NationStates Jolt Archive

LOL - nice to see peole nailed with their own words.

Referenced here,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040819/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_war_critic

The full story in the Washinton Post is here (registration required)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."

"I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth. The group claims the backing of more than 250 Vietnam veterans, including a majority of Kerry's fellow boat commanders.

A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units in the flotilla also came under fire.



Sooo..... he WAS under fire, as well as ALL of the boats (including Kery's), and as Rassmann claimed when it came to Thurlow his getting HIS Bronze Star, but they WEREN'T under fire when it cames to Kerry's Bronze Star.


Odd how none of the official records back these guys up - at all isn't it?

I saw this on Reuters this morning and I just had to chuckle at how Swift Boat Veterans for Truth keeps crumbling, piece by piece. I guess the next time the GOP goes looking for shills, they'll do better background research.

Good point.
Yet another reason why I don't like the Bush Admin (I was going to say Republicans, but that's a bit rude) - the fact that Kerry was immediately called on to condemn those 'What did Bush do during the Vietnam war' ads and so far Bush has done nothing about the 'Kerry is a liar and did nothing to earn his medals' ads.
I don't quite understand how they can say Kerry lied to get his medals to further his career. Was he that forward thinking that he decided while on a boat in Vietnam that he would run for President in 35 years time?

Nod ... but you know how Bush are ... they only care what was said first, not what comes of it later. After all, they wouldn't want to be accused of "flip-flopping" if they accept new data and change what they believe.

Proof: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Bush just keeps climbing in the polls. *sigh*

*stamps "OWN3D" on the right wing foreheads, again"

lets see them dispute this if they can

Hopefully he'll lose...

Errm...if you trust that site, I wouldn't worry, seeing as how it has Kerry up by a boatload still. I don't believe for a minute that Kerry will take Florida, and I still think Bush will win.

The problem here of course is the classic marketing/psychological ploy of putting out an erroneous statement then having it proved wrong. The number of ppl who see the first ad and not the retraction, as well as the ppl who refuse to believe the retraction, as well as the ppl who believe the retraction to be false, as well as ppl who think 'there's no smoke without fire' (i.e. will be suspicious of Kerry from now on).
That can be a significant number, which is what Bush supporters are hoping for.

Errm...if you trust that site, I wouldn't worry, seeing as how it has Kerry up by a boatload still. I don't believe for a minute that Kerry will take Florida, and I still think Bush will win.

Oh I dunno ... the polls coming out of Florida has Kerry up by 7+ points over Bush. Kerry may actually take Florida unless Jeb rigs it again.

I actually do trust electoral-vote.com because it's built based on polls, rather than biased opinion.

Bush has climbed ... a few days ago, it had Kerry with 327 - a far more commanding lead. Colorado is still up in the air, though, because of the pending legislation that would allow them to split their electoral vote.

Personally, I wish Texas would split the Electoral vote. Bush does not have a lock on Texas ... there are millions of Democrats in Texas. If the Electorate were split in Texas, my best guess would be: 15 Kerry, 19 Bush

Unfortunately, Bush will probably get the majority and, hence, even the extremely Progressive Liberal Left-Wing Democrat that my Senate District elected as our Electorate will still have to vote Bush. Pisses me off.

Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry

Nearly 2/3rds of their initial contributions came from Texas home builder Robert Perry who never served in Vietnam.

fundrace.org -find your neighbors and see their donations

The problem here of course is the classic marketing/psychological ploy of putting out an erroneous statement then having it proved wrong. The number of ppl who see the first ad and not the retraction, as well as the ppl who refuse to believe the retraction, as well as the ppl who believe the retraction to be false, as well as ppl who think 'there's no smoke without fire' (i.e. will be suspicious of Kerry from now on).
That can be a significant number, which is what Bush supporters are hoping for.


The old standard ploy... throw as much mud as you can and hope that some sticks.

Frankly, the tactics of current politics makes me sick. It hardly even seems to be about what's best for the country anymore. Just about winning at all costs.

Thurlow has issued a statement claiming that he never requested a bronze star. He hs further went on to say that the language in that reprt was taken from John Kerry's application for a medal and that he was unaware of the bronze star until three months after he left the military.

I never believed that group about Kerry's war record, anyhow. But I think that, more importantly, this shows what some Swiftboat commanders think of Kerry. He essentially told Congress that all Vietnam vets, including himself, are war criminals. Then he turns around and makes it the cornerstone of his campaign. Don't you think that should make a few people angry?

LOL - nice to see peole nailed with their own words.

Referenced here,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040819/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_war_critic

The full story in the Washinton Post is here (registration required)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html




Sooo..... he WAS under fire, as well as ALL of the boats (including Kery's), and as Rassmann claimed when it came to Thurlow his getting HIS Bronze Star, but they WEREN'T under fire when it cames to Kerry's Bronze Star.


Odd how none of the official records back these guys up - at all isn't it?
I dont have any idea whether that swift stuff is true, but not many people will see this article, so I would call it good politics.

The head of Swift Boat Veterans For Truth was also paid by Nixon to discredit Kerry, thirty-three years ago.

Thurlow has issued a statement claiming that he never requested a bronze star. He hs further went on to say that the language in that reprt was taken from John Kerry's application for a medal and that he was unaware of the bronze star until three months after he left the military.Actually--you cut a bit out of his statement. What Thurlow actually said was "To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day." I could just as easily say "To my knowledge, there are no extant photographs of George W. Bush having sexual relations with a syphilitic donkey," disregard the high likelihood that Bush has not had sexual relations with a syphilitic donkey, and still be completely accurate in my statement.

Furthermore, Thurlow is suggesting that 1) Kerry lied to get him a medal he didn't deserve and yet accepted anyway (thus bringing Thurlow's own credibility and honesty into question) and 2) that the US military is so hopelessly inept in the awarding of medals that a person serving in the Air National Guard would have qualified for a Bronze Star for ordering the clay pot catfish at the Pho Tang restaurant last Tuesday.

Put simply, Thurlow is full of shit.

I never believed that group about Kerry's war record, anyhow. But I think that, more importantly, this shows what some Swiftboat commanders think of Kerry. He essentially told Congress that all Vietnam vets, including himself, are war criminals. Then he turns around and makes it the cornerstone of his campaign. Don't you think that should make a few people angry?

Only those that aren't war criminals.

I never believed that group about Kerry's war record, anyhow. But I think that, more importantly, this shows what some Swiftboat commanders think of Kerry. He essentially told Congress that all Vietnam vets, including himself, are war criminals. Then he turns around and makes it the cornerstone of his campaign. Don't you think that should make a few people angry?Purly--there's a big difference between "essentially told Congress" and actually told Congress. The first is a judgment in tone and the second is, well, usually a quote or at least a paraphrase. Now I haven't read Kerry's testimony before the Senate, but I'm willing to bet that you haven't either, because knowing you, you'd have quoted Kerry directly if he'd suggested that all Vietnam vets were war criminals. So why not look it up and find out exactly what Kerry said and form your opinion based on that, instead of RNC talking points?

LOL - nice to see peole nailed with their own words.

Referenced here,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040819/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_war_critic

The full story in the Washinton Post is here (registration required)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html




Sooo..... he WAS under fire, as well as ALL of the boats (including Kery's), and as Rassmann claimed when it came to Thurlow his getting HIS Bronze Star, but they WEREN'T under fire when it cames to Kerry's Bronze Star.


Odd how none of the official records back these guys up - at all isn't it?
Even odder is your putting stock in this when he didn't write the award paperwork. Who did? According to military regulations, someone with firsthand knowledge of the event. Who was it? Tell us, oh wise one. Probably kerry, who fled from the scene while three other boats stayed to help the damaged fourth boat. kerry in the fifth boat fled the scene like a coward. Who wrote the award citation, zep? Do you know? Didn't think so, so you have no idea wether that award paperwork reflects the actual events or not, do you? kerry only came back after he realized the was no shooting going on. Probably wanted to shoot another kid in the back. Thurlow has said he wasn't under fire, so who are you going to believe? The man who was there, or a piece of paper that wasn't there? Was the paper there? Were you? Thurlow was. So were numerous other Swift Boat veterans. kerry wasn't even there, he ran like a coward. Ding, your wrong again.

Even odder is your putting stock in this when he didn't write the award paperwork. Who did? According to military regulations, someone with firsthand knowledge of the event. Who was it? Tell us, oh wise one. Probably kerry, who fled from the scene while three other boats stayed to help the damaged fourth boat. kerry in the fifth boat fled the scene like a coward. Who wrote the award citation, zep? Do you know? Didn't think so, so you have no idea wether that award paperwork reflects the actual events or not, do you? kerry only came back after he realized the was no shooting going on. Probably wanted to shoot another kid in the back. Thurlow has said he wasn't under fire, so who are you going to believe? The man who was there, or a piece of paper that wasn't there? Was the paper there? Were you? Thurlow was. So were numerous other Swift Boat veterans. kerry wasn't even there, he ran like a coward. Ding, your wrong again.And you know all this how? Let me guess--you were there, since you are the great god of all things military. :rolleyes:

I'll take my chances with the stories of the guy who was saved, the guy who was on the boat with both Kerry and the guy who was saved, and with the official military statements that awarded medals both to Thurlow and to Kerry, instead of paid Republican hacks who've been busted on the front page of the Washington Post and the likes of you.

Even odder is your putting stock in this when he didn't write the award paperwork. Who did? According to military regulations, someone with firsthand knowledge of the event. Who was it? Tell us, oh wise one. Probably kerry, who fled from the scene while three other boats stayed to help the damaged fourth boat. kerry in the fifth boat fled the scene like a coward. Who wrote the award citation, zep? Do you know? Didn't think so, so you have no idea wether that award paperwork reflects the actual events or not, do you? kerry only came back after he realized the was no shooting going on. Probably wanted to shoot another kid in the back. Thurlow has said he wasn't under fire, so who are you going to believe? The man who was there, or a piece of paper that wasn't there? Was the paper there? Were you? Thurlow was. So were numerous other Swift Boat veterans. kerry wasn't even there, he ran like a coward. Ding, your wrong again.

Were you there? No. Was the guy who Kerry saved? Yes.

And you know all this how? Let me guess--you were there, since you are the great god of all things military. :rolleyes:

I'll take my chances with the stories of the guy who was saved, the guy who was on the boat with both Kerry and the guy who was saved, and with the official military statements that awarded medals both to Thurlow and to Kerry, instead of paid Republican hacks who've been busted on the front page of the Washington Post and the likes of you.Hey hack, good to see you interject your worthless opinion. Michael Moore called. He wants his lies back, you have used them all up, and now he can't get his deposit.

Statement by Navy Veteran Van Odell, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

in Rebuttal to Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, August 19, 2004


A courageous, soft spoken man of the Midwest, Larry Thurlow has a heart bigger than the great plains and a commitment to truth and honesty that is boundless. He is under attack, because John Kerry is feeling the heat of truth at the hands of this honest man and others like him.

The Kerry Campaign is attacking the truthfulness of this man and the Bronze Star he so richly deserves for his actions on March 13, 1969. I was there. I saw what happened.

The mine's detonation lifted PCF-3 completely out of the water just yards ahead of me. All boats commenced suppression fire in case enemy small arms fire ensued. None did.

All boats came to the aid of PCF-3, except one: John Kerry's boat. Kerry fled.

Larry Thurlow piloted his boat straight toward the mine-damaged PCF-3 from which thick, black smoke billowed. He jumped aboard and personally led damage control operations that saved the boat and rescue operations that saved the lives of badly wounded men. Larry's leadership was in the highest traditions of the naval service. His leadership allowed the other men and boats of the mission to exit the river safely. This single act of meritorious service -- the chief requirement of the Bronze Star -- should be honored, not ridiculed, by the Kerry campaign and its allies in the mainstream media.

To reiterate, only one enemy weapon was deployed that day -- the command-detonated submerged mine that disabled PCF-3. Larry Thurlow's citation contained references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire," because that was the language chosen by John Kerry who penned the spot report on the action that day. There was no "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" received that day. John Kerry's report was fiction -- a hoax on the entire chain of command. Larry Thurlow's heroism and meritorious service, however, is real.

To me Larry is one of the heroes of our country. He is a man who served his country when called and who returned home to be a productive citizen. Larry and men like him are the strong backbone of our society. I am proud to have served with him.

Here's the thing, FOB--and I want to point this out because you claim to be such an expert on all things military. In order to qualify to receive the Bronze Star, you have to be engaged in action against an enemy, which means that there has to be proof of an enemy that you are engaging. How do I know this? I looked it up. (http://www.amervets.com/replacement/bs.htm#prp)
A. Authorized by Executive Order 9419, "Bronze Star Medal," February 4, 1944, superseded by Executive Order 11046 (reference (sss)). b. Awarded to any person who, after December 6, 1941, while serving in any capacity with the Armed Forces of the United States, distinguishes himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, under any of the following circumstances:

(1) While engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States. A-7

(2) While engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force.

(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

c. When the Bronze Star is awarded for heroism, a bronze letter "V" (for valor) is worn on the suspension and service ribbon of that medal.I bolded those selections because of the unique circumstances involved in this incident. Had this simply been a case of a mine hitting a boat and Thurlow aiding the people aboard to get to other boats, then he certainly wouldn't qualify for a Bronze Star. Why? Because if there was no enemy fire, then there was no proof of an enemy that was engaged. That mine could have been placed at any previous time and there would have been no cause to give anyone in that action that particualr award, much less to award two of them to separate individuals.

So either there was enemy fire and Thurlow and Odell are willing to lie to the press in order to make Kerry look bad, to the extent that they're willing to openly admit that at least Thurlow received an award that he didn't deserve and never questioned, thereby destroying any sort of honor he had received over the years, or there was no enemy fire and both Kerry and Thurlow, not to mention Rassman and the other people who served on Kerry's boat have been lying for over thirty years about what happened in Vietnam that day.

Either way, Thurlow is a shitbag with zero credibility.

Here's the thing, FOB--and I want to point this out because you claim to be such an expert on all things military. In order to qualify to receive the Bronze Star, you have to be engaged in action against an enemy, which means that there has to be proof of an enemy that you are engaging. How do I know this? I looked it up. (http://www.amervets.com/replacement/bs.htm#prp)
I bolded those selections because of the unique circumstances involved in this incident. Had this simply been a case of a mine hitting a boat and Thurlow aiding the people aboard to get to other boats, then he certainly wouldn't qualify for a Bronze Star. Why? Because if there was no enemy fire, then there was no proof of an enemy that was engaged. That mine could have been placed at any previous time and there would have been no cause to give anyone in that action that particualr award, much less to award two of them to separate individuals.

So either there was enemy fire and Thurlow and Odell are willing to lie to the press in order to make Kerry look bad, to the extent that they're willing to openly admit that at least Thurlow received an award that he didn't deserve and never questioned, thereby destroying any sort of honor he had received over the years, or there was no enemy fire and both Kerry and Thurlow, not to mention Rassman and the other people who served on Kerry's boat have been lying for over thirty years about what happened in Vietnam that day.

Either way, Thurlow is a shitbag with zero credibility.
Hey, you know what it is called when a little wire runs to a mine, and it is detonated by someone? Remotely detonated. You know what it is called when you call someone a "a shitbag with zero credibility"? Irony. 65 Purple heart winners and 210 other swift boat vets say he is lying, you, some others on here, and 8 crewmates say he is not. Kerry Fled

Actually--you cut a bit out of his statement. What Thurlow actually said was "To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day." I could just as easily say "To my knowledge, there are no extant photographs of George W. Bush having sexual relations with a syphilitic donkey," disregard the high likelihood that Bush has not had sexual relations with a syphilitic donkey, and still be completely accurate in my statement.
If John Kerry would just save us all a big head ache and release his thrice damned records we wouldn't have to talk about this now would we.

Furthermore, Thurlow is suggesting that 1) Kerry lied to get him a medal he didn't deserve and yet accepted anyway (thus bringing Thurlow's own credibility and honesty into question)
If Thrulow just kept silent and received a bronze star in that manner, than John Kerry actively lied to receive a bronze star.
This would then prove that Thurlow was telling the truth in the first place, meaning that it doesn't matter how much credibility you think he has because he was right anyway.

and 2) that the US military is so hopelessly inept in the awarding of medals that a person serving in the Air National Guard would have qualified for a Bronze Star for ordering the clay pot catfish at the Pho Tang restaurant last Tuesday.
Does it surprise you that a bureacracy would be filled with ineptness and incompetence?
Have you never been to the DMV? All they have to do is administer drivers licenses and help idiots fill out forms. A military bureacracy has to hand out awards, help idiots fill out forms, get soldiers to where they should be, get soldiers' mail to the soldiers who are where they are supposed to be, realize that the soldiers are not infact where they need to be as, due to a typo, a large contingent of soldiers are now headed off to invade Florida (the one happy effect of this is that there mail was also sent to Florida), get soldiers home again after their tour of duty (preferably w/o orders to attack their homes), send them off to start their tour of duty, etc., etc.
Anyways, you are exagerating to ridiculous extremes (so was I, but thats not the point). Now if that soldier claimed to have led a valiant head on assasult to seize said clay pot catfish, well that would be another matter.

Put simply, Thurlow is full of shit.
And so, goodsir, are you.

He essentially told Congress that all Vietnam vets, including himself, are war criminals. Then he turns around and makes it the cornerstone of his campaign. Don't you think that should make a few people angry?

Agreed. Kerry's such a damn hypocrite. He's one of the most callous, arrogant, disgusting excuse for a man I've ever seen. Like Bush, he cares nothing about his country or its constitution, and is just a money-grubbing, deranged, power-hungry madman.

I feel sorry for you FOB and Hajekistan. I really do. Not just for being so blinded by ignorant hatred of a man you don't even know that you're willing to stretch the limits of credulity to ridiculous proportions, but because it's going to absolutely kill you to know that Kerry is going to be the President for the next 8 years, because in the end, no matter how much shit these liars calling them Swift Boat Veterans for Bush try to smear on Kerry, when it comes right down to it, if you're going to compare Kerry's record to Bush, there's no contest.

Kerry--two tours in Vietnam, active, winner of five medals.

Bush--Texas Air National Guard, grounded for failing to take a physical, open questions about the amount of service he actually performed.

And that's just the military record. The only way Bush has managed to stay close to Kerry in the polls--and he's not staying close in most of the battleground states--is by trying to get people to focus on anything not Bush and not related to the country today. Bush people don't talk about the economy anymore, they don't talk about job creation, they don't talk about Iraq or the war on "terra." Why? Because it's all bad for them and they know it. So they talk about Swift Boat Vets for Bush and create flip-flops where they don't exist in hopes that they can fool just enough people to squeak by again. Sorry bub--ain't gonna work this time. Bush is toast. Get ready for 8 years of Kerry/Edwards.

You keep that deluded world view right up until election night, and I'll be here to mock you, Deaniac.


Kerry Fled

Get ready for 8 years of Kerry/Edwards.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! Why, God, why? What have I done to deserve this? :eek: :headbang: :mad: :headbang: :eek:

You keep that deluded world view right up until election night, and I'll be here to mock you, Deaniac.



And we'll be here to mock you when bush fails to get reelected.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! Why, God, why? What have I done to deserve this? :eek: :headbang: :mad: :headbang: :eek:
Not to worry, ain't gonna happen.

Kerry Fled

Not to worry, ain't gonna happen.

I hope you're right... :(

I mean, don't get me wrong, I can't stand Bush, but when it comes to bona fide @$$holes, Kerry takes the cake. If he does get elected, I'm moving my ass to another country ASAP (I'll probably live with my girlfriend in Thailand :fluffle: )

Not to worry, ain't gonna happen.

Kerry Fled
Keep telling yourself that--you might believe it eventually. It won't be true, but you'll delude yourself into believing it nonetheless.

8 years of Kerry/Edwards--get ready for it.

I hope you're right... :(

I mean, don't get me wrong, I can't stand Bush, but when it comes to bona fide @$$holes, Kerry takes the cake. If he does get elected, I'm moving my ass to another country ASAP (I'll probably live with my girlfriend in Thailand :fluffle: )
Have a good trip. I'll miss you.

8 years of Kerry/Edwards--get ready for it.

What're you tryin' to do, give a guy nightmares?

:eek:

Keep telling yourself that--you might believe it eventually. It won't be true, but you'll delude yourself into believing it nonetheless.

8 years of Kerry/Edwards--get ready for it.
Kerry Fled and Edwards ruined health care in the United States

Have a good trip. I'll miss you.

:( I'll send you a postcard. ;)

What're you tryin' to do, give a guy nightmares?

:eek:
No, thats 8 years of Edwards-Clinton that will follow.

Kerry Fled and Edwards ruined health care in the United States
Wow. I assume you have some sources to back up the first (besides some BS from a person who is lying through his teeth) and the second?

No, thats 8 years of Edwards-Clinton that will follow.

:( I may never sleep again... :eek:

:sad: I may never sleep again... :eek:

oh, oyu know you like it.

Kerry Fled

Prove it.

And no, you haven't already.

I don't care what happened 30 years ago. If Kerry wants to fancy himself a war hero then fine. If Bush wants to discredit it, then fine. The bottom line is this... Who is going to lead this country TODAY! The world is a lot different that 30 years ago. :mp5:
Personally, my heroes have always been cowboys :D

Edwards ruined health care in the United StatesOh, this is priceless. Edwards did this all by himself? Wow--you've just gone beyond ludicrous into plaid.

http://john-kerry.tonyspencer.com/edwards-trial-lawyer.htm

By the way, Kerry Fled

http://john-kerry.tonyspencer.com/edwards-trial-lawyer.htm

By the way, Kerry Fled
Ah, you mean that Edwards represented people who sued a bunch of doctors who wouldn't know a fetus from their ass? Sorry, but it takes more then one person to decide a trial Bill.

http://john-kerry.tonyspencer.com/edwards-trial-lawyer.htm

By the way, Kerry Fled

Don't know about that, but I do know that

Kerry sucks

Don't know about that, but I do know that

Kerry sucks
Are you implying that he is gay?

Are you implying that he is gay?
Lol, that could explain the way he and edwards stare at each other. With that twinkle in their eyes.

And another good reason to vote for them. First gay president!

Are you implying that he is gay?

No; however, his face does look like clods of dog feces lumped together and molded into a human face. :p

No; however, his face does look like clods of dog feces lumped together and molded into a human face. :p
As opposed to President "I can't pronunciate anything with more then three syllables correctly" :p

As opposed to President "I can't pronunciate anything with more then three syllables correctly" :p

Wow, when your messiah and savior finally gets burned good you insult our presidents intelligence.

As opposed to President "I can't pronunciate anything with more then three syllables correctly" :p

No, his face looks like clods of pig feces molded together into the shape of a human face, with little black beads for eyes! :p

I feel sorry for you FOB and Hajekistan. I really do. Not just for being so blinded by ignorant hatred of a man you don't even know that you're willing to stretch the limits of credulity to ridiculous proportions,
And I must admire you, because somehow you can fit your head up your ass without removing the pole lodged up there.
Anyway, Why do you hate Bush?
Why do you hate me?
Why do you hate FOB?
I don't have blind hatred, I have formulated disgust. Yet, you seem to blindly hate all three of us, why is that?

but because it's going to absolutely kill you to know that Kerry is going to be the President for the next 8 years, because in the end, no matter how much shit these liars calling them Swift Boat Veterans for Bush try to smear on Kerry, when it comes right down to it, if you're going to compare Kerry's record to Bush, there's no contest.
You can tell the future? Woah, man, what kind of shit are you smoking.
Anyway, if a Democrat wins the 2008 election it will be Hillary Clinton. She is just waiting in the wings for a handful of years, and when she moves for the big prize no Democrat will stand in her way.

Kerry--two tours in Vietnam, active, winner of five medals.
Excepting the fact that john Kerry didn't want to go to Vietnam, he joined the Naval Reserves (thats right, the National Guard was called to Vietnam).
Excepting the fact that john Kerry's first "tour" never had him actually going to Vietnam. He just went sort of near it on a ship, not particularly heroic considering the fact that the Viet Cong had approximatey jack shit in the way of serious naval power (aka Submarines, Aircraft carriers, Battleships, etc.).
Excepting the fact that serious issues have been raised about how he obtained those medals. Issues that have been raised since shortly after Vietnam. Issues that have been raised by many more people than just the couple who have been successfully targetted.

Bush--Texas Air National Guard, grounded for failing to take a physical, open questions about the amount of service he actually performed.
There are open questions about Kerry's service, questions he could dispel if he just made his war records public (like George Bush has).
It makes you wonder why he makes it such an issue for the opposition when he could just open up his record to the public and prove how great he is?

And that's just the military record. The only way Bush has managed to stay close to Kerry in the polls--and he's not staying close in most of the battleground states--is by trying to get people to focus on anything not Bush and not related to the country today. Bush people don't talk about the economy anymore, they don't talk about job creation, they don't talk about Iraq or the war on "terra."
John Kerry doesn't talk about the issues either. He takes the Clinton approach of looking concerned and talking about he is the greatest thing that ever happened to America since a bunch of apatalist white conservatives refused to allow a distant and over-taxing government to disarm them.
John Kerry, he has a plan, but he won't tell anyone unless he wins the presidency because his mommy said he didn't have to.

Why? Because it's all bad for them and they know it. So they talk about Swift Boat Vets for Bush and create flip-flops where they don't exist in hopes that they can fool just enough people to squeak by again. Sorry bub--ain't gonna work this time. Bush is toast. Get ready for 8 years of Kerry/Edwards.
Yeah John Kerry is completely reliable and has never flip-flopped, as he said: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." f he wins a first term, then I will shave everything, and I mean everything. And if Kerry/Edwards wins a second term, I will personally strip naked and run through the streets of Washington D.C. while singing "This land is your land, this land is my land."

And if Kerry/Edwards wins a second term, I will personally strip naked and run through the streets of Washington D.C. while singing "This land is your land, this land is my land."

:eek:

Yeah John Kerry is completely reliable and has never flip-flopped, as he said: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Honestly, research before you spout. This statement alone makes you lose credibility. He did not flip flop on it. He voted for the proposition in its original form. When altercations were made that he didn't agree with and it came to a second vote he decided not to do so because of the changes made between the two votes. This is not flip-flopping, it is how the Senate works.

And I must admire you, because somehow you can fit your head up your ass without removing the pole lodged up there.
Anyway, Why do you hate Bush?
Why do you hate me?
Why do you hate FOB?
I don't have blind hatred, I have formulated disgust. Yet, you seem to blindly hate all three of us, why is that?

Sad, in a three-legged, one-eyed kitten kinda way


Excepting the fact that john Kerry didn't want to go to Vietnam, he joined the Naval Reserves (thats right, the National Guard was called to Vietnam).
Excepting the fact that john Kerry's first "tour" never had him actually going to Vietnam. He just went sort of near it on a ship, not particularly heroic considering the fact that the Viet Cong had approximatey jack shit in the way of serious naval power (aka Submarines, Aircraft carriers, Battleships, etc.).
Excepting the fact that serious issues have been raised about how he obtained those medals. Issues that have been raised since shortly after Vietnam. Issues that have been raised by many more people than just the couple who have been successfully targetted.
Not to mention that Kerry Fled

Kerry Fled

I don't know about that, but I'm sure as hell gonna flee if he wins the election! :eek:

I don't know about that, but I'm sure as hell gonna flee if he wins the election! :eek:
Just like all those liberals that moved to Canada when Bush won :rolleyes:

Just like all those liberals that moved to Canada when Bush won :rolleyes:

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

Not to mention that Kerry Fled

You keep saying that...when are you going to prove it?

Wait, let me talk like you do.

PROVE IT

Just like all those liberals that moved to Canada when Bush won :rolleyes:

Except I ain't movin' to Canada. :rolleyes:

'Sides, I don't like Bush, either.

The Nomadic Peoples of Corpuscle do not recognise the existence of a person named John Kerry.
We refuse to be drawn into the authoritarian and humiliating process of naming of individuals by their biological parents. This can not be allowed to continue.
So, while we concede there are (or possibly were) two adult individuals who decided to name a male child of theirs, John Kerry - we cannot accept the existence of this child by this name.
By inference, we do not recognise the existence of any person, or nation - including ourselves.
Corpuscle, as a result, does not exist and we refuse to be drawn into further conversations.
(We also have some camels for sale if anyone's interested.)

Except I ain't movin' to Canada. :rolleyes:

'Sides, I don't like Bush, either.
Ah, Mexico senor?

And I must admire you, because somehow you can fit your head up your ass without removing the pole lodged up there.
Anyway, Why do you hate Bush?
Why do you hate me?
Why do you hate FOB?
I don't have blind hatred, I have formulated disgust. Yet, you seem to blindly hate all three of us, why is that?


I don't hate any of you. I have extreme dislike for Bush because of what he's done to the country I love, but it's not hatred. And as for you and FOB, I find you frustrating, but I don't hate you. It's not worth the time and effort.

You can tell the future? Woah, man, what kind of shit are you smoking.
Anyway, if a Democrat wins the 2008 election it will be Hillary Clinton. She is just waiting in the wings for a handful of years, and when she moves for the big prize no Democrat will stand in her way.Kerry will run for re-election in 2008 and will win. That's my prediction--the first part based on the political reality right now and the desperation in the Bush campaign, the second part just on hope. And Hillary Clinton--much to the chagrin of the right wing--will not run for President if we have a President Kerry (so she won't run ever).

Excepting the fact that john Kerry didn't want to go to Vietnam, he joined the Naval Reserves (thats right, the National Guard was called to Vietnam).
Excepting the fact that john Kerry's first "tour" never had him actually going to Vietnam. He just went sort of near it on a ship, not particularly heroic considering the fact that the Viet Cong had approximatey jack shit in the way of serious naval power (aka Submarines, Aircraft carriers, Battleships, etc.).

Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam. Get your facts straight. Not even the Swift Vets have challenged that.
Excepting the fact that serious issues have been raised about how he obtained those medals. Issues that have been raised since shortly after Vietnam. Issues that have been raised by many more people than just the couple who have been successfully targetted.No--issues have been raised by non-serious people. There have been no serious issues raised, much as you would like us to think otherwise.

There are open questions about Kerry's service, questions he could dispel if he just made his war records public (like George Bush has).
It makes you wonder why he makes it such an issue for the opposition when he could just open up his record to the public and prove how great he is?Kerry's record is open--far more so than Bush's is.

John Kerry doesn't talk about the issues either. He takes the Clinton approach of looking concerned and talking about he is the greatest thing that ever happened to America since a bunch of apatalist white conservatives refused to allow a distant and over-taxing government to disarm them.
John Kerry, he has a plan, but he won't tell anyone unless he wins the presidency because his mommy said he didn't have to.Wrong again, but no matter--you're so sold on your belief that you wouldn't believe me if I proved it to you a million times.

Yeah John Kerry is completely reliable and has never flip-flopped, as he said: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."Ah yes--the bill the Republicans voted against before they voted for it, because they wanted to protect tax cuts for the wealthy and not hold Bush responsible for the money. I'll take Kerry's vote any day--it was the responsible position to take.

If he wins a first term, then I will shave everything, and I mean everything. And if Kerry/Edwards wins a second term, I will personally strip naked and run through the streets of Washington D.C. while singing "This land is your land, this land is my land."I'll hold you to it, when it happens.

Except I ain't movin' to Canada. :rolleyes:

'Sides, I don't like Bush, either.

So either way you lose in this election.

The Nomadic Peoples of Corpuscle do not recognise the existence of a person named John Kerry.
We refuse to be drawn into the authoritarian and humiliating process of naming of individuals by their biological parents. This can not be allowed to continue.
So, while we concede there are (or possibly were) two adult individuals who decided to name a male child of theirs, John Kerry - we cannot accept the existence of this child by this name.
By inference, we do not recognise the existence of any person, or nation - including ourselves.
Corpuscle, as a result, does not exist and we refuse to be drawn into further conversations.
(We also have some camels for sale if anyone's interested.)

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1223
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1230

Those are the RP forums.

So either way you lose in this election.

Yep.

:(

Ah, Mexico senor?

No, sir, Thailand. :D

No, sir, Thailand. :D
O.o

bump

bump
Does that help?

So Thailand. Dare I ask why?

Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Jack Chenoweth

I am outraged by Michael Dobbs' attack on Larry Thurlow and his Bronze Star award.

The reason the citation mentions "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" is because it is based on the "spot report" that John Kerry submitted. Any and all awards presented for actions on 13 March 1969 would be similar, if not verbatim, regarding enemy gunfire, because the only information submitted to the chain of command was falsified by Kerry.

Mr. Dobbs also grossly mischaracterizes my statements, and probably those of Richard Pees as well, when he states that we "do not remember coming under 'enemy fire.'" He needs to go back and review his notes. I emphatically told him -– as I’ve told countless other reporters -- that there was no enemy gunfire from either bank at any time, that the only event of the day was the mine under PCF 3, followed by suppression fire from all of our boats.

Mr. Dobbs is entitled to take whatever position he wants on the issue of who is telling the truth, but it is not right for him to mischaracterize my remarks so that it looks like I didn't "remember" whether there was enemy fire. I remember vividly. There was no enemy fire.

Kerry Fled

Does that help?

So Thailand. Dare I ask why?

My girlfriend lives there. :p

(She's much better than I deserve, though)

I saw this on Reuters this morning and I just had to chuckle at how Swift Boat Veterans for Truth keeps crumbling, piece by piece. I guess the next time the GOP goes looking for shills, they'll do better background research.
Hell, if you read Clauswitz you find that "War is politics by other means", so it stands to reason that politics is WAR by other means, and in war "truth is the first casualty". Looks like God's Own Party shot themselves in the foot.

When will people get off the vietnam issue and look at the issues that currently face our nation. Ok, both men served in the manner they saw fit. National guard v. Swift Boat. Both are respectable. Look at the records since Vietnam, and Bush clearly is the man for the job. Research some of kerry's votes ( of the 25% he attended) over his years in the Senate and decide if he is the man for the job. I clearly think not. Furthermore, I would appreciate it you Bush haters would explain Kerry's position on one issue because he clearly has not. I would assume that most of you believe the Iraq war was wrong, so explain the contradiction your candidate has in supporting the war, and then voting against the funding of our troops. He has said he would still go to war, he would just do it "differently." You false belief in an anti-war candidate is ridiculous unless you support Nader. Anybody but Bush is your motto, because it is easy to not think and believe what you are told by watching 5 minutes of ABC after Survivor. Let one terrorist get on a plane with small pox, and as you choke and gag you are going to wish that you had voted for the man who may have made some mistakes, and may not be the most eloquent speaker, but would protect America at any cost. Kerry has voted against all major defense bills and equipment that currently keep us safe. The ONLY thing he has to offer is that he served in Vietnam. He has been in the Senate for many years. Why is he not talking about that? Because his record sucks. Might I remind some of you.

Article II of the US Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of His Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—” I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

No one can say Bush has not done this. And your "Bush lied" argument. Kerry was on the Senate intellegence comittee. He saw the same intelligence Bush did and voted for war. Did he lie as well, or is he just inept. We waited 12 years for the UN to act and did not because they were getting paid off by Iraq. Bush went to the UN twice in the final days before the war. Putin even said that Saddam had plans to carry out attacks in the US. Wake up and quit whining over crap.

Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Jack Chenoweth

I am outraged by Michael Dobbs' attack on Larry Thurlow and his Bronze Star award.

The reason the citation mentions "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" is because it is based on the "spot report" that John Kerry submitted. Any and all awards presented for actions on 13 March 1969 would be similar, if not verbatim, regarding enemy gunfire, because the only information submitted to the chain of command was falsified by Kerry.

Mr. Dobbs also grossly mischaracterizes my statements, and probably those of Richard Pees as well, when he states that we "do not remember coming under 'enemy fire.'" He needs to go back and review his notes. I emphatically told him -– as I’ve told countless other reporters -- that there was no enemy gunfire from either bank at any time, that the only event of the day was the mine under PCF 3, followed by suppression fire from all of our boats.

Mr. Dobbs is entitled to take whatever position he wants on the issue of who is telling the truth, but it is not right for him to mischaracterize my remarks so that it looks like I didn't "remember" whether there was enemy fire. I remember vividly. There was no enemy fire.

Kerry Fled



Let me get this straight.

We're saying "these guys are liars"

You're saying "No they arn't, because they say they arn't."

AM I missing something here?

Well seeing how this debate about the swift boat veterans has taken such a turn, I must recommend a book to all of you, and see if you can find it. It's called "The New Soldier" written by John Kerry himself after his Vietnam War service. Quite an interesting read if I do say so myself... (if you can ever get a copy) I might also recommend another book that has John Kerry's infamous testimony before the Senate reprinted in full, and also has a very interesting look into the liberal way of thinking in regards to the military, but I'll post the name tomorrow after I locate it again. For those of you who are anti-Kerry or pro-Kerry, you'll find it pretty interesting. For those of you interested in a little anti-Bush literature, I might recommend "Worse than Watergate" by John Dean. Yes, THE John Dean. After reading it I took the Bush administration in a new light. There's a lot about both these guys that nobody will ever know, and as a result, it's near impossible to get an accurate idea as to what they may or may not do with America in the future.

Regardless of anything I have one thing to say to everybody here, taken person for person, John Kerry and George Bush are both bad leaders in my personal opinion. They both have many dark secrets in their personal and political past. My research into each has shown as much. Unfortunately, due to the way our system runs, we have to make a decision. As of yet, I have not decided which of the two is the lesser evil, but I will make that decision as the time draws near. However, throwing all these insults back and forth as to who did what in Vietnam and who deserved the medals and who didn't isn't going to get anybody very far. Politics has degraded to a point where the guy with the best negative ads tends to win the election. As much as it pains me to think that way, that's what it's beginning to boil down to. Regardless, the pro-Kerry people and the pro-Bush people will always remain pro-Kerry or pro-Bush, and nothing either side says will ever change that. It's people like me that these ads and their campaigns are after. The people who are truly undecided as to who is the better man. As such, I am open to opinions from both ends of the spectrum and the middle, and read a variety of literature on a number of issues. I would recommend that to all of you before you go and constantly argue for one man or the other. Neither of these men are perfect, that's a given, all human beings come with flaws. But before you go to vote on election day (assuming you can) just remember this, never keep a close-minded approach to your leaders. Don't base a man on his party, base a man on what he stands for. Be open-minded, don't blindly accept anything for truth without checking out the facts yourself. All political commercials are distorted to give you a one-way view of a certain topic, so try to find the other view if you can. And finally, for the sake of this great country where we are allowed to argue about who we want to be the leader of our country, vote for the man who will best uphold the greatest value of America, freedom!

True, but we are seventy something days out. We have had four years of Bush, (not counting the time he was govenor) and many many years of Kerry in the senate. So if you have not made up your mind yet, you probably won't. Regardless, the election is coming whether we like it or not, and we have to have a president. It is a shame that people forget about Sept. 11th so fast and resort to letting ourselves being divided by the parties who only survive by the people's division. Why else are we still debating the same issues since the begining of our country, just a little more advanced. So until the two party system goes away, we are forced to pick between two candidates of opposing parties. (an independent has no real chance of winning today) We as a nation have an enemy that is trying to kill us, and due to our succeses in the war on terror, people are once again free to forget, as we did the nine terrorist attacks under Bill Clinton. Saddam was bad, it is better that he is in jail, the Iraqi people are better off whether they are happy or not right now. Someday they will be thankful, unless the liberals succeed here. We had attacks and radical groups throughout our own history, and so did any country becoming a democracy. Life is not like Playstation where you can hit restart. The lesser of two evils is Bush, because without security, there is nothing. Kerry's whole persona is a diversion from the real issues. We are not going to war with Vietnam. And something that people need to learn is that President's do not create jobs, we do not live in Communist China. The government can only create an environment for favorable business. (ie. low taxes) and we all know who lowers taxes.

Hey, you know what it is called when a little wire runs to a mine, and it is detonated by someone? Remotely detonated. You know what it is called when you call someone a "a shitbag with zero credibility"? Irony. 65 Purple heart winners and 210 other swift boat vets say he is lying, you, some others on here, and 8 crewmates say he is not. Kerry Fled

65 Purple Heart winners and 210 other swift boat vets? That's, like... uhm... *counts on his fingers and toes* 275 people! Wow! Those five boats must have been really really crowded! :eek:

Before he enter on the Execution of His Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—” I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

No one can say Bush has not done this.
I can. PATRIOT Act anyone? Or maybe the best of Bush's ability really isn't all that impressive.

I am sure that you like many other critics have never read the patriot act. I personally have, and you should as well. Like it or not, it has prevented attacks in the US.

I am sure that you like many other critics have never read the patriot act. I personally have, and you should as well. Like it or not, it has prevented attacks in the US.

Substantiate that. Show a direct correlation.

I am sure that you like many other critics have never read the patriot act. I personally have, and you should as well. Like it or not, it has prevented attacks in the US.

I am against it, and I have read it. I'm not entirely sure if you have read it or not, but if you have, I'm wondering if you understood what half of it means. You see, it contains a lot of stipulations that just change what would appear to be minor things in already existing laws, without mentioning exactly what this change does, if you read those laws, and correct them with the changes made by the Patriot Act, you'll realize why so many people are against it.

What're you tryin' to do, give a guy nightmares?

:eek:

Here's a real nightmare for you...

George W. Bush is re-elected this year (thats's the good part)... and Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2008 (THAT'S THE FRIGGIN' NIGHTMARE! :eek: :eek: :eek: )

Do any of you know that the name "PATRIOT" in Patriot Act is an acronym? And that "PATRIOT Act" is not the full name of the act?

Who can name what the acronym stands for, in full, and who can give the entire name of the PATRIOT act?

Do any of you know that the name "PATRIOT" in Patriot Act is an acronym? And that "PATRIOT Act" is not the full name of the act?

Who can name what the acronym stands for, in full, and who can give the entire name of the PATRIOT act?

Uniting and Strengthening America by "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."

Happy?

The fact of the matter is that Bush had done a truly miserable job with the economy, our civil liberties, the post-war planning in Iraq and in making America seem respectable to the rest of the world.

I'm sorry, but when the rest of the world hates us in record numbers, then it's bad for business. How many billions of dollars have been lost because people in other countries are now refusing to buy American? How many treaties, trade agreements, intelligence reports and other forms of help, including monetary and manpower help in Iraq, has this administration cost us? In a global war against an ideology, we need help from everyone, and I don't think anyone can argue that we'll get that help under Bush.

Bush is bad for America in every single way. Maybe Kerry is a dickwad too, but I know Bush is a dickwad who mangles the English language.

The one thing that makes me like Kerry is that unscripted candid moment when he thought his microphone was off, and he said, in an aggrieved tone, the Bush administration was the crookedest he'd ever seen. And he said it to a supporter, not someone whose mind he was trying to change, when he thought the mic was off. Does a crooked person privately complain about the crookedness of others?

I am sure that you like many other critics have never read the patriot act. I personally have, and you should as well. Like it or not, it has prevented attacks in the US.

It has? Really? Here I was, thinking it was because it was a shorter drive from the terrorists homes to US troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but no, I was wrong: it was trying to take away all of our civil liberties that did it.

Well seeing how this debate about the swift boat veterans has taken such a turn, I must recommend a book to all of you, and see if you can find it. It's called "The New Soldier" written by John Kerry himself after his Vietnam War service.

Too bad it costs in the neighborhood of $800-900! :eek:

Uniting and Strengthening America by "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."

Happy?

Yeah, I am. Did you read the name... really READ the name? I'm all for it.

I for one have nothing to hide. I am not a criminal, I am not a terrorist. They can tap my phones and search my house, I do not care, because I do not have anything to hide. Do you?

Does a crooked person privately complain about the crookedness of others?

Yeah, he does, when he's a dumbass who's being out-crooked ;)

Yeah, I am. Did you read the name... really READ the name? I'm all for it.

I for one have nothing to hide. I am not a criminal, I am not a terrorist. They can tap my phones and search my house, I do not care, because I do not have anything to hide. Do you?

Yeah, I read the name. I read the whole thing and was shocked and appalled that it had managed to get rammed through. I'm glad you have nothing to hide, but, you see, with PATRIOT provisions, that's really irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, they can simply pick you up, at any time, and hold you for as long as they want without telling anyone where you are or allowing you to contact anyone including a lawyer and, the only justification they have to have for this, is to label you a suspected terrorist (which they don't ever actually define).

So, good, I'm glad you've got nothing to hide. I imagine you'll also not want to piss off anyone, because who knows who or what's going to label you a terrorist, regardless of your actual stance on terrorism.

Sad, in a three-legged, one-eyed kitten kinda way


Not to mention that Kerry Fled


Hmmm didn't your try calling everybody Karl once?

Yeah, I am. Did you read the name... really READ the name? I'm all for it.

I for one have nothing to hide. I am not a criminal, I am not a terrorist. They can tap my phones and search my house, I do not care, because I do not have anything to hide. Do you?
You ought to revise your statement to say "I am not a criminal...yet." People like you scare me, because you're so willing to bend over for the government. Whether or not I have anything to hide is irrelevant as to whether or not the government has the right to search my house or tap my phones. The US isn't a totalitarian regime--at least it's not supposed to be, anyway.

Let me let you in on a little secret--laws change, and things that are legal today could be illegal tomorrow, including actions that are private and harm no one. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a christian version of the Taliban found itself in power and outlawed every form of sexual intercourse except missionary style between man and woman, and that for some reason, the Supreme Court backed them up on it. Would you be glad that you had provided the government with the means to spy on you in your home? No thanks--not for me.

You ought to revise your statement to say "I am not a criminal...yet." People like you scare me, because you're so willing to bend over for the government. Whether or not I have anything to hide is irrelevant as to whether or not the government has the right to search my house or tap my phones. The US isn't a totalitarian regime--at least it's not supposed to be, anyway.

Let me let you in on a little secret--laws change, and things that are legal today could be illegal tomorrow, including actions that are private and harm no one. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a christian version of the Taliban found itself in power and outlawed every form of sexual intercourse except missionary style between man and woman, and that for some reason, the Supreme Court backed them up on it. Would you be glad that you had provided the government with the means to spy on you in your home? No thanks--not for me.

Uh... suppose, for the sake of argument, a race of Aliens from another galaxy landed on Earth and they laid out pods that would absorb humans and take the human's shape. Would you be glad that you had provided the government with the means to spy on you in your home so they can destroy the nasty aliens? Yes thanks--I'm all for it.

that makes as much sense as what you said :rolleyes:

Fine, Meatopiaa, trust your government. After all, it's not like they've never spied on citizens without cause before, well, except for the FBI under Hoover. And it's not like they've never broken US law for their own purposes, well, except for Iran-Contra, and the Plame Affair, and a list that could go on for years. And it's not like other democratic governments have ever found themselves subverted and transformed into totalitarian autocracies, well, excpet for Germany in the 30s and Italy in the same time frame, and hell, it happens all the time today too, so tell me why you trust your government unquestioningly again?

I don't even trust God unquestioningly--and you're surprised when people have a bit of doubt that their government might not always have their best interests at heart?

Let me get this straight.

We're saying "these guys are liars"

You're saying "No they arn't, because they say they arn't."

AM I missing something here?
Yeah you are missing something, a couple of OO's between the PR and the F :rolleyes:

Yeah you are missing something, a couple of OO's between the PR and the F :rolleyes:
Canuck, I think Goed is agreeing with you.

Read It! (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/)

The Smear Boat vets for bush are clearly lying. Why would I go by the stories of men who were not even on the same boat as kerry?

Canuck, I think Goed is agreeing with you.
I wasn't disagreeing with Goed...just answering his question. He wanted to know if he was missing something and I suggested that he was missing the PROOF that the other poster could not supply.

*CanuckHeaven* smacks himself upside the head for trying to be "cute". :rolleyes:

Yeah, I read the name. I read the whole thing and was shocked and appalled that it had managed to get rammed through. I'm glad you have nothing to hide, but, you see, with PATRIOT provisions, that's really irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, they can simply pick you up, at any time, and hold you for as long as they want without telling anyone where you are or allowing you to contact anyone including a lawyer and, the only justification they have to have for this, is to label you a suspected terrorist (which they don't ever actually define).

So, good, I'm glad you've got nothing to hide. I imagine you'll also not want to piss off anyone, because who knows who or what's going to label you a terrorist, regardless of your actual stance on terrorism.

You Liberals are a paranoid lot.

Yeah, I am. Did you read the name... really READ the name? I'm all for it.

I for one have nothing to hide. I am not a criminal, I am not a terrorist. They can tap my phones and search my house, I do not care, because I do not have anything to hide. Do you?

Well, I have this excellent land I want to seel you dirt cheap in Florida, it's name is an acronym

Enticing
Very
Eccentric
Relaxing
Good
Laughs
Along
Die-hard
Excessive
Strudels

Strudels and good laughs, I know you want it.

*stamps "OWN3D" on the right wing foreheads, again"

lets see them dispute this if they can

Actually, I just think it noteworthy to poin out that most of Kerry's states are either barely going his way or weakly going his way. Whereas Bush has all that nice, solid red color. At least half of Kerry's states are only being held onto by a fingertip.

You Liberals are a paranoid lot.
Not just liberals who are paranoid about this kind of stuff--this is an issue where very conservative types are even more nervous. You might try dulling your head out of your ass occasionally and looking around at the world. You might learn something.

You Liberals are a paranoid lot.

I am a product of my society.

Fine, Meatopiaa, trust your government. After all, it's not like they've never spied on citizens without cause before, well, except for the FBI under Hoover. And it's not like they've never broken US law for their own purposes, well, except for Iran-Contra, and the Plame Affair, and a list that could go on for years. And it's not like other democratic governments have ever found themselves subverted and transformed into totalitarian autocracies, well, excpet for Germany in the 30s and Italy in the same time frame, and hell, it happens all the time today too, so tell me why you trust your government unquestioningly again?

I don't even trust God unquestioningly--and you're surprised when people have a bit of doubt that their government might not always have their best interests at heart?

Plame Affair?

Plame Affair?

The outing of Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA operative by Novakula, thanks to a leak from a "senior administrative official". (Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, is the most popular candidate.) This blew her cover, the cover of her front company, the cover of everyone who worked at that front company, and may have cost the lives of informants that she worked with in her job of, um, preventing the proliferation of WMD.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

Leaking this information to Novak was a violation of a 1982 US law, pushed firmly by then-veep George H. W. Bush. http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823

The democrats have pushed this, but it's stayed fairly quiet recently - thanks to a special prosecutor that doesn't leak like Ken Starr. It's probably motivating a lot of the embarassing leaks from the CIA, though. http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/plame/

Bush's choice for CIA director had this to say on the subject:
"Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2104981/

The outing of Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA operative by Novakula, thanks to a leak from a "senior administrative official". (Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, is the most popular candidate.) This blew her cover, the cover of her front company, the cover of everyone who worked at that front company, and may have cost the lives of informants that she worked with in her job of, um, preventing the proliferation of WMD.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

Leaking this information to Novak was a violation of a 1982 US law, pushed firmly by then-veep George H. W. Bush. http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823

The democrats have pushed this, but it's stayed fairly quiet recently - thanks to a special prosecutor that doesn't leak like Ken Starr. It's probably motivating a lot of the embarassing leaks from the CIA, though. http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/plame/

Bush's choice for CIA director had this to say on the subject:


http://slate.msn.com/id/2104981/

Thanks! :)

You Liberals are a paranoid lot.
You'd be paranoid too if there was an evil monkey in your closet.

Not just liberals who are paranoid about this kind of stuff--this is an issue where very conservative types are even more nervous. You might try dulling your head out of your ass occasionally and looking around at the world. You might learn something.

But it's warm in my ass and it prevents me from hearing the collective whining of people like you.
Besides, I work in the media and I see enough of the world and it makes me want to move to a cabin in Yellowstone and get the hell away from you people. :mad: :headbang:

You'd be paranoid too if there was an evil monkey in your closet.

And that's just funny Chris Griffin

But it's warm in my ass and it prevents me from hearing the collective whining of people like you.
Besides, I work in the media and I see enough of the world and it makes me want to move to a cabin in Yellowstone and get the hell away from you people.By all means, go. I'll help you pack.

But it's warm in my ass and it prevents me from hearing the collective whining of people like you.
Besides, I work in the media and I see enough of the world and it makes me want to move to a cabin in Yellowstone and get the hell away from you people. :mad: :headbang:

Don't forget to not write. :gundge:

So, today the new "Swift boat vet" ad comes out. Before any one tries to say any thing, lets keep in mind all those statements made by Kerry were not his own. He was reading the some 150 accounts given to him by "other" vets, so lets not try to spin the new ad that will air today.. Those are not the things Kerry said HE seen, those are the things OTHER vets told him THEY seen.

Ah, doesn't matter that much, these dudes have already been dicredited by many new sources now. They have provided no proof for any of their claims.. So, if I were most of you, I'd just take it for what it is, a smear job by the Republicans pretending they aren't the Republicans.. Nuff Said!

yeah... as if people are really going to put thought into their Kerry bashing

I haven't read the full thread, about 4 pages of it. But I'd just like to address some more of the credibility problems.

Its already been mentioned several times the money trail behind this group. Its very clear if you follow the money where the crux of this is coming from. Its also been mentioned in previous threads about the founders of this group and where their connections lie.

Its disturbing that despite the fact that none of the Swiftboat allegations can be proven or that the evidence from both the military and from those who were actually there contradicts the words from those who are talking out of their rear ends won't matter. The damage is being done, much in a similar fashion to what happened to John McCain in 2000. Its easy to lie and distort the truth to achieve your goals. But that's not the type of moral fortitude we expect from our leadership. At least it shouldn't be.

Therefore, let me just present a few things:

1. This group should not be associated with the Bush campaign, for that would be illegal. That would mean no collusion with the two groups. The Bush campaign should not endorse such an ad. Unfortunately, this flier was posted at the Bush campaign headquarters in Florida:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/images/pr/swiftboat.jpg

Now, that is a clear violation of the FEC rules.

2. Next, let us get to the people in the ad. The New York Times did an amazing graph that connects the links of the people associated with this group. You can see that here: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820_SWIFT_GRAPH.html

I won't get into all of what that says but let me give you a couple of quotes from some of the Swiftboat ad people:

"The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is not something to be looked down upon, but it was an act of courage. And the whole outfit served with honor" ~~George Elliot

George Elliot says in the Swiftboat ad "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

While recalling the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star, this was said, "It took guts, and I admire that." ~~Roy Hoffman

Roy Hoffman says in the Swiftboard ad "John Kerry has not been honest."

At a news conference, this man spoke of the "bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats...Senator Kerry was no exception. He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers." ~~Adrian Lonsdale

Adrian Lonsdale says in the Swiftboat ad "he lacks the capacity to lead."

Now, why the difference in stories? Seems that there is a problem here with credibility. How does John Kerry go from being lauded to being lambasted by these people? There is a direct contradiction in what was said and its sad that no one is hearing about this as much as they are the ad itself.

3. Now is where we get to the out and out lies. The new ad features Kenneth Cordier as one of the Swiftboat veterans. But wait a second, if you look into it a little bit, you'll find that Kenneth Cordier did not serve on a Swiftboat. But...you will also find that he IS an advisor to Bush/Cheney's re-election campaign! Now, that's illegal as well. Remember, you can't have connections with this type of group and the official campaign because that's a violation of the rules.

Once this was reported, the Bush campaign website removed Cordier's name and he reportedly resigned. This was then reported: "A volunteer adviser has quit President Bush's re-election campaign after appearing in a veterans group's television commercial blasting Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's involvement in the Vietnam-era antiwar movement. A Bush campaign statement said it did not know that retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier had appeared in an ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."

Now, if they didn't know he was a member of the group, why did they remove his name from the website before they supposedly found out and before he resigned?

The bottom line is that all the evidence in the world points to the fact that this group is not telling the truth and the facts and records clearly back John Kerry. But as we all learned in 2000, facts don't win an election: lies do. This was the same tactic the Bush campaign used against John McCain so effectively and they are going to do it again this time around.

This is not moral decency or integrity. This is not Christian values at work. This is an ugly smear campaign that should have its filthy head exposed. The only good thing out of this whole ordeal is that it is starting to motivate a lot of veterans who have kept quiet until now. While its looking ugly now, it may just backfire. My state is a swing state. The Swiftboat ad ran here several times. Now there are veterans starting to come out to work on motivating people to vote for Kerry. Telephone campaigns have begun to get the truth out. My state went to Bush by 4 percentage points in 2000, largely because of an ad Bush played here in 2000 stating that if Gore was elected he would abolish all ownership of guns. The latest polling shows Kerry with a 1 point lead here. This is a state of extremely conservative Democrats. The coalfields alone are rock solid for conservative candidates. Gore lost that area of the state by over 10 points in 2000. Kerry is trailing in that area of the state by less than 2 points now. For the first time, you can see two bumper stickers side by side without astonishment. The first is "I Love Coal," a very common sticker in the coalfields. The second and surprising one is "John Kerry for President."

I never believed that group about Kerry's war record, anyhow. But I think that, more importantly, this shows what some Swiftboat commanders think of Kerry. He essentially told Congress that all Vietnam vets, including himself, are war criminals. Then he turns around and makes it the cornerstone of his campaign. Don't you think that should make a few people angry?

Maybe -- but I'm sure most people also recognize that 30 years separates those two statements, and understand the situation.

Thurlow has issued a statement claiming that he never requested a bronze star. He hs further went on to say that the language in that reprt was taken from John Kerry's application for a medal and that he was unaware of the bronze star until three months after he left the military.

You do note that he never turned around and said, "Take it back -- I don't deserve it," thirty-five years ago, yes???

Even odder is your putting stock in this when he didn't write the award paperwork. Who did? According to military regulations, someone with firsthand knowledge of the event. Who was it? Tell us, oh wise one. Probably kerry, who fled from the scene while three other boats stayed to help the damaged fourth boat. kerry in the fifth boat fled the scene like a coward. Who wrote the award citation, zep? Do you know? Didn't think so, so you have no idea wether that award paperwork reflects the actual events or not, do you? kerry only came back after he realized the was no shooting going on. Probably wanted to shoot another kid in the back. Thurlow has said he wasn't under fire, so who are you going to believe? The man who was there, or a piece of paper that wasn't there? Was the paper there? Were you? Thurlow was. So were numerous other Swift Boat veterans. kerry wasn't even there, he ran like a coward. Ding, your wrong again.

1) Funny, the guy that Kerry fished out of the water believed he was there.
2) Were you?
3) How could he have been awarded for a medal if he was not there?
4) Why did Thurlow not deny the mdeal when he got it?
5) You don't know who wrote the report either -- and the army hasn't released that, so you have no evidence to support your opinion.

1) Funny, the guy that Kerry fished out of the water believed he was there.
2) Were you?
3) How could he have been awarded for a medal if he was not there?
4) Why did Thurlow not deny the mdeal when he got it?
5) You don't know who wrote the report either -- and the army hasn't released that, so you have no evidence to support your opinion.
actually, thurlow's own army record account says they were taking small arms and automatic weapons fire from both banks, so who is FoB gonna believe, the lying politicially motivated punk or that punks very own records

of course this is blatant truth, so friends of bill is going to ignore it, though it is actually what happened, as described in a military report of the activites, and conveniently the exact same event thurlow won his bronze star for. oh no, the truth! all right wingers close your eyes and cover your ears

Actually, the award paperwork has been released - Kerry didn't write it. I don't believe Kerry wrote any of the reports, even though the Swifties claim he did. The afteraction report that O'Neill claims that Kerry wrote is initiated KJW - there are other reports with those same initials that don't involve Kerry at all, and Kerry's initials are "JFK"

The paperwork that backs up Kerry's and Thurlow's bronze star listed a "D. L. Sandusky" as the eyewitness. There were 30 caliber bullet holes in the boat. (This is the same Sandusky that says that Bob Dole was wrong about Kerry's wounds.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002013026_webbush23.html)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html

All the documentary evidence that's been released has supported Kerry's version of those events. Two - people who were on the river and closer than Thurlow - have come out backing up Kerry's version of events. (One of them talked to the Swift Boat Veterans PI, who strangely doesn't seem to have used his statements.)

Someone who was in Vietnam at the time points out that the entire reason why the swift boats were based at Sa Dec was because of the easy access into Cambodia. http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4939470.html

The people who are attacking Kerry now said other things in the past:
Roy Hoffman, today: "John Kerry has not been honest."
Roy Hoffman, 2003: "I am not going to say anything negative about him — he's a good man."

Adrian Lonsdale, today: "He lacks the capacity to lead."
Adrian Lonsdale, 1996: "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

George Elliot, today: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."
George Elliot, 1996: "The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is something not to be looked down upon, but it was an act of courage."

Larry Thurlow, today: "...there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day."
Larry Thurlow's Bronze Star citation, 1969: "...all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

Dr. Louis Letson, today: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."
Medical records, 1968: "Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under 'person administering treatment' for the injury, the form is signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several years ago."

Grant Hibbard, today: "He betrayed all his shipmates. He lied before the Senate."
Hibbard's evaluation of Kerry, 1968: "Mr. Hibbard gave Mr. Kerry the highest rating of 'one of the top few' in three categories—initiative, cooperation and personal behavior. He gave Mr. Kerry the second-best rating, 'above the majority,' in military bearing."

And, it's turned out that the guy "on Kerry's boat" who is a member of the Swifties was not on Kerry's boat during any of the incidents that led to Kerry's purple hearts and medals. (Even though he claimed that Kerry's boat didn't leave the dock without him on it.) http://mediamatters.org/items/200408240001

All the facts are on one side, the Swift Boat vets are on the other. It really shows how biased the media is that anyone is treating these allegations seriously. It's just another part in a series of the right wing trashing veterans to elect chickenhawks, a la McCain and Cleland.

Article II of the US Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of His Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—” I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

No one can say Bush has not done this.

HAS HE?

The Patriot Act guts the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans against unreasonable search and seizure. Monitoring phone calls, e-mails, and breaking into people's homes when they are not home to look for evidence to see if they are guilty when there is no cause to believe they ARE guilty certainly does that.

His attempt at a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is a DIRECT violation of the First Amendment. There is to be no law established by the federal government that forces a state religion down people's throats -- yet his ban on gay marriage is CLEARLY because of his Christian views, not for any other reason -- and therefore is forcing Christianity as the official state religion. (I am a Christian, and this disgusts me!)

WAY to uphold the constitution!

Katganistan - don't forget Bush's secret diversion of funds from Afghanistan to prepare for the Iraq war, a violation of separation of powers.

Too bad it costs in the neighborhood of $800-900! :eek:

You've never heard of a library?

Thorow claims that he thought he received his bronze star for saving a fellow swiftboaters life when a mine blew several of them out of their boats and that he had no idea that 'under fire' was in the report. His explanation is that they took Kerry's report of 'underfire' to give he and Kerry the bronze. He only found out recently that it was in the report and claims that they were not underfire. Believe whomever you want, but look for both sides of the story before you make up your mind.

Thorow claims that he thought he received his bronze star for saving a fellow swiftboaters life when a mine blew several of them out of their boats and that he had no idea that 'under fire' was in the report. His explanation is that they took Kerry's report of 'underfire' to give he and Kerry the bronze. He only found out recently that it was in the report and claims that they were not underfire. Believe whomever you want, but look for both sides of the story before you make up your mind.

Um, yeah. On the one hand, you have the guy who was blown into the water and wasn't paying attention for what he got his bronze star for.

On the other hand, you have everyone else on the river.

http://www.telluridegateway.com/articles/2004/08/20/news/opinion/opinion01.txt

Three things that are forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago are: (1) The No. 3, 50-foot long, Swift boat getting huge, huge air; John Kerry thought it was about two feet. (He was farther away from it than I). I think it was at least four feet and probably closer to six feet; (2) All the boats turning left and letting loose at the same time like a deadly, choreographed dance and; (3) A few minutes later, John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river.

The picture I have in my mind of Kerry bending over from his boat picking some hapless guy out of the river while all hell was breaking loose around us, is a picture based on fact and it cannot be disputed or changed. It's a piece of history drawn in my mind that cannot be redrawn. Sorry, "Swift Boats Veterans for the Truth"- that is the truth.

To say that John Kerry or any of us were on that river to intentionally collect Purple Hearts really does every soldier and sailor, past and present, a disservice. We were going up those rivers (with an ongoing casualty rate of 86 percent at the time) on the orders of the same people who approved of Kerry's medals and who are now joining in the attacks against Kerry. Unbelievable.

If Thurlow had honestly been trying to get to the bottom of this, why did he refuse to release his bronze star paperwork? This story you're talking about only happened after the media got his medal paperwork released through the freedom of information act.

A serious question for the pro-swifties - what evidence would you accept to prove that Thurlow is lying?

Thorow claims that he thought he received his bronze star for saving a fellow swiftboaters life when a mine blew several of them out of their boats and that he had no idea that 'under fire' was in the report. His explanation is that they took Kerry's report of 'underfire' to give he and Kerry the bronze. He only found out recently that it was in the report and claims that they were not underfire. Believe whomever you want, but look for both sides of the story before you make up your mind.

That wouldn't be under fire, would it? And as a member of the armed forces, he would know or would have found out in the paperwork that went WITH the medal the circumstances under which it is awarded, no? So either -- he lied now, or he lied then. Either way, his testimony is suspect.

Or haven't you heard of the concept of the "fruit of a poisonous tree"?

Thorow claims that he thought he received his bronze star for saving a fellow swiftboaters life when a mine blew several of them out of their boats and that he had no idea that 'under fire' was in the report. His explanation is that they took Kerry's report of 'underfire' to give he and Kerry the bronze. He only found out recently that it was in the report and claims that they were not underfire. Believe whomever you want, but look for both sides of the story before you make up your mind.


So, you think that when you get awarded a Bronze Star... you don't read the citation at the time? Have YOU ever gotten an award and not read the accompanying certificate?

I haven't.

And one of the other Swift Boat captains on the scene also spoke up this week and backed Kerry's version of the events.

And on Scarborough Country last week Thorow came right out and stated that if Kerry had not said what he said in '71 that he would not have got involved in campaigning against him.

That is his motivation - pure and simple.

Oh yes - he also admitted on Hardball that he could not show any proof in this "my word against his" battle, and that the official record did not support him.

So, you can believe people who can show no proof for their claims when all of the official records contradict them and who have repeatedly stated that their anger at Kerry relates to his actions AFTER he returned from the war - and who have in the past often made comments about the events in the war that contradict what they are now saying.... and who are funded by the same people who funded the McCain smear of 2000....

OR you can believe the official record, the sailors who served on Kerry's boat, the Republican that he saved, and many other sailors that served in that group - some of whom have clearly also not liked Kerry's positions afterwards but who do not like to see their own records besmirched with this smear campaign.

I know which one sounds more sensible to me.

What're you tryin' to do, give a guy nightmares?

Kerry's first order as president:

http://www.iol.ie/~roto/kerry2.jpg

Bah, I don't want President Kerry to get Roach Busters. He's one of the guys on the opposite side of the spectrum that can fashion together logical arguments and will listen to reason when confronted with alternate ideas.

Grumble....plus, he kills roaches. HE SERVES A PURPOSE DARN IT!!! A PURPOSE!!!

Bah, I don't want President Kerry to get Roach Busters. He's one of the guys on the opposite side of the spectrum that can fashion together logical arguments and will listen to reason when confronted with alternate ideas.

Grumble....plus, he kills roaches. HE SERVES A PURPOSE DARN IT!!! A PURPOSE!!!

It is a doomed calling, however. Roaches have been with us since the dinosaurs; roaches will inheirit the earth once man's done messing it up.

;)

All the more reason to keep Roach Busters around. Ah, to be rewarded the task of Sisyphus....

http://john-kerry.tonyspencer.com/edwards-trial-lawyer.htm

By the way, Kerry Fled
Edwards:
"As for the unneeded Caesareans, he said, "The question is, would you rather have cases where that happens instead of having cases where you don't intervene and a child either becomes disabled for life or dies in utero?"
Argue this please!
If people agree and have reasonable doubt that saving choldren is wrong than that isn't his fault. Her responsibility is to help his cleints for the wrongs done to them.

In the years that followed, Mr. Edwards handled all sorts of cases. He litigated contract and insurance disputes. He sued the American National Red Cross three times, claiming that the AIDS virus was transmitted through tainted blood products, and obtained a confidential settlement in each case. He defended a Wilmington, N.C., newspaper owned by The New York Times Company in a libel suit.

He is right, I remember hearing that in the papers before. He is a good lawyer, doctors's are incompetent sometimes:
Leaving objects in people and things like that, geez.

Hakistan:
There are open questions about Kerry's service, questions he could dispel if he just made his war records public (like George Bush has).

Show me where Bush has!
The pentagon burned them! You can't find them.


Plus:
You never give any support for Kerry fleeing, why you have none?


When will people get off the vietnam issue and look at the issues that currently face our nation. Ok, both men served in the manner they saw fit. National guard v. Swift Boat. Both are respectable. Look at the records since Vietnam, and Bush clearly is the man for the job. Research some of kerry's votes ( of the 25% he attended) over his years in the Senate and decide if he is the man for the job. I clearly think not. Furthermore, I would appreciate it you Bush haters would explain Kerry's position on one issue because he clearly has not. I would assume that most of you believe the Iraq war was wrong, so explain the contradiction your candidate has in supporting the war, and then voting against the funding of our troops. He has said he would still go to war, he would just do it "differently." You false belief in an anti-war candidate is ridiculous unless you support Nader. Anybody but Bush is your motto, because it is easy to not think and believe what you are told by watching 5 minutes of ABC after Survivor. Let one terrorist get on a plane with small pox, and as you choke and gag you are going to wish that you had voted for the man who may have made some mistakes, and may not be the most eloquent speaker, but would protect America at any cost. Kerry has voted against all major defense bills and equipment that currently keep us safe. The ONLY thing he has to offer is that he served in Vietnam. He has been in the Senate for many years. Why is he not talking about that? Because his record sucks. Might I remind some of you.


Texas for you: Chikyota answered me response-
Honestly, research before you spout. This statement alone makes you lose credibility. He did not flip flop on it. He voted for the proposition in its original form. When altercations were made that he didn't agree with and it came to a second vote he decided not to do so because of the changes made between the two votes. This is not flip-flopping, it is how the Senate works.
My add on:
One vote original version(He voted for), another when Republicans modified and messed up provision/bill.(Voted against)

He would wait till after inspectors check for WMD, if they found any evidence then he might consider a attack after making a reasonable plan based on reality and current intelligence. (Iraqi war intel was old)
Bush doedn't help proterct us from smallpox, think dude, what has he done to do that?
He did not vote against all major defense bills even cheney voted against ones Kerry did! (Did you think about that!)
Why should UN act when sabctions were working! He had no WMD that was purpose of sanctions!


We as a nation have an enemy that is trying to kill us, and due to our succeses in the war on terror, people are once again free to forget, as we did the nine terrorist attacks under Bill Clinton. Saddam was bad, it is better that he is in jail, the Iraqi people are better off whether they are happy or not right now. Someday they will be thankful, unless the liberals succeed here. We had attacks and radical groups throughout our own history, and so did any country becoming a democracy. Life is not like Playstation where you can hit restart. The lesser of two evils is Bush, because without security, there is nothing. Kerry's whole persona is a diversion from the real issues. We are not going to war with Vietnam. And something that people need to learn is that President's do not create jobs, we do not live in Communist China. The government can only create an environment for favorable business. (ie. low taxes) and we all know who lowers taxes.
We have always had enemies trying to kill us, don't drink that kool-aid.
Saddam is bad, Bush is bad, he tortures, we torture, okay...moral high ground is no where around...
They are better off not happy? You make no sense...
Kerry isn't a lesser of an evil, he is a minor good. Big difference!
No Bush team's goal is to brainwash you to believe Kerry's persona is a diversion from real issues. Please, I beg of you don't take a sip of that kool-aid.
Lower taxes lower our moneys value (or they do under Bush); which is a bad climate for workers. If you job pays 3/4 of it did, you are better off 4 years ago not now.
Govt can create jobs, remember that work thing Roosevelt did? He got people jobs! He was President, was he more powerful than Bush?

Even Reagon raised taxes after lowering them, so if you want to make jobs as republicans say Clinton got from Reagon you must raise taxes too.

Kerry will raise taxes on rich and thus will reap benefits by following Reagonomics. You cut then raise, you don't cut, cut , cut, cut!


I am sure that you like many other critics have never read the patriot act. I personally have, and you should as well. Like it or not, it has prevented attacks in the US.
I did read it. It gives Govt powers that it is using to take away rights.
It has a lot so far.
They can go into liabraries and the library can't under law tell you if yu are being looked at. They don't even need a warrant. Where are the checks and balances?
There are more serrious cases but I have homework so I cant' just focus on you.
Fourth amentment also, costitutional it isnt'.