incumbent?

Well from what i've been seeing, its the exact opposite. People are slambasting the people that are criticizing Kerry's record but yet when people called on Bush's record, they wanted full disclosure. I've yet to hear it from the liberal Press for full discloser of Kerry's record. And no, what kerry has posted on his sight, IS NOT his full record.

Well from what i've been seeing, its the exact opposite. People are slambasting the people that are criticizing Kerry's record but yet when people called on Bush's record, they wanted full disclosure. I've yet to hear it from the liberal Press for full discloser of Kerry's record. And no, what kerry has posted on his sight, IS NOT his full record.
how do YOU know its not his full record, are you another conservative psychic

is it jsut me or are all cosnervatives psychic

I've yet to hear it from the liberal Press for full discloser of Kerry's record.

Do you claim that Bush has released more of his record than Kerry has? Why is it, for instance, that Bush skipped his flight physical while in the national guard?

how do YOU know its not his full record, are you another conservative psychic

is it jsut me or are all cosnervatives psychic

I know that's not his full record. You can tell its not his full record. Where's the paperwork for his purple hearts? I see the citations but not the paper work. Why isn't that released?

Why isn't Kerry himself answering the charges regarding his war record in Nam? I've yet to hear a peep out of HIM. I'm hearing plenty from his DNC lawayers threatening Cable stations that they'll lose their license if they showed a commercial! What do they have to fear? That the people will actually look into it?

His record is not fully disclosed. When it is disclosed, just maybe we'll get some questions answered.

ah yes, but all anyone has to say is why should I take that risk? As a bussiness they have the right to say no I won't take that risk that it will pay for itslef...free market..liassez faire...goverments leave the bussiness alone..its better that way

sureeeee.

Child labor laws happened because business said we need them.

The coal mines and the rail roads belived in worker safety guidlines without goverment envolvment.

Environmental laws happen because business says we need them.

Superfund clean up happens because business says we need them.

Love Canal?

Business unleashed is just as bad as the goverment running everything.

I'm hearing plenty from his DNC lawayers threatening Cable stations that they'll lose their license if they showed a commercial! What do they have to fear? That the people will actually look into it?


Source please.....

however, one is attached to john kerry so that site can be questioned. The other one is monitoring the situation.




My oh my. Isn't that an interesting comment from somebody who posted his "analysis" of Kerry's fitreps in this thread from an anti-kerry site, but claims that this analysis cannot be questioned....

:rolleyes:

Oh because they have ties to bush, they can be written off? Please, Hypocracy can only go so far.

Now do you have conclusive proof outside of these 2 website with one of them attached to John Kerry?

Some thing to ponder oh wise one.. sites' such as moveon.org etc were up and running before any one even knew Kerry was going to run for president. I started reading moveon.org when the USA invaded Afghanistan. But nice try genius. :rolleyes:

Would you please at least try to educate yourself on what is really going on, my husband and I are starting to get tired of constantly correcting your misinformation.

Source please.....

I would quote it but wether or not you'll trust the source is another story.

I would quote it but wether or not you'll trust the source is another story.

Sure it depends on the person and their references.

Normally, I would toss anything Savage says into the trash.

However, if Savage said "Come and look at Kerry's file....."

I read everything as even a crazy man can make a valid point.

I am just interested how the DNC can pull licenses for running an anti-kerry ad.

Seems a little the sky is falling to me......

[QUOTE=Joe Gas]Bullshit. Bush didnt WANT to go to Iraq! Open your eyes, this was no ones choice.

Let me tell you a little bit about Iraq. Do you know how they won there last war against Iran? They used WMD. Do you know why NO ONE has gone to war with Iraq since then? Becaues EVERYONE believed they had more WMD. Iraq even lies to there own neigbors and tells them they have nukes hidden where the inspectors cant find them and if they cause a problem they will use the nukes on them.

So were the bad guy, we've always been the bad guy and guess what, as long as we are the stongest country on this earth and have the freedom to cry about how bad our president is we will always be the bad guy.

Its the lack of freedom of information that causes people to hate us, not our politics. These people have very few TV's and the have no papers or written press that supports us, so all they know is what they see written by people who dont like us because they want what we have. Pure and simple.
QUOTE]

I too am a military man, marines to be exact. saddaams WMDs came from 2 places, USA and USSR. and as far as the lack of information? you know what they see. Americans comming in and killing/injuring 100 people a week. thats a way to win over a populace. and saddaam was good at putting on a front. I dont know anything about him claiming to have nukes but who here plays poker? one word. bluff sadaam was good at doing that.

I'm in the Military myself, Army to be exact. So far, the idea of Kerry, who's using four months of service (I was in training longer than he served actively. I have a grandfather who by choice went to vietnam 3 times. Four months doesn't impress me any.) as his platform of why people in the military should elect him doesnt give me much faith in him. Furthermore, to paraphrase a friend of mine..Kerry, when campaigning, is a 'hawk' in the midwest and a 'dove' on the coast-he doesnt ever take the same stand in two places. He claims to be canidate of everything for anyone. He has yet to take one consistant position on anything....far too slippery a fellow for my tastes-you never know which way he's gonna go..whereas Bush..while he may not have been the greatest president, you at least know which way the guy is gonna go, and that he's going to stick with what he believes in, because he believes so firmly in it.

Kerry? Probably belives in the power of office, and thats about it.

Who do I think'll get elected? No idea. Unfortunately, as was said earlier in this thread, people seem to like the whole 'I'm not Bush" campaign. A pity, really that people would be so blind as to vote for someone just because he's NOT someone else.

I'll stick with the evil I know, rather than bring a new one in, thankyouverymuch.

John Kerry has also stated that he spent Christmas of 1968 IN Cambodia being fired on by Cambodian, NVA, AND drunken ARVN soldiers who were celebrating Christmas. He stated in 1986 on the floor of the Senate that he was there because of the failed policies of Nixon and that Nixon was at the time stating that there were NO US troops in Cambodia at the time.

Sound plausible?

Well...Nixon did not take office until 1969, 6 weeks AFTER Mr. Kerry SAYS he was in Cambodia, so HOW could Nixon's policies have been in place? If he and his boat were there, they were there alone as no US action took place there until AFTER Mr. Kerry had returned.

So who's credibility is at stake here? No clarification from the Kerry camp is fothcoming. For a man who is running for president based SOLELY on his record in Vietnam, he has some questions that need to be answered.

So do tell me Biff.. where were you on April 15th 1968? What a stupid thing to argue over..lol :headbang:

So do tell me Biff.. where were you on April 15th 1968? What a stupid thing to argue over..lol :headbang:

Really? Well, it just goes to show you what can happen when someone runs a campaign on something from 36 years ago....now THAT is a stupid thing to do. It is getting a lot of air-play today. Kerry denied saying it...until the transcripts were shown to him, then the standard "no comment." This guy is just too good to be true....

This is going to be such a great election :rolleyes: America at it's best.

One side: Anybody but Kerry!
Other side: Anybody but the shrub!

One side: He only served 4 months.
Other side: He didn't even go.

I really don't care what Kerry said 36 years ago. He spoke out against a bullshit war that few people supported. Even the shrub didn't support it as he took the national guard approach to dodge the draft.

I wonder how many "elder" patriotic americans of today were supported Viet Nam? How many of these patriots went out an protested the treatment of the men and women who fought that war when they returned home. How many even thanked them for their sacrifice? How many of them campaign to improve the VA and help them with any issues they have?

I still lean towards Kerry. I view the Shrub as a guaranteed screwover and Kerry as a possible screwover.

Ugh! I need coffee!

This is going to be such a great election :rolleyes: America at it's best.

One side: Anybody but Kerry!
Other side: Anybody but the shrub!

One side: He only served 4 months.
Other side: He didn't even go.

I really don't care what Kerry said 36 years ago. He spoke out against a bullshit war that few people supported. Even the shrub didn't support it as he took the national guard approach to dodge the draft.

I wonder how many "elder" patriotic americans of today were supported Viet Nam? How many of these patriots went out an protested the treatment of the men and women who fought that war when they returned home. How many even thanked them for their sacrifice? How many of them campaign to improve the VA and help them with any issues they have?

I still lean towards Kerry. I view the Shrub as a guaranteed screwover and Kerry as a possible screwover.

Ugh! I need coffee!


It will be interesting to say the least....;)

In this election, it comes down to an old saying.

Damned if you do, Damned if you dont. In the end, we must pick the lesser of two evils. Personally, I'd go for the evil that I know, cause at least then I know what I can expect. Kerry is a total wildcard, he'll be one thing one day, then another thing the next. Cant trust the man a bit.

And as for 'taking the national guard way out'....I believe you owe an apology to the National Guard types for the implied insult in that statement.

And as for 'taking the national guard way out'....I believe you owe an apology to the National Guard types for the implied insult in that statement.
but thats actually what bush did, he used his political ties to get himself into the national guard to keep from getting drafted into active duty then he took some trips to alabama after 4 years and was grounded for 2 years for refusing to take a physical

but thats actually what bush did, he used his political ties to get himself into the national guard to keep from getting drafted into active duty then he took some trips to alabama after 4 years and was grounded for 2 years for refusing to take a physical

Regardless....he is not running on something that happened 36 years ago like Kerry is. By the way, can you even vote in this election?

[QUOTE=Joe Gas]Bullshit. Bush didnt WANT to go to Iraq! Open your eyes, this was no ones choice.

Let me tell you a little bit about Iraq. Do you know how they won there last war against Iran? They used WMD. Do you know why NO ONE has gone to war with Iraq since then? Becaues EVERYONE believed they had more WMD. Iraq even lies to there own neigbors and tells them they have nukes hidden where the inspectors cant find them and if they cause a problem they will use the nukes on them.

So were the bad guy, we've always been the bad guy and guess what, as long as we are the stongest country on this earth and have the freedom to cry about how bad our president is we will always be the bad guy.

Its the lack of freedom of information that causes people to hate us, not our politics. These people have very few TV's and the have no papers or written press that supports us, so all they know is what they see written by people who dont like us because they want what we have. Pure and simple.
QUOTE]

I too am a military man, marines to be exact. saddaams WMDs came from 2 places, USA and USSR. and as far as the lack of information? you know what they see. Americans comming in and killing/injuring 100 people a week. thats a way to win over a populace. and saddaam was good at putting on a front. I dont know anything about him claiming to have nukes but who here plays poker? one word. bluff sadaam was good at doing that.

Yes I know what they see. And I know what they dont see. You can blame the media for that.

Regardless....he is not running on something that happened 36 years ago like Kerry is. By the way, can you even vote in this election?
yes i can, can you?

but my vote won't matter because of the electoral college system

yes i can, can you?

but my vote won't matter because of the electoral college system

Yes I can as well...and I will.

I'm in the Military myself, Army to be exact. So far, the idea of Kerry, who's using four months of service (I was in training longer than he served actively. I have a grandfather who by choice went to vietnam 3 times. Four months doesn't impress me any.) as his platform of why people in the military should elect him doesnt give me much faith in him. Furthermore, to paraphrase a friend of mine..Kerry, when campaigning, is a 'hawk' in the midwest and a 'dove' on the coast-he doesnt ever take the same stand in two places. He claims to be canidate of everything for anyone. He has yet to take one consistant position on anything....far too slippery a fellow for my tastes-you never know which way he's gonna go..whereas Bush..while he may not have been the greatest president, you at least know which way the guy is gonna go, and that he's going to stick with what he believes in, because he believes so firmly in it.

Kerry? Probably belives in the power of office, and thats about it.

Who do I think'll get elected? No idea. Unfortunately, as was said earlier in this thread, people seem to like the whole 'I'm not Bush" campaign. A pity, really that people would be so blind as to vote for someone just because he's NOT someone else.

I'll stick with the evil I know, rather than bring a new one in, thankyouverymuch.

Amen! :-)

I plan on voting, if I can get my papework in on time, considering I'm stuck overseas :P

Wow. You don't have to be stupid to oppose Kerry, but it sure doesn't hurt!

Four months of service... in his second tour of duty, dumbass!

Man, there's nothing here but half-remember AM Radio talking-points and the Swift Boat Veterans for Who Ever Will Write us a Check crap.

While I'll vote for Kerry simply because he has a brain and the other guy's a manifest moron, Kerry's service does contrast heavily with Bush the "non-locatee." You can read Kerry's DD-214. Where's Bush's?

Republicans were screaming for Kerry's divorce records, too. Guess what? They're already public. The screaming is the point. And, as you can see, there are always people dumb enough to buy it, which is why it goes one.
Yeah, I'll vote for the guy who's NOT a miserable failure. That's simple accountability.

Never took a position on anything? Yeah, yeah, yeah, back to the flip-flop thing. Helps to actually know something about the legislative process, you know. $87 billion? Know what really happened? Obviously not if you're still mouthing someone else's lines. The one about the CIA is even funnier!

What committee was Kerry heading up in 1989? Why did he get that assignment, as opposed to Iran-Contra? Find the answers to those questions, and you'll know why those still employing Negroponte, et al., are scared to death of a Kerry presidency.

But, to grasp that, you'd have to know something.

You know, you never actually placed a single point in your whole rant.

I got that feeling as well....you know, that "WTF?" feeling?

I've also got that weird nagging feeling that its another of those kids who believe they're politically astute, yet isnt even old enough to vote, or if they are, they're between 18 and 21, are in college, and believe themselves to be at the cusp of pop culture, and are ready to Save The Whales next month. As well as be politically active, because, after all, they've got no actual real world experience aside from a little college, and they sure as hell arent one of the ones signed up to die in the case of a war.

I've also got that weird nagging feeling that its another of those kids who believe they're politically astute, yet isnt even old enough to vote, or if they are, they're between 18 and 21, are in college, and believe themselves to be at the cusp of pop culture, and are ready to Save The Whales next month. As well as be politically active, because, after all, they've got no actual real world experience aside from a little college, and they sure as hell arent one of the ones signed up to die in the case of a war.

Well I'm well over 21 and I understood what he was saying perfectly and couldn't agree with him more.

You know, you never actually placed a single point in your whole rant.
It seemed pretty clear. I'll try and paraphrase it for you:

1)
Four months of service... in his second tour of duty, dumbass!

Man, there's nothing here but half-remember AM Radio talking-points and the Swift Boat Veterans for Who Ever Will Write us a Check crap.
You are using faulty or half formed information that was likely gleaned from AM conservative radio hosts or spurious advertising.

2)
While I'll vote for Kerry simply because he has a brain and the other guy's a manifest moron, Kerry's service does contrast heavily with Bush the "non-locatee." You can read Kerry's DD-214. Where's Bush's?
Kerry is more intellegent than Bush. Kerry's record in Vietnam is different in many ways than Bush's. Kerry's DD-214 is available, Bush's is not. Therefore, by inference, what is being asked of Kerry is far more than what is being given by Bush. That Kerry has given the information and Bush has not, that speaks a great deal to the character and accountability of Bush. Furthermore, it accentuates the double standard of the Bush camp.

3)
Republicans were screaming for Kerry's divorce records, too. Guess what? They're already public. The screaming is the point. And, as you can see, there are always people dumb enough to buy it, which is why it goes one.
By screaming for information that is already available Republicans hope to create the impression that the other side is being withholding. It is a way of distracting people who do not check information against sources now and then. This connects to the posters thesis, that the information is coming from commentators on AM radio rather than news sources, which have different criteria.

4)
Yeah, I'll vote for the guy who's NOT a miserable failure. That's simple accountability.
His vote will go to the guy who has not been a failure. Implication is obvious.

5)Never took a position on anything? Yeah, yeah, yeah, back to the flip-flop thing. Helps to actually know something about the legislative process, you know. $87 billion? Know what really happened? Obviously not if you're still mouthing someone else's lines. The one about the CIA is even funnier!
The claims about the $87 Billion and CIA are misleading and, when examined in context, laughable. This is well worn territory, you really ought to have looked it up by now.

6)What committee was Kerry heading up in 1989? Why did he get that assignment, as opposed to Iran-Contra? Find the answers to those questions, and you'll know why those still employing Negroponte, et al., are scared to death of a Kerry presidency.

But, to grasp that, you'd have to know something.
If you look into the committee Kerry was assigned to in 1989 and the conditions of the Iran-Contra committee you will find reasons for people around or involved in Negroponte would be afraid of Kerry as president, presumably for reasons of personal accountability on thier account.

6 points. Not bad, really.

Seems pretty clear. If s/he is indeed under the age of 21, I feel a renewed confidence about the future.

That was how I read it too. Good job!

Yes I know what they see. And I know what they dont see. You can blame the media for that.

no they see thier brother, thier sister, thier mother, thier father thier loved one huddling in a corner then a .50 cal goes through thier houses wall and into them. or perhaps a 120mm abrams shell collapses the roof. so they ask who did this? the man on the tank of course. hes wearing the stars and stripes. you dont need media telling you what to think when you see it first hand.

i dont know the new casualty/injury numbers on iraqi civs for this month but for the past few months it has been 100 a week (400 a month for a few months). pretty big number for a country that small and so im gonna take a guess that everyone over there knows someone that has been killed or maimed. we cannot win this war unless we win the populace over.

Some thing to ponder oh wise one.. sites' such as moveon.org etc were up and running before any one even knew Kerry was going to run for president. I started reading moveon.org when the USA invaded Afghanistan. But nice try genius. :rolleyes:

Would you please at least try to educate yourself on what is really going on, my husband and I are starting to get tired of constantly correcting your misinformation.

I have to educate myself? I'm not blindly following party lines. I'm doing research into Kerry's record and what I'm seeing is not healthy for the USA!

These Swift Boat guys, 60 of whom where quoted with signed affidavit, are speaking about what really happened in Nam. Now, I'm seeing one guy stating one thing, and SIXTY stating another. Who do you think will actually have more credibility? They aren't questioning wether or not Rassman was rescued but when your 10 yards from someone, odds are you will be able to hear gunshots and they are ALL saying that there was no enemyfire. These are people that were on the scene.

I need to educate myself? Steph, wake up and smell the roses for once. I just pre-ordered my Book Unfit For Command and I'm going to read it. I suggest that you do the same and then see what Kerry is saying. You might be surprised.

Next time Ma'am, if your going to spout gibberish because that is what your spouting, look into both sides of an issue and then form YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS. I am looking into both sides of this issue and so far, Kerry is getting lower in my respectability levels. Hopefully Kerry HIMSELF answers these questions and not his lawayers.

Next time Ma'am, if your going to spout gibberish because that is what your spouting, look into both sides of an issue and then form YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS. I am looking into both sides of this issue and so far, Kerry is getting lower in my respectability levels. Hopefully Kerry HIMSELF answers these questions and not his lawayers.

I did inform myself, all of these men were paid to do this, they are all the exact same men who went after John McCain and Max Cleland. It's funny how the guy who claimed to treat Kerry for his wounds for his first purple heart in the commercial, recall him? Yeah, his name doesn't even appear on the treatment record. They're lying. They did it to John McCain, they did it to Max Cleland and now they are trying to do it to Kerry. Get informed instead of just following it blindly. Look up who these people really are. Not to mention one has already come forward and recanted his story. If one of these men has recanted, doesn't that put into serious doubt the rest of the group? He said he was pressured into signing the affidavit.

Use your head. :rolleyes:

It never fails to amuse me reading the people attacking Kerry's war record here... these paid off vets say this... this conservative claptrap book says that... he was only there 4 months...

Meanwhile, the democrats who recognize all this propaganda against Kerry for exactly what it is keep quietly bringing up the question "Where was Bush during the war in Vietnam?" After all his base commander in the Texas Air National Guard (the army of none) doesn't remember him ever showing up for duty. And even if he *did* show up for duty, he's still "defending the skies of Texas" :rolleyes: when real patriots and men of honor are dying in Vietnam.

Bush is a deserter. His fatcat daddy got him into a special unit in the Texas Air National Guard reserved for rich boys who didn't want to go to war with the rest of their American brothers.

So you can whine and gyrate and complain about the length of Kerry's tour (for which he willingly volunteered) while supporting your deserter candidate for office... but you look like a complete idiot in the process. Give it up already.

If you want to attack Kerry on something, pick something BUSH HAS DONE BETTER, or at the very least something BUSH HAS DONE. By any account Bush did not serve his country in wartime.

Unless of course the platform you've selected is that Kerry was a damn fool when it comes to figuring out how to pussy out of a war. Bush definitely pussied out better than Kerry.

I mean really! Stick to the flip flopping thing, or taxes or something. Of course Kerry's going to tout his war record, he actually served in a war, unlike our current Scumbag in Chief. That's one he's got over Bush. If you're going to go after Kerry, you should pick something that Bush can claim to have done, and done better.

I did inform myself, all of these men were paid to do this, they are all the exact same men who went after John McCain and Max Cleland. It's funny how the guy who claimed to treat Kerry for his wounds for his first purple heart in the commercial, recall him? Yeah, his name doesn't even appear on the treatment record. They're lying. They did it to John McCain, they did it to Max Cleland and now they are trying to do it to Kerry. Get informed instead of just following it blindly. Look up who these people really are. Not to mention one has already come forward and recanted his story. If one of these men has recanted, doesn't that put into serious doubt the rest of the group? He said he was pressured into signing the affidavit.

Use your head. :rolleyes:

Sorry Stephistan. I have used my head. I haven't written anyone off. The reason his name wasn't on the paper Steph is because a medic, not a doctor, signed it. He even stated that he didn't sign it. God in heaven steph, you need to open up your ears. How do you know they are lying? That is what I want to know. I'm seeing a total of 60 people quoted and they all signed an affidavit. If this is a lie then Kerry should sue. I don't see that happening.

Your the one that needs to be educated. If you ARE getting a degree in Poli Sci then I suggest you take more classes because obviously you never learned the fine art of researching. I am researching. I'm researching the group and Kerry. Right now, the group is the only one talking. I'm ignoring Kerry's advisors and the lawyers because I want to hear from Kerry himself.

As for the guy recanting, that is his right too. It does NOT put the group into question. Not a bit. Steph, i'm almost 22 years old and I have a better understanding into what is going on than you do apparently. You are attacking a group that has spoken out against your beloved candidate even though you can't even vote.

Why do you care about this anyway? You are not allowed to vote in this country and besides that, what we do is none of YOUR BUSINESS. You obviously don't know anything about US politics so I suggest two things: One - Take more classes of US Government and Two - Switch majors. In order to be a political scientist you must be able to analyze what is truth or false. You are too one sided. I question just what you are studying in school. Switch schools. You are learning nothing. Stick to your own country politics. I think this is more your speed.

I did inform myself, all of these men were paid to do this, they are all the exact same men who went after John McCain and Max Cleland. It's funny how the guy who claimed to treat Kerry for his wounds for his first purple heart in the commercial, recall him? Yeah, his name doesn't even appear on the treatment record. They're lying. They did it to John McCain, they did it to Max Cleland and now they are trying to do it to Kerry. Get informed instead of just following it blindly. Look up who these people really are. Not to mention one has already come forward and recanted his story. If one of these men has recanted, doesn't that put into serious doubt the rest of the group? He said he was pressured into signing the affidavit.

Use your head. :rolleyes:

Yeah....like the people coming out against Bush are being paid by a Hungarian financier who has vowed to help unseat Bush....so why are those ads given more credibility? They are by those who feel that way already. :rolleyes:

Now, these men may not have been ON the boat kerry was on...but do you have to be IN a car to be a witness to an accident?

I'm sure someone has said all this but:

Kerry's three purple hearts? He got them so he could go home from 'Nam. Three purple hearts meant you can leave. Two of those hearts were for relatively minor injuries that the vast majority of soldiers shrugged off.
As soon as he got home, however, he burned his purple hearts.
Actually, he burned someone else's, he still has his.
(And you call Bush a liar)

His silver star (i believe): He was on a landing craft, pinned down because of a machinegun nest. The gunners on the craft pumped a few hundred rounds into the nest, and Kerry (against standard procedure) jumped off of the craft. When he got to the beach, he charged the nest (against orders), and shot a wounded, defenseless Vietnamese soldier.

Oh, and I've also heard a rumor, just a rumor mind you, but a supposedly valid claim that one or more of Kerry's Hearts were self-inflicted.

Also, what does three purple hearts really say? He was good at getting in the way of bullets.

Yeah....like the people coming out against Bush are being paid by a Hungarian financier who has vowed to help unseat Bush....so why are those ads given more credibility? They are by those who feel that way already. :rolleyes:

I don't believe either sides ad's unless it's either

1) A well known fact

OR

2) There is eveidence to back up the claims.

I am not one of these mindless people who just believes every thing I hear dear. :)

I don't believe either sides ad's unless it's either

1) A well known fact

OR

2) There is eveidence to back up the claims.

I am not one of these mindless people who just believes every thing I hear dear. :)

Well...you cannot complain about one group doing it if another is also...besides, if what they are saying is untrue...Kerry should sue...so far nothing. The book was released yesterday and it says the same thing...lets see if there is a lawsuit. The author has BEGGED kerry to sue him so he can drag him under oath and refute ANY of his information.