NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

I'm sure you do also know that Kerry volunteered to go to 'Nam right? You also know that while his father wasn't as rich or powerful as Bush's father, he too could of got out of going to 'Nam like so many of the well off did? Like Bush/Cheny/Rove etc..

So, since you're making leaps of logic and speculating on what his motives were or were not and since you of course have know way of knowing what was in the mans mind. I would argue that if he wanted to not go to 'Nam he didn't have to. So, it makes your speculation a little weak.

As for rumors, till I see evidence to prove otherwise, all I know is Kerry got three purple hearts and other medals for his service.

Because believe it or not, you live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty and no such evidence has ever come forth to say Kerry's account is not true. A bunch of paid off Republican bitter vets who are mad at Kerry for coming home and protesting a bad war, does not equal "evidence" Since they are unable to back up any of their assertions.

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.

Well, I seriously doubt Kerry has time for a lawsuit..lol Besides, Bush himself said they have never questioned Kerry's record nor do they intend to, I seriously doubt it will have any barring on the election. I get the feeling you're a little older then the average teen on this forum.. so, you know it's not going to matter either. Perhaps to a small group, but not in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure you know that as well as I do.

I'm sure you do also know that Kerry volunteered to go to 'Nam right? You also know that while his father wasn't as rich or powerful as Bush's father, he too could of got out of going to 'Nam like so many of the well off did? Like Bush/Cheny/Rove etc..

So, since you're making leaps of logic and speculating on what his motives were or were not and since you of course have know way of knowing what was in the mans mind. I would argue that if he wanted to not go to 'Nam he didn't have to. So, it makes your speculation a little weak.

As for rumors, till I see evidence to prove otherwise, all I know is Kerry got three purple hearts and other medals for his service.

Because believe it or not, you live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty and no such evidence has ever come forth to say Kerry's account is not true. A bunch of paid off Republican bitter vets who are mad at Kerry for coming home and protesting a bad war, does not equal "evidence" Since they are unable to back up any of their assertions.

Your evidence?

Well, I seriously doubt Kerry has time for a lawsuit..lol Besides, Bush himself said they have never questioned Kerry's record nor do they intend to, I seriously doubt it will have any barring on the election. I get the feeling you're a little older then the average teen on this forum.. so, you know it's not going to matter either. Perhaps to a small group, but not in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure you know that as well as I do.

Well...Bush is not making Vietnam an issue...because it was 36 years ago. Kerry IS campaigning on his Vietnam record and these men are saying that his record is not as he claims it to be. So i for one want to know, since Kerry brought it up, just why they feel he is lying. IF he is lying, better to know him a fraud BEFORE the election than AFTER if he manages to win. Something I doubt will actually happen anyway.

Originally Posted by Corneliu
Zep, its a known fact that only 2 of his COs support him and the rest don't!

Really? I didn't know it's a 'known fact'. Could you pls supply a link as to where this 'known fact' comes from. Or is it another one of those 'talking points' Republicans love so much (see http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_9007.html)
where if you say it enough times, it becomes 'known fact'. You know Goebels used exactly the same method, but I digress.
As an aside, I see you are trying to smear him by saying only his men supported him, not his COs. Which group would have spent the most time with him, and which group would have been depending their lives on his decisions? Personally I go with the ones who actually saw him lead and had to put their lives in his hands, but hey I'm a working class kinda guy, so I always go with the enlisted men, not the educated officers.

Your evidence?

Umm, Ok, I guess you don't know how law works. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim that some one did some thing wrong or dishonest. It's not up to the person to prove he's not guilty, it's up to the people making the claim that he is. That's the way the law works in the USA and many other countries I might add.

Well...Bush is not making Vietnam an issue...because it was 36 years ago. Kerry IS campaigning on his Vietnam record and these men are saying that his record is not as he claims it to be. So i for one want to know, since Kerry brought it up, just why they feel he is lying. IF he is lying, better to know him a fraud BEFORE the election than AFTER if he manages to win. Something I doubt will actually happen anyway.

I thought you were voting for Bush any way? What you really mean is you want a way to discredit Kerry. At least lets be honest huh... ;)

Umm, Ok, I guess you don't know how law works. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim that some one did some thing wrong or dishonest. It's not up to the person to prove he's not guilty, it's up to the people making the claim that he is. That's the way the law works in the USA and many other countries I might add.

Except in politics....you make a claim you did something...you better be prepared to prove it. Now WHERE are those medical records for those purple hearts again?

I thought you were voting for Bush any way? What you really mean is you want a way to discredit Kerry. At least lets be honest huh... ;)

Well...if the evidence points that way...sure. LOL

Except in politics....you make a claim you did something...you better be prepared to prove it. Now WHERE are those medical records for those purple hearts again?

In the Pentagon somewhere under lock and key and probably won't see the light of day.

I'm a working class kinda guy, so I always go with the enlisted men, not the educated officers.

So being educated is now an epithet? Are you insinuating that officers don't work?

What about an enlisted man who becomes an officer, would you "go with" him?

Of course all of Kerry's record should be exposed. Kerry has made his veteran status a centerpiece of his campaign. Bush hasn't been doing that. If Kerry wants to make his service a central part of his campaign then he deserves all of the investigations into it, you have to take the good with the bad.

Of course all of Kerry's record should be exposed. Kerry has made his veteran status a centerpiece of his campaign. Bush hasn't been doing that. If Kerry wants to make his service a central part of his campaign then he deserves all of the investigations into it, you have to take the good with the bad.

I voted no in this poll. Many candidates for public office have at least portions of their military records sealed; from what I can gather it's standard procedure. So, unless the laws are changed to disallow this, Kerry is within his rights to let portions of his record remain sealed.

Of course all of Kerry's record should be exposed. Kerry has made his veteran status a centerpiece of his campaign. Bush hasn't been doing that. If Kerry wants to make his service a central part of his campaign then he deserves all of the investigations into it, you have to take the good with the bad.

Now this, I totally agree with. I'm unsure what is left to be made public though, I know all his fitreps have been. Other then that, I'm not sure what is left? I admit I'm not a military expert. I don't know what other records are kept.

I voted no in this poll. Many candidates for public office have at least portions of their military records sealed; from what I can gather it's standard procedure. So, unless the laws are changed to disallow this, Kerry is within his rights to let portions of his record remain sealed.

Well...when you make your three purple hearts a centerpiece of your campaign and someone questions them...why would you not put that argument to bed and move on? He can unseal his records at any time...I have copies of all my military medical records at home just in case my disability status changes. So i would bet Kerry does as well....

Well...when you make your three purple hearts a centerpiece of your campaign and someone questions them...why would you not put that argument to bed and move on? He can unseal his records at any time...I have copies of all my military medical records at home just in case my disability status changes. So i would bet Kerry does as well....

I totally agree with you. My point of view on the issue was from a legal standpoint: whether he could be ordered to unseal them or not.

Sure, if he's honest, he'll unseal them and smoke all these detractors. Makes me wonder why he doesn't do that...

I agree with Zerahemnon. Kerry is not all that great as he is made out to be! Most of my Family lives in Mass and they think he has done next to nothing for them!

I totally agree with you. My point of view on the issue was from a legal standpoint: whether he could be ordered to unseal them or not.

Sure, if he's honest, he'll unseal them and smoke all these detractors. Makes me wonder why he doesn't do that...

The detractors gain more credibility the longer Kerry ignores them. IF they are wrong, he should smoke them and that would give him a huge jump in the credibility department. I would even look at him in a new light.

The detractors gain more credibility the longer Kerry ignores them. IF they are wrong, he should smoke them and that would give him a huge jump in the credibility department. I would even look at him in a new light.

That would make 2 of us Biff!

Surely Kerry's campaign would have known that any use of his military record would be held under close scrutiny. So why would they campaign on it if it was based on falsified reports? That makes no sense. At all. You don't open yourself to potentially damaging things like this when campaigning for US President. Could someone explain why he would risk this?
And to Galtania
So being educated is now an epithet? Are you insinuating that officers don't work?
What about an enlisted man who becomes an officer, would you "go with" him?

That's rather asinine don't you think. It misses my point entirely. I was stating that I hold more faith in the opinions of the men who fought under Kerry and whose lives depended on his decisions, not what his COs thought of him. Because, to me at least, those are the opinions I hold as important.

The detractors gain more credibility the longer Kerry ignores them. IF they are wrong, he should smoke them and that would give him a huge jump in the credibility department. I would even look at him in a new light.

Agreed. The point I keep trying to make (which Kerry's supporters won't even listen to) is that they could BOTH be right. (At least about the combat incidents. I don't how Kerry's gonna spin the "Holiday in Cambodia" fiasco.) I try to point out the nature of combat; how different people witness the same event in different ways. Kerry's supporters are having none of it; it's his way or the highway.

Surely Kerry's campaign would have known that any use of his military record would be held under close scrutiny. So why would they campaign on it if it was based on falsified reports? That makes no sense. At all. You don't open yourself to potentially damaging things like this when campaigning for US President. Could someone explain why he would risk this?
And to Galtania


That's rather asinine don't you think. It misses my point entirely. I was stating that I hold more faith in the opinions of the men who fought under Kerry and whose lives depended on his decisions, not what his COs thought of him. Because, to me at least, those are the opinions I hold as important.

On the one hand I agree with you...but as a veteran I can assure you that an officers leadership abilities are far better known by his superiors and not those under him.

On the one hand I agree with you...but as a veteran I can assure you that an officers leadership abilities are far better known by his superiors and not those under him.
but once hes the leader that becomes quite irrelevant doesnt it. and this isnt the military, this is the civilian section, he is being voted into to office not by his superiors but by peers and people under him

Surely Kerry's campaign would have known that any use of his military record would be held under close scrutiny. So why would they campaign on it if it was based on falsified reports? That makes no sense. At all. You don't open yourself to potentially damaging things like this when campaigning for US President. Could someone explain why he would risk this?

Of course this is total common sense, sadly not every one works on logic and common sense. I believe the best indicator of how he served are the men who actually served with him and stand behind him 100%. Not a single member on his boat who served with him don't support him (except for the one that is dead, I don't think he's in a position to support any one) But, you'll find out fast around here, common sense doesn't always rule the day! ;)

See even if Kerry comes out with his records proving that he earned his medals honorably I still have a hard time seeing him as a hero and all that. He came back from the war slamming all the people still over there fighting. Well he can't have it both ways, try as he might.

Well you say he changed his mind when he came home, well then why didn't he report these atrocities to a higher level of command when he was over there? Sorry, not buying it that he changed his mind.

Then you have all these re-enacted video tapes that he vowed not to use on the campaign trail. That fell by the wayside a loooooong time ago.

I honestly tried to see Kerry as a war hero, but I'm just not buying it. From the whole re-enactment stuff to the "reporting for duty" at the DNC, it all smells of political enhancement.

it all smells of political enhancement.

That could surely be said for both sides..

I believe the best indicator of how he served are the men who actually served with him and stand behind him 100%. Not a single member on his boat who served with him don't support him (except for the one that is dead, I don't think he's in a position to support any one) But, you'll find out fast around here, common sense doesn't always rule the day!

From a Tony Blankley article at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/tb20040811.shtml,

"The men making the charges are almost all of his fellow officers and the higher chain of command in Kerry's Coastal Division 11. The book points out that on John Kerry's Website he has a photo of himself and 19 fellow swift boat officers, taken while they were simultaneously serving in that unit. Of those 19 fellow officers, 11 have asked him to stop using their image with him. Of the remaining eight, two are deceased, four don't wish to be involved, and one is not a supporter of Kerry but didn't have the opportunity to sign the letter calling for the photo to be taken off the Website. Only one of the 19, Skip Barker, supports Mr. Kerry."

Pretty damning if you ask me. The opinion of the those he served under is more important than those that served under him. When Kerry's superior officers, those in the best position to judge his character and ability to lead, have serious doubts about him, then I think I should as well.

By the way...in case anybody cares here is every military record that you could possibly want to see about J F Kerry:

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service.html

I know the neo-cons will dismiss that too but you never know.

Umm, Ok, I guess you don't know how law works. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim that some one did some thing wrong or dishonest. It's not up to the person to prove he's not guilty, it's up to the people making the claim that he is. That's the way the law works in the USA and many other countries I might add.

And still you present no proof.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Actually, as soon as I find the websites, I'll give you the link.

By the way...in case anybody cares here is every military record that you could possibly want to see about J F Kerry:


I know the neo-cons will dismiss that too but you never know.

You're right that I will dismiss it, you're going to trust the campaign website of the man whose records that everyone is calling into question? Doesn't make sense to me.

You're right that I will dismiss it, you're going to trust the campaign website of the man whose records that everyone is calling into question? Doesn't make sense to me.
yet you trust the opposition, figures, hypocrite

yet you trust the opposition, figures, hypocrite

I'm not trusting anybody until the full truth makes its way out. I'm listening to the charges of Kerry's fellow officers and they're pretty convincing. The charges about the purple hearts is the most damning to me. If Kerry wants to make that go away, don't simply say it is nothing more than lies, if it is, show me your medical records. The problem with the medical records is that they probably say that it was nothing more than a scratch, nothing more than a band aid needed. If Kerry wants to refute all these charges then come out and say it, don't just dismiss it as lies.

-edit, added on later

Both of my grandfathers have shrapnel sitting in their caskets with their bones, they earned their purple hearts, carrying that shrapnel with them for the rest of their lives. So lets see Kerry actually prove it with his medical records, that the wounds came from an enemy grenade or bullet.

Agreed. The point I keep trying to make (which Kerry's supporters won't even listen to) is that they could BOTH be right. (At least about the combat incidents. I don't how Kerry's gonna spin the "Holiday in Cambodia" fiasco.) I try to point out the nature of combat; how different people witness the same event in different ways. Kerry's supporters are having none of it; it's his way or the highway.
yet you trust the opposition, figures, hypocrite

See what I mean? It's Kerry's way or the highway. No consideration is even given to the POV of others who were there. If you do give them fair consideration, you are called names and insulted.

I'm not trusting anybody until the full truth makes its way out. I'm listening to the charges of Kerry's fellow officers and they're pretty convincing. The charges about the purple hearts is the most damning to me. If Kerry wants to make that go away, don't simply say it is nothing more than lies, if it is, show me your medical records. The problem with the medical records is that they probably say that it was nothing more than a scratch, nothing more than a band aid needed. If Kerry wants to refute all these charges then come out and say it, don't just dismiss it as lies.

So you choose to listen to people who never served with him rather than those who did??? To quote Jon Stewart, to say that they served with Kerry just because they were in Vietnam at the same time is just like saying Snoopy served with the Red Baron. And that doctor who is not on one report who says he remembers a superficial wound on Kerry 30 years ago sounds logical to you? And you choose not to listen to John McCain, certainly no Kerry supporter and a conservative Republican? And you believe these people, while not even looking at the info on the website, not even examining it for yourself? This shows, to me, like you've already got your mind made up. When I investigated it myself, I, an admitted Kerry supporter, at least LOOKED at the website for the opposition, read some Novack (almost puked), and made sure I understood both sides befoe I made a judgement.

Here's an edit: all the records you want are on his website you refuse to look at!

Here's an edit: all the records you want are on his website you refuse to look at!

Medical records....anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Medical records....anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Haven't seen them yet Biff but I'm sure if we file an FOIA Complaint on Kerry, we'll get them.

To quote Jon Stewart, to say that they served with Kerry just because they were in Vietnam at the same time is just like saying Snoopy served with the Red Baron.

Jon Stewart? HA! He's a COMEDIAN! Face it, get used to it.

And to say that the men on the boats that operated with Kerry's boat can't be witnesses is like saying that you can't be a witness to an automobile accident unless you were in one of the cars involved.

Look, some of these guys were THERE! Sometimes within just a few meters. Sometimes in combat, the guys in the boat next to you are in a BETTER position to see what's really going on.

Haven't seen them yet Biff but I'm sure if we file an FOIA Complaint on Kerry, we'll get them.

Actually...medical records are not subject to the FOIA. Kerry would have to personally release them. I do have to wonder why he does not do so. I sure would if I was in that situation. Then again, my medals are not in dispute, nor would I ever throw them away. :rolleyes:

Actually...medical records are not subject to the FOIA. Kerry would have to personally release them. I do have to wonder why he does not do so. I sure would if I was in that situation. Then again, my medals are not in dispute, nor would I ever throw them away. :rolleyes:

Drat, your right! But a guy can dream though! :D

He should release them. If they are as serious as he claims they were, then why not? Also, I want to see if he really does have shrapnel in his leg. X-Rays would prove that!

I'm not trusting anybody until the full truth makes its way out. I'm listening to the charges of Kerry's fellow officers and they're pretty convincing. The charges about the purple hearts is the most damning to me. If Kerry wants to make that go away, don't simply say it is nothing more than lies, if it is, show me your medical records. The problem with the medical records is that they probably say that it was nothing more than a scratch, nothing more than a band aid needed. If Kerry wants to refute all these charges then come out and say it, don't just dismiss it as lies.
here's a point for you, it could've been just a scratch and he still gets a purple heart, you don't have to have sharpnel in you or be seriously wounded to get a purple heart, you can earn a purple heart from just a concussion

if it does release and prove its just a scratch he still earned his purple heart, i read through the rules for obtaining a purple heart, i know, i actually posted them for you people. but the point is idiots like you will whine about it not counting without knowing the rules if he shows his records

And still you present no proof.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Actually, as soon as I find the websites, I'll give you the link.

Don't bother, you haven't a clue what I'm saying. A website is also not proof. You don't have to prove you're innocent, people who make claims against you have to prove you're guilty. The burden is not on you, you're innocent until proven guilty, I don't need evidence to back up what Kerry says. The people making charges against his records do! If they don't come up with proof it discredits their claim and thus, Kerry is innocent. Read up on "burden of proof" in law, it's fairly straight forward.

Unashamed Christians - These are claims made with no evidence. These people were paid and have an agenda. Again, the burden of proof is on them, not Kerry.

It's simple first year law here people. I'd go as far as to say high school law. Spin it all you wish. This is in fact how law works.

See what I mean? It's Kerry's way or the highway. No consideration is even given to the POV of others who were there. If you do give them fair consideration, you are called names and insulted.
half wit, my point is you people will listen to any bullshit kerry's detractors put out without a second thought but refuse to look at stuff put out on his website

Don't bother, you haven't a clue what I'm saying. A website is also not proof. You don't have to prove you're innocent, people who make claims against you have to prove you're guilty. The burden is not on you, you're innocent until proven guilty, I don't need evidence to back up what Kerry says. The people making charges against his records do! If they don't come up with proof it discredits their claim and thus, Kerry is innocent. Read up on "burden of proof" in law, it's fairly straight forward.

Unashamed Christians - These are claims made with no evidence. These people were paid and have an agenda. Again, the burden of proof is on them, not Kerry.

It's simple first year law here people. I'd go as far as to say high school law. Spin it all you wish. This is in fact how law works.

Yes....and how do you prove someone guilty if THEY have the evidence to convict them and you cannot get to it without their consnt? If Kerry wants to be president, he should come clean on everything and as a public official, he has a duty to do so. He is only in this mess, because HE created it.

Actually...medical records are not subject to the FOIA. Kerry would have to personally release them. I do have to wonder why he does not do so. I sure would if I was in that situation. Then again, my medals are not in dispute, nor would I ever throw them away. :rolleyes:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Personnel_Casualty_Report.pdf
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Purple_Heart_1_Citation.pdf
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Purple_Heart_2_Citation.pdf
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Purple_Heart_3_Citation.pdf
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Thrice_Wounded_Reassignment.pdf
As far as medical records, those are nobody has to release their medical records. He doesn't own his medical files, the military does!

Where is your outrage at Bush not releasing all of his military records? How come he hasn't posted his records on his web site!

Jon Stewart? HA! He's a COMEDIAN! Face it, get used to it.

And to say that the men on the boats that operated with Kerry's boat can't be witnesses is like saying that you can't be a witness to an automobile accident unless you were in one of the cars involved.

Look, some of these guys were THERE! Sometimes within just a few meters. Sometimes in combat, the guys in the boat next to you are in a BETTER position to see what's really going on.
john stewart is a comedian correct, but what's funnier than the truth?

"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." - Will Rogers

and yes, the people who were in the cars in an automobile accident know FAR more about how the accident occurred and what was going on than some one in a third party car in another lane of traffic doing what they are doing

so you're telling me some one in ANOTHER boat during a combat situation knows more about what's going on on the boat you are on than you and people on that boat do? what are they doing? eating popcorn watching you? shooting at you?

Yes....and how do you prove someone guilty if THEY have the evidence to convict them and you cannot get to it without their consnt? If Kerry wants to be president, he should come clean on everything and as a public official, he has a duty to do so. He is only in this mess, because HE created it.

Your exactly right Biff. That is the crux of this matter. Now what will Kerry do to make this go away? Ignore them? He should've but he didn't. He called them liars. Should he release every record? yea that'll help solve most of this dilima he is in.

here's a point for you, it could've been just a scratch and he still gets a purple heart, you don't have to have sharpnel in you or be seriously wounded to get a purple heart, you can earn a purple heart from just a concussion

if it does release and prove its just a scratch he still earned his purple heart, i read through the rules for obtaining a purple heart, i know, i actually posted them for you people. but the point is idiots like you will whine about it not counting without knowing the rules if he shows his records

I would think that most self respecting soldiers would not accept a purple heart if it were just a scratch, I know that I wouldn't. The only way I would accept one is if I was actually wounded by an enemy bullet or grenade.

Where is your outrage at Bush not releasing all of his military records? How come he hasn't posted his records on his web site!
they were "accidently" lost

the reason other peoples records were burnt too is for plausible deniability

the very fact that they BURNED proves its bullshit, i'm pretty sure a room in which they keep DOCUMENTS in a GOVERNMENT facility would be pretty checked over for something like a fire

Where is your outrage at Bush not releasing all of his military records? How come he hasn't posted his records on his web site!

We're not talking about Bush's service here, and Bush is not making his service a central part of his campaign as Kerry is.

I would think that most self respecting soldiers would not accept a purple heart if it were just a scratch, I know that I wouldn't. The only way I would accept one is if I was actually wounded by an enemy bullet or grenade.
1) that is irrelevant and beside the point
2) a bullet and shrapnel could just cause a scratch and not serious injury, think of that?

Your exactly right Biff. That is the crux of this matter. Now what will Kerry do to make this go away? Ignore them? He should've but he didn't. He called them liars. Should he release every record? yea that'll help solve most of this dilima he is in.

It's not just Kerry who's calling them liars, but a very well known and respected Republican is calling them liars as well, you may of heard of him, John Mccain? Not to mention even Bush isn't falling for it. Apparently you are. Surprise, surprise. :rolleyes:

I seriously doubt this will be a factor in the election any way folks, it's a lot of hot air. People don't care. They care about the war in Iraq, the war on Terror and the Economy, any thing else is just not important to voters.

Your exactly right Biff. That is the crux of this matter. Now what will Kerry do to make this go away? Ignore them? He should've but he didn't. He called them liars. Should he release every record? yea that'll help solve most of this dilima he is in.

The problem is ignoring every lie by the right-wing is seen as tacit acceptance of the "truth" of the accusation by average folks who don't follow this stuff.

Kerry needs to fight for every inch and at the same time shifting the debate to the real issues; that's how he wins.

1) that is irrelevant and beside the point
2) a bullet and shrapnel could just cause a scratch and not serious injury, think of that?

No, its not irrelevant, it has everything to do with the character of John Kerry.

So far as point number two, thats been neither clarified or confirmed as to how the scratch happened.

The problem is ignoring every lie by the right-wing is seen as tacit acceptance of the "truth" of the accusation by average folks who don't follow this stuff.

Kerry needs to fight for every inch and at the same time shifting the debate to the real issues; that's how he wins.

I seen Bill Clinton on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other night, one line he said made so much sense when you see the "tactics" of each of the parties, "When people think, the Democrats win" and in my many years of following elections, this has seemed to be the case. Of course that's just my personal opinion and well, Clinton's too..lol

It's not just Kerry who's calling them liars, but a very well known and respected Republican is calling them liars as well, you may of heard of him, John Mccain? Not to mention even Bush isn't falling for it. Apparently you are. Surprise, surprise. :rolleyes:

I seriously doubt this will be a factor in the election any way folks, it's a lot of hot air. People don't care. They care about the war in Iraq, the war on Terror and the Economy, any thing else is just not important to voters.

However, did McCain ask these people if it was true? No he didn't. He immediately denounced it without investigating. That is the problem with people. They don't investigate. Instead they denounce and denounce and just draw more attention to this issue. Kerry won't be able to dodge this. He WILL have to answer them.

Bush is not even touching Vietnam. He doesn't have too. Just because he's not touching it doesn't mean a thing. You being a poli sci person should've known that.

As for me falling for it, I have to look at what both sides are saying. These people are saying sue us and we'll testify to what we've said. John O'Neil is even asking Kerry to sue him. This tells me that what they are saying is pretty accurate. That is standard Law in and of itself. These guys signed affidavits to what they said is true and they will testify to that extent. What is Kerry saying? Nothing. He has denounced them and is letting his advisors and Lawyers do the talking. That is no leader. A leader would confront this himself and not let surrogates do it for him. When will Kerry answer these charges? Do you have evidence that they are lying? From what I'm seeing and hearing, these people know what they are talking about. Can you say the same for Kerry?

half wit, my point is you people will listen to any bullshit kerry's detractors put out without a second thought but refuse to look at stuff put out on his website

And you further reinforce my point about name calling and insulting.

I am of the opinion - agreeing with Kerry's supporters - that his medals were deserved. Even IF it was a minor wound, yes he is still eligible for a Purple Heart. However, as a counter-point to that, the majority of combatants receiving an equivalent wound would shrug it off and not request a Purple Heart. They look on those who do as something of a "weenie". Remember the episode of MASH where Frank Burns demands a Purple Heart (and gets it) because he got a splinter in his ass or something like that?

My major point is still the nature of combat and after-action reports. Under fire, your awareness narrows to your immediate surroundings and situation. Your perception of time is distorted. It is entirely possible that BOTH sides in this issue are espousing a mixture of truth and fiction. But Kerry's supporters REFUSE to even allow for this possibility. THAT'S my beef with them.

Hmmm...does this sound to everyone else like the post of a half-wit? And any sentence that contains the phrase "you people" is, well...I'll let others decide for themselves.

No, its not irrelevant, it has everything to do with the character of John Kerry.

So far as point number two, thats been neither clarified or confirmed as to how the scratch happened.

Your right Christians, this is about the Character of John Kerry and that makes it important to this race. The more people talk about this, the more people are going to be drawn to it.

Reminds me of F 9/11! Make a big stink and people will investigate it! LOL!

My how the tables have turned.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Personnel_Casualty_Report.pdf
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Purple_Heart_1_Citation.pdf
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Purple_Heart_2_Citation.pdf
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Purple_Heart_3_Citation.pdf
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Thrice_Wounded_Reassignment.pdf
As far as medical records, those are nobody has to release their medical records. He doesn't own his medical files, the military does!

Where is your outrage at Bush not releasing all of his military records? How come he hasn't posted his records on his web site!

As a veteran...who has military medical records...John Kerry CAN authorize the release of his medical records...AND he should have a copy of them himself. I have a copy of mine.

I seen Bill Clinton on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other night, one line he said made so much sense when you see the "tactics" of each of the parties, "When people think, the Democrats win" and in my many years of following elections, this has seemed to be the case. Of course that's just my personal opinion and well, Clinton's too..lol

Agreed. I saw him on Stewart as well. He said in 1992 when he won he fought every accusation tooth and nail. If I were Kerry, I would do the same. This allows him to take the argument back to Bush on the issues, which Bush needs to ignore if he has a chance to win.

Corneliu, I have decided I don't wish to engage in this childish back and forth with you any more. Believe all you wish, what you like. I use to at least find you mildly amusing before, now I just find you annoying. I choose to ignore you. Oh and before you say it, it has nothing to do with you having any valid points, my husband has discredited you many times in this thread. It has to do with the fact that you have no credibility in my eyes that I choose to ignore you from now on. Just in case you were wondering.

On a lighter note, doesn't the whole trotting out of Kerry's fellow shipmates seem too Manchurian Candidate "ish" to anbody?

And you further reinforce my point about name calling and insulting.

I am of the opinion - agreeing with Kerry's supporters - that his medals were deserved. Even IF it was a minor wound, yes he is still eligible for a Purple Heart. However, as a counter-point to that, the majority of combatants receiving an equivalent wound would shrug it off and not request a Purple Heart. They look on those who do as something of a "weenie". Remember the episode of MASH where Frank Burns demands a Purple Heart (and gets it) because he got a splinter in his ass or something like that?

My major point is still the nature of combat and after-action reports. Under fire, your awareness narrows to your immediate surroundings and situation. Your perception of time is distorted. It is entirely possible that BOTH sides in this issue are espousing a mixture of truth and fiction. But Kerry's supporters REFUSE to even allow for this possibility. THAT'S my beef with them.

Hmmm...does this sound to everyone else like the post of a half-wit? And any sentence that contains the phrase "you people" is, well...I'll let others decide for themselves.\
no, i dont watch MASH, and MASH was a tv show
and i do not know how you can conceivably believe me to be proving your point, especially when you sit their proving mine by refusing to even look at Kerry's website, despite the fact that is where all his records are posted, PDF format (unchangeable)

ok, you argue that under combat, your perception narrows, but that just creates more problems for you, why would some one in another boat engaged in combat know what people on another boat are doing...unless thet are not engaged in combat, and if they are not engaged in combat why arn't they, they are obviously close enough to provide support for combat and SHOULD BE providing said support

AND, my beef with YOU, well mainly UC, is that you REFUSE to even allow that the Veterans against kerry MIGHT BE WRONG, i have NOT hitned at the idea as to who i believe is right, i have only pointed out that UC is a hypocrite and you are blind

No, its not irrelevant, it has everything to do with the character of John Kerry.

So far as point number two, thats been neither clarified or confirmed as to how the scratch happened.
wrong, it is completely irrelevant to the point

On a lighter note, doesn't the whole trotting out of Kerry's fellow shipmates seem too Manchurian Candidate "ish" to anbody?

No more so than the right funding people who weren't on his ship to speak out against him.

Corneliu, I have decided I don't wish to engage in this childish back and forth with you any more. Believe all you wish, what you like. I use to at least find you mildly amusing before, now I just find you annoying. I choose to ignore you. Oh and before you say it, it has nothing to do with you having any valid points, my husband has discredited you many times in this thread. It has to do with the fact that you have no credibility in my eyes that I choose to ignore you from now on. Just in case you were wondering.

I must have hit a nerve if you are going to ignore me. Truth hurts. If it takes your husband to discredit me then obviously YOU don't have any opinion of your own. My own mom has copies of her own personnel and medical military records. Try to look at both sides of all the issues and form your own opinions. This will make you an informed voter.

I must have hit a nerve if you are going to ignore me. Truth hurts. If it takes your husband to discredit me then obviously YOU don't have any opinion of your own. My own mom has copies of her own personnel and medical military records. Try to look at both sides of all the issues and form your own opinions. This will make you an informed voter.

As stated, believe as you wish. No nerve was hit. I just find it not worth discussing any thing with you. You don't care about the truth. You don't even know the truth even when you claim you do. My husband proved that.

Now please if you don't mind, I'd prefer if you don't direct any more comments towards me.

Thank You.

\
no, i dont watch MASH, and MASH was a tv show
and i do not know how you can conceivably believe me to be proving your point, especially when you sit their proving mine by refusing to even look at Kerry's website, despite the fact that is where all his records are posted, PDF format (unchangeable)

You prove my point by continuing to call me names and insult me.
I have read Kerry's website. What makes you think I haven't? Because I don't totally agree with it? Because I'm "stupid" enough to think that his opponents actually have some valid points? Pure speculation on your part.

ok, you argue that under combat, your perception narrows, but that just creates more problems for you, why would some one in another boat engaged in combat know what people on another boat are doing...unless thet are not engaged in combat, and if they are not engaged in combat why arn't they, they are obviously close enough to provide support for combat and SHOULD BE providing said support

This just shows a lack of understanding of battlefield tactics, and neglect of basic tactical principles, among them security and economy of force. Consider that the situation is probably an ambush. Rushing to the sound of the guns could be the worst possible move. What if there is another enemy force moving in toward one boat that is under fire, to trap it in a kill zone? By providing security, a second boat could cut that second enemy force off from their intended position, thus saving both boats. By rushing to the sound of the guns, you just end up with both boats trapped in the kill zone. A boat providing such security would have ample opportunity to observe events. This brings up the other principle, economy of force. Why risk a second boat and its crew, if one boat is enough to repel the attack? Better to wait and observe, don't you think?

AND, my beef with YOU, well mainly UC, is that you REFUSE to even allow that the Veterans against kerry MIGHT BE WRONG, i have NOT hitned at the idea as to who i believe is right, i have only pointed out that UC is a hypocrite and you are blind

Again, more name-calling and insults, just because someone disagrees with you. I haven't refused to allow that the Swift Vets might be wrong. If you read my previous posts, you will see that I allow that BOTH sides are partially right and partially wrong, because of the confusion inherent in combat. As Clausewitz stated in On War, war is the province of chance and friction.

I've heard a lot of things in this topic about Jonh Kerry, Bush, and a few about random presidents. But now I'd like to throw in my two cents.

The vets against Kerry have no proof to back their facts. The doctor who supposedly treated Kerry did not sign the medical records, and yet he distinctly remembers a random patient. Think about it. It's a war zone, with tons of people, and he remembers someone getting a dinky hit? Not likely. When they say they served with John Kerry, they mean to say they were in the military at the same time.

Also, people say it's just a scratch. They haven't been to vietnam, and shrapnel probably hurts a lot more than anti-Kerry people make it out to be. The reason all this stuff about Kerry's record, all the cynicism and distrust, is there because they don't want people thinking about what a wussy Bush was back then.

Kerry's injuries may have been minor or they may have been major, but he actually got injuries.

Also, on a note there are a few things I want to say about other people brought up in the debate:

1. John McCain is awesome. Someone said he wanted to limit our free speech by limiting the amount a person can donate to a campaign. That's a good thing, because then one rich person can't have too much influence.

2. Jimmy Carter was not the worst president we ever had, he was just president at the wrong time. I heard complaints about negotiating with terrorists. I think it's a good idea to try and save American civilians myself, but some may disagree. Anyway, he was an honest guy trying to do a good job, but a little under qualified. Bush is under qualified and dishonest. Good combo, eh?

3. Ronald Reagan was a good guy, who changed his own political party because of his beliefs. He was a good president until he got shot, and then he wasn't too right in the head.

You prove my point by continuing to call me names and insult me.
I have read Kerry's website. What makes you think I haven't? Because I don't totally agree with it? Because I'm "stupid" enough to think that his opponents actually have some valid points? Pure speculation on your part.
i am referring mainly to UC



This just shows a lack of understanding of battlefield tactics, and neglect of basic tactical principles, among them security and economy of force. Consider that the situation is probably an ambush. Rushing to the sound of the guns could be the worst possible move. What if there is another enemy force moving in toward one boat that is under fire, to trap it in a kill zone? By providing security, a second boat could cut that second enemy force off from their intended position, thus saving both boats. By rushing to the sound of the guns, you just end up with both boats trapped in the kill zone. A boat providing such security would have ample opportunity to observe events. This brings up the other principle, economy of force. Why risk a second boat and its crew, if one boat is enough to repel the attack? Better to wait and observe, don't you think?
wrong, you are ignoring your own points. you are saying they are close enough to perfectly observe what is occuring on the ship in a combat situation, yet even being that close you are now saying they arn't close enough to assist in an engagement, they are close enough to see whats going on but cannot assist? i smell bullshit. another boat too far away to engage also more than likely does not have a better idea what is going on than those people on the ship. like i said, yeah a third party person in another lane of traffic may see the accident, that doesnt mean they have a single damned clue what really happened



Again, more name-calling and insults, just because someone disagrees with you. I haven't refused to allow that the Swift Vets might be wrong. If you read my previous posts, you will see that I allow that BOTH sides are partially right and partially wrong, because of the confusion inherent in combat. As Clausewitz stated in On War, war is the province of chance and friction.
i have ALREADY STATED i am mainly referring to unasahamed christians who stated he refused to go to john kerry's website to look at his records just because it is john kerrys website yet he believes every damn thing the opposition says

i am referring mainly to UC

You specifically called me a "half-wit" (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346544&page=37&pp=15) and said I am "blind." Those were both quoted responses to my posts, not UC's.


wrong, you are ignoring your own points. you are saying they are close enough to perfectly observe what is occuring on the ship in a combat situation, yet even being that close you are now saying they arn't close enough to assist in an engagement, they are close enough to see whats going on but cannot assist? i smell bullshit. another boat too far away to engage also more than likely does not have a better idea what is going on than those people on the ship. like i said, yeah a third party person in another lane of traffic may see the accident, that doesnt mean they have a single damned clue what really happened

I never said "perfectly observe", you're putting words in my mouth. In fact, I am arguing that battlefield reports are inherently imperfect. I also never said "cannot assist." The whole point is that they can choose to not assist. (Actually, "not assist" is a misnomer, they are assisting in a different manner, but for the sake of argument...) What you are asserting they "should" do may not be the best decision. It could in fact amount to doing exactly what the enemy wants you to do, walk right into the ambush. Again, this shows a lack of understanding of battlefield tactics.


i have ALREADY STATED i am mainly referring to unasahamed christians who stated he refused to go to john kerry's website to look at his records just because it is john kerrys website yet he believes every damn thing the opposition says

Again, you addressed at least two epithets directly at me, as shown above.

you know what? everyone seems hung up on the idea that some of Kerry's CO's didn't think he should be promoted. Yet everyone under him loved him...

If he's going to try to lead a country, I'd much rather it's a guy that everyone under him loved, than a guy that played ball with some CO's.

I really don't care what his CO's thought. who/what are they now? what are they doing? how far did they go? no disrespect to them, but it's very possible they weren't the best at evaluating people.

People that are backed by the people they command will always get further than a "textbook example of a leader" with no support from his men.

On a lighter note, doesn't the whole trotting out of Kerry's fellow shipmates seem too Manchurian Candidate "ish" to anbody?

Exactly!! War hero running for high office with robot like personality. Thats Kerry to a "T." Plus didn't Meryl Streep look just like Hillary Clinton?

Those are some very scary people....

you know what? everyone seems hung up on the idea that some of Kerry's CO's didn't think he should be promoted. Yet everyone under him loved him...

If he's going to try to lead a country, I'd much rather it's a guy that everyone under him loved, than a guy that played ball with some CO's.

I really don't care what his CO's thought. who/what are they now? what are they doing? how far did they go? no disrespect to them, but it's very possible they weren't the best at evaluating people.

People that are backed by the people they command will always get further than a "textbook example of a leader" with no support from his men.

"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief," said retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann,

In addition, one of Kerry's commanding officers, retired Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, said he strongly questioned whether the senator deserved his first Purple Heart.

In the Navy, we have a term, 'service reputation,' by-and-large, unofficial and unwritten. It means the few words that a sailor's colleagues would use to give a snapshot of someone. Kerry would be described as 'devious,' 'self-absorbed,' 'manipulative,' [has] 'distain for authority,' 'disruptive,' but the most common phrase would be 'requires constant supervision.' -Charlie Plumly, Captain, United States Navy, retired

Lets see...some became Admirals. Admiral Zumwaldt (sp) the "father of the nuclear navy) also had problems with Kerry. A man as well respected as that carries a lot of weight. Sadly he has since passed away now.

"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief," said retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann,

In addition, one of Kerry's commanding officers, retired Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, said he strongly questioned whether the senator deserved his first Purple Heart.

In the Navy, we have a term, 'service reputation,' by-and-large, unofficial and unwritten. It means the few words that a sailor's colleagues would use to give a snapshot of someone. Kerry would be described as 'devious,' 'self-absorbed,' 'manipulative,' [has] 'distain for authority,' 'disruptive,' but the most common phrase would be 'requires constant supervision.' -Charlie Plumly, Captain, United States Navy, retired

Lets see...some became Admirals. Admiral Zumwaldt (sp) the "father of the nuclear navy) also had problems with Kerry. A man as well respected as that carries a lot of weight. Sadly he has since passed away now.

You know...in my lifetime I've never been able to make everyone like me....my guess is Kerry is just like me or anyone else.

My question to you is that, how can you, a disabled veteran, support a president who found a way not to serve and a vice president whose five deferments are on record, and when asked about them, said he had "other things" on his mind when asked to serve? On one hand, a man whose men who served under him stand by him even today; on the other hand a man who when he claims to have served nobody can actually remember him even being there?

You specifically called me a "half-wit" (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346544&page=37&pp=15) and said I am "blind." Those were both quoted responses to my posts, not UC's.
i aclled you blind for ignoring what UC was doing then accusing me of doing it when i never even got close




I never said "perfectly observe", you're putting words in my mouth. In fact, I am arguing that battlefield reports are inherently imperfect. I also never said "cannot assist." The whole point is that they can choose to not assist. (Actually, "not assist" is a misnomer, they are assisting in a different manner, but for the sake of argument...) What you are asserting they "should" do may not be the best decision. It could in fact amount to doing exactly what the enemy wants you to do, walk right into the ambush. Again, this shows a lack of understanding of battlefield tactics.
you are still suggesting that they have a better idea of what is going on on kerry's ship than kerry and the rest of the crew, were the people just eating popcorn watching the war movie play out in front of them? no matter what way they were assisting the last place their eyes should be is scanning kerry's boat, did they expect one of the people to be a vietcong in disguise?

You know...in my lifetime I've never been able to make everyone like me....my guess is Kerry is just like me or anyone else.

My question to you is that, how can you, a disabled veteran, support a president who found a way not to serve and a vice president whose five deferments are on record, and when asked about them, said he had "other things" on his mind when asked to serve? On one hand, a man whose men who served under him stand by him even today; on the other hand a man who when he claims to have served nobody can actually remember him even being there?
i can answer that

he is a republican

next question please

Isn't this topic a little bit talked out?? I mean Kerry does not cease to remind us of his military record...does he have anything else to say??

i aclled you blind for ignoring what UC was doing then accusing me of doing it when i never even got close

That's no excuse. It's not my job to police what UC does. Also, you did it in a direct, quoted response to one of my posts.

Are you denying that you called me a "half-wit"? I notice you didn't address that one.

you are still suggesting that they have a better idea of what is going on on kerry's ship than kerry and the rest of the crew, were the people just eating popcorn watching the war movie play out in front of them? no matter what way they were assisting the last place their eyes should be is scanning kerry's boat, did they expect one of the people to be a vietcong in disguise?

Yes, I am saying it is possible for someone on another boat to have a BETTER view of what was actually happening to a boat that is under fire. It's known as having a "bigger picture" view. Not every time, mind you, but in particular situations it could happen. I stated that before and will hold to it.

At least one person on the boat not under fire would undoubtedly be watching the boat that is under fire. How else could they evaluate the situation and make a decision as to the best course of action?

Since you obviously know nothing of the nature of combat, military operations, or battlefield tactics, I will not be debating this point any further with you.

You know...in my lifetime I've never been able to make everyone like me....my guess is Kerry is just like me or anyone else.

My question to you is that, how can you, a disabled veteran, support a president who found a way not to serve and a vice president whose five deferments are on record, and when asked about them, said he had "other things" on his mind when asked to serve? On one hand, a man whose men who served under him stand by him even today; on the other hand a man who when he claims to have served nobody can actually remember him even being there?

Bush "refused" to serve? No, he joined the national guard. However, Bush is not running on his military record because it is irrelavant. Kerry on the other hand has MADE his record the backbone of his campaign. He brought it up.

As a woman without medical background, I did not serve in Nam. I can say, however, that unless you are of that era, you cannot understand the allegance that our vets have for President Bush, or their disgust with Senator Kerry. Kerry came back after only 4 months and publically trashed our soldiers. He has since said that as he wanted to help end the war, he exagerated his testimony some. In other words, he lied, and our guys came back, not honored as citizens who answered their nation's call, but as baby-killers and deviants. They were pelted with bags of urine and called horrible names. They were looked at askance as if they might go postal and start ripping out everyone's throats with their teeth. And a large part of that treatment was thanks to Senator John Kerry. Try talking to a Nam vet about the war...you won't get much. They won't tell you how they had to shoot small children strapped with grenades, who were told to go to the GI's because they had candy. They won't tell you that one of the big killers incountry was Bubonic plague. They won't tell you about fighting an army of starved, sick, and jungle crazy teenagers. They won't tell you because John Kerry and others like him LIED...and because of his lies our guys came home to a country that hated them...and he's still being caught out in his lies.

No....you have no basis to question a vet's motivation. Your game cube will never show you a tenth of what that man has seen. He's not stupid...he's right!

Proud wife of a vet

As a woman without medical background, I did not serve in Nam. I can say, however, that unless you are of that era, you cannot understand the allegance

As a woman of that era, I know that there appears to be a divide, many vets who support Kerry and probably an equal amount who do not.

Lets not forget, the Vietnam war was a political war.. again a war of choice, one that didn't need to be fought. It was a civil war and the Americans misunderstood it as a war against the commie. The American public was lied to and war crimes by the Americans DID happen and are well documented. CBS was one of the first to bring back live pictures of what was going on there. So, if you just want to wrap yourself in the flag and chant "American can do no wrong" then that is your willful blindness. Nothing I can do about that. However, if you even care about the truth.. and have a conscience. Vietnam was wrong. That was more or less proved after the fact. No one to this day believes it was a good thing. So no matter what is said, lets not forget if nothing else we are talking about the Vietnam war. It being stopped had every thing to do with public outrage. When the truth starting finally reaching the American public. Yes, I am of the era.. and while you can read a book on it.. or have a bias view based on who you may or may not be married to. Lets not forget history has not been kind the war in Vietnam!

Kerry constantly mentions his Vietnam service because frankly he doesn't have anything else to run on.

A couple years as a frontman for communist anti-war groups, a couple more years as a prosecutor, and 22 years in non-leadership political positions wherein he accomplished absolutely nothing of note.

So 4 months of nondistinguished service in Vietnam and a bunch of fraudulent medals for which he won't release the records is really all he can go on.

Kerry constantly mentions his Vietnam service because frankly he doesn't have anything else to run on.

Indeed, as opposed to Bush who was an alcoholic and drug addict till he found "Jesus" at 40. Trust me, if the last 4 years are any indicator, the only record Bush has to run on is a dangerous one, not just for Americans, but for the world!

Indeed, as opposed to Bush who was an alcoholic and drug addict till he found "Jesus" at 40. Trust me, if the last 4 years are any indicator, the only record Bush has to run on is a dangerous one, not just for Americans, but for the world!


He may be a bad guy...but he is our bad guy!! ;)

Seriously, the man may have had a drinking and drug problem in his early days, but Kerry seems to have forgotten the past 20 years or so for some reason.

A military record is important for a leader who is making military decisions to have. Because, he knows that when he orders people into combat, he is risking human life. Kerry knows what it is to watch men -die- awful pointless deaths a thousand miles from home.

Rather than simply acting like he was the biggest baddest bully on the block. Which is the Bush administration's MO. "I'm bigger than you, do what I say, grrr."

Grow up.

He may be a bad guy...but he is our bad guy!! ;)

Seriously, the man may have had a drinking and drug problem in his early days, but Kerry seems to have forgotten the past 20 years or so for some reason.

He didn't stop till he was 40! Early days??? *Clears throat* :rolleyes:

Vietnam was the wrong reason to have a war. But it was not a disaster because it was wrong, it was a disaster because we lost. And John Kerry and others like him who lied to turn public opinion against the war and against our troops are why we lost.


Vietnam was wrong. That was more or less proved after the fact. No one to this day believes it was a good thing. So no matter what is said, lets not forget if nothing else we are talking about the Vietnam war. It being stopped had every thing to do with public outrage. When the truth starting finally reaching the American public. Yes, I am of the era.. and while you can read a book on it.. or have a bias view based on who you may or may not be married to. Lets not forget history has not been kind the the war in Vietnam!

He didn't stop till he was 40! Early days??? *Clears throat* :rolleyes:


Well....he was a party animal. I know a lot of those who are over 40. I would vote for them over that manniquin (sp) Kerry.

Well....he was a party animal. I know a lot of those who are over 40. I would vote for them over that manniquin (sp) Kerry.

O.K. we have two choices

1. A cowboy, with hands in the oil industry with a past of drinking, doing drugs and going awol from the military. Who also, admits to exaggerating (lying) in order to go to a war in which american soldiers were killed and can't even speak proper english. Seems to be led around on puppet strings. Anyone seen the Manchurian Candidate?

2. Ex Vietnam war vet who may or may not have shot himself in the leg. (which by the way would be because he didn't have a father who could get him stationed in the national guard) Who doesn't have much of a senate history except as a co author. Who fought for vietnam vets rights when he got back and married a rich chick. Doesn't really say anything about his positions on his website.

Good Choices...I will take do nothing uber rich white guy over lying guy but I really don't want either. Quit debating who is worse, they are both idiots

Vietnam was the wrong reason to have a war. But it was not a disaster because it was wrong, it was a disaster because we lost. And John Kerry and others like him who lied to turn public opinion against the war and against our troops are why we lost.


Vietnam was a disaster because soldiers were going over and risking their life for nothing. You try to shoot at someone when you know there is no reason. Vietnam was a disaster because the military would go and take over a hill or mountain and then when they decided it was all clear they would just leave and the Viet-cong would go back and inhabit that hill. John Kerry and every Vietnam vet had a right to be angry. Their friends died, politicians lived. They wanted to send a message that is not o.k. to send America's men to a battle like that again.

So John Kerry was disgusted with the political mishandling of the war and the senseless deaths of his fellow vets, so he showed this by coming home and first testifying to Congress that he and his fellow vets were a bunch of sadistic war criminals, and later joining Congress himself and voting against pretty much every pro-military bill to ever come his way?

For the sake of argument, I'll grant that Vietnam was a complete disaster independent of the humiliation of losing. So justified war it was not, John Kerry still behaved in an utterly dishonorable fashion on his return to the states, and his public slander against Vietnam veterans gave them a bad name they are still living down 35 years later.

For this guy to turn around in 2004 and decide after 35 years as a typical anti-military liberal he's now going to run as a war hero is ridiculous.

So John Kerry was disgusted with the political mishandling of the war and the senseless deaths of his fellow vets, so he showed this by coming home and first testifying to Congress that he and his fellow vets were a bunch of sadistic war criminals, and later joining Congress himself and voting against pretty much every pro-military bill to ever come his way?

For the sake of argument, I'll grant that Vietnam was a complete disaster independent of the humiliation of losing. So justified war it was not, John Kerry still behaved in an utterly dishonorable fashion on his return to the states, and his public slander against Vietnam veterans gave them a bad name they are still living down 35 years later.

For this guy to turn around in 2004 and decide after 35 years as a typical anti-military liberal he's now going to run as a war hero is ridiculous.
you want to see cheney's record on war bills?

and you cant say he voted against every pro military bill ever unless you can link and describe everyone, there is almost always part of a bill you disagree with but you choose to disagree and vote against or you stomach it and vote for, kerry did what HE believed was right, isn't everyone praising bush for that
apparently donig what you think is right despite opposition from other people only earns praise for the republican party

i assume they are trying to live it down with older people like other vietnam vets, if they are trying to live down their own stuff that's their conscience, i dont recall ever believing the vets were at fault, i've always blamed the people in charge, i dunno what you're babbling about

1) he was a war hero, ESPECIALLY in comparison to who he's running against
2) anti-military is a presumption right wing slander term when referring to some one like a senator or house member just by the way they have voted on occasions, kerry HAS also voted FOR military things and cheney has opposed military things, of course the republicans dont bring that up

1) he was a war hero, ESPECIALLY in comparison to who he's running against
2) anti-military is a presumption right wing slander term when referring to some one like a senator or house member just by the way they have voted on occasions, kerry HAS also voted FOR military things and cheney has opposed military things, of course the republicans dont bring that up

Yeah....he voted ocassionally....he was absent 2/3 of the time. ;)

Yeah....he voted ocassionally....he was absent 2/3 of the time. ;)

Since he's been running for President, not his total time in the Senate. I so dislike willful misinformation.

Since he's been running for President, not his total time in the Senate. I so dislike willful misinformation.


Not true.....he has been absent 99% of the time since starting his campaign.

Fact: through June 2004 Sen. Kerry registered votes in only 11% of the recorded votes taken. (14 of 132)

Fact: In 2003 Senator Kerry failed to record votes 64% of the time. On Senate matters for which President Bush had expressed an opinion Kerry voted only 28% of the time.

Fact: Senator Edwards' attendance record (pre-campaign) for the judicial committee was second worst (barely ahead of Ted Kennedy no less).

Fact: In 2003-04, Senator Edwards attended only 6 of 87 hearings for this important committee.

Not true.....he has been absent 99% of the time since starting his campaign.

Yes, for President.. the man has been in the Senate for almost 20 years..lol I don't think he's been running for President for 20 years..lol

Yes, for President.. the man has been in the Senate for almost 20 years..lol I don't think he's been running for President for 20 years..lol

Yet Bush has to work every day AND campaign.....hmmmmm

Yet Bush has to work every day AND campaign.....hmmmmm

That's funny, because Bush has taken more vacation time then any other President in recorded history, including peace time presidents. So, umm there goes that theory.. wrong!

i dont recall ever believing the vets were at fault, i've always blamed the people in charge, i dunno what you're babbling about

That's the point. We "older" folks aren't babbling and you don't and won't understand what we are saying. Yes Nam was a messy war that was handled improperly and probably never should have happened in the first place. The validity of that war is moot. What we are talking about is John Kerry's character. Clinton was a draft dodger...but that didn't matter. Kerry is a manipulative liar...but that doesn't matter. Bush's lack of service in Nam is at question and he had a pretty frisky lifestyle until he hit middleage...but that DOES matter?

Yeah....he voted ocassionally....he was absent 2/3 of the time. ;)
you want to back that up?

how many votes have come up in 20 years in the senate
how many has kerry been present for, thanks bye

you want to back that up?

how many votes have come up in 20 years in the senate
how many has kerry been present for, thanks bye

Fact: through June 2004 Sen. Kerry registered votes in only 11% of the recorded votes taken. (14 of 132) Thats over 20 years....

Fact: In 2003 Senator Kerry failed to record votes 64% of the time. On Senate matters for which President Bush had expressed an opinion Kerry voted only 28% of the time.

Fact: Senator Edwards' attendance record (pre-campaign) for the judicial committee was second worst (barely ahead of Ted Kennedy no less).

Fact: In 2003-04, Senator Edwards attended only 6 of 87 hearings for this important committee.

You're welcome...bye

That's funny, because Bush has taken more vacation time then any other President in recorded history, including peace time presidents. So, umm there goes that theory.. wrong!

No, you are wrong. How many times do I have to say this? The President is working even when he is on "vacation." He is constantly surrounded by staff. He has instant communication with anyone he needs at anytime. He is called upon at any time to make decisions. The President is ALWAYS working; his job simply can't be put on hold for "vacation." This is true for every President, not just Bush.

That's the point. We "older" folks aren't babbling and you don't and won't understand what we are saying. Yes Nam was a messy war that was handled improperly and probably never should have happened in the first place. The validity of that war is moot. What we are talking about is John Kerry's character. Clinton was a draft dodger...but that didn't matter. Kerry is a manipulative liar...but that doesn't matter. Bush's lack of service in Nam is at question and he had a pretty frisky lifestyle until he hit middleage...but that DOES matter?

It all matters, Clinton was a coward, Kerry at least went, and Bush hid behind money. All ridiculous cowards. Stop fighting for the best coward award. Also, Bush has a presidency record and it is turning out a MESS. We might as well give another imcompetent liar a chance to mess it up.

It all matters, Clinton was a coward, Kerry at least went, and Bush hid behind money. All ridiculous cowards. Stop fighting for the best coward award. Also, Bush has a presidency record and it is turning out a MESS. We might as well give another imcompetent liar a chance to mess it up.

How did he hide behind money? You really need to see the light of day. Did you know that Kerry said that serving in the national guard is the easy way out? No I thought not. How many national guardsmen are serving right now in Iraq? Afghanistan? How many reserves are fighting in Iraq? Afghanistan?

Reserves and The National Guard is not an easy way out of a war. You need to realize that Kissingly.

Fact: through June 2004 Sen. Kerry registered votes in only 11% of the recorded votes taken. (14 of 132) Thats over 20 years....

Fact: In 2003 Senator Kerry failed to record votes 64% of the time. On Senate matters for which President Bush had expressed an opinion Kerry voted only 28% of the time.

Fact: Senator Edwards' attendance record (pre-campaign) for the judicial committee was second worst (barely ahead of Ted Kennedy no less).

Fact: In 2003-04, Senator Edwards attended only 6 of 87 hearings for this important committee.

You're welcome...bye
you seem to have problems with 2 things: 1, reading comprehension, and 2 the concept of time.

i said give me the number of votes teh senate has held for the past TWENTY YEARS and how many of THOSE kerry has been PRESENT FOR

How did he hide behind money? You really need to see the light of day. Did you know that Kerry said that serving in the national guard is the easy way out? No I thought not. How many national guardsmen are serving right now in Iraq? Afghanistan? How many reserves are fighting in Iraq? Afghanistan?

Reserves and The National Guard is not an easy way out of a war. You need to realize that Kissingly.

I was in the army. I realize how it works. He also happened to not attend his national guard.

I was in the army. I realize how it works. He also happened to not attend his national guard.

Which I believe has actually been disproven and that he did attend his national guard service.

I was in the army. I realize how it works. He also happened to not attend his national guard.

why are you arguing that anyways, I pointed out they are all weak

How did he hide behind money? You really need to see the light of day. Did you know that Kerry said that serving in the national guard is the easy way out? No I thought not. How many national guardsmen are serving right now in Iraq? Afghanistan? How many reserves are fighting in Iraq? Afghanistan?

Reserves and The National Guard is not an easy way out of a war. You need to realize that Kissingly.
1) the national guard and reserves were FORCED to go to iraq to prevent a draft
2) bush DID hide behind the money, a family friend pulled strings to put him in the air national guard instead of him being drafted

It all matters, Clinton was a coward, Kerry at least went, and Bush hid behind money. All ridiculous cowards. Stop fighting for the best coward award. Also, Bush has a presidency record and it is turning out a MESS. We might as well give another imcompetent liar a chance to mess it up.

You forgot to say "Clinton was a philandering coward"...

I just don't see overall how Bush's presidency is a mess. He inherited a recession and then 9 months later we got hit with 9/11. In case you've forgotten, that was the catalyst that hurt our economy the worst. The corporate scandals started being uncovered and our investments went south. Now the economy is improving every month. Reactions in Iraq haven't gone as we thought they would....but don't you think that's pretty much a lack of understanding of the culture and the mentality that can breed suicide terrorists and consider dismembering a sanctioned form of punishment? Recently, when Kerry was asked if he had been president and knew everything then that he knows now, would he have gone into Iraq he responded...."you betcha...maybe...." Face it, no one in their right mind would vote for Kerry...the only votes he will get are against Bush. Course, there's always Ralph.

1) the national guard and reserves were FORCED to go to iraq to prevent a draft
2) bush DID hide behind the money, a family friend pulled strings to put him in the air national guard instead of him being drafted

HAHAHA!!! They were called up. Welcome to the military Chess Squares! When you are in the reserves and the National Guard, you have the same chance of getting called up to fight for your country so being forced to go is false. My uncle is in the reserves and he is currently over there as is my father! No one forced my dad to sign up. He did it on his own accord. No one forced my uncle to serve. He actually was drafted but was excused because he was going to the AFA.

When you join up, you are told that you could get activated to fight overseas. How is that forced?

As for point 2, I hope you have proof of that because I'm not buying your lines.

What parts of it aren't disclosed?

And if they are all to be disclosed, wouldn't it be only fair that all politicians who were every in the military would have their full records disclosed (like Bush maybe)?

No, because Bush never made his own military record an issue that he campaigns off of. Kerry chose to make his military record one of his campaign issues.

you seem to have problems with 2 things: 1, reading comprehension, and 2 the concept of time.

i said give me the number of votes teh senate has held for the past TWENTY YEARS and how many of THOSE kerry has been PRESENT FOR

Why twenty? It's bad enough to have the afreomentioned facts. If someone killed 10 people in the last five years, do you really need to go back ten years before deciding this person has to be locked away? No. Likewise we don't need to go back 20 years, we've seen enough going back just a few years to see how Kerry's been voting in the Senate.

you seem to have problems with 2 things: 1, reading comprehension, and 2 the concept of time.

i said give me the number of votes teh senate has held for the past TWENTY YEARS and how many of THOSE kerry has been PRESENT FOR

I guess you missed the first part. 14 out of 132 over 20 years.

You forgot to say "Clinton was a philandering coward"...

I just don't see overall how Bush's presidency is a mess. He inherited a recession and then 9 months later we got hit with 9/11.
what recession?

The corporate scandals started being uncovered and our investments went south.
our vice president was in charge of one of those companies and some of the lreaders were on his national energy panel

Now the economy is improving every month.
how so? job growth is much lower than last month and essential items are rising in price

Reactions in Iraq haven't gone as we thought they would....but don't you think that's pretty much a lack of understanding of the culture and the mentality that can breed suicide terrorists and consider dismembering a sanctioned form of punishment?
maybe we should respect the beliefs and people of the region and treat the area and war intelligently

already they were disclosed. another thing, Senator McCain, who is a pretty good right winger was pretty upset with those ads. If Senator McCain ever runs again I might vote for him. He's got integrity.

HAHAHA!!! They were called up. Welcome to the military Chess Squares! When you are in the reserves and the National Guard, you have the same chance of getting called up to fight for your country so being forced to go is false. My uncle is in the reserves and he is currently over there as is my father! No one forced my dad to sign up. He did it on his own accord. No one forced my uncle to serve. He actually was drafted but was excused because he was going to the AFA.

When you join up, you are told that you could get activated to fight overseas. How is that forced?

As for point 2, I hope you have proof of that because I'm not buying your lines.
some one isnt paying attention, i do believe it's you

some one isnt paying attention, i do believe it's you

And you just proved that you didn't have a valid comeback because I know I'm right here and know that you are wrong. Have you even spent time in the military or know someone that served?

Why twenty? It's bad enough to have the afreomentioned facts. If someone killed 10 people in the last five years, do you really need to go back ten years before deciding this person has to be locked away? No. Likewise we don't need to go back 20 years, we've seen enough going back just a few years to see how Kerry's been voting in the Senate.
that is quite honestly one of the DUMBEST thigns i have ever heard

the statement was he missed 2/3 of his votes in the senate, but the only reference is in the past year, he missed 2/3 of the votes in the past year, but he was a senator for 19 years. you can't say because he missed 2/3 of the votes in the last year he missed 2/3 of all votes in 19 years, we call that a logical fallacy

And you just proved that you didn't have a valid comeback because I know I'm right here and know that you are wrong. Have you even spent time in the military or know someone that served?
but they wer required to go, bush's unit did not go to vietnam, or the conveniently went after he was grounded

so let me get this straight

you rather believe third person evidence rather than first hand evidence provided by those that served with kerry and the rassamnn fellow who was saved by kerry

whoah holy crap whats that flying out the window! oh wait, never mind, its just your credibility

It IS the first hand evidence of Kerry's fellow soldiers who are speaking out to say he wasn't all that.

This subject is just about shredded, but as an older person who lived through the time in question, I'd like to make a few observations.

1. I'd be really surprised if the military gave out medals of honor and purple hearts because a serviceman asked for it, whined for it, begged for it or otherwise didn't earn it. It's hard enough to get them to give it to the ones who deserve it.

2. War crimes happen in war, on both sides. It's a fact and if saying it outloud makes a person dishonorable, then we're all in trouble. Most of the military personell just did the best they could under the circumstances. Keeping in mind that there were large numbers of teenages and people in their early 20's fighting Nam, scared out of their minds and watching people die all around them, it's a wonder any of them came out of it even close to sane. Many didn't. It made a major dent in an entire generation of young men.

3. Both of the men, Bush and Kerry, were young men at the time. Their reactions to war was pretty much in keeping with the norm. If Bush chose to avoid it as much as possible, it may be the one thing (in my opinion) that shows a bit of intelligence. Maybe the use of drugs and alcohol until the age of 40 is responsible for his present lack of brain power. That Kerry volun- teered, while understandable, showed a distinct immaturity. He's older now. He grew up a lot in those 4 months everyone keeps harping on. If he'd been there longer, he might well have been as messed up as so many of the fellas I know.

If you throw out all the stuff that people keep wrangling about on these forums and just ask...Can President Bush mend the broken alliances and get the assistance we need to have an honorable conclusion to this mess?

I'm afraid he can't. Kerry may not be able to either. But his odds are better.

Bush COULD have gone had his unit been called up....

Vietnam War: Twenty Army National Guard units from 17 states were mobilized for service in the Vietnam War on May 13, 1968. Company D (Ranger) of the 151st Infantry, Indiana Army National Guard arrived in the country in December of that year. The Indiana Rangers were assigned reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering missions. Operating deep in enemy territory, Ranger patrols engaged enemy units while conducting raids, ambushes and surveillance missions. "Delta Company" achieved an impressive combat record; unit members earned 510 medals for valor and service.

It IS the first hand evidence of Kerry's fellow soldiers who are speaking out to say he wasn't all that.
no, its THIRD person accounts of people on other ships

no, its THIRD person accounts of people on other ships

That were eyewitnesses to many of what John Kerry is talking about and can question Kerry's ability to lead.

no, its THIRD person accounts of people on other ships

Third person is someone saying what someone else said....these men were there...not ON the same boat, but close enough to see what was happening. of course you will deny and deny and thats ok, it is entertaining.

That were eyewitnesses to many of what John Kerry is talking about and can question Kerry's ability to lead.
a guy in a car in another lane who witnessed the accident is still a third person source

a guy in a car in another lane who witnessed the accident is still a third person source

NO! He'll be a witness to an accident and will have to give his report to the police. The police will have to take it down.

Third person is someone saying what someone else said....these men were there...not ON the same boat, but close enough to see what was happening. of course you will deny and deny and thats ok, it is entertaining.
they're credibility isn't very high for me, especially after reading the invterview with rassaman, the guy kerry saved, and a swift vote veteran against kerry, the swift boat veteran with kerry, on another boat during their own shit, was sitting there saying how everything that kerry and rassaman said didnt happen, with rassaman RIGHT THERE refuting it. i am far more inclined to believe the person it happened to than some one else that is supposed to be doing THEIR duty

You forgot to say "Clinton was a philandering coward"...

I just don't see overall how Bush's presidency is a mess. He inherited a recession and then 9 months later we got hit with 9/11. In case you've forgotten, that was the catalyst that hurt our economy the worst. The corporate scandals started being uncovered and our investments went south. Now the economy is improving every month. Reactions in Iraq haven't gone as we thought they would....but don't you think that's pretty much a lack of understanding of the culture and the mentality that can breed suicide terrorists and consider dismembering a sanctioned form of punishment? Recently, when Kerry was asked if he had been president and knew everything then that he knows now, would he have gone into Iraq he responded...."you betcha...maybe...." Face it, no one in their right mind would vote for Kerry...the only votes he will get are against Bush. Course, there's always Ralph.

Maybe a recession means surplus to you, but not to me: You can't have over the money you need and ( have a surplus) have a recession at same time, its nonsense.
Where does the idea that we had a recession that was inherited come from? Is this a Right Wing ideology thingy?
Do you have a graph or a paper/source to back it up?

Kerry, is unsure wherether he would go to Iraq. I'd say Maybe too. Its not clear cut and easy decision., admit Bush made the wrong one.
He should have allowed more time with inspections and maybe belive the inspectors but that is what you get with stubborn people.

NO! He'll be a witness to an accident and will have to give his report to the police. The police will have to take it down.
of course it will be taken into account, BUT its not going to be put ahead of the accounts given by the people in the accident, assuming they survived

Maybe a recession means surplus to you, but not to me: You can't have over the money you need and have a surplus its nonsense.
Where does the idea that we had a recession that was inherited come from? Is this a Right Wing ideology thingy?
Do you have a graph or a paper/source to back it up?

Kerry, is unsure wherether he would go to Iraq. I'd say Maybe too. Its not clear cut and easy decision., admit Bush made the wrong one.
He should have allowed more time with inspections and maybe belive the inspectors but that is what you get with stubborn people.

The economy started to slow down under Clinton. There is a difference between the Budget and the Economy. The economy started to go down during the last months of the Clinton Administration.

of course it will be taken into account, BUT its not going to be put ahead of the accounts given by the people in the accident, assuming they survived

ACtually it will because both sides are going to say it was the other's fault. By having a witness, you can get to the truth.

ACtually it will because both sides are going to say it was the other's fault. By having a witness, you can get to the truth.
you're not getting the point, you refuse to listen and just keep making up spun rationalizations

you miss the point that the 2 people involved in an accident know far better what they were doing and what was happening exactly than a 3rd party source

The economy started to slow down under Clinton. There is a difference between the Budget and the Economy. The economy started to go down during the last months of the Clinton Administration.
wasn't he impeached in the last months? that means he is no longer in control. hmm look a new angle for ya

you're not getting the point, you refuse to listen and just keep making up spun rationalizations

you miss the point that the 2 people involved in an accident know far better what they were doing and what was happening exactly than a 3rd party source

No your the one that doesn't get it. Each side will blame eachother. By having a witness, in this case another car that witnessed it, the cops can sort out who is at fault.

wasn't he impeached in the last months? that means he is no longer in control. hmm look a new angle for ya

Boy you really don't know your history do you? Clinton was impeaced before 2000! I forgot what year it was but it wasn't important. Being impeached means you go to trial in the US Senate. Clinton was still incharge during this. The Senate found him not guilty and Clinton STAYED in office. Come on. Don't tell me you didn't know this.

This subject is just about shredded, but as an older person who lived through the time in question, I'd like to make a few observations.

1. I'd be really surprised if the military gave out medals of honor and purple hearts because a serviceman asked for it, whined for it, begged for it or otherwise didn't earn it. It's hard enough to get them to give it to the ones who deserve it..

As a retired member of the military I can attest to the fact that medals are given out for a vast number of reasons... some of which almost defy reason. To make someone look better for promotion sake, as a bribe for a person to keep their mouths shut, to appease their parents. Any number of reasons.

2. War crimes happen in war, on both sides. It's a fact and if saying it outloud makes a person dishonorable, then we're all in trouble. Most of the military personell just did the best they could under the circumstances. Keeping in mind that there were large numbers of teenages and people in their early 20's fighting Nam, scared out of their minds and watching people die all around them, it's a wonder any of them came out of it even close to sane. Many didn't. It made a major dent in an entire generation of young men.

It wasnt the simple fact that he (Kerry) spoke out against war crimes... it was the fact that some felt he lied about the crimes to further his own anti-war stance.

3. Both of the men, Bush and Kerry, were young men at the time. Their reactions to war was pretty much in keeping with the norm. If Bush chose to avoid it as much as possible, it may be the one thing (in my opinion) that shows a bit of intelligence. Maybe the use of drugs and alcohol until the age of 40 is responsible for his present lack of brain power. That Kerry volun- teered, while understandable, showed a distinct immaturity. He's older now. He grew up a lot in those 4 months everyone keeps harping on. If he'd been there longer, he might well have been as messed up as so many of the fellas I know.

As a volunteer myself... I find the fact that you equate volunteering with immaturity a tad offensive. Because it goes against what you believe in, does not make it immaturity. Nor does possibly avoiding conflict show intelligence.

If you throw out all the stuff that people keep wrangling about on these forums and just ask...Can President Bush mend the broken alliances and get the assistance we need to have an honorable conclusion to this mess?

I'm afraid he can't. Kerry may not be able to either. But his odds are better.

I think that the fact that Bush is willing to go through with what he thinks is right regardless of what people will feel about him is commendable. I believe that Kerry would not do a damn thing if he felt he would offend anyones sensibilities.

No your the one that doesn't get it. Each side will blame eachother. By having a witness, in this case another car that witnessed it, the cops can sort out who is at fault.
thats correct but its not the point, the point is the people involved in the crash themselves do know what happened better than a third party source, period.

thats correct but its not the point, the point is the people involved in the crash themselves do know what happened better than a third party source, period.

Believe what you will. I will not argue this point because obviously you have no clue as to what your talking about. Besides, it really has no bearing on this thread.

Boy you really don't know your history do you? Clinton was impeaced before 2000! I forgot what year it was but it wasn't important. Being impeached means you go to trial in the US Senate. Clinton was still incharge during this. The Senate found him not guilty and Clinton STAYED in office. Come on. Don't tell me you didn't know this.
but still his last how many months in office? 2 maybe 3 a recession started? boo hoo, we are still in a recession 4 years later despite historical repression recovery levels and bush administration's projections

but still his last how many months in office? 2 maybe 3 a recession started? boo hoo, we are still in a recession 4 years later despite historical repression recovery levels and bush administration's projections

Check your facts again! The recession ended a couple of years ago and that's according to Greenspan who also stated this week that the US Economy is still Strong.

Believe what you will. I will not argue this point because obviously you have no clue as to what your talking about. Besides, it really has no bearing on this thread.
i like to refer to it as a comparison

Check your facts again! The recession ended a couple of years ago and that's according to Greenspan who also stated this week that the US Economy is still Strong.
still going up...in price

still going up...in price

Are you talking the Deficit or the US Economy?

both i believe

both i believe

The deficit figures have been rounded down and an Up Economy is a good thing.

The deficit figures have been rounded down and an Up Economy is a good thing.

Unfortunately the reason we still suffer from a growing deficit is that the government as a whole wont stop spending what they dont have.

The tax cuts didnt cause this.. the governments tax revenue went up because of those, it's the rampant spending going on.

But Corneliu is right, the economy and the deficit are not the same, somewhat related but not the same.

Believe what you will. I will not argue this point because obviously you have no clue as to what your talking about. Besides, it really has no bearing on this thread.

Now you're getting it. I tried earlier, and Squares is just pig-headed about not admitting that sometimes "third-parties" do have a better view of events.

Some questions you could have asked are: In what percentage of motor vehicle accidents does one party involved state that THEY DIDN'T SEE the other party? How many of these were witnessed by third-parties that saw the entire situation, and were relied on by police and courts to determine the truth about what happened? How could a party that DIDN'T SEE the other party provide more reliable testimony about what really happened?

Then again, with Squares, you'd probably just be doing this: :headbang:

Now you're getting it. I tried earlier, and Squares is just pig-headed about not admitting that sometimes "third-parties" do have a better view of events.

Some questions you could have asked are: In what percentage of motor vehicle accidents does one party involved state that THEY DIDN'T SEE the other party? How many of these were witnessed by third-parties that saw the entire situation, and were relied on by police and courts to determine the truth about what happened? How could a party that DIDN'T SEE the other party provide more reliable testimony about what really happened?

Then again, with Squares, you'd probably just be doing this: :headbang:
i dont mean they know what the other person is doing, i mean they know what THEY are doing in an accident

Now you're getting it. I tried earlier, and Squares is just pig-headed about not admitting that sometimes "third-parties" do have a better view of events.

Some questions you could have asked are: In what percentage of motor vehicle accidents does one party involved state that THEY DIDN'T SEE the other party? How many of these were witnessed by third-parties that saw the entire situation, and were relied on by police and courts to determine the truth about what happened? How could a party that DIDN'T SEE the other party provide more reliable testimony about what really happened?

Then again, with Squares, you'd probably just be doing this: :headbang:

HAHA!! Your right I would be doing :headbang:

i dont mean they know what the other person is doing, i mean they know what THEY are doing in an accident

Or what they perceive they are doing, or what they want others to perceive that they are doing. An unbiased witness is almost always the best evidence of actual events.

As for Kerry, remember, the vets who are disclosing his lies first became involved when he used pictures with some of these men in them, in his campaign implying that they supported him. When they protested, he ignored them and continued to use these pictures. They have since been joined by other vets who had experiences with Kerry in Nam, put their info together, and put together a book. I doubt if all of the recollections in this book are accurate, but I seriously doubt if they are all false. He's already admitted that he "may have been wrong" about being in Cambodia on Christmas in 1968. It also bears noting that he made this claim in criticizing Nixon...who wasn't the sitting president at that time. He just keeps making all of these mistakes!

He just keeps making all of these mistakes!

He may have only been incountry for 4 months, but it sounds like he must have inhaled.

Or what they perceive they are doing, or what they want others to perceive that they are doing. An unbiased witness is almost always the best evidence of actual events.

Very well put. Bravo Zulu!

As for Kerry, remember, the vets who are disclosing his lies first became involved when he used pictures with some of these men in them, in his campaign implying that they supported him. When they protested, he ignored them and continued to use these pictures. They have since been joined by other vets who had experiences with Kerry in Nam, put their info together, and put together a book. I doubt if all of the recollections in this book are accurate, but I seriously doubt if they are all false. He's already admitted that he "may have been wrong" about being in Cambodia on Christmas in 1968. It also bears noting that he made this claim in criticizing Nixon...who wasn't the sitting president at that time. He just keeps making all of these mistakes!

Yes, the "Holiday in Cambodia" is biting Kerry in the ass. As you point out, and as I have been saying for a couple days now, the truth is that BOTH sides are partially correct and partially incorrect. I have the integrity to admit that, but supporters of St. John are ABSOLUTELY ADAMANT that he is pure as the wind-driven snow and sole possessor of truthfulness.

He just keeps making all of these mistakes!

He may have only been incountry for 4 months, but it sounds like he must have inhaled.

LOL!!! This is all going to backfire in Kerry's Face. If Kerry doesn't start answering these things himself, he's done.

Politigrade,
Not going to copy all your stuff and all my stuff. No offense intended.

1. You may well be right about there being numerous reasons for the awards of medals etc. Don't think Kerry was all that important at that time,(politically speaking) but who knows...

2. We know damned well there were war crimes in Nam and we know our side was responsible for a number of them. Not sure how we can say the man lied.

3. Again no offense intended Re: immaturity. Was speaking specifically about that particular time in history and the fact that he was young and no doubt idealistic. Besides "immature" is no more a dirty word than "liberal." We've all been immature at some time in our life. We didn't all spring forth brimming with great wisdom. That comes with life for a few.

Yes I'm pro Kerry and if you think Bush can dig us out of this mess, it is absolutely your right and responsibility to support him. If he wins, I sincerely hope your faith is well place. I have strong opinions, but I'm not rabid.

Yes I'm pro Kerry and if you think Bush can dig us out of this mess, it is absolutely your right and responsibility to support him. If he wins, I sincerely hope your faith is well place. I have strong opinions, but I'm not rabid.

As an independent voter, I would hope that I can be open-minded. However, in the case of this election, putting ancient history aside, I am 99.9% sure of my choice. First of all, I have no idea where Kerry stands on issues other than a socialist ideal of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. His voting record in the Senate is spotty and unremarkable at best and it seems to be all over the board. On the issue of Iraq, he has stood firmly opposed to Bush's actions, but when asked what he would have done in Bush's place, he has no other solution. He claims to be able to bring our European allies (France & Germany) into this with us, but they have adamantly stated they will not support us. Same with Russia. He keeps being exposed in untruths and faults anyone who points them out. In other words, this guy worries me. Bush, on the hand states his objective, his rationale behind it, and then keeps a straight course. You never have any doubt what his opinions are or where he stands on any issue. You get what you see, like it or not. I don't agree with him on a few things, but so far, in the face of some unbelievable challenges, he has persevered and made advancements in most every respect. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

That would require Congress and it won't pass the Congress.

Though isn't it ironic that it was a Democrat that was trying to get the Draft re-enacted?

And to the Canadians here: Butt out of our elections.
And before you mention about your troops in Afghanistan, just imagine what it would have been like if that wonderful NATO treaty required you to attack the Soviet Union instead. Thanks.

Unfortunately the reason we still suffer from a growing deficit is that the government as a whole wont stop spending what they dont have.

And with republicans controlling both houses and the presidency, who is to blame for that?

The tax cuts didnt cause this.. the governments tax revenue went up because of those, it's the rampant spending going on.

I believe this is incorrect; the tax cuts have definitely reduced revenues and contributed to the deficit. A lot of the deficit, though, can be blamed on the second gulf war.

I thought the deficit was a 50/50 split between spending and tax cuts, but the Tax Foundation says it's 2/3 spending and 1/3 tax cuts.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/taxcutsanddeficits.html

It's definitely true that the tax cuts decreased revenue in real dollars, not increased it. (Although, interestingly, there was an uptick in tax collections recently - caused by wealth inequality and progressive income taxes.)

But Corneliu is right, the economy and the deficit are not the same, somewhat related but not the same.

I agree; it's also true that income and wealth are two different things (and it bugs me when the media conflates them).

Edit - fixed typos

Bush, on the hand states his objective, his rationale behind it, and then keeps a straight course. You never have any doubt what his opinions are or where he stands on any issue.

Out of curiousity, what are Bush's views about a national sales tax?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/11/195642/797

Or tribal sovereignty?

You get what you see, like it or not.

With George W. Bush, what you see is not what you get; what you hear is not what you get; what you get is all you get.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0523-03.htm

Yes, the "Christmas in Cambodia" thing is going to come to bite Kerry but good. He cannot deny this one because he said it on the Senate floor in 1986 so there IS a record on this one. John Kerry is an idiot and the next few months will prove that correct.

Though isn't it ironic that it was a Democrat that was trying to get the Draft re-enacted?

And to the Canadians here: Butt out of our elections.
And before you mention about your troops in Afghanistan, just imagine what it would have been like if that wonderful NATO treaty required you to attack the Soviet Union instead. Thanks.
the canadians here strike me as far more intelligent than biff and corneliu and i havnt decided yet about you, but your probably getting there

the canadians here strike me as far more intelligent than biff and corneliu and i havnt decided yet about you, but your probably getting there

So, if someone doesn't agree with your point of view, they lack intelligence? Seems to me that attitude highlights that you are narrow minded and unable to consider or respect others' opinions.

As for the Canadians, they are our respected neighbors and allies...but, they are not US citizens and therefore have no valid reason to be involved in our politics...unless we get a choice in their government, too. As a matter of common courtesy and respect, they need to handle their own affairs and let us handle ours.

So, if someone doesn't agree with your point of view, they lack intelligence? Seems to me that attitude highlights that you are narrow minded and unable to consider or respect others' opinions.

As for the Canadians, they are our respected neighbors and allies...but, they are not US citizens and therefore have no valid reason to be involved in our politics...unless we get a choice in their government, too. As a matter of common courtesy and respect, they need to handle their own affairs and let us handle ours.
wrong, everyone in the world has PLENTY of reason to be involved in our politics, our president affects how the rest of the world sees us and more importanly affects the rest of the world: his economic policies affects imports and exports and not to mention foreign policy, its called foreign policy cuz you know it deals with FOREIGN NATIONS, all bush has managed to do tehre is invdae 2 less powerful nations and take over while at the same time alienating us from our allies and playing right into the hands of our enemies, the best way to mak enemies is piss everyone off. bush also has this problem with international treaties


i will respect their opinions when they respect mine, i respect roach-busters, i think he is a nutcase in all honesty, but i respect him because he is at least intelligent, where as biff corneliu and galtatnia or whatever are just as bad as those people they sit around and bitch about, they consider themselves superior and their opinion the only one of importance

Though isn't it ironic that it was a Democrat that was trying to get the Draft re-enacted?

I did find that Ironic! LOL!!! Luckily, it won't get through Congress.

i will respect their opinions when they respect mine, i respect roach-busters, i think he is a nutcase in all honesty, but i respect him because he is at least intelligent, where as biff corneliu and galtatnia or whatever are just as bad as those people they sit around and bitch about, they consider themselves superior and their opinion the only one of importance

Where did I ever say or imply that I am superior? I express my opinions and take others' opinions into account. Just because I don't accept some of their opinions as gospel doen't mean I think my opinion is the only one that counts. I had a very civil discussion with Greenmanbry yesterday about Islam. S/he was very nice and enlightened me on a couple points. S/he even offered to continue the discussion via email.

Regarding Kerry's military record and the Swift Vet controversy: I have stated all along that I think Kerry deserved his medals and have never questioned his courage. However, I do think that he is just as likely to have embellished his story or recalled details incorrectly as the Swift Vets. I think there is truth and fiction in BOTH sides' stories. However, you refuse to admit that there is even one iota of inaccuracy in Kerry's story. In your mind, Kerry is 100% right, and the Swift Vets are 100% wrong. Who is the closed-minded one here?

Finally, you are the one who resorted to name-calling and insults. You flat out called me "half-wit" (which I think everyone here would disagree with, after reading my posts), and then refused to acknowledge that you did so. You also insulted others.

You are perilously close to /ignore.

Oh yes, Biff is also a very reasonable person. You don't see this because you seem determined to hate anyone who doesn't agree with you. My advice to you would be to chill.

I too never implied that I was superior. All I did was present the other side of the story Chess Squares and you had the agasity to insult me. Your only seeing one side of the story, Kerry's side, and failed to look at the other side. I have looked at both sides and when these swift boat guys book comes out, I am getting it and I will read it and then form my own conclusions. You just only see Kerry's side and when people fail to see the other side or refuse to see the other side, just proves how closed minded you really are.

wrong, everyone in the world has PLENTY of reason to be involved in our politics, our president affects how the rest of the world sees us and more importanly affects the rest of the world: his economic policies affects imports and exports and not to mention foreign policy, its called foreign policy cuz you know it deals with FOREIGN NATIONS, all bush has managed to do tehre is invdae 2 less powerful nations and take over while at the same time alienating us from our allies and playing right into the hands of our enemies, the best way to mak enemies is piss everyone off. bush also has this problem with international treaties

First of all, the allies that won't back up the US right now are France (who has gone out of its way to snub the US in non-political ways), Germany, and Russia. All 3 as well as some major figures in the UN have been caught with their hand in the Oil-for-Food cookie jar. They ignored UN sanctions against Iraq, fed the fortunes of a family of sociopaths, and aided his abuse of common Iraqi citizens for their own monetary profit. NO! they didn't want us in Iraq and mess up their sweet deal. How many allies are helping us though? Last count, 33? Hmmmmmmmmm. As for invading 2 less powerful nations, how many times do these smaller countries have to attack us and ours and how many of our people must they murder before we take action? Are our people a disposable commodity to feed their blood lust? This terrorist element is scattered all over the Mid-East. You find this mentality everywhere...they're called Nazi's, skin-heads, KKK, street gangs, etc. Right now, however, due to corrupt governments and bonded people who just don't have the will to care anymore, these radicals have flourished in the Muslem religion. They are thugs, they are rampant, they are seeded all over the world, and we and our democratic allies are their primary target. Wake up!! We are at war!! The tac that our president has taken to fight this cancer is to bring democracy to these nations so that the people can ultimately root this disease out of their own culture.

i will respect their opinions when they respect mine, i respect roach-busters, i think he is a nutcase in all honesty, but i respect him because he is at least intelligent, where as biff corneliu and galtatnia or whatever are just as bad as those people they sit around and bitch about, they consider themselves superior and their opinion the only one of importance

In all of these posts, you are the one who has called other people names and insulted their intelligence. They have not done that to you...only expressed opinions contrary to yours and disagreed with you on he said/she said/who said. His name is not roach-busters and he is not a nutcase. He is the leader of the greatest country in the world...he is our Commander in Chief...he is our President. And, whether you agree with him or not, he deserves our respect. Support Kerry to be the next president if that is where your conscience leads you. If he wins I will honor him as my country's leader. and vote against him in 2008. But please...stop the name calling...stop the disrespect...and understand that throughout your life, not everyone is going to agree with you...and that sometimes you are wrong and they are right.

i will respect their opinions when they respect mine, i respect roach-busters, i think he is a nutcase in all honesty, but i respect him because he is at least intelligent, where as biff corneliu and galtatnia or whatever are just as bad as those people they sit around and bitch about, they consider themselves superior and their opinion the only one of importance

I am not superior, but my opinions are. ;)

Seriously, we can all disagree without resorting to name calling and childish behaviour.

I am not superior, but my opinions are. ;)


True, but don't tell Chess that....it confuses him. <grinner>

First of all, the allies that won't back up the US right now are France (who has gone out of its way to snub the US in non-political ways), Germany, and Russia. All 3 as well as some major figures in the UN have been caught with their hand in the Oil-for-Food cookie jar. They ignored UN sanctions against Iraq, fed the fortunes of a family of sociopaths, and aided his abuse of common Iraqi citizens for their own monetary profit. NO! they didn't want us in Iraq and mess up their sweet deal. How many allies are helping us though? Last count, 33? Hmmmmmmmmm. As for invading 2 less powerful nations, how many times do these smaller countries have to attack us and ours and how many of our people must they murder before we take action? Are our people a disposable commodity to feed their blood lust? This terrorist element is scattered all over the Mid-East. You find this mentality everywhere...they're called Nazi's, skin-heads, KKK, street gangs, etc. Right now, however, due to corrupt governments and bonded people who just don't have the will to care anymore, these radicals have flourished in the Muslem religion. They are thugs, they are rampant, they are seeded all over the world, and we and our democratic allies are their primary target. Wake up!! We are at war!! The tac that our president has taken to fight this cancer is to bring democracy to these nations so that the people can ultimately root this disease out of their own culture.

Thanks Zooke. You are right. We were attacked one to many times and 9/11 was the last straw. We attacked because we had to not because we choose too. Our forces are overseas, as is my dad and uncle, and fighting to root out this evil that has plaqued the planet. I'm proud of our forces and the successes we've had in this war on terror. We need to continue to keep this up if we hope to win it.

In all of these posts, you are the one who has called other people names and insulted their intelligence. They have not done that to you...only expressed opinions contrary to yours and disagreed with you on he said/she said/who said. His name is not roach-busters and he is not a nutcase. He is the leader of the greatest country in the world...he is our Commander in Chief...he is our President. And, whether you agree with him or not, he deserves our respect. Support Kerry to be the next president if that is where your conscience leads you. If he wins I will honor him as my country's leader. and vote against him in 2008. But please...stop the name calling...stop the disrespect...and understand that throughout your life, not everyone is going to agree with you...and that sometimes you are wrong and they are right.

*Applauds Zooke*

We have been telling him this for awhile. He also thinks that the Commander-in-Chief is an honorary title given to the President, not realizing that being CIC is his actual job.

I am not superior, but my opinions are. ;)

Seriously, we can all disagree without resorting to name calling and childish behaviour.

Agreed Biff :)

True, but don't tell Chess that....it confuses him. <grinner>

*Grins* I second it Zooke

True, but don't tell Chess that....it confuses him. <grinner>

He is not old enough to remember a lot of the things that happened in the past 30 years. With age comes insight and wisdom....but more insight than wisdom. ;)

He is not old enough to remember a lot of the things that happened in the past 30 years. With age comes insight and wisdom....but more insight than wisdom. ;)

No wonder my mom (also a vet) has shaped the way I am today. :)

She has seen it (except Nam) and done it and served for 6 years (USAF)

He is not old enough to remember a lot of the things that happened in the past 30 years. With age comes insight and wisdom....but more insight than wisdom. ;)

It's not nice to remind a lady of her age. My grandkids take care of that!

It's not nice to remind a lady of her age. My grandkids take care of that!

LOL!!! Biff, My mom taught me that! LOL

Where did I ever say or imply that I am superior? I express my opinions and take others' opinions into account. Just because I don't accept some of their opinions as gospel doen't mean I think my opinion is the only one that counts. I had a very civil discussion with Greenmanbry yesterday about Islam. S/he was very nice and enlightened me on a couple points. S/he even offered to continue the discussion via email.

Regarding Kerry's military record and the Swift Vet controversy: I have stated all along that I think Kerry deserved his medals and have never questioned his courage. However, I do think that he is just as likely to have embellished his story or recalled details incorrectly as the Swift Vets. I think there is truth and fiction in BOTH sides' stories. However, you refuse to admit that there is even one iota of inaccuracy in Kerry's story. In your mind, Kerry is 100% right, and the Swift Vets are 100% wrong. Who is the closed-minded one here?

Finally, you are the one who resorted to name-calling and insults. You flat out called me "half-wit" (which I think everyone here would disagree with, after reading my posts), and then refused to acknowledge that you did so. You also insulted others.

You are perilously close to /ignore.

Oh yes, Biff is also a very reasonable person. You don't see this because you seem determined to hate anyone who doesn't agree with you. My advice to you would be to chill.
excuse me then

but on the swift vote veterans thing, i am still highly inclined to believe rassaman and kerry saying what was going on when you know kerry was saving rassaman than the person in the swift boat vets against kerry that was on another boat telling rassaman to his face thats not what happened

and no i dont find biff such, you are obviously more inclined to think so because you areo n teh same side of the line, thus wouldnt your agreeance with him make you perceive him more reasonable, cant accuse me of one thing when not taking it into account yourself

First of all, the allies that won't back up the US right now are France (who has gone out of its way to snub the US in non-political ways), Germany, and Russia. All 3 as well as some major figures in the UN have been caught with their hand in the Oil-for-Food cookie jar. They ignored UN sanctions against Iraq, fed the fortunes of a family of sociopaths, and aided his abuse of common Iraqi citizens for their own monetary profit. NO! they didn't want us in Iraq and mess up their sweet deal. How many allies are helping us though? Last count, 33? Hmmmmmmmmm. As for invading 2 less powerful nations, how many times do these smaller countries have to attack us and ours and how many of our people must they murder before we take action? Are our people a disposable commodity to feed their blood lust? This terrorist element is scattered all over the Mid-East. You find this mentality everywhere...they're called Nazi's, skin-heads, KKK, street gangs, etc. Right now, however, due to corrupt governments and bonded people who just don't have the will to care anymore, these radicals have flourished in the Muslem religion. They are thugs, they are rampant, they are seeded all over the world, and we and our democratic allies are their primary target. Wake up!! We are at war!! The tac that our president has taken to fight this cancer is to bring democracy to these nations so that the people can ultimately root this disease out of their own culture.
irrelevant, even our allies that are helping us dont like what we are doing, that is obvious, really when was the last time afghanistan and iraq attacked us? oh never wasnt it? and you believe by taking over countries and killing people and siding with israel and turning and blind eye to what they do we are some how defeating terrorism? you're off your rocker, if anything we are helpnig them recruit by giving them more of a reason to hate us and take their lives trying to destroy us, there needs to be some one intelligent in charge of the war on terror, some one who realizes it is what bush says it is: a war on an unmarked enemy under no exact affiliation who woudl rather kill civilians than soldiers. you must realise they are SUICIDERS, you think killing them will stop them? you think if we kill them they will be like "oh,m attacking tehm is a bad idea, better stop" no, killing them and their famileis and brethren wil lreinforce the idea they must give their lives to destroy us and convince others of the same. i do not see how people cannot realise this, i really dont.




In all of these posts, you are the one who has called other people names and insulted their intelligence. They have not done that to you...only expressed opinions contrary to yours and disagreed with you on he said/she said/who said. His name is not roach-busters and he is not a nutcase. He is the leader of the greatest country in the world...he is our Commander in Chief...he is our President. And, whether you agree with him or not, he deserves our respect. Support Kerry to be the next president if that is where your conscience leads you. If he wins I will honor him as my country's leader. and vote against him in 2008. But please...stop the name calling...stop the disrespect...and understand that throughout your life, not everyone is going to agree with you...and that sometimes you are wrong and they are right.
no im talking about roach-busters, you want me to link you to his user page?
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=146195
and yesi do believe roach-busters is quite naive, as bad as us commie pinkos jsut on the other side, bordering on crazy, i am talking about a user

oh and george bush? he is a right wing zealot who is a danger to anyone and everyone and were this a nation where the government is more corrupt and with more power people who oppose him would "accidently" die

True, but don't tell Chess that....it confuses him. <grinner>
thank you people for proving my point

you people sit around and keep patting each others back sitting in a cross hand shake with a hand in each others reassuring each other how intelligent each is and how one or one's opinions are "superior" to mine,
BITE ME

thank you people for proving my point

Oh come on....just because you do not agree with us is no reason to say that we are discounting your argument out of hand. if we were we would just say that you are wrong...peroid. While I do not like Kerry one bit, he changes his story to fit his audience (SUV's anyone?) I will not discount his courage. However, HE is the one who is making his record public, but withholding the very thing that can prove him right (or wrong).

Ok, lets clarify... The question was should Kerry show his record...

Yes! If your going to use it as a basis for being elected then hell yea, just like if bush wanted to use his military record then he should show his record too!

That’s a simple answer to a simple question. No matter how much a piece of shit either one of them is.

irrelevant, even our allies that are helping us dont like what we are doing, that is obvious, really when was the last time afghanistan and iraq attacked us? oh never wasnt it? and you believe by taking over countries and killing people and siding with israel and turning and blind eye to what they do we are some how defeating terrorism? you're off your rocker, if anything we are helpnig them recruit by giving them more of a reason to hate us and take their lives trying to destroy us, there needs to be some one intelligent in charge of the war on terror, some one who realizes it is what bush says it is: a war on an unmarked enemy under no exact affiliation who woudl rather kill civilians than soldiers. you must realise they are SUICIDERS, you think killing them will stop them? you think if we kill them they will be like "oh,m attacking tehm is a bad idea, better stop" no, killing them and their famileis and brethren wil lreinforce the idea they must give their lives to destroy us and convince others of the same. i do not see how people cannot realise this, i really dont.

Afghanistan did attack us, in that they harbored the terrorists responsible for 9/11. They knew Al Qaeda had training camps in their country, but instead of trying to get rid of them, they aided and abetted them. Legally, aiding and abetting is almost as severe as committing the crime itself.

Iraq is a different situation. The confluence of a mad despot, WMD, and ties to terrorist organizations was a growing threat to the U.S. It was incumbent on the U.S. government to deal with that threat, before they were able to mount another large-scale attack against us. Pre-emption is a time-honored and extremely effective military strategy.

So...you don't think hitting them where they live is effective. Just how WOULD YOU deal with terrorists, then?

Oh come on....just because you do not agree with us is no reason to say that we are discounting your argument out of hand. if we were we would just say that you are wrong...peroid. While I do not like Kerry one bit, he changes his story to fit his audience (SUV's anyone?) I will not discount his courage. However, HE is the one who is making his record public, but withholding the very thing that can prove him right (or wrong).
you just said your opinions are superior to mine, thus discounting them out of hand

irrelevant, even our allies that are helping us dont like what we are doing, that is obvious, really when was the last time afghanistan and iraq attacked us? oh never wasnt it? and you believe by taking over countries and killing people and siding with israel and turning and blind eye to what they do we are some how defeating terrorism? you're off your rocker, if anything we are helpnig them recruit by giving them more of a reason to hate us and take their lives trying to destroy us, there needs to be some one intelligent in charge of the war on terror, some one who realizes it is what bush says it is: a war on an unmarked enemy under no exact affiliation who woudl rather kill civilians than soldiers. you must realise they are SUICIDERS, you think killing them will stop them? you think if we kill them they will be like "oh,m attacking tehm is a bad idea, better stop" no, killing them and their famileis and brethren wil lreinforce the idea they must give their lives to destroy us and convince others of the same. i do not see how people cannot realise this, i really dont.

Again with the insults?!!
Are you purposely obtuse?

when was the last time afghanistan and iraq attacked us? oh never wasnt it?


Biff, you probably have the entire list in memory...would you please answer this young person?

no im talking about roach-busters, you want me to link you to his user page?
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=146195
and yesi do believe roach-busters is quite naive, as bad as us commie pinkos jsut on the other side, bordering on crazy, i am talking about a user

Excuse me, from the flow of your post, I thought you were talking about President Bush. My error. Though, again, just because someone's opinion isn't the same as yours, doesn't make them crazy...merely unique.

oh and george bush? he is a right wing zealot who is a danger to anyone and everyone and were this a nation where the government is more corrupt and with more power people who oppose him would "accidently" die

Puhleez.....I'm from Arkansas. You need to study up on the interesting things that Clinton's cronies keep in jars on their desks.

Afghanistan did attack us, in that they harbored the terrorists responsible for 9/11. They knew Al Qaeda had training camps in their country, but instead of trying to get rid of them, they aided and abetted them. Legally, aiding and abetting is almost as severe as committing the crime itself.

Iraq is a different situation. The confluence of a mad despot, WMD, and ties to terrorist organizations was a growing threat to the U.S. It was incumbent on the U.S. government to deal with that threat, before they were able to mount another large-scale attack against us. Pre-emption is a time-honored and extremely effective military strategy.

So...you don't think hitting them where they live is effective. Just how WOULD YOU deal with terrorists, then?
yet afghanistan itself didnt attack us, but yes they were officially supporting al-quieda so thats kind of wobbly there, but iraq is a dif matter, they did not attack us. and what provable ties do we have of aiding terrorists do we have with iraq? what WMDs? but the problem is we went into iraq before finishing out afghanistan, thus stretching troop strength thin and adding a whole nother mess we had to clean up while dealing with another, thus distracting us from the original purpose: getting ben ladin.

THEY ARE TERRORISTS, YOU DONT STOP THEM BY KILLING THEM, JESUS CHRIST MAN THEY KILL THEMSELVES, if ANYTHING, we are AIDING them by increasing anti-american sentiment among arabs and muslims, thus HELPING them recruit said people to destroy us. they can only be stopped by infiltration and ending or at least countering reasons they hate us: blind support for israel, a appearance of a hatred torwards muslims, and a heavy hand on their homelands

you just said your opinions are superior to mine, thus discounting them out of hand

NO ONE is saying their opinions are superior to yours. We keep trying to get you to understand that they are DIFFERENT than yours, and we are trying to explain our thought processes to reach our opinions to you. You are the one who keeps insulting us and calling us names. You are the only one making our arguments superior to yours by lowering yourself to such crass behavior. Maybe it's time you put aside your study of politics and start learning about civilized, courteous debate. This isn't a street brawl. This is a forum for intelligent people with differing ideas to share, learn and compromise in order to work together. It is what our country is founded on. Go back to Civics 101 and try again.

you just said your opinions are superior to mine, thus discounting them out of hand

No, you are mistaken, I have not discounted your opinion, I just think you are wrong and I have offered reasons why I think so...to discount is to just say you are wrong...period.

Puhleez.....I'm from Arkansas. You need to study up on the interesting things that Clinton's cronies keep in jars on their desks.
which discounts my statement, how?

No, you are mistaken, I have not discounted your opinion, I just think you are wrong and I have offered reasons why I think so...to discount is to just say you are wrong...period.
you said your opinions are superior, period. if that doesn't mean yours are right and mine are wrong, please enlighten me to the meaning of the word superior in the context, unless you want to argue the meaning of the word "is"

yet afghanistan itself didnt attack us, but yes they were officially supporting al-quieda so thats kind of wobbly there, but iraq is a dif matter, they did not attack us. and what provable ties do we have of aiding terrorists do we have with iraq? what WMDs? but the problem is we went into iraq before finishing out afghanistan, thus stretching troop strength thin and adding a whole nother mess we had to clean up while dealing with another, thus distracting us from the original purpose: getting ben ladin.

THEY ARE TERRORISTS, YOU DONT STOP THEM BY KILLING THEM, JESUS CHRIST MAN THEY KILL THEMSELVES, if ANYTHING, we are AIDING them by increasing anti-american sentiment among arabs and muslims, thus HELPING them recruit said people to destroy us. they can only be stopped by infiltration and ending or at least countering reasons they hate us: blind support for israel, a appearance of a hatred torwards muslims, and a heavy hand on their homelands

KIND of wobbly? How many times were they asked to turn Osama and Co. over? Starting in 1998 with the embassy bombings. That they refused put them right in the middle of things. HAD they done so, 9-11 would in all probablility NOT have happened. Therefore, they were just as responsible for that as Osama was.

As for not stoping them by killing them? Yeah...Clinton just wanted to arrest them. :rolleyes:

NO ONE is saying their opinions are superior to yours. We keep trying to get you to understand that they are DIFFERENT than yours, and we are trying to explain our thought processes to reach our opinions to you. You are the one who keeps insulting us and calling us names. You are the only one making our arguments superior to yours by lowering yourself to such crass behavior. Maybe it's time you put aside your study of politics and start learning about civilized, courteous debate. This isn't a street brawl. This is a forum for intelligent people with differing ideas to share, learn and compromise in order to work together. It is what our country is founded on. Go back to Civics 101 and try again.
really?

I am not superior, but my opinions are.
i do believe he is saying his opinions are superior to mine

you said your opinions are superior, period. if that doesn't mean yours are right and mine are wrong, please enlighten me to the meaning of the word superior in the context, unless you want to argue the meaning of the word "is"

No, I am not a Clintonite.

I have given you MANY reasons why I think you are mistaken and yet you are so certain that you are right you are blind to the facts presented.

KIND of wobbly? How many times were they asked to turn Osama and Co. over? Starting in 1998 with the embassy bombings. That they refused put them right in the middle of things. HAD they done so, 9-11 would in all probablility NOT have happened. Therefore, they were just as responsible for that as Osama was.

As for not stoping them by killing them? Yeah...Clinton just wanted to arrest them. :rolleyes:
im just stating that afghanistan itself did no attack us, itself. i will agree, with galtania (he just gained alot more respect by not sitting here in your circle of friends patting each other one the back telling each other how smart you are), they supported terrorism

No, I am not a Clintonite.

I have given you MANY reasons why I think you are mistaken and yet you are so certain that you are right you are blind to the facts presented.
what is the meaning of the word is

you said you opinions are superior, period.

you said your opinions are superior, period. if that doesn't mean yours are right and mine are wrong, please enlighten me to the meaning of the word superior in the context, unless you want to argue the meaning of the word "is"

Quote the specific post where anyone called their opinions "superior".....

Quote the specific post where anyone called their opinions "superior".....

I did....and they are. My opinions are thought out, based on experience and backed up with facts. Therefore they are superior to those of someone who lacks the life experience, to say nothing of the education, necessary to form an opinion on world events.

Biff, Zooke, its no use argueing with this guy. He believes its his way or the highway. I can't stand people with this mentality.

Chess Squares, no one here has stated that their opinions where superior to yours. You have degraded your own posts with insults. You need to look at the whole picture and not what someone is telling you.

Most of us here have looked at both sides of this issue and came to our decisions in a defined manner. We investigated and listened then rendered our conclusions. We can back up what we are saying.

Originally Posted by Biff Pileon
I am not superior, but my opinions are.

i do believe he is saying his opinions are superior to mine

I believe you left off the little smiley face that said he was making a joke...with himself as the butt of it. Is humor beyond your scope also?

Biff, Zooke, its no use argueing with this guy. He believes its his way or the highway. I can't stand people with this mentality.

Chess Squares, no one here has stated that their opinions where superior to yours. You have degraded your own posts with insults. You need to look at the whole picture and not what someone is telling you.

Most of us here have looked at both sides of this issue and came to our decisions in a defined manner. We investigated and listened then rendered our conclusions. We can back up what we are saying.

All in favor of ignoring this guy signify with "aye". (Of course we've already out-argued others of his ilk so this thread would probably die...then where do we go?)

All in favor of ignoring this guy signify with "aye". (Of course we've already out-argued others of his ilk so this thread would probably die...then where do we go?)

AYE!!!! (To another thread and cause more havoc with truth to destroy the arguements)

Quote the specific post where anyone called their opinions "superior".....
i did in my last reply to you

I know it a little off topic but how long did Bush serve in the guard?

I did....and they are. My opinions are thought out, based on experience and backed up with facts. Therefore they are superior to those of someone who lacks the life experience, to say nothing of the education, necessary to form an opinion on world events.
that is an assumption and an insult

I know it a little off topic but how long did Bush serve in the guard?
the TANG

I know it a little off topic but how long did Bush serve in the guard?

A few years i think...he was a pilot flying F-102's. Those were about the most difficult aircraft to fly that the US ever used.

A few years i think...he was a pilot flying F-102's. Those were about the most difficult aircraft to fly that the US ever used.

I thought he only served for a little over a year. Course there is a good chance im wrong.

I thought he only served for a little over a year. Course there is a good chance im wrong.

Yea I think you are actually. A normal sign up is I believe 4 years.

Yea I think you are actually. A normal sign up is I believe 4 years.


Yeah, but back then you could quit pretty much at any time. I know one guy who just quit going and nothing happened to him. Things are different now and thats the rules everyone is trying to apply to 1970's era service. It was just not that way.

yet afghanistan itself didnt attack us, but yes they were officially supporting al-quieda so thats kind of wobbly there, but iraq is a dif matter, they did not attack us. and what provable ties do we have of aiding terrorists do we have with iraq? what WMDs? but the problem is we went into iraq before finishing out afghanistan, thus stretching troop strength thin and adding a whole nother mess we had to clean up while dealing with another, thus distracting us from the original purpose: getting ben ladin.

The WMDs that the entire world thought they had, for the preceding twelve years. It wasn't just the Bush administration or the U.S., it was the Clinton administration, John Kerry, France, Britain, Russia, and the U.N. Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they never existed; it is faulty logic to assume that. Terrorist ties: ever heard of Abu Abbas? Ansar-al-Islam? Look them up. There was a jet aircraft fuselage at an airport near Baghdad that terrorists used to practice hijackings. Also, the 9/11 Commission report found that there were ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. As for waiting to "finish out" Afghanistan first: we didn't have the luxury of time. We had to preempt whatever evil designs Saddam was cooking up.

THEY ARE TERRORISTS, YOU DONT STOP THEM BY KILLING THEM, JESUS CHRIST MAN THEY KILL THEMSELVES, if ANYTHING, we are AIDING them by increasing anti-american sentiment among arabs and muslims, thus HELPING them recruit said people to destroy us. they can only be stopped by infiltration and ending or at least countering reasons they hate us: blind support for israel, a appearance of a hatred torwards muslims, and a heavy hand on their homelands

Just because an enemy is suicidal doesn't mean it's impossible to kill enough to stop them. Witness the banzai and kamikaze attacks of the Japanese in WWII. They were suicidal fanatics too.

Capitulating to terror, as you suggest doing, will not reduce their hatred for us. They don't just hate the U.S., they hate Western Civilization in general. The U.S. is just the biggest, most prestigous target, in their eyes. Their goal is worldwide Islamic rule, just as Hitler's goal was worldwide Aryan rule, and it is just as hideous.

Oh, and we have infiltration operations underway, you can bet on that.

I thought he only served for a little over a year. Course there is a good chance im wrong.
he just learned to fly the plane the wondered off and did whatever he pleased so he didnt have to do anything.

he just learned to fly the plane the wondered off and did whatever he pleased so he didnt have to do anything.

Proof please?

The WMDs that the entire world thought they had, for the preceding twelve years. It wasn't just the Bush administration or the U.S., it was the Clinton administration, John Kerry, France, Britain, Russia, and the U.N. Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they never existed; it is faulty logic to assume that. Terrorist ties: ever heard of Abu Abbas? Ansar-al-Islam? Look them up. There was a jet aircraft fuselage at an airport near Baghdad that terrorists used to practice hijackings. Also, the 9/11 Commission report found that there were ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. As for waiting to "finish out" Afghanistan first: we didn't have the luxury of time. We had to preempt whatever evil designs Saddam was cooking up.
what evil designs? and then if he was cooking up evil things why didnt we just go in there first? or before 9/11?



Just because an enemy is suicidal doesn't mean it's impossible to kill enough to stop them. Witness the banzai and kamikaze attacks of the Japanese in WWII. They were suicidal fanatics too.
1) organized military
2) they were taking from a limited supply of people
3) they run out of enough people loyal enough to suicide willing after a bit and eventually were forcing pilots into jets, welded them in and gave them only enoguh fuel to get to the target

in the muslims world there is a potentially unlimited well to pull out of especially if we continue to anger the arab and muslim world, that is unless you plan to pull a genocide on the entire muslim and arabian world, good luck. not to mention they are terrorists, not an organized army, bush LOVES to point this out to justify not applying the geneva convention to them, thus all of them are more than likely there because they want to be there and doing that, they are not being forced into it by a government authority

Capitulating to terror, as you suggest doing, will not reduce their hatred for us. They don't just hate the U.S., they hate Western Civilization in general. The U.S. is just the biggest, most prestigous target, in their eyes. Their goal is worldwide Islamic rule, just as Hitler's goal was worldwide Aryan rule, and it is just as hideous.
yes, thats the terrorist themselves, BUT the best way to further that sentiment is treat them like they arn't worth dealing with, we must get rid of the hardcore extremists yes, but we cant make them martyrs, and we cannot continue to inadvertently aid the terrorist cause by increasing the hatred of us among the people who are not already hardcore extremists. im not saying we should give in, never have i said that, i have said we should change our tactics to take into account who and WHAT we are fighting

Oh, and we have infiltration operations underway, you can bet on that.
yeah but thats gonna keep getting harder the more moles the bush administration exposes

Proof please?

My only source of information was from a book of Bushisms. Course I didn't actually buy it so I can't say exactly how long he was in but thought it was just over 360 days (like i said before i could be wrong)

Proof please?
he learned to fly the plane (4 years fro ma 6 year commitment), then after that he went to alabama to assist with a friends political career, somewhere in that time he refused to take a medical exam to continue flying, thus grounding him

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/03/politics/main615317.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7372-2004Feb2?language=printer
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/national_guard/

i could quote more relevant but i assume you want actual syndicated news sources

There are plenty of Vietnam Veterans out there with their purple hearts...Yet are they capable of becoming president?

he learned to fly the plane (4 years fro ma 6 year commitment), then after that he went to alabama to assist with a friends political career, somewhere in that time he refused to take a medical exam to continue flying, thus grounding him

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/03/politics/main615317.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7372-2004Feb2?language=printer
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/national_guard/

i could quote more relevant but i assume you want actual syndicated news sources

Ok so he got grounded! That still means he has to serve those other 2 years after he was grounded. That is a fact. So do you hve Proof of him walking away from his committment?

There are plenty of Vietnam Veterans out there with their purple hearts...Yet are they capable of becoming president?

Well lets put it this way if they persuded politics and had financial backing it would be posible. Besides would you prefer Bush, who doesn't know what war is like, or Kerry, who at least knows what he is putting american soldiers through.

Well lets put it this way if they persuded politics and had financial backing it would be posible. Besides would you prefer Bush, who doesn't know what war is like, or Kerry, who at least knows what he is putting american soldiers through.

Bush...because Kerry just said he would fight a more "sensitive" war. :rolleyes:

Ok so he got grounded! That still means he has to serve those other 2 years after he was grounded. That is a fact. So do you hve Proof of him walking away from his committment?

By the level we have been judging Kerry in this thread, this clearly shows that Bush is not fit to command! :p

Ok so he got grounded! That still means he has to serve those other 2 years after he was grounded. That is a fact. So do you hve Proof of him walking away from his committment?
he went to alabama and helped his friend with his political career, he admitted going back afterwards, its not that he walked away its that he did not actively participate, and before your rebuttle consider how can he actively participate without his wings

Bush...because Kerry just said he would fight a more "sensitive" war. :rolleyes:

That is certainly up for interpretation, isn't it. C'mon Biff, I know you're smarter then this!

he went to alabama and helped his friend with his political career, he admitted going back afterwards, its not that he walked away its that he did not actively participate, and before your rebuttle consider how can he actively participate without his wings

But he went back so by your own admission, he didn't go wondering off!

Bush...because Kerry just said he would fight a more "sensitive" war. :rolleyes:

And how can you fight a "sensitive" war? you can't that is diplomatic talk for not doing anything.

That is certainly up for interpretation, isn't it. C'mon Biff, I know you're smarter then this!

Hey...thats what the man said. ;) He just keeps making all these crazy comments. How does one fight a "sensitive" war? I wish a reporter would have the cajones to ask him that. LOL

By the level we have been judging Kerry in this thread, this clearly shows that Bush is not fit to command! :p

Kerry though has a shoddy leadership record. I don't recall him holding a single leadership post in the US Senate. ALL but 2 COs have declared him unfit to command. Skip barker is the only one supporting him out of all of his COs. Sixty People out of a division of a hundred have spoken out against him! To me, that is a problem for Kerry.

But he went back so by your own admission, he didn't go wondering off!

There has been much speculation, I freely admit "Speculation" but given Bush's history it does make some sense, that perhaps the reason he didn't show up for his fitness doctor appointment, thus being grounded , was his fear of being caught with illegal substances being found in his system, cocaine being one. We know he used that. Or maybe he was just drunk. Not much else makes sense, unless he just thought he was on some sort of summer job that he didn't take seriously.

Hey...thats what the man said. ;) He just keeps making all these crazy comments. How does one fight a "sensitive" war? I wish a reporter would have the cajones to ask him that. LOL

Heaven forbid that Kerry should be taken out of context, I mean it's not like Bush has ever "mis-spoke" ? *LOL*

There has been much speculation, I freely admit "Speculation" but given Bush's history it does make some sense, that perhaps the reason he didn't show up for his fitness doctor appointment, thus being grounded , was his fear of being caught with illegal substances being found in his system, cocaine being one. We know he used that. Or maybe he was just drunk. Not much else makes sense, unless he just thought he was on some sort of summer job that he didn't take seriously.

In the 70's, that pretty much what the military was. I know someone who actually just walked away from the National Guard back then. He got a letter about 2 years later asking him if he was going to come back. He said no. Thuse all he did was open himself up to the draft....and that did not happen either. So Bush could have just walked away and nothing happen to him. Different times...different priorities.

Heaven forbid that Kerry should be taken out of context, I mean it's not like Bush has ever "mis-spoke" ? *LOL*

Well, thats why someone should ask him to clarify what that means....but they won't. ;)

And how can you fight a "sensitive" war? you can't that is diplomatic talk for not doing anything.
and how is america part of europe

In the 70's, that pretty much what the military was. I know someone who actually just walked away from the National Guard back then. He got a letter about 2 years later asking him if he was going to come back. He said no. Thuse all he did was open himself up to the draft....and that did not happen either. So Bush could have just walked away and nothing happen to him. Different times...different priorities.

I was alive during Vietnam Biff, I'm not one of these kids who get my opinions from others or some book I read.... I want you to know that. If this is the case, how on earth can we be questioning Kerry's service to his country in Vietnam, you and I both know it was a bogus war. Yet, Kerry said "Send me" (Yes, cheap shot from the DNC convention, none the less, true)

In the 70's, that pretty much what the military was. I know someone who actually just walked away from the National Guard back then. He got a letter about 2 years later asking him if he was going to come back. He said no. Thuse all he did was open himself up to the draft....and that did not happen either. So Bush could have just walked away and nothing happen to him. Different times...different priorities.
man look at that thing spin, i can quote instisances of people in guard duty then that got busted for not showing up, it doesnt prove shit

I dont think you can nominate yourself for a medal.

Im not military, but I have family that are.
They always said that someone else, usually a superoir officer has to nominate you for most medals.

But..Im a civillian, so what do I know?

The way you get any award is that a superior officer writes an award recommendation. It is then forwarded to an investigation committee who tries to determine if it is valid or not. If they determine it is valid (and a huge number of them are downgraded or found invalid) then they foward an award notice to the soldier's unit at which point it is pinned on their chest. Purple hearts are granted for wounds taken while in combat action, I've never heard of one being granted for a self inflicted wound. Normally that will get you a court martial for destruction of government property.

I was alive during Vietnam Biff, I'm not one of these kids who get my opinions from others or some book I read.... I want you to know that. If this is the case, how on earth can we be questioning Kerry's service to his country in Vietnam, you and I both know it was a bogus war. Yet, Kerry said "Send me" (Yes, cheap shot from the DNC convention, none the less, true)

Oh, I have no problem with Kerry's service in Vietnam. I have a problem with him coming back from a war he did not even HAVE to go to and berate and lie about those who were still there. He became a posterboy for the North Vietnamese and US prisoners were tormented because of what he said.

Now for him to see himself as a war hero and leader is just over the top. There are too many questions that go unanswered. The man tailors every response to his audience, creating a large list of quips. SUV's, does he own any or not? Would he have done the same thing as Bush in Iraq? No....maybe. The man is a mess...

There has been much speculation, I freely admit "Speculation" but given Bush's history it does make some sense, that perhaps the reason he didn't show up for his fitness doctor appointment, thus being grounded , was his fear of being caught with illegal substances being found in his system, cocaine being one. We know he used that. Or maybe he was just drunk. Not much else makes sense, unless he just thought he was on some sort of summer job that he didn't take seriously.

Back then, cocaine was not a popular drug of choice, and I don't remember there being any tests for illegal substances. If there were, it wasn't widely known in the civilian world. Drugs were rampant throughout the military, and especially in Nam (About the only way to tune out was to turn on.) As for not showing up for a doctor's appt, since he did report shortly after the missed appointment, it was probably not regarded as a major infraction. In that era, hundreds, maybe thousands, of draft age men were running to Canada, so reporting back late was small potatoes. Being grounded was probably his punishment...and a pretty harsh one for a pilot.

and how is america part of europe

Where did this line come from?

man look at that thing spin, i can quote instisances of people in guard duty then that got busted for not showing up, it doesnt prove shit

Yep...some states were more strict than others. Since the National Guard is a state force, the governor is the commander.

As much as I would love to discuss the hypocrisy of all this, I have to get back to work..

Have a nice day folks :)

There has been much speculation, I freely admit "Speculation" but given Bush's history it does make some sense, that perhaps the reason he didn't show up for his fitness doctor appointment, thus being grounded , was his fear of being caught with illegal substances being found in his system, cocaine being one. We know he used that. Or maybe he was just drunk. Not much else makes sense, unless he just thought he was on some sort of summer job that he didn't take seriously.

Well.....until 1981 anyone in the military caught using drugs would go through re-hab. If caught a second time, they were gone. Reagan got rid of that crap and instituted the no-tolerance policy. Carter....the man, although a good man, was a terrible president.

Yep...some states were more strict than others. Since the National Guard is a state force, the governor is the commander.

He has a point Chess, it's the disgression of the local commander to put a person up on charges.

That is an often overlooked difference between the regular army and the guard. In the army, you go AWOL, you will be punished.

and i presume you have an attendance record for the whole of the senate

and oh yeah, you pretend the president does all this stuff on his own, hello, reality is knocking, let him in, the executive branch doesnt do jack shit without approval by the legislature

Attendance records for all votes in congress can be found in the library of congress web site as well as the voting record. If y'all have any questions just go to libraryofcongress.gov and look it up. You can see exactly how he voted or how often. Find the answers, don't just talk about them.

Yep...some states were more strict than others. Since the National Guard is a state force, the governor is the commander.

This is so Biff! The governor can call out the national guard at anytime to handle state emergencies.

man look at that thing spin, i can quote instisances of people in guard duty then that got busted for not showing up, it doesnt prove shit

OK, we've been being nice, but now I have to ask you, PLEASE watch the language. It's offensive and bespeaks ignorance.

And while we're on the subject of language ;) , why does everyone have such a problem with the way President Bush pronounces some words? Being from Arkansas (Texas is a suburb), the way he says "nuclear" is the way most folks around here pronounce it.

Back then, cocaine was not a popular drug of choice, and I don't remember there being any tests for illegal substances. If there were, it wasn't widely known in the civilian world. Drugs were rampant throughout the military, and especially in Nam (About the only way to tune out was to turn on.) As for not showing up for a doctor's appt, since he did report shortly after the missed appointment, it was probably not regarded as a major infraction. In that era, hundreds, maybe thousands, of draft age men were running to Canada, so reporting back late was small potatoes. Being grounded was probably his punishment...and a pretty harsh one for a pilot.
no, he didnt not show up, he refused to take it, and thats why he lost his wings

Where did this line come from?
bush quote

Yep...some states were more strict than others. Since the National Guard is a state force, the governor is the commander.
then everyone admits that you're statement that you know some one who left and didnt go back doesnt prove anything, good, long as everyone is clear

He has a point Chess, it's the disgression of the local commander to put a person up on charges.

That is an often overlooked difference between the regular army and the guard. In the army, you go AWOL, you will be punished.
but his point is its the disgression of the commaning officer, but who here was in bush's guard unit

but his point is its the discretion of the commaning officer, but who here was in bush's guard unit

Sorry...it was driving me nuts.

then everyone admits that you're statement that you know some one who left and didnt go back doesnt prove anything, good, long as everyone is clear

Actually it does....it shows that even if Bush left and did not come back he would not necessarily have gotten into any trouble. If the governor chose to press the issue, he would have.

Who was the governor of Texas back then?