Kerrys military record [Archive] - Page 4

Chess Squares

12-08-2004, 23:02

What? do you make this up as you go along? Be specific....state exact instances....prove your point. Don't just throw out unreferenced accusations.
biff, bite me, lets see you prove every statement you make whenever you make an assertion ,same to you zook and corneliu

DoD - not all records have been released of military service, but as i have proved he lost his wings in 1972 by refusing a medical exam and played hooky in alabama several times during his last 2 years by his own admission

druggy - "I feel sorry for Gov. George W. Bush. I wish the media and the public would get off this hypocritical trip (pun intended) of hounding him into not only admitting, but into spelling out in lurid detail what we all presume he did: snort cocaine."
Bonnie Erbe writing for Capitol Hill Blue 2000
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

correcting statement to bush did drugs in early 20s, i know there is ahome video of himdrunk at a party, i do believe it is also in bush's wife's book that bush was a drunk in the 90s until something happened, something like that

flip flop (these are just the iinexcusable ones)

Bush Flip: It's Up to the States to Decide
In a 2000 presidential primary debate, candidate George W. Bush said gay marriage was a state's issue, saying, "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Presidential Primary Debate, 2/15/00]

Bush Flop: Bush Supports Constitutional Amendment That Restricts States' Rights
Bush: "If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country." [Bush, 2/24/04]

Bush Flip: Bush Promised Not to Use Military for Nation Building
In a campaign rally in Tennessee, then-Presidential candidate Bush criticized the Clinton administration for using the military in nation-building missions. Bush said, "I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place." [Governor George W. Bush, 11/6/00]

Bush Flop: President Used Military for Nation Building in Afghanistan and Iraq
After the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush met with soldiers stationed in Afghanistan at the White House and thanked them for their nation building efforts. A senior administration official said, "The administration, with its international partners, is doing something akin to nation-building." The plans for a post war Iraq also included nation building measures and, according to the Baltimore Sun, "Secretary of State Colin L. Powell confirmed...that Bush was considering, among other options, installing a U.S.-led occupation government if Hussein's regime is removed." [Baltimore Sun, 10/19/02]

Bush Flip: Bush Supports Extending Assault Weapons Ban
Ashcroft: "It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapons ban, and I will be pleased to move forward with that position." [Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/17/01]

Bush Flop: Bush Opposes Extension of Assault Weapons Ban
"The White House is opposing addition of gun show and assault weapons restrictions to a bill shielding firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits, prompting angry complaints from Democrats that President Bush is reneging on earlier support for the two proposals...In a statement [on February 24, 2004], the White House urged passage of the lawsuits measure without amendments that might delay its enactment. 'Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable,' the statement said. Democrats interpreted this as an effort to undermine support for the gun-control measures. 'For the president to say he is for the assault weapons ban but then act against it is a flip-flop if there ever was one,' said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of several sponsors of the assault weapons proposal in the Senate." [Washington Post, 2/26/04]

Bush Flip: Bush Imposes Steel Tariffs
"President Bush on [March 5, 2002] slapped punishing tariffs of 8% to 30% on several types of imported steel in an effort to help the ailing U.S. industry, drawing criticism from American allies and mixed reviews at home. 'An integral part of our commitment to free trade is our commitment to enforcing trade laws to make sure that America's industries and workers compete on a level playing field,' Bush said in a statement issued by the White House." [USA Today, 3/5/02]

Bush Flop: Bush Rescinds Steel Tariffs
"Facing a potential global trade war, President Bush on [December 4, 2003] lifted tariffs he imposed on foreign steel 21 months ago, declaring the U.S. steel industry healthy and ready to compete despite the industry's claim that it needs more time to recover." [Chicago Tribune, 12/5/03]

google is not being kind today for what i want

im getting pissed off with this log out on idle bullshit

Chess Squares

12-08-2004, 23:03

if you dont see the bad foreign policies, you dont see anything

Biff Pileon

12-08-2004, 23:10

if you dont see the bad foreign policies, you dont see anything

Foreign policy is there to benefit the US, not other countries....the same is true of EVERY countries foreign relations.

Why are other countries balking at our foreign policy decisions? Because they do not get a piece of the pie. Ever thought of it that way?

That the US is flexing it's muscle in its own interest for a change really angers a lot of people around the world, but so what? We have exerted our muscle on the behalf of so many other countries and they did not complain then. You obviously are not old enough to remember any of those times, but I lived quite a few of them, especially under Clinton.

Chess Squares

12-08-2004, 23:12

Foreign policy is there to benefit the US, not other countries....the same is true of EVERY countries foreign relations.

Why are other countries balking at our foreign policy decisions? Because they do not get a piece of the pie. Ever thought of it that way?

That the US is flexing it's muscle in its own interest for a change really angers a lot of people around the world, but so what? We have exerted our muscle on the behalf of so many other countries and they did not complain then. You obviously are not old enough to remember any of those times, but I lived quite a few of them, especially under Clinton.
imposing tariffs that will obviously get our exported items obviously tariffed or whatever is bad

getting involved simultaneous wars is bad

deciding not to agree to international weapons policies is bad

Biff Pileon

12-08-2004, 23:16

imposing tariffs that will obviously get our exported items obviously tariffed or whatever is bad

getting involved simultaneous wars is bad

deciding not to agree to international weapons policies is bad

Maybe....but just what limits and stipulations do these agreements hold? When you buy a car you sign a contract with so many damn provisions and you have to agree to them all when you sign it. The same is true of foreign relations...so many stipulations. If the president does not feel it is a fair agreement, I would HOPE he would not agree to it regardless of what it is.

Tariffs? Been around since before the US existed.

War? Cain and Abel.

Chess Squares

12-08-2004, 23:19

Maybe....but just what limits and stipulations do these agreements hold? When you buy a car you sign a contract with so many damn provisions and you have to agree to them all when you sign it. The same is true of foreign relations...so many stipulations. If the president does not feel it is a fair agreement, I would HOPE he would not agree to it regardless of what it is.

Tariffs? Been around since before the US existed.

War? Cain and Abel.
it is a weapons policies: stop making nukes or something probably, promises to not use nukes probably some shit like that. not agreeing to that is like not extending the assault weapons ban, this is not some third world country in turmoil, the average person should not have nor does he need a kalishnikov, mac 10, or automatic shotgun
, or the like

imposing tariffs that are not needed that will get counter tariffs imposed on extra supplies of ours hurts

that does not discount my point, none of what you said does.

just making an observation biff, but you seem to think stating an example of something slightly relevant but not specifically relevant counters and discounts the point being made

Slagshta

12-08-2004, 23:22

Chess Squares

12-08-2004, 23:25

Biff Pileon

12-08-2004, 23:26

it is a weapons policies: stop making nukes or something probably, promises to not use nukes probably some shit like that. not agreeing to that is like not extending the assault weapons ban, this is not some third world country in turmoil, the average person should not have nor does he need a kalishnikov, mac 10, or automatic shotgun
, or the like

imposing tariffs that are not needed that will get counter tariffs imposed on extra supplies of ours hurts

that does not discount my point, none of what you said does.

just making an observation biff, but you seem to think stating an example of something slightly relevant but not specifically relevant counters and discounts the point being made

Ok, so you have a problem with the 2nd amendment. Well, an armed society will never be subjugated. I do not own a weapon myself, but I know how to handle an M-16 and a Baretta 9mm. I would NEVER call for anyones rights to be taken away unless the fail to take the responibility that these rights demand.

Ask yourself WHY the tariffs were placed in the first place...these things are not done at random. The reason is that other countries were selling steel here at a loss. Thats right, they were selling it at a price LESS than it cost to make. Why? So they could do harm to the US steel companies. Believe it or not, we NEED a steel industry. Without one, our economy would collapse if these same countries decided to price their steel too high or cut us off completely.

Actually I am trying to draw you out of that shell you are in....but now I must go, the wind and rain are getting intense. Charley will be here in a few hours...

Zooke

12-08-2004, 23:37

but now I must go, the wind and rain are getting intense. Charley will be here in a few hours...

Hang on real tight and keep us posted on conditions there. We'll be praying for you.

Chess Squares

12-08-2004, 23:44

Ok, so you have a problem with the 2nd amendment. Well, an armed society will never be subjugated. I do not own a weapon myself, but I know how to handle an M-16 and a Baretta 9mm. I would NEVER call for anyones rights to be taken away unless the fail to take the responibility that these rights demand.
you know what i find COMPLETELY hilarious? is the fact that those people who point to that idea lay down and submit to that subjugation, as long as they are allowed to have their guns. besides YOU DON'T NEED A KALISHNIKOV OR M4 OR FULL AUTO BERETTA, there are still plenty of guns you can buy: rifles, revolvers, magnums, shotguns, etc

Ask yourself WHY the tariffs were placed in the first place...these things are not done at random. The reason is that other countries were selling steel here at a loss. Thats right, they were selling it at a price LESS than it cost to make. Why? So they could do harm to the US steel companies. Believe it or not, we NEED a steel industry. Without one, our economy would collapse if these same countries decided to price their steel too high or cut us off completely.
there are others

Actually I am trying to draw you out of that shell you are in....but now I must go, the wind and rain are getting intense. Charley will be here in a few hours...
no i refuse to accept random tangent points somehow discount my point

Zooke

12-08-2004, 23:48

I hope Kerrey doesn't get this presidency thing. I hate it when anti-bush people say shit about bush just because their parents don't like him... I have some words for you assholes that are against Bush and don't know shit about him. Screw you

I wouldn't control other's speech if I could, but I can ask that you tone down the trash talk. It isn't necessary to use bad language and it makes you look uneducated with a lack of vocabulary. Chess...you too.

Chess....
Well, now that I've done the mama thing, Biff has it square on the steel tarriff. And it seems to have worked. As for Bush changing his stand on issues...you've never changed your mind on anything? World events and changing situations have brought about the need for different policies. Who in this world could have ever predicted 9/11?....that someone would have the mentality to do that and that we would be so complacent? Kerry changes his mind on a daily basis. "You betcha....maybe"

As for gun control, I see no need for hunters to have automatic weapons. I understand that the controls on semi-automatic are pretty broad and need to be rewritten. We don't have a gun in our home, either, but, if I lived in an environment where one was needed for safety, I would want the right to have the biggest, baddest cannon they've got. I sure wouldn't want to show up at a gun fight with a knife!

Chess Squares

13-08-2004, 00:04

I wouldn't control other's speech if I could, but I can ask that you tone down the trash talk. It isn't necessary to use bad language and it makes you look uneducated with a lack of vocabulary. Chess...you too.

Chess....
Well, now that I've done the mama thing, Biff has it square on the steel tarriff. And it seems to have worked. As for Bush changing his stand on issues...you've never changed your mind on anything? World events and changing situations have brought about the need for different policies. Who in this world could have ever predicted 9/11?....that someone would have the mentality to do that and that we would be so complacent? Kerry changes his mind on a daily basis. "You betcha....maybe"

As for gun control, I see no need for hunters to have automatic weapons. I understand that the controls on semi-automatic are pretty broad and need to be rewritten. We don't have a gun in our home, either, but, if I lived in an environment where one was needed for safety, I would want the right to have the biggest, baddest cannon they've got. I sure wouldn't want to show up at a gun fight with a knife!
fine, mark off the steel tariff, every other one is an inexcusable REAL flip flop, not just voting differently on bills with different provisions, those are statements on issues

i dont believe i cited any of his 9/11 flip flops, and there were some, i left those major ones out as an act of acceptance of the fact that his position would change, where as you attack kerry for flip flopping on bills with different provisions

NAME ONE PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHERE A FULLY AUTOMATIC RIFLE, SHOTGUN, OR HANDGUN IS NEEDED FOR "SAFETY", NAME JUST ONE

and you act like there isnt a damn gun legal, THE BRADY ACT ONLY BANS FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONRY, THINGS THAT NEED TO BE BANNED, as i ALREADY STATED you can still buy semi automatic hand guns rifles, and normal shotguns

Slagshta

13-08-2004, 00:16

Chess Squares

13-08-2004, 00:34

I hope Kerrey doesn't get this presidency thing. I hate it when anti-bush people say shit about bush just because their parents don't like him... I have some words for you assholes that are against Bush and don't know shit about him. Screw you
and in this cage we have genus hypocritas
this creature is commonly reffered to as a hypocrite, often accuses people of doing something while doing it theirself

Zooke

13-08-2004, 00:34

NAME ONE PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHERE A FULLY AUTOMATIC RIFLE, SHOTGUN, OR HANDGUN IS NEEDED FOR "SAFETY", NAME JUST ONE

and you act like there isnt a damn gun legal, THE BRADY ACT ONLY BANS FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONRY, THINGS THAT NEED TO BE BANNED, as i ALREADY STATED you can still buy semi automatic hand guns rifles, and normal shotguns

Whoa...I was agreeing with you on the gun control issue. I know it's hard to accept, but you'll learn to live with it. As far as name one place in the US where any kind of gun is needed for protection....have you never seen an inner-city area? Also, obviously you're not female, either. There are just some places women can't go unless they are armed. I'm fourtunate enough to live in a quiet suburb where most of my neighbors are Air Force people. If we get to move to the country when we retire, however, we will have a weapon for home defense. Little old folks out in the country are easy pickins and have a tendancy to have some nice things.

Zooke

13-08-2004, 00:36

and in this cage we have genus hypocritas
this creature is commonly reffered to as a hypocrite, often accuses people of doing something while doing it theirself

Check his posts on other boards. He's just trying to cause trouble and probably doesn't have a clue or any real interest in our debate. Ignore him.

Jed Scott

13-08-2004, 00:41

I hope Kerrey doesn't get this presidency thing. I hate it when anti-bush people say shit about bush just because their parents don't like him... I have some words for you assholes that are against Bush and don't know shit about him. Screw you

How about if I've studied and read about Bush, and still don't like him? By the way, are you talking about Bob Kerrey, former senator and member of the 9/11 commission or John Kerry, senator running for President? I think you are confused...

Zooke

13-08-2004, 00:44

How about if I've studied and read about Bush, and still don't like him? By the way, are you talking about Bob Kerrey, former senator and member of the 9/11 commission or John Kerry, senator running for President? I think you are confused...

John Kerry. Care to tell us what you don't like about Bush specifically?

Chess Squares

13-08-2004, 00:44

Check his posts on other boards. He's just trying to cause trouble and probably doesn't have a clue or any real interest in our debate. Ignore him.
but i like using latin unpurposefully

Chess Squares

13-08-2004, 00:46

Whoa...I was agreeing with you on the gun control issue. I know it's hard to accept, but you'll learn to live with it. As far as name one place in the US where any kind of gun is needed for protection....have you never seen an inner-city area? Also, obviously you're not female, either. There are just some places women can't go unless they are armed. I'm fourtunate enough to live in a quiet suburb where most of my neighbors are Air Force people. If we get to move to the country when we retire, however, we will have a weapon for home defense. Little old folks out in the country are easy pickins and have a tendancy to have some nice things.
no but you tried to rationalise owning a automatic weapon, yo urealise then any street hood could walk into a gunshow and buy any type of gun they want, legally? any murderer robber anything

I DIDNT SAY THERE SHOULDNT BE GUNS, i SAID they do NOT need an AUTOMATIC WEAPON FOR PROTECTION, you quoted me i would think you read it

Zooke

13-08-2004, 00:46

but i like using latin unpurposefully

OK...as long as you're having a good time.

Zooke

13-08-2004, 00:57

no but you tried to rationalise owning a automatic weapon, yo urealise then any street hood could walk into a gunshow and buy any type of gun they want, legally? any murderer robber anything

I DIDNT SAY THERE SHOULDNT BE GUNS, i SAID they do NOT need an AUTOMATIC WEAPON FOR PROTECTION, you quoted me i would think you read it

No, I was trying to say that I saw no need for a civilian to own a fully automatic weapon. Semi-automatics cover a broad range that needs to be narrowed down. As for rifles and handguns, they are acceptable for hunting (a major source of meat in my state...die, Bambi, die) and protection. Unfortunately, thugs and hoods can get their hands on guns too easily. I'm all for gun control that will help slow down the sale of guns to these people.

Jed Scott

13-08-2004, 01:01

John Kerry. Care to tell us what you don't like about Bush specifically?

1) I miss the days when the only thing our President would lie about was who he was sleeping with. Bush lies about really important stuff like national defense, taxes, and healthcare.

2) The economy has gotten worse, we are less safe since 9/11 due to an unnecessary war with Iraq that has served as a recruiting video for the terrorists, and he has not lived up to his promise to be a "uniter, not a divider" and a "compassionate conservative" (see gay marrage, separation of church and state issues, tax cuts to the wealthy, etc.)

3) ultimatly, the more you read about him, the less impressive are his leadership skills, his alleged strength, and his choice of the far right-wing to leadership positions within his administration has divided America even further, not to mention the rest of the world. I can think of no President in my life that was more of a "divider" than this one.

The cold, hard truth is that if you ask yourself the Reagan-esque question: am I better off today than I was four years ago, the answer has to be a definative "no". And I am truly scared by any leader that cannot acknowlege ever making a mistake, that a policy might be wrong. It's always somebody else at fault; to me this is a character flaw that is inherently dangerous in a national leader because it does not allow for any accountability.

That's why I don't like Bush, to answer your question.

Chess Squares

13-08-2004, 01:08

No, I was trying to say that I saw no need for a civilian to own a fully automatic weapon. Semi-automatics cover a broad range that needs to be narrowed down. As for rifles and handguns, they are acceptable for hunting (a major source of meat in my state...die, Bambi, die) and protection. Unfortunately, thugs and hoods can get their hands on guns too easily. I'm all for gun control that will help slow down the sale of guns to these people.
which just died with the brady act and the knocking down of an act to require gunshows to do background checks

Biff Pileon

13-08-2004, 11:37

you know what i find COMPLETELY hilarious? is the fact that those people who point to that idea lay down and submit to that subjugation, as long as they are allowed to have their guns. besides YOU DON'T NEED A KALISHNIKOV OR M4 OR FULL AUTO BERETTA, there are still plenty of guns you can buy: rifles, revolvers, magnums, shotguns, etc

there are others

A
no i refuse to accept random tangent points somehow discount my point

So you think there should be limits to the 2nd amendment. Actually there are, you cannot buy a fully automatic weapon without going through some extra steps. There are limits to ALL of our rights. However, gun ownership must have been pretty high on the founders mind since it is number 2 of the 10 original amendments.

Yes, there are other tariffs....but they are all placed there for the same reason. When other countries try to "dump" there products onto the US market to gain marketshare from US firms, they are warranted. Have you seen the tariffs placed on US goods in other countries? Try buying a US grown cantalope in Japan....it costs $50. The Japanese grown cantalope is $19. But you only seem to think that the US does these things....we impose tariffs the least number of times, but you might not know that.

Check out Canada....

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2003/20031206/html/notice-e.html#i3

You also might want to look at the GATT agreements...

http://www.ciesin.org/TG/PI/TRADE/gatt.html

Biff Pileon

13-08-2004, 13:44

Hang on real tight and keep us posted on conditions there. We'll be praying for you.

Things are ok here for now, they are evacuating Tampa, so all the hotel rooms in my area are filling up fast. It looks like the hurricane will pass to the north of us, but we are still expected to get 6" of rain or more and winds of 50-60MPH.

Zooke

13-08-2004, 13:47

Things are ok here for now, they are evacuating Tampa, so all the hotel rooms in my area are filling up fast. It looks like the hurricane will pass to the north of us, but we are still expected to get 6" of rain or more and winds of 50-60MPH.

Be safe.

Biff Pileon

13-08-2004, 13:48

Be safe.

Thanks, we have been through this many times before....;) It adds some excitement and makes the tourists very nervous. LOL

Morroko

13-08-2004, 14:55

It's interesting to see how this little thread has panned out.

Before I start I'm going to admit a bias here. I'm an Aussie, and I do not like Bush. I used to consider him quite highly, since 9/11 (not that godawful movie btw, that was roughly an hour of my life wasted) however, he started sinking and has continued to do so drastically. My views would be considered slightly right of centre in Aus, but I would assume possibly even left wing in the US (shock, horror, gasp)

Kerry is far from perfect too. Imo, the man should be far less "I was a war hero, elect me!" and less "Bush is just crap, elect me!" and more "This is WHY Bush is terrible, and this is HOW I'm going to be better than Bush.". However, we do have to weigh this against the fact that most of those americans who even vote are unlikely to really care enough to get into the nitty-gritty of the real-politik and make a decision based on this.

But anyways.

For the purpose of the topic, Kerry should most definately give whatever little remains unseen of his record for the public's view. Bush should most definately too (show his simply hypocracy)

The fact crucial as to why a foreigner such as myself should even get involved is this (and I truly hope those Americans here can get this): the US and it's foreign and economic policies effect (to varying degrees) probably each and every human on this planet now.

I am happy to accept that US policy should ultimately be for the benefit of it's citizens foremost. However, perhaps the one thing history can teach us is that when it comes to foreign people, the more you promote your own self-interest at the expense of others, the more you isolate and antagonize others.

Why do I say this? Because quite simply, when looking at how Bush's presidency has been going with this in mind, one can most certainly begin to understand why events have unfolded as they have, and for me (and others), why it is the Bush MUST go in November, for everyone's sake.

For those pro-Bush, take a look at http://www.newamericancentury.org/

And specifically: (scroll down to the bottom after reading through it to see who the signatories were)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Then, try to imagine it from non-American perspectives, and with a bit of history (specifically: Vietnam) and imagine if a superpower wanted effective imperialism over your country.

Kerry has his faults, but Bush and his neo-con puppet-masters are simply sinister

Biff Pileon

13-08-2004, 14:59

For the purpose of the topic, Kerry should most definately give whatever little remains unseen of his record for the public's view. Bush should most definately too (show his simply hypocracy)

Bush is not running on his military record...it was afterall, 30 years ago. Kerry on the other hand has made his the ONLY thing he is running on...so he opened that door, but does not want anyone to come in. Hypocritical? Maybe, but it does make for some interesting questions...

Chess Squares

13-08-2004, 15:03

So you think there should be limits to the 2nd amendment. Actually there are, you cannot buy a fully automatic weapon without going through some extra steps. There are limits to ALL of our rights. However, gun ownership must have been pretty high on the founders mind since it is number 2 of the 10 original amendments.

Yes, there are other tariffs....but they are all placed there for the same reason. When other countries try to "dump" there products onto the US market to gain marketshare from US firms, they are warranted. Have you seen the tariffs placed on US goods in other countries? Try buying a US grown cantalope in Japan....it costs $50. The Japanese grown cantalope is $19. But you only seem to think that the US does these things....we impose tariffs the least number of times, but you might not know that.

Check out Canada....

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2003/20031206/html/notice-e.html#i3

You also might want to look at the GATT agreements...

http://www.ciesin.org/TG/PI/TRADE/gatt.html

here's MY position on gun control

1) NO FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS FOR CIVILIANS, PERIOD. no kalishnikovs, M4s, M16s, full auto beretta, etc, no revolving chamber shotguns, no MAC 10s, no Uzis etc etc

2) background checks for everyone, anywhere: gun stores, gun shows, walmart, you get the idea. anyone convicted of a violent crime, or any crime with an added weapons charge doesn't get a gun, and frankly if they have a family, their household shouldnt be allowed to have a gun either

3) all guns must be tracked, they should be registered tothe buyer and tracked, if some one finds a gun at a crime scene, we know who's it is.

and yes, it IS number 2, but the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly, and redress of grievances is FIRST, the MAJORITY of the right wingers saying they want an unlimited 2nd amendment for the purposes of protecting those rights are the ones who will blindly agree to the loss of those rights, highly ironic if you ask me

im referring to soemthing i cant think specifically what bush was doing but he was giving companies illegal aid or something of the like which made the rest of the world angry so they would increase tariffs on US products until it was removed

Morroko

13-08-2004, 15:05

Bush is not running on his military record...it was afterall, 30 years ago. Kerry on the other hand has made his the ONLY thing he is running on...so he opened that door, but does not want anyone to come in. Hypocritical? Maybe, but it does make for some interesting questions...

I disagree: Bush has been pushing the 'I can deal with terrorism better than he can line' in recent times (correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been trying to keep up with US news sources too, and this was the distinct impression I get).

Clearly, whilst he is not stating that 'because I was in the TNAG, I am better', he should disclose his record for the public to view as well, as it would give them an.....interesting idea of what his record of leadership and commitment (directly pertaining to the military) is like.

As for Kerry, don't take this offensively, but I haven't heard anyone but you claim that he has been running solely on his record: though he has been using it as a guide for the public to judge him on.

Galtania

13-08-2004, 15:07

Galtania

13-08-2004, 15:09

I disagree: Bush has been pushing the 'I can deal with terrorism better than he can line' in recent times (correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been trying to keep up with US news sources too, and this was the distinct impression I get).

Clearly, whilst he is not stating that 'because I was in the TNAG, I am better', he should disclose his record for the public to view as well, as it would give them an.....interesting idea of what his record of leadership and commitment (directly pertaining to the military) is like.

As for Kerry, don't take this offensively, but I haven't heard anyone but you claim that he has been running solely on his record: though he has been using it as a guide for the public to judge him on.

Neither one should be forced to disclose records they don't want to disclose. Leaving records (or portions of them) sealed is standard practice, and has been for a long time, since way before this election.

Biff Pileon

13-08-2004, 15:09

here's MY position on gun control

1) NO FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS FOR CIVILIANS, PERIOD. no kalishnikovs, M4s, M16s, full auto beretta, etc, no revolving chamber shotguns, no MAC 10s, no Uzis etc etc

2) background checks for everyone, anywhere: gun stores, gun shows, walmart, you get the idea. anyone convicted of a violent crime, or any crime with an added weapons charge doesn't get a gun, and frankly if they have a family, their household shouldnt be allowed to have a gun either

3) all guns must be tracked, they should be registered to a potential user and tracked, if some one fidns a gun at a crime scene, we know who's it is.

and yes, it IS number 2, but the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly, and redress of grievances is FIRST, the MAJORITY of the right wingers saying they want an unlimited 2nd amendment for the purposes of protecting those rights are the ones who will blindly agree to the loss of those rights, highly ironic if you ask me

im referring to soemthing i cant think specifically what bush was doing but he was giving companies illegal aid or something of the like which made the rest of the world angry so they would increase tariffs on US products until it was removed

I agree to a point....but here is an even better way to limit every weapons use. There is no guaranteed right to own ammunition....just place a $30 per shell tax on bullets and then see how many people will use guns. Let them have all the weapons they want, but without bullets...they are just a fancy club. ;)

Bush...at the urging of the Dept. of Commerce placed the tariffs on steel and lumber i think because those products were being "dumped" on the US market at unreasonably low prices. US businesses cannot compete when foreign companies (that are largely subsidized by their governments) try to sell goods here cheaper than they can actually be produced.

Morroko

13-08-2004, 15:13

Neither one should be forced to disclose records they don't want to disclose. Leaving records (or portions of them) sealed is standard practice, and has been for a long time, since way before this election.

Remember, I never said they must, but I think they should

I'd best be off to bed now

night all.

Biff Pileon

13-08-2004, 15:13

I disagree: Bush has been pushing the 'I can deal with terrorism better than he can line' in recent times (correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been trying to keep up with US news sources too, and this was the distinct impression I get).

Clearly, whilst he is not stating that 'because I was in the TNAG, I am better', he should disclose his record for the public to view as well, as it would give them an.....interesting idea of what his record of leadership and commitment (directly pertaining to the military) is like.

As for Kerry, don't take this offensively, but I haven't heard anyone but you claim that he has been running solely on his record: though he has been using it as a guide for the public to judge him on.

I think Bush will do a better job fighting terrorism than Kerry.

Bush released all the records that still exist...state agencies do not keep records as long as the federal government, especially on members of the guard since many don't stay in long enough to retire.

Kerry had 19-20 years in the Senate...he is NOT running on his record there. He constantly haprs about his 4 months service in Vietnam. I have looked for him to say what he actually did in the Senate...but he has not said a thing.

Chess Squares

13-08-2004, 15:15

All three of your "suggestions" are already law.
1) those wernt suggestions those are my opinions
2) automatics weapons ban extension was voted down, unless there was a new one submitted im not aware of, but thanks for keeping up
3) i didnt realise whenever we found a gun we automatically knew who it belonged to

Chess Squares

13-08-2004, 15:15

Bush...at the urging of the Dept. of Commerce placed the tariffs on steel and lumber i think because those products were being "dumped" on the US market at unreasonably low prices. US businesses cannot compete when foreign companies (that are largely subsidized by their governments) try to sell goods here cheaper than they can actually be produced.
im positive im referring to something else, kind positive

Chess Squares

13-08-2004, 15:17

I think Bush will do a better job fighting terrorism than Kerry.

Bush released all the records that still exist...state agencies do not keep records as long as the federal government, especially on members of the guard since many don't stay in long enough to retire.

Kerry had 19-20 years in the Senate...he is NOT running on his record there. He constantly haprs about his 4 months service in Vietnam. I have looked for him to say what he actually did in the Senate...but he has not said a thing.
he cant run on his senate record because america is full of naive reactionist who believe big business and the republican party are looking out for everyone's best interests and capitalism is perfect and needs no regulation

Biff Pileon

13-08-2004, 15:22

he cant run on his senate record because america is full of naive reactionist who believe big business and the republican party are looking out for everyone's best interests and capitalism is perfect and needs no regulation

Or...maybe his Senate record is so weak that he knows it will not stand up to scrutiny.

He voted AGAINST the death penalty for terrorists...but says he supports it now. :rolleyes:

THATS the kind of stuff that will eat him alive. He changes his position on so many important issues. He even said he would not seek the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden. I do not see him as a strong leader at all.

Chess Squares

13-08-2004, 15:25

Biff Pileon

13-08-2004, 15:31

but, you have to look at all provisions of the bill before judging his position on it, its not like he is the president saying he wont do something then advocating it, he is in the senate voting up or down a bill, he must consider all provisions of said bill, both the dumb people and right wingers who dont care wont research enough to realise this and just use it against him

True....and calls HAVE been made to prevent "riders" being placed on bills. But it is Kerry's words that will bite him...

He actually SAID these things. Just like he said he owned a few SUV's....then he did not own any, it is his family that owns them.

He actually SAID he was IN Cambodia during Christmas 1968 LISTENING to Nixon on the radio saying there were no troops in Cambodia at the time. Impossible...because Nixon was not the president in 1968. He said this on the Senate floor, so there is an unrefutable record of this.

Kerry lied so much about his time in Vietnam. I do not trust him at all.

Formal Dances

13-08-2004, 15:33

I was listening to some news reports and it looks like that Kerry's campaign maybe self-destructing! All of his words are now coming out into the Press and Kerry can't answer them anymore with his standard answers.

Biff Pileon

13-08-2004, 15:44

Formal Dances

13-08-2004, 15:53

It is just a matter of time....

I think he will self-destruct and his military records that aren't released as well as the swift boat guys are furthering it along.

Galtania

13-08-2004, 15:58

However, we do have to weigh this against the fact that most of those americans who even vote are unlikely to really care enough to get into the nitty-gritty of the real-politik and make a decision based on this.

Translation: You Americans are all a bunch of dumb hicks, and should listen to us superior Aussies.

The fact crucial as to why a foreigner such as myself should even get involved is this (and I truly hope those Americans here can get this): the US and it's foreign and economic policies effect (to varying degrees) probably each and every human on this planet now.

This still doesn't give you any say in our nation's policies. Too bad, so sad.

Chess Squares

13-08-2004, 16:02

the only problem i have with the rebuttle is it doesnt matter if he was president, he can still say things

Chess Squares

13-08-2004, 16:06

Translation: You Americans are all a bunch of dumb hicks, and should listen to us superior Aussies.
how sad his point is overwhelmingly true

The Bruce

13-08-2004, 16:30

Formal Dances

13-08-2004, 16:37

It’s like seeing America doing a parody of themselves. Not only has Kerry already made his military records available for view, but the Republican hacks have decided that this is the issue to attack him on: a spotless record. The Republicans have to feel proud of attacking one candidates military record while standing behind some guy who did the equivalent of the corporate draft dodge (National Guard), where he was AWOL from duty even from there. Daddy must be proud.

Kerry's record is anything but spotless! It is full of dings in important areas such as military bearing and leadership. Joining the National Guard is NOT DRAFT DODGING! Running to Canada (Clinton) was draft dodging! I take high offense to this because I had relatives that joined the national guard going that far back. As for AWOL I want proof. So far no one has given me that.

The hacks even made some “third party” ads with a bunch of Nam Vets saying that they served with Kerry and that his record is a fraud. None of the Vets actually served with Kerry’s units or in units that had anything to do with Kerry. The Doctor who said one of his Purple Hearts was a joke and treated his injury, didn’t even treat his injuries and must have seen them through psychic projection or something. Ads like this are a disgrace to the people who stand behind them.

You are very deluded individual. Obviously your a Kerry supporter and don't care to see anyother side but Kerry's! I on the otherhand, is listening to there side AS WELL AS Kerry's! So far, Kerry has been discredited on where he was regarding "Christmas in Cambodia". These people have just as much right to speak out by any means necessary to get their voices heard.

For a nation that seems to prize military service in their higher political officials, I find it shameful the way they are trying to deconstruct someone who actually has a honourable military record, all the while patting on the back someone who is essentially a silver spoon draft dodger. These clowns should be ashamed of themselves. These are the same idiots who pushed for the war on Iraq on the basis of Weapons of Mass Destruction and now they are using the same tactics to try to sully someone’s military record. Apparently the American Media is either gullible or easily bought.

The Bruce

I find it shamefull that Kerry hasn't released the most pertenant of paperwork that could put this whole thing to rest. He based his whole campaign on Vietnam because that is all he has so it WILL get scrutinize. I find it appalling that Kerry is doing this. Kerry is getting caught in lie after lie because of this. Look at the whole picture The Bruce and look into both sides then render your own conclusions.

Skepticism

13-08-2004, 16:42

Or...maybe his Senate record is so weak that he knows it will not stand up to scrutiny.

He voted AGAINST the death penalty for terrorists...but says he supports it now. :rolleyes:

THATS the kind of stuff that will eat him alive. He changes his position on so many important issues. He even said he would not seek the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden. I do not see him as a strong leader at all.

He spent his Senate tenure in the domineering shadow of Ted Kennedy, as has already been explained about 40 pages back. If you do not understand why that would affect someone's Senate record please say so and we'll be happy to explain it to you.

Holy freakin' crap, he CHANGES POSITIONS!!!!! As does just about every politician on Earth, ever.

If Clinton had announced that he wanted a bill to allocate $5 billion to "combat terrorism" during his tenure, he would have been turned down flat and people everywhere would wonder what the hell was going on. And yet, now, Clinton seems to favor spending lots of fight terrorism. OMG! Flipflopper! Traitor!

Would you like a list of all the things BUSH has changed positions on? Let us see here's a few...

I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue.

And a year later he raises steel tariffs.

I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.
I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him.

"The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into. (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/15/lkl.00.html)

And he currently supports the adoption of what sort of Constitutional amendment?

Hell, I could go on listing, but how about the fact that the entire damn Republican party changed its position. Let's see, less government is good, deficits are bad. In fact, large government is a threat to civil rights.

And under Bush the government expands, and deficits expand. And the government is run like an armed camp, with press conferences held by "nondisclosed" administration officials who refuse to answer half the questions asked, Bush himself rarely if ever going in front of the media at all, the PATRIOT act, people told to shut up and be patriotic (until their doubts prove true, or at least not wrong), an active effort goes on to change the definition of the Constitution to exclude a woman's right to choose, and a Constitutional amendment was proposed who's purpose was nothing but discrimination.

At least Kerry can keep track of what Democrats do: use the government to help people.

Upright Monkeys

13-08-2004, 17:13

Running to Canada (Clinton) was draft dodging!

I take offense at this - you wanna show any evidence that Clinton was anywhere near Canada during Vietnam?

Or maybe address the issues of Dick Cheney's and Tom Delay's excuses for not serving in Vietnam?

As for AWOL I want proof. So far no one has given me that.

http://www.awolbush.com/

The definition of "Absent without leave" is missing duty of up to 30 days. Bush missed at least three months in Alabama.; even he acknowledges that. The question is whether he skipped an entire year of national guard obligations in order to play pool volleyball with ambitious secretaries.

You can see here that Bush's own records show he wasn't paid for several months, meaning he skipped mandatory training.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5761856

There's also the question of why he skipped out on his mandatory flight exam - which meant that all the $$ the US gov't put into training him was wasted.

(Yes, it's true he was never charged for being AWOL - but I believe that if you murder someone, you're a murderer whether you are caught or not. The question is not whether the TANG charged him with being AWOL, but whether, objectively, he met the definition.)

So far, Kerry has been discredited on where he was regarding "Christmas in Cambodia". These people have just as much right to speak out by any means necessary to get their voices heard.

He was a hell of a lot closer to Cambodia than Bush or Cheney. http://www.ospolitics.org/
Whether or not he was over the border (it's not like there was a clearly marked boundary), US troops were over the line and he might well have believed he was. This was in the days before GPS.

Anyway, Kerry was a lot closer to Cambodia than Reagan was to liberating concentration camps.

Upright Monkeys

13-08-2004, 17:17

Kerry lied so much about his time in Vietnam. I do not trust him at all.

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/08/holiday_in_camb.html

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

Joe Gas

13-08-2004, 17:28

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/08/holiday_in_camb.html

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

Ya know what, they all lie. Thats part of there job...

Now lets talk about something else.

I dont like Kerry because he's a doodoo head. And I'm smarter then you are.

Chess Squares

13-08-2004, 17:29

Kerry's record is anything but spotless! It is full of dings in important areas such as military bearing and leadership. Joining the National Guard is NOT DRAFT DODGING! Running to Canada (Clinton) was draft dodging! I take high offense to this because I had relatives that joined the national guard going that far back. As for AWOL I want proof. So far no one has given me that.
it is when some one pulled strings to get you into it to prevent you fromt being drafted

You are very deluded individual. Obviously your a Kerry supporter and don't care to see anyother side but Kerry's! I on the otherhand, is listening to there side AS WELL AS Kerry's! So far, Kerry has been discredited on where he was regarding "Christmas in Cambodia". These people have just as much right to speak out by any means necessary to get their voices heard.
and you refuse to see anyone but bush's, next question please

I find it shamefull that Kerry hasn't released the most pertenant of paperwork that could put this whole thing to rest. He based his whole campaign on Vietnam because that is all he has so it WILL get scrutinize. I find it appalling that Kerry is doing this. Kerry is getting caught in lie after lie because of this. Look at the whole picture The Bruce and look into both sides then render your own conclusions.
the what of what what?, and its not like bush doesnt lie and flip flop, get real

Upright Monkeys

13-08-2004, 18:06

it is when some one pulled strings to get you into it to prevent you fromt being drafted

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-15-bush-record_x.htm

Bush was accepted into pilot school even though he scored in the 25th percentile on a standardized test. The test was given to all prospective pilots and there was no specific score that disqualified a candidate. In addition, Bush had two arrests for college pranks and four traffic offenses before applying for pilot training. Former and current military pilots say it was uncommon for an applicant to be approved for training with such a record.

To be fair - the reason why this issue hasn't cropped up during previous elections is because Bush was in his "champaigne unit" of the TANG with the sons of many prominent Democratic politicans.

But, riffing off the thread topic, there are many of Bush's records that apparently exist and won't be released. Not to mention questions, questions, questions.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=George_W._Bush's_military_service

(Oh, and don't forget that Bush has claimed he's been to war... http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=I've_been_to_war. I can't say I'm the most enthusiastic Kerry supporter, but remember who he's running against.)

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 02:51

the book that my brother and I ordered, Unfit For Command, arrived today. I can't wait to read it.

Upright Monkeys

14-08-2004, 03:03

the book that my brother and I ordered, Unfit For Command, arrived today. I can't wait to read it.

Bear in mind that a lot of it is simply unsubstantiated allegations by people who have either attacked Kerry for years, or make their living doing this kind of crap-stirring. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

Of course, in other cases, these attacks are by people who supported Kerry in his senatorial campaigns and praised his service then.

General Tommy Franks, who went to high school with Laura Bush and plans to support George, says that the allegations are 'hyperbole' and that Kerry is qualified to be commander in chief:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/8/104550.shtml

Similar allegations were made - by some of the same people - against George H. W. Bush about his behavior in WWII, and were mostly ignored by the media and democrats alike.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/story46.htm
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/vvajk.html

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 03:06

Bear in mind that they have caught Kerry in lies already!

I will read the book UM and then see what kerry says. Until Kerry speaks for himself, what other people say is nothing! Advisors will say anything. Lawyers will say anything!

As I've stated before, I'm not believing anyone but I am giving these guys abit more weight than anyone I've heard so far except for Rassman and Kerry(who hasn't spoken out about this)!

Until I read this book and then hear what Kerry has to say, then I'll render my own judgement. That is how I come to making my decisions. Here both sides, investigate, then render my own conclusions.

Upright Monkeys

14-08-2004, 03:09

Bear in mind that they have caught Kerry in lies already!

Examples?

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 03:10

Examples?

Christmas in Cambodia!

Upright Monkeys

14-08-2004, 03:15

Christmas in Cambodia!

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york.asp

Finally, another member of Kerry's crew, Jim Wasser, who supports Kerry in the presidential race, told the Dallas Observer last month that he wasn't sure where PCF-44 was at the time in question. "On Christmas in 1968, we were close [to Cambodia]," Wasser said. "I don't know exactly where we were. I didn't have the chart. It was easy to get turned around with all the rivers around there. But I'll say this: We were the farthest inland that night. I know that for sure."

So he misspoke about who was President, and might have misread a map. I wasn't there, and the people who were there aren't sure. I don't think that qualifies as a 'lie'.

Now, let's look who he's running against. http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

You are waiting for Bush's personal response to each and every one of these allegations, right?

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 03:23

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york.asp

So he misspoke about who was President, and might have misread a map. I wasn't there, and the people who were there aren't sure. I don't think that qualifies as a 'lie'.

Now, let's look who he's running against. http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

You are waiting for Bush's personal response to each and every one of these allegations, right?

Kerry said that he Remembers Christmas in Cambodia! He even said it on the Senate Floor in 1986! It has been proven that he was 60 miles AWAY from Cambodia and DID NOT CROSS into Cambodia!

Upright Monkeys

14-08-2004, 03:24

Kerry said that he Remembers Christmas in Cambodia! He even said it on the Senate Floor in 1986! It has been proven that he was 60 miles AWAY from Cambodia and DID NOT CROSS into Cambodia!

And what, precisely, is the "proof"?

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 03:29

And what, precisely, is the "proof"?

Listen to the NEWS UM! Documents showed that Kerry wasn't in Cambodia. NO swift boat WAS ALLOWED into Cambodia!

Upright Monkeys

14-08-2004, 03:40

Listen to the NEWS UM! Documents showed that Kerry wasn't in Cambodia. NO swift boat WAS ALLOWED into Cambodia!

I hear allegations - but that's all I hear.

What are these documents? Who maintained them? Is there any chance that they are incorrect, or intentionally altered at the time because of US policy? The person who makes these allegations - and that's really all they are - claims that crossing into Cambodia would have been a violation of international law that would have gotten the crew clapped in irons. That's so laughable it's not even worth addressing. (also, one of his co-boaters says it would have been very unusual for an assistant engineer's mate to actually know the position of the boat - particularly if it was secret!)

And so you're saying that because official US policy forbade incursions into Cambodia, a magical wall kept people from going in - accidentally or intentionally, secretly or covertly?

Just recently, five brits were detained by the Iranians for crossing into their territory. No magic wall kept them out, even though I'm sure it was against British policy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3826179.stm

I think you've shown just how one-sided your opinion really is, especially by your decision to ignore Bush's history of lying. (He even lied about the 'trifecta' - he never said that during the campaign. The closest statement was made by Gore.)

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 03:43

Upright Monkeys

14-08-2004, 03:47

UM! I'm going to read the book then come back here with how I perceive the book. Until then, I'm not going to comment further on this issue. Besides, Biff Pileon (hope he's ok) has pointed this out too.

While you're reading books, you should check out:

Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg
Sog: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos in Vietnam by John Plaster

It will be an eye-opener as to how much of the official record in Vietnam was secret or just false. (In particular, the ARVN habitually falsified incident reports - they had no interest in fighting the VC.)

Skepticism

14-08-2004, 16:45

So, it is a very bad, evil thing for someone tired to the bone, being shot at all the time, under a huge amount of stress, to mistake who was the president. Likewise, give those same factors, we should not tolerate someone who is stuck in the middle of a damn rainforest not knowing exactly where the hell he is.

The US government has admitted to sending US troops into Cambodia. Kerry knew he was somewhere near Cambodia, but being in the middle of a collossal jungle and having to travel only on the water -- no matter how winding and convoluted it is -- was not sure exactly where anything was.

Accusing him of lying -- deliberately misrepresenting facts for his own advantage -- in that situation is like telling someone who is rafting down the Mississippi river that they are lying because they claim to be in Mississippi but in fact at the time had drifted down to Louisiana, unknowningly.

Stephistan

14-08-2004, 17:42

BastardSword

14-08-2004, 17:44

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 18:03

In fairness, Formal is a little girl, 15 if I recall correctly.. she has not yet come of age shall we say. Her politics are cute at best, so let s not be too hard on her. She is learning.. give her another 10 years and she might actually know what she is talking about... ;)

Steph, I do know what I'm talking about. Don't dismiss me as if I don't. Christmas in Cambodia NEVER HAPPENED! Everyone, excluding Kerry (though if you read what he said on the floor then what he put in his biography, there are TWO different accounts), agrees that He WAS NOT in Cambodia. Even the people that were on the boat with him say they were not in Cambodia! That is just one lie that Kerry has been called on. He cannot explain it.

BastardSword

14-08-2004, 18:05

Steph, I do know what I'm talking about. Don't dismiss me as if I don't. Christmas in Cambodia NEVER HAPPENED! Everyone, excluding Kerry (though if you read what he said on the floor then what he put in his biography, there are TWO different accounts), agrees that He WAS NOT in Cambodia. Even the people that were on the boat with him say they were not in Cambodia! That is just one lie that Kerry has been called on. He cannot explain it.
He never lied, he thought he was in Cambodia so therefore its not a lie.
Unless you also believe Bush lied about war in Iraq then Kerry didn't lie.
You only lie when you do it deliberately trying to mislead somebody.

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 18:16

He never lied, he thought he was in Cambodia so therefore its not a lie.
Unless you also believe Bush lied about war in Iraq then Kerry didn't lie.
You only lie when you do it deliberately trying to mislead somebody.

BULL! He stated quite Clearly that he was in Cambodia! He even stated he was in Cambodia on the Senate FLOOR in 1986! If he was there then he would've been severely disciplined if not Court-martialed.

By stating that, he did lie. He is quoted in many reports back then that he was in Cambodia and he stated it on the Senate Floor. However, he did not state it in his biography but then stated it again in this campaign. Give me a break. Kerry lied about this incident and we all know it.

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 18:57

BULL! He stated quite Clearly that he was in Cambodia! He even stated he was in Cambodia on the Senate FLOOR in 1986! If he was there then he would've been severely disciplined if not Court-martialed.

By stating that, he did lie. He is quoted in many reports back then that he was in Cambodia and he stated it on the Senate Floor. However, he did not state it in his biography but then stated it again in this campaign. Give me a break. Kerry lied about this incident and we all know it.
give me the first place and time he made that statement

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 19:14

give me the first place and time he made that statement

1971 in front of the Foreign Relations Committee!

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 19:16

1971 in front of the Foreign Relations Committee!
what month

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 19:19

what month

A month was never given but he did say it, in 1971 in front of a Foreign Relations Committee. I would have to look up the month.

Edit April 22, 1971

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 19:25

A month was never given but he did say it, in 1971 in front of a Foreign Relations Committee. I would have to look up the month.

Edit April 22, 1971
well thats funny because Nixon did make that very statement that there are no troops in cambodia, november 28, 1971, 7 months after kerry first made the statement

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 19:26

well thats funny because Nixon did make that very statement that there are no troops in cambodia, november 28, 1971, 7 months after kerry first made the statement

That's funny because Kerry said it happen in December 1968 BEFORE NIXON TOOK OFFICE!!!!!

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 19:33

That's funny because Kerry said it happen in December 1968 BEFORE NIXON TOOK OFFICE!!!!!
1) just because nixon wasnt sworn in as president he couldnt say it?
2) that is point is overshadowed by my point

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 19:34

1) just because nixon wasnt sworn in as president he couldnt say it?
2) that is point is overshadowed by my point

He said he was ordered by Nixon? In Christmas? In 1968 when Nixon didn't take office till '69? Face it! Kerry got Caught in this lie!

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 19:37

He said he was ordered by Nixon? In Christmas? In 1968 when Nixon didn't take office till '69? Face it! Kerry got Caught in this lie!
he never said he was ordered by nixon, get your story straight

he said that nixon said there were no troops in cambodia at that time, nixon made that EXACT statement 7 months after kerry said nixon made it

there is obviously something going on here besides the conservatives whining about kerry lying, how about you look into everything and see whats going on and come back with facts

AND IT DOESNT MATTER IF HE HADNT BEEN SWORN IN YET HE CAN STILL TALK

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 19:39

he never said he was ordered by nixon, get your story straight

he said that nixon said there were no troops in cambodia at that time, nixon made that EXACT statement 7 months after kerry said nixon made it

there is obviously something going on here besides the conservatives whining about kerry lying, how about you look into everything and see whats going on and come back with facts

AND IT DOESNT MATTER IF HE HADNT BEEN SWORN IN YET HE CAN STILL TALK

Kerry Stated that he had gone into Cambodia despite PRESIDENT NIXON'S ASSURANCES to the American public that there was no combat action in this neutral territory.

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 19:45

Kerry Stated that he had gone into Cambodia despite PRESIDENT NIXON'S ASSURANCES to the American public that there was no combat action in this neutral territory.
yeah we have already established kerry was in cambodia when nixon says no US soldiers were, 3 years before he said it, and he couldnt have copied him saying it in november, because he states nixon said it in his april testimony

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 19:47

yeah we have already established kerry was in cambodia when nixon says no US soldiers were, 3 years before he said it, and he couldnt have copied him saying it in november, because he states nixon said it in his april testimony

KERRY WAS NOT AND NEVER WAS in CAMBODIA! At best he was 50 plus miles AWAY from Cambodia but never crossed the border. How hard is that for you to understand.

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 19:52

KERRY WAS NOT AND NEVER WAS in CAMBODIA! At best he was 50 plus miles AWAY from Cambodia but never crossed the border. How hard is that for you to understand.
how far across is the makong (sp) river? he couldv'e been across the border

HOW DO YOU KNOW HE WASN'T IN CAMBODIA? DID YOU SPEND CHRISTMAS WITH HIM

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 19:55

how far across is the makong (sp) river? he couldv'e been across the border

HOW DO YOU KNOW HE WASN'T IN CAMBODIA? DID YOU SPEND CHRISTMAS WITH HIM

Duh, people that served ON THE SAME BOAT stated that they were never in Cambodia! Kerry is the only person saying he was in Cambodia and everyone else, including 4 that was on the same boat with kerry said they were not in cambodia Over Christmas in 1968! Kerry lied. Face up to it.

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 19:57

Duh, people that served ON THE SAME BOAT stated that they were never in Cambodia! Kerry is the only person saying he was in Cambodia and everyone else, including 4 that was on the same boat with kerry said they were not in cambodia Over Christmas in 1968! Kerry lied. Face up to it.
i havnt heard of any of those people yet, you think that would be everywhere were it true

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 19:58

i havnt heard of any of those people yet, you think that would be everywhere were it true

Kerry has retreated from his Christmas in Cambodia comment!

Here's another question. If he was in Cambodia over christmas, why wasn't it included in his biography? You would think it would be in there but its not. Why?

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 20:00

Kerry has retreated from his Christmas in Cambodia comment!

Here's another question. If he was in Cambodia over christmas, why wasn't it included in his biography? You would think it would be in there but its not. Why?
edited out? didnt think it was important? who cares?

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 20:07

edited out? didnt think it was important? who cares?

Oh it was important enough to state it on the Senate Floor in 1986 so obviously it was important. The only conclusion is that he was infact NOT in Cambodia as he claims since in his biography, he gave a different account on that Christmas eve and day and it wasn't in Cambodia.

Friends of Bill

14-08-2004, 20:13

Oh it was important enough to state it on the Senate Floor in 1986 so obviously it was important. The only conclusion is that he was infact NOT in Cambodia as he claims since in his biography, he gave a different account on that Christmas eve and day and it wasn't in Cambodia.
In 1986, Kerry told the Senate:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared – seared – in me."

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 20:13

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 20:16

In 1986, Kerry told the Senate:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared – seared – in me."

And yet Kerry was not in Cambodia in 1968 and that there are witnesses not to mention other boats that would've reported it so Kerry Lied about him being in Cambodia!

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 20:18

and what was that

His Biography states that he was "NEAR THE CAMBODIA BORDER" near a vietnamese town called Sa Dec which is 55 miles from the Vietnam/Cambodian Border.

Friends of Bill

14-08-2004, 20:24

Look, John Kerry is a liar and a political opurtunist of the worst kind. He will say whatever he has to to win, even if it means contradicting himself daily. He is a scumbag.

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 20:26

Look, John Kerry is a liar and a political opurtunist of the worst kind. He will say whatever he has to to win, even if it means contradicting himself daily. He is a scumbag.

Well the people of Mass agree with you that he'll say anything to get elected!

Friends of Bill

14-08-2004, 20:29

If anyone believes that John Kerry can or will do anything he promisies to get elected, they are seriously deluded. He has had well over 20 years of public life to achieve these things and has done nothing.

Caer Rialis

14-08-2004, 20:33

Good Lord! Why do I bother.

1) 30 year old fitreps...that'll show us. You complain that Kerry cites his war record from 30 years ago and then you want his fitreps? What exactly will they show?

2) Kerry a loose cannon? Hmmm, did he say we had incontrovertible proof of WMD's in Iraq? Did he manage to alienate the brass in the Pentagon as Secretary of Defense? Did he decide he could operate the military without congressional oversight, as Rummy has?

3) Kerry's significant legislation. Hmmm, tell me, in 4 years, what significant domestic legislation has Shrub introduced? One, The 'No Child Left Behind' Act. Could an act be more designed to gut the nation's education system?

4) The Carter Administration. Hmmmm, oddly enough, the Carter Administration was the driving force behind many of the new weapons systems introduced during the Reagan Administration. Raegen's ideas (Star Wars, the Sargeant York gun, etc. etc.

Now, listening to tirades from talkradio is not the best way to learn about political matters. I doubt Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and any of the others have had a thought not giving to them by the RNC in years.

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 20:38

His Biography states that he was "NEAR THE CAMBODIA BORDER" near a vietnamese town called Sa Dec which is 55 miles from the Vietnam/Cambodian Border.
sa dec is closer than that

Traversa

14-08-2004, 20:39

Oh yes. Silver Star came for killing a wounded vietnamese soldier who was already trying to get away.

And two of his vaunted Purple Hearts came from self inflicted wounds.

Quite the hero isn't he?

All of these same medals apparently don't mean much to him anyway. Unless throwing them over a fence is somehow a token of respect for them . . . I'll have to look into that one.

I'm not saying that Bush was any more honorable. No he didn't go to Vietnam, and yes, there is a chance that he was AWOL for some of his service in the National Guard. But I really don't think prior military service should have any relevance whatsoever. Look at Clinton. Went to Canada to dodge the draft entirely, but nobody seems to care about that one.

Anywho ... make the records public but drop the whole damned issue. He won three purple hearts. Guess what. Nobody cares.

Finally, someone with their head out of Kerry's ass.
Maybe Bush has made a few mistakes, but he still doing a lot better than Kerry ever will. I would rather have a president who will stick in a war then send some troops there, one of them die in a freak humvee explosion or something, and then withdraw. Or never go to war at all. To quote a friend of mine, "Who wants a president that only opposes two wars, the one he was in and the one he voted for?"

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 20:39

Good Lord! Why do I bother.

1) 30 year old fitreps...that'll show us. You complain that Kerry cites his war record from 30 years ago and then you want his fitreps? What exactly will they show?

That Kerry is a lousy leader as the ones that he has shown us has indicated.

2) Kerry a loose cannon? Hmmm, did he say we had incontrovertible proof of WMD's in Iraq? Did he manage to alienate the brass in the Pentagon as Secretary of Defense? Did he decide he could operate the military without congressional oversight, as Rummy has?

Kerry himself has stated that we shouldn't let Hussein have the WMD that he believed where there and that we should take them away from him. Besides, he has recently gone on record and said he would've done the samething if he was president of the US with the intel present at the time.

3) Kerry's significant legislation. Hmmm, tell me, in 4 years, what significant domestic legislation has Shrub introduced? One, The 'No Child Left Behind' Act. Could an act be more designed to gut the nation's education system?

I say get rid of the Department of Education at the Federal Level and let the states take over funding for the State DoEd! It'll run smoother I bet! Bush has introduced other legislation but alas, they are buried in the news which were just as important. Besides, Congress makes more laws than the President does so the records really can't be compared.

4) The Carter Administration. Hmmmm, oddly enough, the Carter Administration was the driving force behind many of the new weapons systems introduced during the Reagan Administration. Raegen's ideas (Star Wars, the Sargeant York gun, etc. etc.

Never heard of the Sargeant York gun but Star Wars I have heard about.

Now, listening to tirades from talkradio is not the best way to learn about political matters. I doubt Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and any of the others have had a thought not giving to them by the RNC in years.

Bill O'Reilly is an independent and deals in facts and berates anyone that spins. He doesn't tolerate it from the DNC OR from the RNC but I guess you don't realize that.

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 20:41

Finally, someone with their head out of Kerry's ass.
Maybe Bush has made a few mistakes, but he still doing a lot better than Kerry ever will. I would rather have a president who will stick in a war then send some troops there, one of them die in a freak humvee explosion or something, and then withdraw. Or never go to war at all. To quote a friend of mine, "Who wants a president that only opposes two wars, the one he was in and the one he voted for?"

I couldn't agree more Traversa! To bad I can't vote in this election but I would vote for Bush if I could. Next election, I am eligible to vote and I will most definitely exercise it.

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 20:42

Finally, someone with their head out of Kerry's ass.
Maybe Bush has made a few mistakes, but he still doing a lot better than Kerry ever will. I would rather have a president who will stick in a war then send some troops there, one of them die in a freak humvee explosion or something, and then withdraw. Or never go to war at all. To quote a friend of mine, "Who wants a president that only opposes two wars, the one he was in and the one he voted for?"
there are two ways to fight a war, the smart way and the losing way, and so far we arn't anywhere near the smart way

1) your assumption about the silver medal is hearsay
2) if the ywere self inflicted during an engagement they still earn a purple heart, read the rules

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 20:44

there are two ways to fight a war, the smart way and the losing way, and so far we arn't anywhere near the smart way

1) your assumption about the silver medal is hearsay
2) if the ywere self inflicted during an engagement they still earn a purple heart, read the rules

And what is your definition of a smart way? "Fight a more sensative war" on our opponets? Please, kerry is getting smacked by that remark!

Its a cheap way to get a medal and anyone that accepts a medal for a self-inflicted wound is looked down upon by his peers. That is actually tradition too.

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 20:45

I say get rid of the Department of Education at the Federal Level and let the states take over funding for the State DoEd! It'll run smoother I bet! Bush has introduced other legislation but alas, they are buried in the news which were just as important. Besides, Congress makes more laws than the President does so the records really can't be compared.
1) the president does NOT introduce bills into congress as he is NOT A MEMBER OF CONGRESS
2) you want to name said legislation you assert the president somehow introduced into congress

Bill O'Reilly is an independent and deals in facts and berates anyone that spins. He doesn't tolerate it from the DNC OR from the RNC but I guess you don't realize that.
if O'Reilly is independent he is FAR right wing, o'reilly is a rpeublican incumbent and saying he is fair and balanced is bullock

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly

if you dont believe that, play o'reilly bingo

Friends of Bill

14-08-2004, 20:45

I couldn't agree more Traversa! To bad I can't vote in this election but I would vote for Bush if I could. Next election, I am eligible to vote and I will most definitely exercise it.
You can vote for Bush in 2008. Jeb Bush will probably run in at least the primaries.

Friends of Bill

14-08-2004, 20:47

if O'Reilly is independent he is FAR right wing, o'reilly is a rpeublican incumbent and saying he is fair and balanced is bullock

What exactly was O'Reilly elected to to make him an incumbent?

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 20:48

1) the president does NOT introduce bills into congress as he is NOT A MEMBER OF CONGRESS
2) you want to name said legislation you assert the president somehow introduced into congress

Though you are right in one regard is that he is not a member of congress. He CAN right bills and put them forth to the Congress for introduction. Thank you for putting words in my mouth. What I meant was write them for introduction in front of the Congress.

if O'Reilly is independent he is FAR right wing, o'reilly is a rpeublican incumbent and saying he is fair and balanced is bullock

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly

if you dont believe that, play o'reilly bingo

He is actually an independent. He has stated many times that he'll vote for the Democrats when they give him a reason to vote for them.

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 20:49

You can vote for Bush in 2008. Jeb Bush will probably run in at least the primaries.

No I doubt Jeb Bush will run in '08 just because he is GWB's brother and I don't think that'll set well with the American people.

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 20:49

And what is your definition of a smart way? "Fight a more sensative war" on our opponets? Please, kerry is getting smacked by that remark!

Its a cheap way to get a medal and anyone that accepts a medal for a self-inflicted wound is looked down upon by his peers. That is actually tradition too.
really? were you in vietnam, or any other engagements, ARE YOU EVEN IN THE MILITARY? you have any proof of your statement? really? what tradition, i want to hear the history of this tradition, i assume you have it. even though it is irrelevant in the light of the RULES FOR OBTAINING A PURPLE HEART, which you somehow dont know but know all these traditions and military quirks.

sensitive means more than just touchy feely, sensitive means taking into account what is going on and reacting to it appropriately

sensitive - 2. Having quick and acute sensibility, either to the action of external objects, or to impressions upon the mind and feelings; highly susceptible; easily and acutely affected. (websters dictionary)

fighting a sensitive war would be adapting the approach to the war intelligently, that is how you win wars, he is only getting smacked by right wing stupidity

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 20:51

Though you are right in one regard is that he is not a member of congress. He CAN right bills and put them forth to the Congress for introduction. Thank you for putting words in my mouth. What I meant was write them for introduction in front of the Congress.
really? where does it say that? i dont recall that being an ability of the executive office. THE PRESIDENT CANNOT INTRODUCE BILLS UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE OTHERWISE, and i want ot see this other so called legislation he somehow introduced

He is actually an independent. He has stated many times that he'll vote for the Democrats when they give him a reason to vote for them.
yeah a reason like promising to become a republican and ban gay marriage and abortion and make this nation a theocracy after becoming president, IF and thats a BIG IF, o'reilly is an idnependent, in proportion to sean hannity he would be farther right wing than hannity and ann coulter, as least they admit they are rpeublicans instead of trying to bullshit saying they are independents

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 20:52

What exactly was O'Reilly elected to to make him an incumbent?
i think i used wrong word

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 20:57

really? were you in vietnam, or any other engagements, ARE YOU EVEN IN THE MILITARY? you have any proof of your statement? really? what tradition, i want to hear the history of this tradition, i assume you have it. even though it is irrelevant in the light of the RULES FOR OBTAINING A PURPLE HEART, which you somehow dont know but know all these traditions and military quirks.

No but I had relatives that was over there and I have family in the military RIGHT NOW and over in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. I'm thinking about Joining the military because I consider it my duty to serve my country. HAVE YOU SERVED IN THE MILITARY? Were YOU over in Vietnam or any other engagements? Please!!!! I've heard stories of what people with self-inflicted wounds that accept purple hearts go through with their peers that is why most DON'T ACCEPT THEM for Self-inflicted wounds!!

I do know how purple hearts are received and put forth. The CO has to recommend it. Give me a break!

sensitive means more than just touchy feely, sensitive means taking into account what is going on and reacting to it appropriately

Doesn't matter! Kerry got hammered by both sides for this comment in his Acceptence speech.

sensitive - 2. Having quick and acute sensibility, either to the action of external objects, or to impressions upon the mind and feelings; highly susceptible; easily and acutely affected. (websters dictionary)

And how is Kerry going to fight a war using this definition? In war, you kill your enemy before you get killed. There is no middle ground. If your talking Ideology, then you need to change how the madrases are runned. That is where this starts. Nations are starting to change on how these are runned. So again! How will Kerry fight a more sensitive war?

fighting a sensitive war would be adapting the approach to the war intelligently, that is how you win wars, he is only getting smacked by right wing stupidity

He is getting smacked by people in his own party too but I guess you haven't gotten that messege yet.

Stephistan

14-08-2004, 21:11

Kerry spokesman Phil Singer defended the Massachusetts senator, saying Cheney was twisting his words and that President George W. Bush himself has called for the U.S. to be "sensitive about expressing our power and influence."

So bash Kerry for some thing Bush has also said? :rolleyes:

Source (http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/politics/3647529/detail.html)

Caer Rialis

14-08-2004, 21:17

Bill O'Reilly is an independent and deals in facts and berates anyone that spins. He doesn't tolerate it from the DNC OR from the RNC but I guess you don't realize that.

ROFLMAO

The Bill O'Reilly who said he was from a blue-collar background? The same Bill O'Reilly whose Dad was an accountant for an oil company in New Jersey making a five figures salary in the 50's and 60's? Face facts, my friend, the man lied about his past to paint himself as one of the common people. He's lying now.

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 21:26

ROFLMAO

The Bill O'Reilly who said he was from a blue-collar background? The same Bill O'Reilly whose Dad was an accountant for an oil company in New Jersey making a five figures salary in the 50's and 60's? Face facts, my friend, the man lied about his past to paint himself as one of the common people. He's lying now.

And I assume you have proof of this Caer Rialis?

CanuckHeaven

14-08-2004, 21:26

No but I had relatives that was over there and I have family in the military RIGHT NOW and over in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. I'm thinking about Joining the military because I consider it my duty to serve my country. HAVE YOU SERVED IN THE MILITARY? Were YOU over in Vietnam or any other engagements? Please!!!! I've heard stories of what people with self-inflicted wounds that accept purple hearts go through with their peers that is why most DON'T ACCEPT THEM for Self-inflicted wounds!!

I do know how purple hearts are received and put forth. The CO has to recommend it. Give me a break!
You are a hipocrite of the first class variety. After reading you spew above, I can't imagine why in God's green earth that you are trying to draw any kind of shame to John Kerry's military record.

Consider the following:

Under [Navy Admiral Elmo] Zumwalt's command, swift boats would aggressively engage the enemy. Zumwalt, who died in 2000, calculated in his autobiography that these men under his command had a 75 percent chance of being killed or wounded during a typical year.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

You should be ashamed of yourself to say the least, especially when your little tag at the bottom of your post states:

"God Bless America and Our Forces overseas! "

You blast away at Kerry's contribution to your country,and sing the praises of George Bush. Let's see now....Kerry VOLUNTEERED to fight, and fight he did. Bush went AWOL in the US.

I will say it again...you are a hipocrite. You have no credibility. None.

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 21:37

You are a hipocrite of the first class variety. After reading you spew above, I can't imagine why in God's green earth that you are trying to draw any kind of shame to John Kerry's military record.

I'm trying to draw shame to his record? He's done a good job of it already. Looking at his fitreps, his leadership sucked and was marked down in very important categories. That isn't me drawing shame to him, that is him drawing shame to himself.

Consider the following:

Under [Navy Admiral Elmo] Zumwalt's command, swift boats would aggressively engage the enemy. Zumwalt, who died in 2000, calculated in his autobiography that these men under his command had a 75 percent chance of being killed or wounded during a typical year.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

That's because Zumwalt was an agressive leader when it came to swiftboats and his people loved him. He was well liked around the swift boat community.

You should be ashamed of yourself to say the least, especially when your little tag at the bottom of your post states:

"God Bless America and Our Forces overseas! "

You blast away at Kerry's contribution to your country,and sing the praises of George Bush. Let's see now....Kerry VOLUNTEERED to fight, and fight he did. Bush went AWOL in the US.

I will say it again...you are a hipocrite. You have no credibility. None.

I blast away at Kerry because he has lied repeatedly. If he is telling the truth about his first purple hurt then he should produce the documents about it. His CO didn't recommend him for one so who did? That is all I'm questioning. I'm questioning how he got a purple heart where his own CO didn't see fit to recommend him.

I don't tolerate cry babies as leaders. I tolerate strong leadership and those that stick by what they do. Kerry hasn't stuck by his record and has thrown Vietnam into our faces. His record is getting scrutinized because of it and irregularities have appeared in his OWN RECORD! He claims that questioning his record is questioning his patriotism but then, questioning something is what we are SUPPOSED TO DO! A hypocrit? That'll be the media who is ignoring this issue regarding Kerry's record but called for FULL DISCLOSER OF BUSH'S RECORD!!! That is hypocritical but not unexpected from the liberal press.

As for my credibility, I can produce people that got smacked in debates because of facts that I dug up and presented. I haven't finished the book yet nor have I investigated Kerry's Record deep enough yet. I'm only one person but so far, Kerry doesn't deserve my vote because he hasn't given me a reason to vote for him.

I can't wait for 2006 when I can Vote in the senatorial race that is coming up as well as the Congressional race and the Governor's Race.

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 21:38

No but I had relatives that was over there and I have family in the military RIGHT NOW and over in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. I'm thinking about Joining the military because I consider it my duty to serve my country. HAVE YOU SERVED IN THE MILITARY? Were YOU over in Vietnam or any other engagements? Please!!!! I've heard stories of what people with self-inflicted wounds that accept purple hearts go through with their peers that is why most DON'T ACCEPT THEM for Self-inflicted wounds!!
where is the documentational proof of this tradition

I do know how purple hearts are received and put forth. The CO has to recommend it. Give me a break!
you dont appear to

Doesn't matter! Kerry got hammered by both sides for this comment in his Acceptence speech.
not kerry's fault they are stupid

And how is Kerry going to fight a war using this definition? In war, you kill your enemy before you get killed. There is no middle ground. If your talking Ideology, then you need to change how the madrases are runned. That is where this starts. Nations are starting to change on how these are runned. So again! How will Kerry fight a more sensitive war?
you didnt even read what i wrote and the word is RAN

Formal Dances

14-08-2004, 21:44

where is the documentational proof of this tradition

You really are an idiot aren't you? Do you honestly think it'll be documented? :rolleyes:

you dont appear to

From your POV! I do know how they are received. My uncle stepped on a Nail in Kuwait but refused to go in for a purple heart though technically it was in a combat zone. I do know the requirements probably better than you do but self-inflicted wounds are rarely and I do mean rarely accepted. Kerry himself tried to get one but his CO said no! So now the question is, Who gave it to him?

not kerry's fault they are stupid

Thanks for calling the Democratic Party Stupid. Both sides are stupid which is why I'm an independent and wil register as an independent voter.

you didnt even read what i wrote and the word is RAN

Thanks for the correction in tense. I do read what you have wrote and frankly, you didn't answer my questions! You've just proved a point that everyone else has! You can't fight a more sensitive war than how we are fighting now.

Friends of Bill

14-08-2004, 21:49

Bush went AWOL in the US.

I will say it again...you are a hipocrite. You have no credibility. None.
You have even less.

Chess Squares

14-08-2004, 21:50

You really are an idiot aren't you? Do you honestly think it'll be documented? :rolleyes:
not officially, but i'm sure you can give instances, you know since its a tradition, each year my family goes to my grandmothers house for thanksgiving, we always go to my dads side first, every year. look i gave proof of a tradition

From your POV! I do know how they are received. My uncle stepped on a Nail in Kuwait but refused to go in for a purple heart though technically it was in a combat zone. I do know the requirements probably better than you do but self-inflicted wounds are rarely and I do mean rarely accepted. Kerry himself tried to get one but his CO said no! So now the question is, Who gave it to him?
wrong, he doesnt get a purple heart for that, it was not during a combat SITUATION, if he was in a firefight and running for cover or running torwards them, THEN it would be eligible for a purple heart. do you? i just reread them 5 minutes ago.

do you have proof his CO denied him a purple heart? actual documented proof? like the paperwork for the recomendation with a denial stamp on it?

Thanks for calling the Democratic Party Stupid. Both sides are stupid which is why I'm an independent and wil register as an independent voter.
i called people stupid, thanks for playing. ROFL, you are an independent like O'Reilly is.
you are a MOCKERY of the independent "party"

Thanks for the correction in tense. I do read what you have wrote and frankly, you didn't answer my questions! You've just proved a point that everyone else has! You can't fight a more sensitive war than how we are fighting now.
runned is obviously wrong, i assume you have graduated at least 5th grade.
yes we can i have stated REPEATEDLY it is being fought wrong AND stated how.

CanuckHeaven

14-08-2004, 21:51

I blast away at Kerry because he has lied repeatedly. If he is telling the truth about his first purple hurt then he should produce the documents about it. His CO didn't recommend him for one so who did? That is all I'm questioning. I'm questioning how he got a purple heart where his own CO didn't see fit to recommend him.
Now I have caught you in a fabrication on your part. I posted the article and perhaps you didn't read it?

Kerry was injured yet again on 13 March 1969, in an action for which he was awarded both a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. According to Kerry's Bronze Star citation (signed by Admiral Zumwalt himself):

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of Inshore Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords operation in the Bay Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return to and assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

What say you now? From the very commander that you just exhalted no less.

CanuckHeaven

14-08-2004, 21:59

You have even less.
I wasn't addressing you sir, but if you would kindly explain, I will do my best to understand your reasoning?

Friends of Bill

14-08-2004, 22:00

Bush went AWOL in the US.

I will say it again...you are a hipocrite. You have no credibility. None.
CAn you prove this. Do you have the paperwork showing George Bush to be AWOL? Can you? You are patheic.

Caer Rialis

14-08-2004, 22:06

And I assume you have proof of this Caer Rialis?

YEs, yes I do...He himself has said it on his show in many occassions.

Now, let's get back to you:

That's because Zumwalt was an agressive leader when it came to swiftboats and his people loved him. He was well liked around the swift boat community.

Ummm, this pokes a massive hole in your argument.

I don't tolerate cry babies as leaders. I tolerate strong leadership and those that stick by what they do.

So you support a man who has either repeatedly lied to the American people or has been mislead by his own appointees to enter into the first aggressive first strike in American history? Gakk! If you were not so blinded b the neo-con dogma you have been spoon-fed, perhaps you would learn to think.

Kerry hasn't stuck by his record and has thrown Vietnam into our faces. His record is getting scrutinized because of it and irregularities have appeared in his OWN RECORD! He claims that questioning his record is questioning his patriotism but then, questioning something is what we are SUPPOSED TO DO!.

Odd, questioning a candidate's patriotism is the fist thing the Republican do in an election. Seeing as Kerry's patriotism has been questioned consistently by the sources you have cited makes me wonder.

That'll be the media who is ignoring this issue regarding Kerry's record but called for FULL DISCLOSER OF BUSH'S RECORD!!! That is hypocritical but not unexpected from the liberal press.

Oooh, the second big gun in the GOP playbook...the dreaded liberal press. Yes, the liberal press, owned by General Electric, Viacom, Disney and Rupert Murdoch. Yes, those big companies are going to allow a liberal press. Please, wake up and smell the propaganda!

And, of course, this is the same liberal press that dogged Shrub in 2000, right? The smae liberal press that allowed him to side-step any questions on his alleged cocaine use? Odd, haven't heard and answer to that, but it was big news when Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale marijuana IN THE 60's! Yep, that hard-hitting liberal press which couldn't uncover Shrub's war-record in the 2000 election, when he faced another man who volunteered for service in Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Chess Squares
where is the documentational proof of this tradition

You really are an idiot aren't you? Do you honestly think it'll be documented?

Then don't cite it...and bad form to resort to name calling, laddie.

I wonder about the youth of the United States.

Caer Rialis

14-08-2004, 22:13

CAn you prove this. Do you have the paperwork showing George Bush to be AWOL? Can you? You are patheic.

Again, bad form for the pejorative, FoB.

Supposedly, the records were lost. Now, I had read earlier in this thread someone saying that Bill Clinton went AWOL in Canada during Vietnam. Actually, he was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship and spent a year in the UK after he received his undergraduate degree. When he returned, his draft draft was a high number. He did not dodge the draft.

Now, no one can prove anything about that final year of George W. Bush's National Guard record as the paperwork was destroyed. It does seem odd to me that no one in that unit of the Alabama National Guard remembers him.

You may wonder why John Kerry is citing his Vietnam war record. Perhaps it could be that Vietnam gave Senator Kerry his first taste in the full ramifications of national policy. Perhaps it could be that he had first become noticed by the general public when he assisted in the formation of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Perhaps as well, it could be the intense criticism that Bill Clinton received during his two elections from a party whose attack dogs included several men who received college deferments (Cheney, Bennett, Will), medical deferments (Buchanan, Limbaugh), and positions in the National Guard (Bush, Quayle). I for one will not criticize anyone who took the legal steps with remove oneself from the draft. Neither will I question the war record of someone who did serve, so long as no war crimes were committed.

Friends of Bill

14-08-2004, 22:17

Neither will I question the war record of someone who did serve, so long as no war crimes were committed.
You better start the questins then, because Kerry is a self professed war criminal.

CanuckHeaven

14-08-2004, 22:20

CAn you prove this. Do you have the paperwork showing George Bush to be AWOL? Can you? You are patheic.
Without even giving me a chance to produce any kind of proof, you make a personal attack on my integrity?

How charming.

Caer Rialis

14-08-2004, 22:22

You better start the questins then, because Kerry is a self professed war criminal.

Really? Where did he say that, FoB?

Friends of Bill

14-08-2004, 22:31

"Yes, I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed," Kerry said in the sound bite. "I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

http://rochester.indymedia.org/newswire/display/2420/index.php

http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/february/0217_fonda_kerry.shtml

http://www.americandaily.com/article/202

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Kerry

Caer Rialis

14-08-2004, 22:41

Thank you for those, FoB...now, once we get done with prosecuting Kissinger and anyone else who helepd establish U.S. policy in Vietnam (shoot, the upper echelons of both pmajor parties, we can go after Lieutenant j.g. John F. Kerry.....and while we are at it, bettter take a good look at Gulf War I and Gulf War II: the Sequal.

**shakes head**

Friends of Bill

14-08-2004, 22:44

Gymoor

14-08-2004, 22:55

I am pretty sure Kissinger did not burn down any villages.

**laughs at the joke that is Caer Rialis**

Ah, so the soldier under fire should be thrown to the dogs, but the ivory tower chickenhawks who make the policy are innocent? Hmmm, I guess that removes our reason for attacking Saddam. I mean, how many of his people did he kill with his own hands? Can it be proved that Saddam physically unleashed the gas on the people of Iraq himself? Ohhhhhhhh, so leaders who form a brutal policy ARE to blame I guess. Too bad the liberal press let the Abu Gharayb (sp?) scandal die down just when the memos justifying it were coming to light.

** laughs at the intellectual dishonesty and cognitive disconnect lodged withing the calcified mind behind the beady eyes of Friends of Bill**

Friends of Bill

14-08-2004, 22:58

Ah, so the soldier under fire should be thrown to the dogs, but the ivory tower chickenhawks who make the policy are innocent? Hmmm, I guess that removes our reason for attacking Saddam. I mean, how many of his people did he kill with his own hands? Can it be proved that Saddam physically unleashed the gas on the people of Iraq himself? Ohhhhhhhh, so leaders who form a brutal policy ARE to blame I guess. Too bad the liberal press let the Abu Gharayb (sp?) scandal die down just when the memos justifying it were coming to light.

** laughs at the intellectual dishonesty and cognitive disconnect lodged withing the calcified mind behind the beady eyes of Friends of Bill**
If you were twice as smart as you are now, you'd be chronically stupid.

CanuckHeaven

14-08-2004, 23:12

If you were twice as smart as you are now, you'd be chronically stupid.
So it is a matter of insults rather than providing something substantive?

Gymoor

14-08-2004, 23:28

That's the point, he didn't have anything substantive to say.

Zooke

15-08-2004, 00:14

In fairness, Formal is a little girl, 15 if I recall correctly.. she has not yet come of age shall we say. Her politics are cute at best, so let s not be too hard on her. She is learning.. give her another 10 years and she might actually know what she is talking about... ;)

At 53 I have you all aced...so pay mind your elders...<grin>

Speaking of elders, has anyone seen Bill P on here anywhere? Probably without electricity.

If formal is only 15, I am really impressed. Give her another 15 years and she'll be kickin butt in the political arena. She's certainly off to a well informed start, she's methodical and eager to learn more, and her tendancies are good...to the right. Go girl!

Friends of Bill

15-08-2004, 00:22

Why don't get LBJ and his adminstration indicted for war crimes, since they were in charge when Kerry was commiting atrocities in Viet Nam?

CanuckHeaven

15-08-2004, 01:08

Why don't get LBJ and his adminstration indicted for war crimes, since they were in charge when Kerry was commiting atrocities in Viet Nam?
Yeah and Henry Kissinger, Ron Reagan, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, etc....

Gymoor

15-08-2004, 01:21

Why don't get LBJ and his adminstration indicted for war crimes, since they were in charge when Kerry was commiting atrocities in Viet Nam?

See, this is a typical example of your bias and blindness. Why do you mention LBJ and not Nixon?

But back to your original point, yes, I think any president needs to be investigated, and his defense department, and the intelligence agencies whenever a war is engaged in. Republican or Democrat, they need to be held ultimately accountable for what goes on. I would also say that FDR and the intelligence and Defense department of the time should have been investigated, or at least investigated more, during WWII.

See, I'm all for transparency and accountability in government, no matter who governs. I'm all for checks and balances, because too much power concentrated into a small group leads inevitably to catastrophe. The sad thing is that this current administration encourages mud slinging in political discourse, but actively, aggressively and heavy-handedly represses critical voices raised against them. They cry secrecy when it comes to energy task forces, but reveal double agents who have infiltrated Al Qaeda. They conceal Bush's own military records (or "lose" them for a time,) while their neo-con surrogates make up lies about Kerry's service. They depict a triple-amputee Vietnam Vet as being analogous to Bin Laden, and cry foul when a longtime blue-working comedienne makes the obvious coparison between Bush and genitalia.
It's a world where Theresa Heinz saying "shove it!" to a weasally right-wing reporter is worse than Cheney saying "go F-__ yourself!" to a congressman in a venue where such language is not allowed!
It's a world where Kerry protesting the Viet Nam War emboldens the enemy more than Cowboy Bush saying "bring it on!"
It's a world where an Iraq suddenly flooded with insurrectionists, foreign fighters and terrorist groups is less of a global threat than a local (albeit truly ruthless and evil,) secular bully dictator.
It's a world where the undocumented and after-the-fact words of a clearly partisan group carries more weight than actual military records and the testimony of the men who actually were Kerry's crew.
And yet, when people say that they do not recollect Bush ever showing up for duty in Alabama, not ONE person says they served with him there, and the military records show he was grounded, did not show up for a physical (something that usually calls for an investigation and disciplinary action,) and wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers money in unused training, this is all unfounded specualtion and rumor.
To paraphrase Kerry himself, it's a world where we're paying to open police stations and firehouses in Iraq, and closing them here in America.

Do you see the cognitive disconnect yet? Do you see the pervasive hypocrisy? Can you break out of your dogmatic shell just a little to see the absurdity of it all?

Gymoor

15-08-2004, 02:16

anyone?

Incertonia

15-08-2004, 02:24

61 pages of the same crap over and over--don't be surprised if no one is responding, Gymoor. For the record, you make a good point. LBJ rightfully gets a lot of blame for Vietnam, but Nixon deserves just as much for escalating the conflict. More people died in Nixon's time than in LBJ and Kennedy combined.

But the people you're aguing with--Friends of Bill especially--don't want to hear about subtlety or fairness. They're "Bush is great and u r teh suck" and to hell with any rational discourse.

Gymoor

15-08-2004, 05:08

Yeah. My theory is that the Bush supporters don't have a good response to what I wrote, and as they usually do, if it doesn't fit into their tiny box of approved ideas, they either ignore it, change the subject, or attack me personally.

CanuckHeaven

15-08-2004, 05:53

Equal Thought

15-08-2004, 13:51

At 53 I have you all aced...so pay mind your elders...<grin>

Speaking of elders, has anyone seen Bill P on here anywhere? Probably without electricity.

If formal is only 15, I am really impressed. Give her another 15 years and she'll be kickin butt in the political arena. She's certainly off to a well informed start, she's methodical and eager to learn more, and her tendancies are good...to the right. Go girl!

I don't per se disagree with you, if she learned how to be honest and read sources, she might just be kicking ass in another 15 years, yet she doesn't and that's not in her favour, if she starts being honest and reading the information she's given, then maybe, unless, I fear she will remain the mindless robot she appears to be now.

Zooke

15-08-2004, 14:38

.
Yeah. My theory is that the Bush supporters don't have a good response to what I wrote, and as they usually do, if it doesn't fit into their tiny box of approved ideas, they either ignore it, change the subject, or attack me personally.

As I've been recuperated from a run in with a ground rattler, and haven't spent much time on here, and Bill P is who knows where in the mess left by Charley, and that all of you Kerry foks decided to gang up on Formal and attack her personally, I have to wonder how many of the people who disagree with your point of view were even online.

I don't per se disagree with you, if she learned how to be honest and read sources, she might just be kicking ass in another 15 years, yet she doesn't and that's not in her favour, if she starts being honest and reading the information she's given, then maybe, unless, I fear she will remain the mindless robot she appears to be now.

And there is the rub. All I've seen from the left on this board is micro-critiques of Bush's past (but the less than flattering part of Kerry's past is off-limits)and not wanting to address the issues as they are today. The issue isn't whether Bush liked to party until he wised up 15 years ago or if his family puled strings to keep him out of Nam. I can look back on things I did when I was younger, wonder what in the world I was thinking, and advise my kids and grandkids not to repeat my mistakes. Bush is running his campaign on the issues he has faced and how he has handled them since 2000. What is at issue is, since Kerry's 2 main campaign hooks is that he isn't Bush and he received 3 Purple Hearts (lord knows THAT's seared into our memories), whether Kerry should open ALL of his records. Since he has made Nam his credentials for fitness to serve as our president, he should make all of his credentials open to view. If the 40 men who tell a different story of his time in Nam are wrong, then he needs to address the issues point by point. As long as he doesn't, there is going to be doubts in people who are trying to guage the man.

As far as the personal attacks go, you need to review some of Chess Squares posts...not to mention Stephistan's trying to dismiss Formal's deductions because she is so young, Caer Rialis' superior attitudes and statements. How do you know she hasn't or isn't reading whatever is available, and has come to her conclusions on her own? Plus the posts from CanuckHeaven who is obviously either a resident of Canada or Canadian influenced....Canada airs Al Jazeera but refuses to allow Fox News to air...no wonder his views are so far to the left. Review both sides of this discussion and I believe you will find that whenever the pro-Bush folks start pin-pointing Kerry's discrepancies and questions of his character, his supporters start calling names and throwing insults. Hmmmmmmmm....bet I can guess why.

I can see so much of the liberal opinions expressed on this board coming straight out of Michael Moore's 911 (and yes I have seen it). That piece of film has been debunked in so many ways it has lost its claim to being a documentary and is now viewed as a work of fiction. Sometimes you have to take into account substantive works....such as the 9/11 Commission's Report, and the reviews by Kerry's CO's. They paint an entirely different picture.

Commie-Pinko Scum

15-08-2004, 14:42

i don't know what a person's military record has got to do with his capabilities as a president. for example, bush was awol during the vietnam war, but he is still militaristic.

that's called being a Chickenhawk :)

Equal Thought

15-08-2004, 14:50

As far as the personal attacks go.

I didn't accuse Formal Dances of personal attacks. I accused her of being dishonest. Yes, there are some "questionable" items in Kerry's past. I shall not argue that. What I do argue is based upon my own observations of Formal Dances arguments, she is less then honest and does it without thought. She says things that are clearly contradicted some times by her own sources. I was just agreeing that she might be a very informative political person if she debated honestly and read stuff before she sourced it. That was my only point.

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 15:05

At 53 I have you all aced...so pay mind your elders...<grin>

Speaking of elders, has anyone seen Bill P on here anywhere? Probably without electricity.

If formal is only 15, I am really impressed. Give her another 15 years and she'll be kickin butt in the political arena. She's certainly off to a well informed start, she's methodical and eager to learn more, and her tendancies are good...to the right. Go girl!

:) Thank You Zooke! This has to be the nicest thing anyone has ever stated to me on here! :) Your cool and I like that.

As for Bill, he's in Florida so I doubt he has power :(

And as for minding my elders, I always do :)

Zooke

15-08-2004, 15:12

I didn't accuse Formal Dances of personal attacks. I accused her of being dishonest. Yes, there are some "questionable" items in Kerry's past. I shall not argue that. What I do argue is based upon my own observations of Formal Dances arguments, she is less then honest and does it without thought. She says things that are clearly contradicted some times by her own sources. I was just agreeing that she might be a very informative political person if she debated honestly and read stuff before she sourced it. That was my only point.

My error on the personal attacks response. I fiddled my quotes into the wrong place.

She does have a lot to learn about research and sourcing. That will come with time I hope. But, the attacks I have seen on her won't help. Some of her opponents pointed her to other sources for info (though the sites that are solely dedicated to one point of view...left or right... and don't hold truth to a high standard are not credible), but a number of them have resorted to name calling and insults. These are counter-productive and inflame tempers rather than lend to a reasonable discussion. My view though, is that she is showing a remarkable amount of political interest and drive for someone so young, and she may very well mature into a well-informed political force. I just hope she keeps her "right" thinking views :D

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 15:18

She does have a lot to learn about research and sourcing. That will come with time I hope.

Trust me it will. I have to many reports to right next year and you bet I have to research for info.

But, the attacks I have seen on her won't help. Some of her opponents pointed her to other sources for info (though the sites that are solely dedicated to one point of view...left or right... and don't hold truth to a high standard are not credible), but a number of them have resorted to name calling and insults. These are counter-productive and inflame tempers rather than lend to a reasonable discussion.

To many, especially from Chess Squares who continued to insult me after I hammered away at one of Kerry's lies! I don't know how I kept my cool! Thanks :)

My view though, is that she is showing a remarkable amount of political interest and drive for someone so young, and she may very well mature into a well-informed political force. I just hope she keeps her "right" thinking views :D

Thank You Zooke. I'm thinking about Political Science as my major when I get out of highschool. :) As for my views, I'm an independent. My "right" views are my own views and I DO look at all sides before forming a conclusion. Thanks for believing in me.

Zooke

15-08-2004, 15:39

To many, especially from Chess Squares who continued to insult me after I hammered away at one of Kerry's lies! I don't know how I kept my cool! Thanks :)

Chess is another young person who is deeply motivated by politics. He has a tendancy to be brash and a little rough around the edges, but he obviously cares and takes the time to learn. Hate to admit it and give him a big head, but I like him and I respect his views and his passion. If we all had the same ideas and views it would be pretty boring...or it would be a dictatorship.

Thank You Zooke. I'm thinking about Political Science as my major when I get out of highschool. :) As for my views, I'm an independent. My "right" views are my own views and I DO look at all sides before forming a conclusion. Thanks for believing in me.

Like you, I'm an independent. I really feel let down by the Dems this year. Fortunately, they realized that their internet candidate was a raving lunatic as soon as he started appearing in public during the primaries. I just don't understand why they went over to Kerry's side (esp with his baggage). Leiberman would have gotten my vote. Now, when doing a pro/con evaluation on Bush and Kerry, I have to go with Bush. Kerry is too much of an unknown. The only response I've seen on this board as to Kerry's lack of accomplishment in the last 20 years, is that he was over-shadowed by Ted Kennedy...now there's someone I don't want to see anywhere near the White House. :eek:

Watch, listen and read....everything! Especially pay attention to views contrary to yours. First of all, you may ammend your views somewhat. Secondly, it will give you an understanding and appreciation for the other person's opinion and make you better able to discuss issues with an open mind and a listening ear. Everyone's opinion counts...that's why we are the greatest country in the world.

Zooke

15-08-2004, 15:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by Formal Dances
To many, especially from Chess Squares who continued to insult me after I hammered away at one of Kerry's lies! I don't know how I kept my cool! Thanks

Chess is another young person who is deeply motivated by politics. He has a tendancy to be brash and a little rough around the edges, but he obviously cares and takes the time to learn. Hate to admit it and give him a big head, but I like him and I respect his views and his passion. If we all had the same ideas and views it would be pretty boring...or it would be a dictatorship.

Thank You Zooke. I'm thinking about Political Science as my major when I get out of highschool. As for my views, I'm an independent. My "right" views are my own views and I DO look at all sides before forming a conclusion. Thanks for believing in me.

I did it again with the quote thing. I need to go get this foot up...I think the poison is running up to my brain.

Chess Squares

15-08-2004, 15:43

To many, especially from Chess Squares who continued to insult me after I hammered away at one of Kerry's lies! I don't know how I kept my cool! Thanks :)
best way to get me to start in on you is to name me, good job, you think i will stop insiniuating you are an ignorant conservative because you sit there repeating what you heard from some one else over and over without even listening to the points im tryign to make, if anything that will solidify my belief that you are ignorant and intolerant

Zooke

15-08-2004, 15:51

best way to get me to start in on you is to name me, good job, you think i will stop insiniuating you are an ignorant conservative because you sit there repeating what you heard from some one else over and over without even listening to the points im tryign to make, if anything that will solidify my belief that you are ignorant and intolerant

Can you honestly say that you have listened to and given fair consideration to her points? Or mine? Or anyone else who doesn't fall in step with how you think?

Zooke

15-08-2004, 15:54

you are ignorant and intolerant

All of us are ignorant. No one knows all there is to know about everything. The best we can hope to do is lessen our ignorance. Though, when you call names and insult others, you are not only showing ignorance, you look stupid. Ignorance can be overcome....stupid is permanent. How others perceive you is based on how you choose to present yourself.

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 15:55

not to mention Stephistan's trying to dismiss Formal's deductions because she is so young

Well, in fairness, I do this on two tiers. I use her age as to be kind. 1) My husband has shot down almost every argument she has ever made because she didn't clearly think it through and as stated in another post, discredits herself using her own sources. 2) Political Science is my field and it's my opinion she usually hasn't a clue how to interpret what she is reading. I chalk it up to her being young.

It's not actually meant as an insult. In fact when she has spent time in my IRC channel before, I have encouraged her to go into politics. It's obvious she has a passion for it, I just believe her age has not allowed her the experience yet to fully understand it. Was never meant as an attack. ;)

Zooke

15-08-2004, 16:37

Well, in fairness, I do this on two tiers. I use her age as to be kind. 1) My husband has shot down almost every argument she has ever made because she didn't clearly think it through and as stated in another post, discredits herself using her own sources. 2) Political Science is my field and it's my opinion she usually hasn't a clue how to interpret what she is reading. I chalk it up to her being young.

It's not actually meant as an insult. In fact when she has spent time in my IRC channel before, I have encouraged her to go into politics. It's obvious she has a passion for it, I just believe her age has not allowed her the experience yet to fully understand it. Was never meant as an attack. ;)

I misunderstood your intentions. Please excuse me.

I am amazed at how many young people are politically informed. When I was there age, I knew who the president was and I knew that some people protested our involvement in Nam. Their actions, lifestyle, mode of dress, and form of speech was so alien to what I was familiar with that I didn't understand the import of what they were trying to say. Looking back, I don't know that I would have been fully supportive of their ideas, but I now realize the horrible injustice we imposed on our returning military. A whole generation of our men were changed so that we, the women of that generation, have come to accept them as normal, and wonder why the men of other generations are so different. We are truly a lost generation...so maybe those pinko hippie freaks weren't so far off the mark after all.

I'm more aware of our policies and politics now because I feel we are in a whole new world, and we're not waking up in time to survive it. We have been bemoaning the escallation of violence in our country, and have ignored that same barbaric mindset growing and spreading throughout the world. Bush has a cowboy, kick-butt approach. Obviously, this is not the accepted approach throughout the world. However, since Kerry has not offered any solid, detailed alternative to handling the situation, I have to go with the known factor. At least Bush's approach has gotten more cooperation out of Iran and Saudi Arabia. If Sharon and Arafat were to be replaced by more reasonable people, Bush's peace initiatives in that area would probably be more successful. Kerry has said that he will win the support of more of our European allies, but France, Germany, and Russia have all said that they will not support us or the rebuilding of Iraq in any way that does not profit them. They won't even forgive a portion of the debts that Sadam amassed and demand that the Iraqi people repay. The Iraqi's owe them nothing. They owe the Iraqi's for supporting a dictator who tortured, killed, and suppressed them.

We can't conduct our nation to please others...we have to do whatever is necessary to protect ourselves. I just don't believe that Kerry has the determination or the goals to achieve this.

Chess Squares

15-08-2004, 16:38

Can you honestly say that you have listened to and given fair consideration to her points? Or mine? Or anyone else who doesn't fall in step with how you think?
if i believed they negated or countered my point, i drop it and take it into account, i rarely see you people throw out a point i havnt already considered and disregarded

Zooke

15-08-2004, 16:50

if i believed they negated or countered my point, i drop it and take it into account, i rarely see you people throw out a point i havnt already considered and disregarded

You answered my question...you have not listened to the opposing views and reflected on them. Obviously, you know everything about everything and there is nothing further that you can learn. Therefore, why are you wasting your time ranting and raving at us ignorant cattle? There is only one side to every issue....yours. You do realize, don't you, that that belief is what leads to dictatorships?

CanuckHeaven

15-08-2004, 16:56

As far as the personal attacks go,
This should be interesting.....
Plus the posts from CanuckHeaven who is obviously either a resident of Canada or Canadian influenced....Canada airs Al Jazeera but refuses to allow Fox News to air...no wonder his views are so far to the left.
What do you mean by "Canadian influenced"?

I am not really up to speed with what is happening with Al Jazeera, or Fox News, so I won't comment on that, but there is a vast array of media here in Canada that covers all spectrums, and our two daily national newspapers are basically pro Conservative. So what is your point?

So please explain to me, why YOU believe that my views are "so far to the left"? Usually when someone from the US says so far to the left, they mean Communist, which I am not. So I would appreciate it if you would clarify your comment.

Are you trying to portray yourself as a "centrist"?

Review both sides of this discussion and I believe you will find that whenever the pro-Bush folks start pin-pointing Kerry's discrepancies and questions of his character, his supporters start calling names and throwing insults. Hmmmmmmmm....bet I can guess why.
I believe for you to be honest you will find that this happens on BOTH sides. Are you suggesting that I am one of those individuals?
I can see so much of the liberal opinions expressed on this board coming straight out of Michael Moore's 911 (and yes I have seen it). That piece of film has been debunked in so many ways it has lost its claim to being a documentary and is now viewed as a work of fiction.
Well you are entitled to your opinion on this matter, however, I do believe it is far more factual than as you say "fictional", and yes I have seen it too. BTW, I am an independent thinker and use a wealth of information that is available to draw my own conclusions. Certainly 911 offers some very good insight into George W. Bush.
Sometimes you have to take into account substantive works....such as the 9/11 Commission's Report, and the reviews by Kerry's CO's. They paint an entirely different picture.
What reviews by Kerry's CO's do you refer to you?

Chess Squares

15-08-2004, 17:07

You answered my question...you have not listened to the opposing views and reflected on them. Obviously, you know everything about everything and there is nothing further that you can learn. Therefore, why are you wasting your time ranting and raving at us ignorant cattle? There is only one side to every issue....yours. You do realize, don't you, that that belief is what leads to dictatorships?
wrong
i JUST said if if i thought the point countered my point i would not persist saying "Your wrong, im right, your wrong im right" like so many of the people on your side have done i would take that int oaccount for the future and shut up, then i said despite that i have rarely been faced with something i have not already considered before making my point and disregarded as irrelevant

you are the one NOT listening

Zooke

15-08-2004, 18:06

This should be interesting.....

What do you mean by "Canadian influenced"?

I am not really up to speed with what is happening with Al Jazeera, or Fox News, so I won't comment on that, but there is a vast array of media here in Canada that covers all spectrums, and our two daily national newspapers are basically pro Conservative. So what is your point?

Al Jazeera has just recently been approved to be aired in Canada. You wouldn't know anything about Fox as it is barred in Canada. Fox News station isn't allowed as the Canadian government deems that it portrays a biased right wing view. Go figure that rationale! Based on the Canadian government's vocal stand it would appear that if the two national newspapers are conservative in view, they are rebutting the govenment quite a bit. Or, perhaps, the Canadian view of conservative differs from the American view.

So please explain to me, why YOU believe that my views are "so far to the left"? Usually when someone from the US says so far to the left, they mean Communist, which I am not. So I would appreciate it if you would clarify your comment. Are you trying to portray yourself as a "centrist"?

Where in the world did you get the idea that "left" meant "communist" in the US? Left is NOT communist. Though a few liberals express socialist ideas, (and some right wingers express ideas that would have made Hitler proud) basically, at least in my opinion, the left are those who increase the size of government (therefore, taxes) to provide endless entitlements (creating dependency and lack of advancement), will deny freedom of speech claiming it's not politically correct, will give more weight to the civil rights of some over the rights of others, believe all big business is corrupt and needs to be harnessed and controlled and beat into submission, and want to level the financial playing field for everyone through the efforts of this enlarged and improved government.

Am I trying to portray myself as a centrist? No, I don't try to portray myself in any way. I have beliefs and views and I express them. If that qualifies me for the label "centrist", fine if it makes you feel better for having categorized me. It doesn't affect my opinions one way or another.

=I believe for you to be honest you will find that this happens on BOTH sides. Are you suggesting that I am one of those individuals?

Yes it does happen on both sides. It's like the guy to tries to settle a disagreement by throwing a punch. As soon as he does that, he has lost the argument. As for you, if memory serves me correctly, I believe you called Formal "pathetic" and discounted her opinions. So, in that vein, you were guilty, also.

=Well you are entitled to your opinion on this matter, however, I do believe it is far more factual than as you say "fictional", and yes I have seen it too. BTW, I am an independent thinker and use a wealth of information that is available to draw my own conclusions. Certainly 911 offers some very good insight into George W. Bush.

Perhaps the dissection of 911 hasn't appeared in Canadian news, but it's been torn apart in the US. Even the mother of the fallen GI that Moore highlighted in his little film, has come out protesting that he misrepresented her comments and her dead son's beliefs. Now that is sleazy!! When he asked a Republican representative if he had a child in Iraq, he edited out the answer the rep gave...that he had a nephew in Iraq and then proceeded to list other representatives who had children there. He took a comment Bush made concerning the Israeli/Palestinian situation and credited it to Iraq. I can cite other misrepresentations made by Moore. Enough to say it was viewed and applauded by known terrorist organizations.

=What reviews by Kerry's CO's do you refer to you?

You got me on that one. I received a link to a site that had the text of his performance reviews as well as an interpretation of the military terms and abbreviations used. I can't find the site, now, but I'll keep looking and forward it's url as soon as I find it. It would be a moot point, however, if Kerry released them as suggested by the topic of this whole discussion.

Zooke

15-08-2004, 18:09

you are the one NOT listening

Yes, I am listening. I am just not agreeing. I feel you attach importance to issues that I find trivial and vice versa.

Zeppistan

15-08-2004, 18:48

Yes, I am listening. I am just not agreeing. I feel you attach importance to issues that I find trivial and vice versa.

Zooke,
You seem to mistake our disaproval for Formal's debating tactics with a disapproval for her politics. The fact is that both her and her brother use a debating tactic of making false assertions, sometimes knowingly, abandoning these positions in favour of another without admitting to the initial error, and simply disapearing when caught for these transgressions.

I have caught her outright lying in a thread on a point more than a week after I had already disproved her assertion to her. A number of people got on her, and in the end all she would do is admit to "exaggerating" the contents of the report in question.

This is an inherently dishonest form of debate, and so if we are tired of it - well maybe you will be too after witnessing it a few times.

I welcome people of disparate beliefs here. It would be a dull place indeed if each time I made a point all I got was a chorus of "gosh - you're right!" posts.

So perhaps you might just consider that those of us here who are not so thrilled with her are not claiming that due to her politics, but rather that she seemingly cannot debate in an honest manner.

-Z-

BTW - Fox News DID have a partnership agreement to allow them to transmit in Canada. they withdrew from that and so now have to re-qualify for content rules the same as everyone else. That relates to their providing a certain amount of Canadian content to their broadcasts and has nothing to do with their politics.

If they choose not to comply, then they will not be allowed to broadcast. Simple as that.

Chess Squares

15-08-2004, 18:58

Yes, I am listening. I am just not agreeing. I feel you attach importance to issues that I find trivial and vice versa.
then how dare you accuse me of not listening

Grayisle

15-08-2004, 19:02

Zooke,
BTW - Fox News DID have a partnership agreement to allow them to transmit in Canada. they withdrew from that and so now have to re-qualify for content rules the same as everyone else. That relates to their providing a certain amount of Canadian content to their broadcasts and has nothing to do with their politics.

If they choose not to comply, then they will not be allowed to broadcast. Simple as that.

I thought that they pulled out of canada because canada was trying to make them edit out republican views. I guess Al Jazera give a lot of news about canadasince they are broadcast there. Since al quida gets a lot of their terrorists into the US through canada and the open borders, I guess they do.

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 19:07

I thought that they pulled out of canada because canada was trying to make them edit out republican views. I guess Al Jazera give a lot of news about canadasince they are broadcast there. Since al quida gets a lot of their terrorists into the US through canada and the open borders, I guess they do.

I'm sorry, but you have been misinformed. It was about Canadian content laws. Had nothing to do with their political slants.

As for terrorists, lets not forget that 16 out of the 19 were in the USA legally. You also certainly can't blame Canada for who the United States allows in their borders? Or do you believe it's Canada's job to protect American borders and not the job of the Americans?

Chess Squares

15-08-2004, 19:07

I thought that they pulled out of canada because canada was trying to make them edit out republican views. I guess Al Jazera give a lot of news about canadasince they are broadcast there. Since al quida gets a lot of their terrorists into the US through canada and the open borders, I guess they do.
maybe ALL tv stations have to go through a process to get on canadian tv, and fox hasnt, MAYBE its not the CANADIANS fault the borders are open, the US can make crossing the border stricter any time they want, but what about crossing the mexican border, there are plenty of illegal immigrants and other people crosisng it, actualyl bush is trying to make it EASIER for people to cross the mexican border by insituting a law where if you cross the border alot you dont get checked or checked less and can just cross

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 19:08

I'm sorry, but you have been misinformed. It was about Canadain content laws. Had nothing to do with their political slants.

As for terrorists, lets not forget that 16 out of the 19 were in the USA legally. You also certainly can't blame Canada for who the United States allows in their borders? Or do you believe it's Canada's job to protect American borders and not the job of the Americans?

I think he's talking about the Canadian Immigration laws which are pretty lax compared to us. You do allow pretty much anyone into your country steph.

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 19:10

I think he's talking about the Canadian Immigration laws which are pretty lax compared to us. You do allow pretty much anyone into your country steph.

Perhaps, but it is not the job of Canada to protect your borders. Lets not forget, you also let pretty much any one in via Mexico. Also, it might be worth pointing out that none of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States from Canada.

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 19:13

Perhaps, but it is not the job of Canada to protect your borders. Lets not forget, you also let pretty much any one in via Mexico. Also, it might be worth pointing out that none of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States from Canada.

Well the border is pretty big and people do cross into the USA Illegally through that border. I still say put the troops there but alas, the ACLU and other groups won't allow it. I know its not your job to defend our borders but it is your job to defend YOUR OWN borders.

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 19:15

know its not your job to defend our borders but it is your job to defend YOUR OWN borders.

Ditto!

Canada has no problem with terrorism, we must be doing some thing right ;)

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 19:17

Ditto!

Canada has no problem with terrorism, we must be doing some thing right ;)

You have nothing to hit in Canada! However, I do believe that an attack will come on Canadian Soil and when it does, the US will help out because that is what we do!

Chess Squares

15-08-2004, 19:22

You have nothing to hit in Canada! However, I do believe that an attack will come on Canadian Soil and when it does, the US will help out because that is what we do!
really, you would think places like toranto would be targets

Chess Squares

15-08-2004, 19:24

I think he's talking about the Canadian Immigration laws which are pretty lax compared to us. You do allow pretty much anyone into your country steph.
YET, it's not their job to protect us from people that get into their country, canada is not american and there IS a canada american border, guess who's the other half of the canada/america border

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 19:24

You have nothing to hit in Canada! However, I do believe that an attack will come on Canadian Soil and when it does, the US will help out because that is what we do!

Well, Canada is helping you fight the war on terror in Afghanistan, so I suppose it is possible, However, the reason we have never really had a problem with international terrorism is because of our foreign policy of not sticking our noses into other people's business unless they ask, Canada also has a reputation of being incredibly fair.

However, if the day ever does come that we are attacked, I would hope that the USA would return the favour that Canada did for you on 9/11.

Oh, as for having nothing to hit, research Formal, research! We have nuclear power plants, we have oil, lots and lots of oil. We aren't your largest trading partner in the world for nothing, or did you think you were only importing hockey sticks *LOL*

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 19:26

really, you would think places like toranto would be targets

They are but considering Canadian Policies, it really isn't the Number 1 Priority for Terrorists. WE are their number 1 priority, not Canada. Concerning Canadian Policies also doesn't make Canada the number 1 priority. However, Canada will suffer an attack one of these days. When it'll happen, I don't know. It could be years before one occurs. If one does occur, I wouldn't be surprised that it happened.

Chess Squares

15-08-2004, 19:26

, as for having nothing to hit, research Formal, research! We have nuclear power plants, we have oil, lots and lots of oil. We aren't your largest trading partner in the world for nothing, or did you think you were only importing hockey sticks *LOL*
hockey sticks? we import hockey sticks? i thought we made those ourselves in china and imported airtime with hockey on it from canada

Upright Monkeys

15-08-2004, 19:26

If you check Al-Qaeda's email (captured in Afghanistan), you'll see that any Al-Q attacks on Canadian soil probably wouldn't be directed at Canadians.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200409/cullison/

To: Real name unknown
From: Unknown
Folder: Hamza
Date: August 23, 2001

Special file for our brother Abu Bakr al-Albani ["the Albanian"] on the nature of his mission.

First, the mission: Gather information on:

1. Information on American soldiers who frequent nightclubs in the America-Canada border areas

2. The Israeli embassy, consulate, and cultural center in Canada

3. If it is possible to enter America and gather information on American soldier checkpoints, or on the American army in the border areas inside America

4. Information on the possibility of obtaining explosive devices inside Canada …

I have given to our brother $1,500 for travel expenses in Canada and America, and also the cost of the ticket for the trip back to us after four months, God willing.

Of course, security precautions have been taken - Canada does protect its borders, but not at the expense of tourism and civil rights (with the exception of the RCMP collaboration in the deportation of Maher Arar).

Chess Squares

15-08-2004, 19:27

They are but considering Canadian Policies, it really isn't the Number 1 Priority for Terrorists. WE are their number 1 priority, not Canada. Concerning Canadian Policies also doesn't make Canada the number 1 priority. However, Canada will suffer an attack one of these days. When it'll happen, I don't know. It could be years before one occurs. If one does occur, I wouldn't be surprised that it happened.
thats an assumption, there is always bigger more important targets than a country that minds its own business

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 19:31

Well, Canada is helping you fight the war on terror in Afghanistan, so I suppose it is possible, However, the reason we have never really had a problem with international terrorism is because of our foreign policy of not sticking our noses into other people's business unless they ask, Canada also has a reputation of being incredibly fair.

Well if we weren't the most powerful country, nations wouldn't be clamoring for our troops to help them. If Europe got off its bum and contribute MORE to help stablize certian parts of Europe, we wouldn't have as many soldiers in those parts of Europe. If the UN followed their own charter, Then maybe other nations would be helping elsewhere on Earth that really need it, like Iraq and Sudan. We are not the world's police force but people always ask us to police policy. If the world left us alone, we would leave you alone. That simple.

However, if the day ever does come that we are attacked, I would hope that the USA would return the favour that Canada did for you on 9/11.

You can bet that we would help you if you were attacked. We are allies and allies help eachother.

Oh, as for having nothing to hit, research Formal, research! We have nuclear power plants, we have oil, lots and lots of oil. We aren't your largest trading partner in the world for nothing, or did you think you were only importing hockey sticks *LOL*

LOL!!!!! I do know what you have but we have Nuclear plants here too, chemical plants, and bigger cities. I do know you have lots of oil and they too make good targets but really, US is the ace number 1 nation they want to hit.

Grayisle

15-08-2004, 19:35

Ditto!

Canada has no problem with terrorism, we must be doing some thing right ;)

Yeah you guys let world known terrorists run in and out your country whenever they want and you don't do anything to stop them. you ever heard of arrests? why would they want to mess up a good thing? its imposible to guard all of our mexican and canadian borders. we just expect mexico and canada to do something about keeping them out of there countries in the first place. anyway, how many mexicans have bombed anyone? they are just looking for jobs. canada just has sloppy laws.

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 19:37

LOL!!!!! I do know what you have but we have Nuclear plants here too, chemical plants, and bigger cities. I do know you have lots of oil and they too make good targets but really, US is the ace number 1 nation they want to hit.

Well, why wouldn't lets say the nuclear power plant in Pickering Ontario not be a good target? The fall-out would certainly not just effect us, it would also effect the USA. Check out where Pickering , Ontario is on a map ;)

Friends of Bill

15-08-2004, 19:39

So it is a matter of insults rather than providing something substantive?
If you read carefully, you will see I was responding to an insult with an insult.

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 19:39

Well, why wouldn't lets say the nuclear power plant in Pickering Ontario not be a good target? The fall-out would certainly not just effect us, it would also effect the USA. Check out where Pickering , Ontario is on a map ;)

I could think of a few Nuclear powerplants around here that would just devestate both of us. I know there's some near the border but not sure where exactly. I live about 30 minutes from a nuclear powerplant myself. If that goes up, you won't hear from me or my brother ever again! LOL!

Friends of Bill

15-08-2004, 19:41

See, this is a typical example of your bias and blindness. Why do you mention LBJ and not Nixon?

If you had been able to read the statement i made that you quoted, I only blame LBJ becuse he was president and micromanaging the war when Kerry was commititng war crimes. Please read slowly so that it can break through the logic barrier in your mind.

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 19:42

its imposible to guard all of our mexican and canadian borders. we just expect mexico and canada to do something about keeping them out of there countries in the first place. anyway, how many mexicans have bombed anyone? they are just looking for jobs. canada just has sloppy laws.

I see, so you make excuses for America's inability to protect it's border, yet no room for Canada. Who gets in your country is your problem. I'm sure just as many cross the Mexican border, with probably much more ease I might add. Don't blame Canada for people hating you, it's not our foreign policy that started all this, it was yours. So if we ever do get hit, shall I blame America for it's foreign policy? Your argument doesn't hold water.

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 19:44

I see, so you make excuses for America's inability to protect it's border, yet no room for Canada. Who gets in your country is your problem. I'm sure just as many cross the Mexican border, with probably much more ease I might add. Don't blame Canada for people hating you, it's not our foreign policy that started all this, it was yours. So if we ever do get hit, shall I blame America for it's foreign policy? Your argument doesn't hold water.

For once steph, your right here ;)

Chess Squares

15-08-2004, 19:49

Well if we weren't the most powerful country, nations wouldn't be clamoring for our troops to help them. If Europe got off its bum and contribute MORE to help stablize certian parts of Europe, we wouldn't have as many soldiers in those parts of Europe. If the UN followed their own charter, Then maybe other nations would be helping elsewhere on Earth that really need it, like Iraq and Sudan. We are not the world's police force but people always ask us to police policy. If the world left us alone, we would leave you alone. That simple.
how many troops do we have inEUROPE for security reasons?
and yes we are the world's police for, thank teddy roosevelt

LOL!!!!! I do know what you have but we have Nuclear plants here too, chemical plants, and bigger cities. I do know you have lots of oil and they too make good targets but really, US is the ace number 1 nation they want to hit.
because we make a POINT of pissing people off, not a habit, a POINT

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 19:52

how many troops do we have inEUROPE for security reasons?
and yes we are the world's police for, thank teddy roosevelt

Teddy Roosevelt did NOT make us the world Police force. After WWI, we went back to isolationism. WWII was when we were brought out of that again. The person that really made us the world police force was Eisenhower. Korea ring a bell? Ever since then, we've been involved in world affairs. WWII brought us out of it and Korea began our trek to being the world Police force.

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 19:56

You know, just an abstract thought. It is possible to be the world's super-power and at the same time have a foreign policy that doesn't make people want to kill you. I believe the real problem here is the elite, the elite who just happen to run your country, from both sides of the isle, Democrat and Republican a like.. because of greed. With power, greed is almost always surely to follow. If the elite were not so greedy for money and or power, most of your problems probably wouldn't exist today. A lot of things America has done they didn't have to. It was done out of power and greed. Any way, I won't go on, it was just a footnote

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 19:57

Grayisle

15-08-2004, 19:58

Teddy Roosevelt did NOT make us the world Police force. After WWI, we went back to isolationism. WWII was when we were brought out of that again. The person that really made us the world police force was Eisenhower. Korea ring a bell? Ever since then, we've been involved in world affairs. WWII brought us out of it and Korea began our trek to being the world Police force.

ive noticed that when other countries have a problem they start screaming for American soldier and American money to help them. but when we are attacked and decide to start hitting the countries that want to hurt us first then we are called bullys. the US is the worlds police force because we are asked for help and because we cant sit around doing nothing while other peoiople in other countries are suffering. one thing that canada and the US can agree on is that freedom is the best and it isn't free.

Friends of Bill

15-08-2004, 19:59

It is possible to be the world's super-power and at the same time have a foreign policy that doesn't make people want to kill you. That is a joke. People will always resent a sole superpower, be it the USA, the UK, France, or Rome. People hate those in a superior position to them.

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 20:05

That is a joke. People will always resent a sole superpower, be it the USA, the UK, France, or Rome. People hate those in a superior position to them.

That's not all together true.. pick up a history book and read why this has always been the case. For every country that has ever had super-power status they have abused it. They inventively fall because of it too. Look at why super-powers fall. Look at what super-powers through-out history have done. It might explain it a little better for you. You find me one super-power in history who has never abused that power, find me just one!

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 20:06

That's not all together true.. pick up a history book and read why this has always been the case. For every country that has ever had super-power status they have abused it. They inventively fall because of it too. Look at why super-powers fall. Look at what super-powers through-out history have done. It might explain it a little better for you. You find me one super-power in history who has never abused that power, find me just one!

You can't! Britian was a superpower and they lost it, including the American Colonies. Rome fell because of stupidity. Greece fell because of infighting (I think)!

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 20:11

You can't! Britian was a superpower and they lost it, including the American Colonies. Rome fell because of stupidity. Greece fell because of infighting (I think)!

It was all power & greed. Until a super-power can find a way around this fact they will keep falling and new ones will keep rising. It's a proven fact shown to us quite clearly through-out history. The problem is, people who desire power, seem to not learn from history and always end up greedy. They are never happy with what they have. They must have more. Maybe there is nothing we can do to stop it. Perhaps it's just human nature. That's a question better left to some one smarter then I.

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 20:12

It was all power & greed. Until a super-power can find a way around this fact they will keep falling and new ones will keep rising. It's a proven fact shown to us quite clearly through-out history. The problem is, people who desire power, seem to not learn from history and always end up greedy. They are never happy with what they have. They must have more. Maybe there is nothing we can do to stop it. Perhaps it's just human nature. That's a question better left to some one smarter then I.

Like God! ;) :p :D

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 20:13

Like God! ;) :p :D

Ok, a real person smarter then I.. :p

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 20:14

Ok, a real person smarter then I.. :p

LOL! Sorry couldn't help but say it steph! :)

Chess Squares

15-08-2004, 20:15

You can't! Britian was a superpower and they lost it, including the American Colonies. Rome fell because of stupidity. Greece fell because of infighting (I think)!
rome fell because their forces ended up being spread too thin and fell into a group of weak leaders who fought amosnt themselves

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 20:17

rome fell because their forces ended up being spread too thin and fell into a group of weak leaders who fought amosnt themselves

As I said, Stupidity!

Chess Squares

15-08-2004, 20:18

Teddy Roosevelt did NOT make us the world Police force. After WWI, we went back to isolationism. WWII was when we were brought out of that again. The person that really made us the world police force was Eisenhower. Korea ring a bell? Ever since then, we've been involved in world affairs. WWII brought us out of it and Korea began our trek to being the world Police force.

Roosevelt steered the United States more actively into world politics. He liked to quote a favorite proverb, "Speak softly and carry a big stick. . . . "

Aware of the strategic need for a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific, Roosevelt ensured the construction of the Panama Canal. His corollary to the Monroe Doctrine prevented the establishment of foreign bases in the Caribbean and arrogated the sole right of intervention in Latin America to the United States.

He won the Nobel Peace Prize for mediating the Russo-Japanese War, reached a Gentleman's Agreement on immigration with Japan, and sent the Great White Fleet on a goodwill tour of the world.

you also didnt answer my question, how many troops do we have in EUROPE fore european peace keeping purposes

Chess Squares

15-08-2004, 20:20

As I said, Stupidity!
bad "strategery" and look at what we got here, a dumb leader sending troops everywhere

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 20:23

Roosevelt steered the United States more actively into world politics. He liked to quote a favorite proverb, "Speak softly and carry a big stick. . . . "

Aware of the strategic need for a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific, Roosevelt ensured the construction of the Panama Canal. His corollary to the Monroe Doctrine prevented the establishment of foreign bases in the Caribbean and arrogated the sole right of intervention in Latin America to the United States.

He won the Nobel Peace Prize for mediating the Russo-Japanese War, reached a Gentleman's Agreement on immigration with Japan, and sent the Great White Fleet on a goodwill tour of the world.

I do know all of this Chess Squares! I've studied US History indepth. This did NOT lead us to where we are today. It was a symbol of what America can do. Germany knew this which was why Kiser bill wanted us to stay out of WWI! Yamamoto warned what would happen if they didn't destroy the Pacific Fleet. Everyone knows what the US is able to do if attacked directly. We've warned nations what would happen if they decided to attack us directly. Now we have nations that are clamoring to get our soldiers to mediate this dispute or that one. Europe needs to step in and take on what is going on within their own borders and to relieve us. Problem is, we are the most powerful military in the world. We are the most advanced too. These nations only want the best forces and THAT is why we are doing what we've been doing since Korea!

As for your answer, I'll have to look it up.

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 20:24

And why were they stretched to thin? They wanted more!

Yep yep and they were defeated by German Mercenaries!

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 20:26

Yep yep and they were defeated by German Mercenaries!

Well, at least you still got it..lol even though I responded to the wrong post...hehe

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 20:27

Well, at least you still got it..lol even though I responded to the wrong post...hehe

LOL! I do know my history :)

Grayisle

15-08-2004, 20:36

Like God! ;) :p :D

Watch out there! Liberals dont like you to bring God into a conversation. It violates there rights.

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 20:47

Watch out there! Liberals dont like you to bring God into a conversation. It violates there rights.

Ya know, it would appear to me that every one for the last three pages seem to have been getting along pretty good. I think the last thing Formal wishes is for you to take her comment out of context and turn it into a battle when it was simple fun ribbing, perhaps an inside joke between her and I that you don't know about? For all our faults Formal and I love to argue, but when push comes to shove, I seriously doubt you're going to get her all pumped up over that. She made the comment to me in jest. I actually respect her right to believe as she wishes. Don't try to cause trouble where there is none. It's sort of nice to see every one getting along.

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 20:58

Ya know, it would appear to me that every one for the last three pages seem to have been getting along pretty good. I think the last thing Formal wishes is for you to take her comment out of context and turn it into a battle when it was simple fun ribbing, perhaps an inside joke between her and I that you don't know about? For all our faults Formal and I love to argue, but when push comes to shove, I seriously doubt you're going to get her all pumped up over that. She made the comment to me in jest. I actually respect her right to believe as she wishes. Don't try to cause trouble where there is none. It's sort of nice to see every one getting along.

Shhh!!! Don't blow it Steph ;) :D

Grayisle

15-08-2004, 21:01

Chess Squares

15-08-2004, 21:04

ok it's your game. i'll go somewhere else. have fun with your leberal back patting party
i have YET to see any liberals sitting around patting each other on the back for furthering any ignorance coming from them, yet the republicans have circles of people standing around in a cross hand shake thing going on congratualting each other by name about how well the other is doing by repeating the same crap

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 21:04

ok it's your game. i'll go somewhere else. have fun with your leberal back patting party

ok? This was unexpected and I have no idea what he is talking about.

CanuckHeaven

15-08-2004, 21:08

Al Jazeera has just recently been approved to be aired in Canada. You wouldn't know anything about Fox as it is barred in Canada. Fox News station isn't allowed as the Canadian government deems that it portrays a biased right wing view. Go figure that rationale! Based on the Canadian government's vocal stand it would appear that if the two national newspapers are conservative in view, they are rebutting the govenment quite a bit. Or, perhaps, the Canadian view of conservative differs from the American view.
You have provided me much here to work with so here goes:

It appears that Zep in a post above details the Fox News situation, and it is not due to your assertion that Fox was denied due to their "biased right wing view".

You still didn't answer my question as to what you meant by "Canadian influenced"?

Where in the world did you get the idea that "left" meant "communist" in the US? Left is NOT communist.
I realize that "left is NOT communist", because that would be what you and I would call liberals? However, you stated that my views were "so far to the left", which most people in the US associate with Communism, which is not my ideology. So you need to be careful of labels?
Though a few liberals express socialist ideas, (and some right wingers express ideas that would have made Hitler proud) basically, at least in my opinion, the left are those who increase the size of government (therefore, taxes) to provide endless entitlements (creating dependency and lack of advancement),
Okay, let's see what the Republicans have done.

Increased the size of government through military expansion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38812-2004Mar7?language=printer

Increased the US Debt by $1.5 Trillion in just under 4 years, providing less entitlements especially to future generations. None of which went to help curbing poverty, which has grown by 3 million in the past 3 years. US ranks 17th out of 17 OECD countries for poverty:

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/cty/cty_f_USA.html

http://www.dsausa.org/lowwage/Documents/2004/Allegretto.html?docID=3304

Decreased taxes to provide "endless entitlement" to the wealthiest segment of the population, and do not provide the "trickle down" help to the economy:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

will deny freedom of speech claiming it's not politically correct, will give more weight to the civil rights of some over the rights of others, Liberals are the champions of "freedom of speech"?
believe all big business is corrupt and needs to be harnessed and controlled and beat into submission, and want to level the financial playing field for everyone through the efforts of this enlarged and improved government.Well there has been an awful lot of corrupt fraud and Bush's record has not been too good on combating it? There is also a lot of "corporate welfare" in the US?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/corporatecrimes_poll020716.html

Am I trying to portray myself as a centrist? No, I don't try to portray myself in any way. I have beliefs and views and I express them. If that qualifies me for the label "centrist", fine if it makes you feel better for having categorized me. It doesn't affect my opinions one way or another.
I had no illusions that you are a "centrist" by any stretch of the imagination. However, I do believe that one's views are expressed as to where one sits on the political map.

Yes it does happen on both sides. It's like the guy to tries to settle a disagreement by throwing a punch. As soon as he does that, he has lost the argument. As for you, if memory serves me correctly, I believe you called Formal "pathetic" and discounted her opinions. So, in that vein, you were guilty, also.Your memory does not serve you well. As a matter of fact, it was Friends of Bill who called me "pathetic", while trying to defend Formal.

I on the other hand stated that Formal Dances was a "hipocrite", and for good reason:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346544&page=60&pp=15

Starting at post #888.

Well you are entitled to your opinion on this matter, however, I do believe it is far more factual than as you say "fictional", and yes I have seen it too. BTW, I am an independent thinker and use a wealth of information that is available to draw my own conclusions. Certainly 911 offers some very good insight into George W. Bush.

Perhaps the dissection of 911 hasn't appeared in Canadian news, but it's been torn apart in the US.
Many Canadians have been to see 911, but there is no rush to try and credit or discredit it here in Canada. It certainly would have far greater political ramifications in the US, hence the heated debate.

Even the mother of the fallen GI that Moore highlighted in his little film, has come out protesting that he misrepresented her comments and her dead son's beliefs. Now that is sleazy!!
This I must see. Source?

When he asked a Republican representative if he had a child in Iraq, he edited out the answer the rep gave...that he had a nephew in Iraq and then proceeded to list other representatives who had children there.
I thought you saw this movie? Anyways, source?

Enough to say it was viewed and applauded by known terrorist organizations.
Source?

What reviews by Kerry's CO's do you refer to you?

You got me on that one. I received a link to a site that had the text of his performance reviews as well as an interpretation of the military terms and abbreviations used. I can't find the site, now, but I'll keep looking and forward it's url as soon as I find it. It would be a moot point, however, if Kerry released them as suggested by the topic of this whole discussion.
Well I would love to see the link, because you were trying to draw negative attention in regards to Kerry's CO's?

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 21:11

ok? This was unexpected and I have no idea what he is talking about.

Haha, apparently he's never read any of your other posts. You know it's so sad that some people just because they don't agree with a political position can't understand you can still be friends. I guess we are able to do that, apparently Grayisle is not. *Shrug*

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 21:16

Haha, apparently he's never read any of your other posts. You know it's so sad that some people just because they don't agree with a political position can't understand you can still be friends. I guess we are able to do that, apparently Grayisle is not. *Shrug*

You do have a point Steph! On this your right. Friends can be on opposite sides of the aisle but still get along! Look at us! LOL

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 21:20

You do have a point Steph! On this your right. Friends can be on opposite sides of the aisle but still get along! Look at us! LOL

Hey, look at all the times we battled like 90 miles an hour on IRC and then compare it to the day we waited for news on Al-Sadr, btw, I told you he wasn't home.. *LOL* :D

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 21:29

Hey, look at all the times we battled like 90 miles an hour on IRC and then compare it to the day we waited for news on Al-Sadr, btw, I told you he wasn't home.. *LOL* :D

Yea you did but we know where he is at and that is just as important. Now lets get the Iraqis to knock on the door and arrest the little bugger.

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 21:34

Yea you did but we know where he is at and that is just as important. Now lets get the Iraqis to knock on the door and arrest the little bugger.

Eh, they have to be careful, that Mosque is one of the holiest sites for all Shiite Muslims. I think even if the new Iraqi police destroyed it in any way it could cause a big backlash, it's probably why they haven't. Last I heard the new PM of Iraq (who has more power then the president under their system) said he still wants to bring Sadr into the fold. I just can't see that working out though personally.

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 21:36

Eh, they have to be careful, that Mosque is one of the holiest sites for all Shiite Muslims. I think even if the new Iraqi police destroyed it in any way it could cause a big backlash, it's probably why they haven't. Last I heard the new PM of Iraq (who has more power then the president under their system) said he still wants to bring Sadr into the fold. I just can't see that working out though personally.

However, if it is inevitable to destroy it, it'll have to be approved by Sistani (Sp?)! If he gives permission (though he's calling for peace) then the backlash would be minimal. If he doesn't approve it and its done anyway, then I say get the hell out of town!

I agree though that I doubt Al Sadr will be brought into the Fold. I don't see it happening either.

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 21:41

However, if it is inevitable to destroy it, it'll have to be approved by Sistani (Sp?)! If he gives permission (though he's calling for peace) then the backlash would be minimal. If he doesn't approve it and its done anyway, then I say get the hell out of town!

I agree though that I doubt Al Sadr will be brought into the Fold. I don't see it happening either.

Ayatollah Ali Sistani would never approve of it though. He may approve of them putting Sadr out of his misery, but that Mosque is even bigger then Sistani. I doubt he would ever dream or think of saying "Ok, blast it" That would be like asking the Pope to blow up St. Paul's.. It's just not going to happen.

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 21:42

Ayatollah Ali Sistani would never approve of it though. He may approve of them putting Sadr out of his misery, but that Mosque is even bigger then Sistani. I doubt he would ever dream or think of saying "Ok, blast it" That would be like asking the Pope to blow up St. Paul's.. It's just not going to happen.

He might though if its the only way. Otherwise, Al Sadr will just stay there inside that Mosque which is now a legal military target under the Geneva Convention.

Stephistan

15-08-2004, 21:47

He might though if its the only way. Otherwise, Al Sadr will just stay there inside that Mosque which is now a legal military target under the Geneva Convention.

Well, I think a smarter way would be to wait him out, starve him out. Any one coming out, doesn't get back in and no one gets in period. Saves the Mosque from being destroyed and Sadr will have to come out one way or the other. Or kill himself. Or, if Sadr destroys the Mosque then he will lose the support instead. It's the better way to go. As long as Sadr is in the Mosque he's contained. No sense inflaming the entire Shiite world when he's already basically surrounded.

Formal Dances

15-08-2004, 21:48

Well, I think a smarter way would be to wait him out, starve him out. Any one coming out, doesn't get back in and no one gets in period. Saves the Mosque from being destroyed and Sadr will have to come out one way or the other. Or kill himself. Or, if Sadr destroys the Mosque then he will lose the support instead. It's the better way to go. As long as Sadr is in the Mosque he's contained. No sense inflaming the entire Shiite world when he's already basically surrounded.

Bah! I'll concede this one but it'll be interesting to see what happens with this.

Joxr

15-08-2004, 21:50

1. CHRISTMAS IN CAMBODIA

John Kerry served four months in Vietnam and 19 years in the U.S. Senate, but you could be forgiven if you thought those numbers were backwards. With the constant focus on Kerry's military record and almost complete disregard for his career in government, you'd swear that he served a brief stint in the U.S. Senate and two decades in Vietnam. That's not to downplay his service in Vietnam, where he provided a brave and admirable service to the nation. But if Kerry is asking for votes based on his war record, then voters also have the right to consider statements he's made since returning from war.

Which brings us to Christmas in Cambodia.

In 1986, Nicaraguan contras continued a fierce fight, with some support from the U.S. government, against their Marxist Sandinista government. Senator John Kerry was very critical of U.S. involvement in Nicaragua and he often spoke out against increased U.S. support for the resistance. On March 27, 1986, Kerry delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate denouncing the Reagan administration's Central American policy and to warn against creating another Vietnam. But what made Kerry's speech noteworthy was not so much his position on Nicaragua, but rather a statement he made during the speech regarding his war experience two decades earlier:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared - seared - in me..."

It was a powerful statement, intended to demonstrate the inherent dangers in widening a war without first demonstrating a clear benefit to the United States. Kerry's claim - that he was secretly and illegally ordered into Cambodia by a President who denied ever sending him there - was extraordinarily affecting and disturbing.

It was also completely untrue.

According to a recent book written by men who served with Kerry in Vietnam, Kerry's story is a complete fabrication. In fact, every living commander in Kerry's chain of command has confirmed that Kerry's story is false. And three of five crewmen on Kerry's boat also deny it ever happened. (The remaining two declined to speak to the authors of the book.)

Not only do all these men deny that they or Kerry were in Cambodia on Christmas or Christmas Eve of 1968, they have said that none of them were ever in Cambodia.

So that memory that was seared - seared - in him... seems dubious at best. It would be nice to believe that Kerry merely misspoke, but that does not seem to be the case. In a Boston Globe interview, Kerry said the following:

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Basically the same story, but this time accusing Richard Nixon by name. One problem: On Christmas Eve of 1968, LBJ was president, not Richard Nixon. So to summarize so far, John Kerry didn't serve in a place a man who wasn't president denied ever ordering troops into.

If it seems like we're just dredging up embarrassing old quotes and misstatements, consider that John Kerry has repeated his story as recently as 1992 and it has appeared in biographical books as recently as a couple years ago.

Faced with growing skepticism about the Christmas in Cambodia story, a Kerry spokesman tried to explain: "[Kerry] had a mistaken recollection earlier... He has since corrected the record to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about the date."

So that memory that was seared - seared - in him... was apparently a little hazy. But what the Kerry campaign paints as an innocent mistake, when put in context, completely discredits the point Kerry was trying to make in the earlier quotes. He was telling the story to warn against widening U.S. military action, as he had supposedly participated in with his Christmas in Cambodia story. He warned against taking presidents at their word, as one had lied about his actions in 1968.

Now the story seems to be that he was merely approaching somewhere in the general surrounding vicinity of an area remotely near a place that kind of looked like the outskirts of the border of Cambodia.

And remember, his new claim that he was ordered there "at some point" is directly contradicted by nearly all of his superior officers and crewmates.

To be clear, John Kerry's service in Vietnam is not, and has never been, in question. His honesty and integrity are another story.

Upright Monkeys

15-08-2004, 21:59

Actually, I posted a thread that corrects this, and it sank like a stone. Kerry wasn't in Cambodia on Christmas 1968, but he was in January and February of 1969 - when Nixon was president.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/13/wus13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/13/ixworld.html

"On Christmas Eve he was near Cambodia; he was around 50 miles from the Cambodian border. There's no indictment of Kerry to be made, but he was mistaken about Christmas in Cambodia," said Douglas Brinkley, who has unique access to the candidate's wartime journals.

But Mr Brinkley rejected accusations that the senator had never been to Cambodia, insisting he was telling the truth about running undisclosed "black" missions there at the height of the war.

He said: "Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys." The missions were not armed attacks on Cambodia, said Mr Brinkley, who did not include the clandestine missions in his wartime biography of Mr Kerry, Tour of Duty.

"He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn't use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off."

Ironically, this proves that Richard Nixon is more memorable than Christmas.

So, about a decade and a half later, he was off by between six days and two months. I don't think that's nearly as big a deal as Bush's well-documented and multiple lies.

Even the Bush campaign admits that the statement in his campaign autobiography about him flying for "several years" is wrong. The explanations are that Bush was: 1) lying 2) too drugged out to remember how long he flew or 3) too lazy to read his own autobiography

NationStates Jolt Archive

Kerrys military record - Page 4