NationStates Jolt Archive

I am liberal and plan on voting for Kerry because I actually am terrified that Bush might screw up even worse, not because I really like Kerry.

I believe Kerry is an opportunist and I don't really trust him, but what has he done in government that makes him so horrible. I personally have no real clue what his voting record is but I would think someone as obsessed with being popular and remembered for being a great president would not be bad for the country.

I am liberal and plan on voting for Kerry because I actually am terrified that Bush might screw up even worse, not because I really like Kerry.

I believe Kerry is an opportunist and I don't really trust him, but what has he done in government that makes him so horrible. I personally have no real clue what his voting record is but I would think someone as obsessed with being popular and remembered for being a great president would not be bad for the country.

He really has not done ANYTHING. His Senate record is pretty much empty. However, with such a shoddy record, many feel that he is not qualified to be President. I have a problem with him because although he says he won't, he WILL raise our taxes to pay for more social programs. The 1960's showed us that those programs are a disaster and thats where he wants to take us again. Not to even mention his weak stance on the military.

The main hatred is his actions after Viet Nam.

He testified that our soldiers commited attrocities. They did but the majority did not.
He testified he was in Cambodia. We were but he was not.

He actions with the Veterns against the war, gave courage to the NVA. Vo Nguyen Giap himself said that if it were not for said actions, they would have surrendered.

From my military family side, I do have issues with Kerry about that.

However, the majority of people seem to not care. In America; it seems that 40+ years ago is ancient history :rolleyes:

But that is just me.....

Kerry received the Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, three awards of the Purple Heart, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, a Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Combat Action Ribbon for his service in Vietnam.
Kerry was also a member of Task Force 115, which was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for Extraordinary Heroism
The Association for Enterprise awarded Senator Kerry their 'Leadership Award' for his work on the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee.
In 2002, Kerry received the 'Powerful Friends Recognition Award' from the Federation for Children with Special Needs and Parents for Residential Reform.
He received the National Health Association's 'Legislator of the Year Award' for his support of expanded child care and attention to at-risk children.
On February 26, 2003, the National Parks Conservation Association

Doesn't sound like his record is that empty.

the source is www.vote-smart.org

I can see a military family's reservations, but I tend to agree with Kerry on Vietnam

One of the big things (in my mind) is why he changed his stance on the war. He's only anti-Iraq war because Dean was beating him for the democratic nomination and he was against the war. Kerry then voted against the extra $(insert whatever big number goes here) for the occupation/rebuilding/whatever so he could back his claim to be anti-war. Having dug that hole for himself, he's making it deeper by trying to explain it away. In other words (specifically mine), he's a brown nosed pansy without a spine. He's still a small step above Bush, but both of them fall somewhere between Foghorn Leghorn and Micky Mouse as far as qualifications go.

Doesn't sound like his record is that empty.

Look at his Senate record. 20 years and not ONE piece of substantial legislation.

The main hatred is his actions after Viet Nam.

He testified that our soldiers commited attrocities. They did but the majority did not.
He testified he was in Cambodia. We were but he was not.

That is unverifiable whether he was in Cambodia.
And he didn't saw the majirity commited the actions. Prove me wrong. I have the transcript.

Link: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121957/posts

He actions with the Veterns against the war, gave courage to the NVA. Vo Nguyen Giap himself said that if it were not for said actions, they would have surrendered.

I bet you Nyu was just saying that to loolk good. I bet Nguyen is lying, Kerry had nothing to do with it..


From my military family side, I do have issues with Kerry about that.

However, the majority of people seem to not care. In America; it seems that 40+ years ago is ancient history :rolleyes:

But that is just me.....
Well, maybe because its the past. And forgiveness is a Christ-lilke ability.
He (Kerry ) apologized for exaggerating his words on a news show a few years back. Republivans try to paint him as non repenting. But he did apologize.

Well, maybe because its the past. And forgiveness is a Christ-lilke ability. He (Kerry ) apologized for exaggerating his words on a news show a few years back. Republivans try to paint him as non repenting. But he did apologize.

Really? The Swift Boat guys said they would stop all their ads against him if he would just apologize for saying that they had committed war crimes. he refused....

One of the big things (in my mind) is why he changed his stance on the war. He's only anti-Iraq war because Dean was beating him for the democratic nomination and he was against the war. Kerry then voted against the extra $(insert whatever big number goes here) for the occupation/rebuilding/whatever so he could back his claim to be anti-war. Having dug that hole for himself, he's making it deeper by trying to explain it away. In other words (specifically mine), he's a brown nosed pansy without a spine. He's still a small step above Bush, but both of them fall somewhere between Foghorn Leghorn and Micky Mouse as far as qualifications go.


Actually, about the $87 billion appropriation that the Bush campaign spouts,
Kerry is telling the truth, he did not vote for it and vote for it, he co-sponsored a legislation that would pay the $87 billion by rolling back the tax cuts to individuals that make over $400k a year. That one was defeated, the Bush plan that borrowed the money (that Kerry voted against) was accepted.

Really? The Swift Boat guys said they would stop all their ads against him if he would just apologize for saying that they had committed war crimes. he refused....
Yeah, I even remember the link on NS a month ago. If I had made it a favorote on my computer I'd show it. But I thought it wasn't important. Geez, I need a time machine.

I am liberal and plan on voting for Kerry because I actually am terrified that Bush might screw up even worse, not because I really like Kerry.

I believe Kerry is an opportunist and I don't really trust him, but what has he done in government that makes him so horrible. I personally have no real clue what his voting record is but I would think someone as obsessed with being popular and remembered for being a great president would not be bad for the country.

Completely asside from his having slandered me and all other Vietnam veterans? Well, for one thing he hardly ever actually darkened the door of the Senate, having been absent for roll call votes over 70% of the time.

He has consistenly voted against pay increases for active duty military personnel, against better housing for their families, indeed against virtually ALL defense spending.

He has stated that, "I'd like to see our troops dispersed around the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

He has maintained that we no longer need the CIA, and has called Yasser Arafat "a statesman" and a "role model!"

He has voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of the U.S. Government; to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%; to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%; to cut the funding for the NSA by 80%; and then voted to increase OUR funding for United Nations operations by 800%!

Kerry received the Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, three awards of the Purple Heart, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, a Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Combat Action Ribbon for his service in Vietnam.
Kerry was also a member of Task Force 115, which was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for Extraordinary Heroism
The Association for Enterprise awarded Senator Kerry their 'Leadership Award' for his work on the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee.
In 2002, Kerry received the 'Powerful Friends Recognition Award' from the Federation for Children with Special Needs and Parents for Residential Reform.
He received the National Health Association's 'Legislator of the Year Award' for his support of expanded child care and attention to at-risk children.
On February 26, 2003, the National Parks Conservation Association

Doesn't sound like his record is that empty.

the source is www.vote-smart.org

Oh, please. Let's not get started on Kerry's medals. I mean, never even overnight in the MASH unit yet still three Purple Hearts? And all of his awards earned in 4 months in Vietnam when most of those new in-country still would have trouble finding their ass with both hands after only 4 months? What a crock.

Whilst he may have little to qualify him as President, he has less to disqualify him as President than Bush has.

That is one hell of a rant Etrusca,

for his voting record, VoteSmart has his roll call at 95% plus every year from 1999 to 2002, check it out here
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103

2000: voted for a bill that extended benefits to Military retirees that joined before 1956
2000: voted against a bill that allowed the president to dismantle nuclear weopons
1999: voted yes for a military pay raise of 4.8% for 2000 and annual pay raises subsequently
1998: voted yes to a bill authorizing $274 billion for military construction in 1999

I personally believe that the U.N. is only strong when we support it, and that we should be responsive to the desires of the UN

About killing all anti terrorism operations I just find that hard to believe.

Look at his Senate record. 20 years and not ONE piece of substantial legislation.

Know how hard it is to get something passed there? Especially without everyone tacking on various chunks of pork.

Know how hard it is to get something passed there? Especially without everyone tacking on various chunks of pork.

Yeah, but he never even tried...but NOW he has all the answers? :rolleyes:

Conservatives have basically been blithely throwing lies and vague mischaracterizations, ...which are of course unsubstantiated, but do their damage, even to Democrats who should be reasonbly proud of Kerry's service.

He was my Senator for years, and his record's good, his professionalism is excellent, and his intelligence and understanding is superb.

He loyally went to war, served with great distinction, and when he came back, stood up and testified to the horrors he'd seen and which we all know now ...happenned.

Can't see a problem there.

One of the big things (in my mind) is why he changed his stance on the war. He's only anti-Iraq war because Dean was beating him for the democratic nomination and he was against the war. Kerry then voted against the extra $(insert whatever big number goes here) for the occupation/rebuilding/whatever so he could back his claim to be anti-war. Having dug that hole for himself, he's making it deeper by trying to explain it away. In other words (specifically mine), he's a brown nosed pansy without a spine. He's still a small step above Bush, but both of them fall somewhere between Foghorn Leghorn and Micky Mouse as far as qualifications go.

1) Bush asks intel community for proof of iraqi WMDs;

2) Intel community comes back and says there is no evidence;

3) Bush sends them back until they get it "right";

4) Bush shows new "evidence" to congress;

5) Based on these "facts", Kerry votes to give Bush authority for war with Iraq;

6) Bush goes to war as virtually first resort, while UN inspectors are still searching for iraqi WMDs, and with too few troops to and no real plan to "win the peace";

7) Kerry says that was a bad move;

8) Bush accuses him of flip-flopping;

9) Kerry explains this by stating that while removing Saddam was a good thing, war should have been a last resort, and Bush did not even carry it out in a competent way; he tells us that he voted for the authority to go to war, based on the same "evidence" that Bush had (decided to go with after real intel did not back him up), but that Bush abused that authority by bypassing ligitimate non-war avenues. And he tells us that if elected, he would continue current operations, under his "you break it, you bought it" doctrine.



At the end of the day, Bush supporters still accuse Kerry of flip-flopping. Why? Well, they're Bush supporters... if they're anything like their coup-leader they do not have the capacity to handle nuanced positions and non-black-and-white perceptions.

Kerry will support our troops, having been one of them unlike Bush. Our current situation in Iraq will be solved by Kerry, after Bush has stubbornly dug us into our current horribly fucked-up position. Meanwhile, Bush says that, in essence, a Commander in Chief cannot lead if he admits that he made mistakes, and that our troops will suffer morale shortage if he changes his mind. Surely he "misunderestimates" our soldiers' capacity for rational thought, and feels they need to look up to an infalible demigod in order to not lose heart. Perhaps these estimations come from the hordes of mindless unquestioning sheep that he surrounds himself with, and that sign loyalty oaths to hear his VP speak.

I don't know what he has done that has been so horrible.

I have seen unsubstantiated claims and Biff's favorite line about how he was absent from the Senate 70% of the time :rolleyes:

and never did anything... DOUBLE :rolleyes: -

Biff, could you care less about Watergate? Is that something you agreed with? Yet you claim to be against terrorists? If you are against terrorists then you should be applauding Kerrys work there.

If you are for supporting the proliferation of terrorism then you may continue to support Bush and his war in Iraq which is helping them gain more recruits.

Look at his Senate record. 20 years and not ONE piece of substantial legislation.

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/kerry_bills.cfm

John Kerry has sponsored 57 bills in 20 years of service.

And lets not forget what a flipflopper George Bush is:

he was against using troops for nation building... before he was for it

he thought gay rights were a state issue... before he tried to make them a federal issue

he said there was no way he would let them use yukka mountain as a toxic waste dump.... until he was elected and allowed it

"Kerry wasn't certain about war, opposing sending troops to end the genocide of Saddam Hussein, then suggesting he would send troops to end the genocide in Sudan. Notice how quickly Kerry is willing to use the American military when America's security isn't at stake. His 'Darfur' babble was more than just pandering to the Jesse Jacksons of the Democrat party; it revealed Kerry's view of the U.S. military as nothing more than a humanitarian errand boy for the United Nations. Kerry gave away the game when he said America must 'meet the global test' before using force in the world. There it is: Kerry trusts 'the world' and mistrusts the United States. In one respect Kerry is amazingly consistent: he is still the 1960s liberal who wants U.S. troops only 'dispersed,' as he once put it, under the direction of that global proctor, the U.N." --George Neumayr

Kerry is somewhat scary. I mean he thinks that what Clinton did in N. Korea (supply them with nuclear fuel) was a good idea. Even though they were lying to us all along about their intents, and developed nuclear weapons with said fuels (under Clinton's watch) and blames Bush for this. He is in favor of doing this same thing in Iran, even though they want a nuclear weapon. How can you trust someone who wants to give a terrorist nation the tools to build the ultimate of weapons?

BTW-I guess all of you pro-Kerry people think Kerry will personally hunt down these terrorists using his wind surfing board, Harley, and SUV (which his family owns, not him) and kill them (using his bare hands).

Save us!! (http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Valley/4518/windgirls/johnkerrywindsurfing.jpg)

John Kerry about to commit another war crime. (http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040201/frontpage/26717-14259-thumb.jpg)

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/kerry_bills.cfm

John Kerry has sponsored 57 bills in 20 years of service.

Yes....and not ONE is of any real significance. Unless you find naming buildings significant.

Well Eutrusca, we've led you to these places before;
Here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=252) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=247) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=187) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=159) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=153) and here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147) but then there is a saying about leading horses and water. You're bulldoged adherence to dated and dismissed talking points makes you no more than a partisan lapdog with no real credibility. Your own unwillingness to even look into your own dogma shows a shocking inability to examine your own paradigm and calls into question how well you can perform that service for others. The only thing left to do is provide this resource everytime you regurgitate this so that other readers aren't lost in your quicksand, since you yourself cannot be bothered to even follow a link to check your own stories.

ohhhhh Etrusca you got MODED!

Yes....and not ONE is of any real significance. Unless you find naming buildings significant.


so it was all about naming building huh? funny how many times you get disproven here , yet refuse to accept the facts. Oh well keep spouting ignorance. I did hear about you and how you just spew verbal diarreah for the sake of arguing.

and was his work on Watergate insignificant?

ohhhhh Etrusca you got MODED!




so it was all about naming building huh? funny how many times you get disproven here , yet refuse to accept the facts. Oh well keep spouting ignorance. I did hear about you and how you just spew verbal diarreah for the sake of arguing.

and was his work on Watergate insignificant?

Yeah, pretty much was. There are other Senators who have much better records who are infinitly more qualified than Kerry is. The ONLY thing he has that actually qualifies him for the job is the age and citizenship requirements. How anyone can serve so long and not really do anything is beyond me. Then again, I knew guys in the military who never seemed to be around too.

I've asked the nuclear fuel question quite a few times here on NS. Why are there no Kerry supporters standing by their man and defending his position on Iran? :confused:

In the entire campaign, Kerry has not held one consistent position. (Except gay marriage, but that's pretty trivial at a time like this.) His foreign policy was never consistent when he was in the Senate, for that matter, and that makes him a dark horse - who knows what he'll do when he's elected? He'll probably be ambivalent, which is a notch above appeasing but still not exactly a sound wartime policy.

Oh, and he's a compulsive liar whenever it seems he's threatened. Usually the lie is really, really easy to check, like the classic $87 Billion line and the recent coverup thereof that it was late at night and he wasn't thinking, but a quick lookup says it was at noon.

I don't know about his record on the economic front, but his campaign promises (continuing the War on Terror only moreso, universal health insurance, public school funding, and tax raises on the rich only - to paraphrase a recent commercial) tend to indicate that he'll at least double Bush's atrocious deficit rate.

In the entire campaign, Kerry has not held one consistent position. (Except gay marriage, but that's pretty trivial at a time like this.) His foreign policy was never consistent when he was in the Senate, for that matter, and that makes him a dark horse - who knows what he'll do when he's elected? He'll probably be ambivalent, which is a notch above appeasing but still not exactly a sound wartime policy.

Oh, and he's a compulsive liar whenever it seems he's threatened. Usually the lie is really, really easy to check, like the classic $87 Billion line and the recent coverup thereof that it was late at night and he wasn't thinking, but a quick lookup says it was at noon.

I don't know about his record on the economic front, but his campaign promises (continuing the War on Terror only moreso, universal health insurance, public school funding, and tax raises on the rich only - to paraphrase a recent commercial) tend to indicate that he'll at least double Bush's atrocious deficit rate.

You're new here (or possibly a puppet)
Try out the Bush Flip flopping links in my sig and when yer satisfied that Bush is really the big flip flopper here may you kindly shut up about such moronic nonsense. Thanks and have a good day.

You don't have a sig. Therefore no link. Bush's policy seems to be consistently "kick enemy butt but always look nice at any cost", which kind of sucks (like the Afghan food boxes fiasco, or giving humanitarian aid to Fallujah and defeating the purpose of besieging the city) but that isn't the change-on-a-dime we're seeing with Kerry. Nor is it nearly as bad in a wartime president.

Domestic policy? Yes, Bush flip-flops. He panders shamelessly (though not incompatible things to different people). And he's consistent in his war against the First Amendment. At least he's consistent about tax cuts as well. But domestic policy comes second right about now - not getting nuked or taken over by a dictatorship is high on my list of priorities right now.

Why is neither candidate willing to attack Saudi Arabia? That's just stupid. Iran is on both lists, and a good thing too, but Saudi Arabia should be obvious. Neither is brilliant, but Bush is at least competent. His foreign policy, that is.

This won't be the last time you hear me say it - I really wish Condi Rice were running.

Obviously, because the last post was my first in this corner of the 'Net, I am a mindless tool of the GOP. Congratulations, you've deduced my deep, dark secret.

You don't have a sig. Therefore no link. Bush's policy seems to be consistently "kick enemy butt but always look nice at any cost", which kind of sucks (like the Afghan food boxes fiasco, or giving humanitarian aid to Fallujah and defeating the purpose of besieging the city) but that isn't the change-on-a-dime we're seeing with Kerry. Nor is it nearly as bad in a wartime president.

Domestic policy? Yes, Bush flip-flops. He panders shamelessly (though not incompatible things to different people). And he's consistent in his war against the First Amendment. At least he's consistent about tax cuts as well. But domestic policy comes second right about now - not getting nuked or taken over by a dictatorship is high on my list of priorities right now.

Why is neither candidate willing to attack Saudi Arabia? That's just stupid. Iran is on both lists, and a good thing too, but Saudi Arabia should be obvious. Neither is brilliant, but Bush is at least competent. His foreign policy, that is.

This won't be the last time you hear me say it - I really wish Condi Rice were running.

Obviously, because the last post was my first in this corner of the 'Net, I am a mindless tool of the GOP. Congratulations, you've deduced my deep, dark secret.
Guess you ain't a puppet. If you were, you would know that you have to check the "show signature" box in your profile options. Do it, then read the links in his signature.

well then you need to go to your profile and change the settings so that you can see peoples signatures.

Anyway here is JUST ONE of the links in my sig that can show you Bush is a major flip-flopper: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855

Also Bush does not want to attack Saudi Arabia because noone is that stupid (not even Bush). Do you want to see terrorism go up about 1000%? Anyway Bush is in Saudi Arabias wallet. Haven't you heard that the Bush administration wont alow the CIA to follow where saudi Arabias money goes? Also the Bush Administration is the Energy Industry Administration.

Please show me substantial evidence that Kerry flipflops more than Bush. Also Bush is not just a flipflopper on domestic issues... he spoke out against using US troops for nation building, yet we have seen him use them for exactly that in Haiti, Afganistan and Iraq. Maybe he just doesnt know what that means and they told him to say that.

He also said he doesnt believe in stretching out troops out too thin yet he starts a war with Iraq who was absolutely no danger to the US while we were in Afganistan, keeping the "Peace", nation buildig and looking for Bin Laden who is a direct threat to the US. We don't find Osama, WHO ATTACKED THE UNITED STATES - but we sure do get Saddam (whom I might add had nothing to do with 9/11, al qaeda or WMD's - yet these were his supposed reasons for going to war with Iraq - although he was obviously planning on going after Iraq before 9/11 *you can easily find evidence of this* ).

And Condi? I'm sorry but that is so Hilarious I shat myself.

I've asked the nuclear fuel question quite a few times here on NS. Why are there no Kerry supporters standing by their man and defending his position on Iran? :confused:

I myself am against us giving Iran enriched uranium (or any kind of 'nuclear fuel' - not sure exactly what kinds of it there are), but I don't think we ever were going to GIVE it to them. We were merely going to take what they had.

And also, from Kerry's web site:

"The Kerry-Edwards strategy uses all of our resources and the might of international alliances to... end nuclear weapons programs in nations like North Korea and Iran."

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:sLIQH8dr0dgJ:www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/strategy.html+john+kerry+iran&hl=en

Okay my little right-wingers, I guess it's time for another "Civics Lesson For Dummies."

First of all, when evaluating a person's Senate record, it's best to actually look it up, rather than trusting Right-Wing talking points. Why? Because the right-wing sources are trying to make it look as bad as possible. Looking at the actual facts will give you a much clearer picture.

Second, the nature of the legislatice branch of the American government is such that in order to get anything done, one must make deals and compromises. This, when one takes any time to think about it, leads to apparent contradictions in the record. A Senator may vote for something in order to get support for a more important bill (to them.) They, at a later date, may vote against what they already voted for, as part of another deal, or as a result of better information. A Senator who never "flip-flops" will never get anything done and will likely never get elected again. If you don't sometimes vote for something you're not thrilled about, you simply aren't doing your job as a legislator.

Third. Bills are almost exclusively not up and down votes on a single topic. A bill may raise funding for education, but also lower funding for a military program...and then include several other pieces of "pork" that may include preferential subsidies for an individual Senator's state as an incentive for said Senator to vote for that bill. Notice that the Republican talking heads never tell you WHAT ELSE was on those bills Kerry voted for or against. Notice that they are implying that Kerry never voted for military spending. Notice that they never tell you that Kerry voted for tax reduction several times. They are making LIES OF OMMISSION.

Okay, so why does Kerry not defend his record? Well, to do so, he would have to drone on and on about obscure legislative practices and site specific example after specific example. Guess what? That would be exactly the wordy boringness that Kerry is often accused of already. The Republicans WANT Kerry to have to defend his record, guessing correctly that dry political citation would cause the average American to turn the channel and just assume that someone who defends themself must be guilty.

Ah, the psychology of dirty politics. The Republicans try to paint Kerry into a box where he loses if he defends himself or if he doesn't defend himself.

Kerry effectively turned this around by making Bush look like a fool last week, and putting Bush on the defensive.

I guess figuring out the complexities of the real world is "hard work." Presenting things in a comprehensive and intelligent way is "sending a mixed message," since life is filled with contradictions.

A final admonition. NEVER depend on pundits for your information. Always try to look at the original documents or reports.

He's still a small step above Bush, but both of them fall somewhere between Foghorn Leghorn and Micky Mouse as far as qualifications go.

ROTFL! I could not have stated it better myself.

You do have to give Kerry some credit for his war record, however. There is no dispute that he was "in country" while Bush was "incognito."

Oh, please. Let's not get started on Kerry's medals. I mean, never even overnight in the MASH unit yet still three Purple Hearts? And all of his awards earned in 4 months in Vietnam when most of those new in-country still would have trouble finding their ass with both hands after only 4 months? What a crock.

I don't suppose you saw it in the last few nights, but even on Drudgereport, they had a story mentioning the health of John Kerry--which would not be odd, were it not for the fact that it made mention of two bullet-sized pieces of shrapnel that are still embedded in Kerry's leg. That's a hell of a trick, don't you think, getting shrapnel right next to the femur without breaking the skin?

Additionally, perhaps the reason why he was involved in such heavy action is because he was a commander of a Swift Boat. Now perhaps that doesn't ring any bells for you, aside from maybe with the words "For Truth" attached to it, but in Vietnam, a Swift Boat was basically supposed to go up and down the river in hopes that the VK or NVA would fire upon it and expose themselves. That's right. In essence, a Swift Boat was nothing more than metallic bait. Swift Boat crews during the War suffered from a 75% casualty rate. And mind you, this is a mission Kerry volunteered for. As such, his does not sound like a man who's bravery you should be questioning, unless you're offline alter ego is Chesty Puller or something like that. Otherwise, knock it off.

Okay my little right-wingers, I guess it's time for another "Civics Lesson For Dummies."

First of all, when evaluating a person's Senate record, it's best to actually look it up, rather than trusting Right-Wing talking points. Why? Because the right-wing sources are trying to make it look as bad as possible. Looking at the actual facts will give you a much clearer picture.

Second, the nature of the legislatice branch of the American government is such that in order to get anything done, one must make deals and compromises. This, when one takes any time to think about it, leads to apparent contradictions in the record. A Senator may vote for something in order to get support for a more important bill (to them.) They, at a later date, may vote against what they already voted for, as part of another deal, or as a result of better information. A Senator who never "flip-flops" will never get anything done and will likely never get elected again. If you don't sometimes vote for something you're not thrilled about, you simply aren't doing your job as a legislator.

Third. Bills are almost exclusively not up and down votes on a single topic. A bill may raise funding for education, but also lower funding for a military program...and then include several other pieces of "pork" that may include preferential subsidies for an individual Senator's state as an incentive for said Senator to vote for that bill. Notice that the Republican talking heads never tell you WHAT ELSE was on those bills Kerry voted for or against. Notice that they are implying that Kerry never voted for military spending. Notice that they never tell you that Kerry voted for tax reduction several times. They are making LIES OF OMMISSION.

Okay, so why does Kerry not defend his record? Well, to do so, he would have to drone on and on about obscure legislative practices and site specific example after specific example. Guess what? That would be exactly the wordy boringness that Kerry is often accused of already. The Republicans WANT Kerry to have to defend his record, guessing correctly that dry political citation would cause the average American to turn the channel and just assume that someone who defends themself must be guilty.

Ah, the psychology of dirty politics. The Republicans try to paint Kerry into a box where he loses if he defends himself or if he doesn't defend himself.

Kerry effectively turned this around by making Bush look like a fool last week, and putting Bush on the defensive.

I guess figuring out the complexities of the real world is "hard work." Presenting things in a comprehensive and intelligent way is "sending a mixed message," since life is filled with contradictions.

A final admonition. NEVER depend on pundits for your information. Always try to look at the original documents or reports.
Wow, condescending and wrong in the same post.

You start by defending his record in the Senate, then go about explaining why it's so poor. Which is it? The biggest reason his record is so poor, is because he was absent for much of the votes that should have had his attention.. or at least his back room dealing you talk about.

You then go on about Republican dirty politics (after a brief rant about lies of ommision). Yet you commit same said lies of ommision when you fail to talk about the dirty politics of Democrats.

And it's called conviction. Look it up. Kerry doesn't have it. Never did, never will.

Wow, condescending and wrong in the same post.

You start by defending his record in the Senate, then go about explaining why it's so poor. Which is it? The biggest reason his record is so poor, is because he was absent for much of the votes that should have had his attention.. or at least his back room dealing you talk about.

You then go on about Republican dirty politics (after a brief rant about lies of ommision). Yet you commit same said lies of ommision when you fail to talk about the dirty politics of Democrats.

And it's called conviction. Look it up. Kerry doesn't have it. Never did, never will.

I feel condescention was called for, since those that were criticizing Kerry for his record were: A.) Not aware of his actual record. B.) Not aware that the selective combings of ANY Senator's record would reveal many inconsistencies and instances of voting against specific programs. This is exactly why so few Senators have made the leap to President.

Yes, I brought up Republican dirty politics for two reasons. A.) This is a thread about how Kerry's actual record isn't nearly as bad as his Republican imposed reputation, not a thread about political maneuvering in general. B.) The Republicans have consistently been dirtier this campaign season (admittedly, this is only an opinion, so I'm not going to cite doctored "facts" to support that conclusion.) I admit that the Democrats have been dirty too. Unfortunately, politics is a dirty business.

Conviction? Kerry has plenty of conviction. Let's look at the Republican portrait of Kerry:

He's wanted political office since before Vietnam, so he knowingly risked his life in order to further his goals, and then spoke out against the benign and uncorruptible Nixon administration war policy, even in the face of overwhelming and righteous opposition. He's the #1 liberal in the Senate. He had been adimantly against lowering taxes and the military for his entire Senate career. Kerry single-handedly determined Senate policy with his votes, causing untold tragedy.

Hmmm, even this completely inaccurate portrait sounds like he has a lot of conviction. Too bad this is a bunch of cow flop.

Do you really think Kerry voted 98 times against tax reduction, and never once for it? If so, you might be misinformed. Do you really think Kerry voted numerous times against weapons programs and never once for them? If so, you might be misinformed. Do you really think Kerry said he would never defend America unless he got international permission? If so, you might be misinformed.

Anyone who thinks seeking legitimacy is the same as asking permission needs to buy a dictionary.

What does he have going for him? The only bill with his name on it in 20 years was the Kerry Amendment that cut 8 billion from intelligence spending. How far do you think he can run on that?

Honestly both the candidates have done things that are wrong, lied, "flip flopped" nad all this stuff, but I'm voting for Bush anyway [COLOR=White] Mostly because Kerry's a crazy democrat that supports the killing of over 20 million babies, www.abortionismurder.com [COLOR]

As an outsider.. and someone that doesn't really care:

Why do many of the Kerry supporters feel the need to be rude/condescending to anyone who doesn't agree with them.

The way I see it:

If Gore had won and done the same thing all the republicans would be bi tching and moaning about how horrible the war in Iraq is and how stupid Al Gore is.. Democrats would be defending him in equal measure.

Partisan politics completely blinds people.

Granted.. no one will agree with this for the above reason.

Chris.

As an outsider.. and someone that doesn't really care:

Why do many of the Kerry supporters feel the need to be rude/condescending to anyone who doesn't agree with them.

The way I see it:

If Gore had won and done the same thing all the republicans would be bi tching and moaning about how horrible the war in Iraq is and how stupid Al Gore is.. Democrats would be defending him in equal measure.

Partisan politics completely blinds people.

Granted.. no one will agree with this for the above reason.

Chris.

How condescending. I guarantee you if Gore had started this war and carried it out as poorly as it has been, I'd be calling for his head. It's not because he's a Republican that I disapprove of Bush, it's because his administration has been guilty of colossal incompetence. It has been revealed that they knowingly used bad intelligence to make their case for war.

Sorry, if you're a Republican or a Democrat or Jesus himself, if you lie in order to take a country to war, then you have a one-way ticket out of the Whitehouse, and if it had been a Democrat in office as President, he would have been on his way to impeachment already, and it would have had my full support.

Honestly both the candidates have done things that are wrong, lied, "flip flopped" nad all this stuff, but I'm voting for Bush anyway Mostly because Kerry's a crazy democrat that supports the killing of over 20 million babies, www.abortionismurder.com [COLOR]
looks like someone messed up their color coding...

Sorry if any of these are repeats, I just like to hear myself um ... type.


One of the big things (in my mind) is why he changed his stance on the war. He's only anti-Iraq war because Dean was beating him for the democratic nomination and he was against the war. Kerry then voted against the extra $(insert whatever big number goes here) for the occupation/rebuilding/whatever so he could back his claim to be anti-war. Having dug that hole for himself, he's making it deeper by trying to explain it away. In other words (specifically mine), he's a brown nosed pansy without a spine. He's still a small step above Bush, but both of them fall somewhere between Foghorn Leghorn and Micky Mouse as far as qualifications go.
When talking about the vote against the fudning I am assuming that you are talking about the additional 87 Billion dollars. Kerry supported an alternative version of that bill that would have temporarly repealed some of Bush's tax cuts (the ones for people makes $400,000 a year or more) to help subsidize the additional funds but Bush threatened to veto that version of the bill (that means that Bush threatened to do what Kerry did). So it is not that Kerry did not support financing our troops, he just did not agree with Bush's plan to supply that funding..
here is the version that he co-sponsored and voted for: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00373

Completely asside from his having slandered me and all other Vietnam veterans? Well, for one thing he hardly ever actually darkened the door of the Senate, having been absent for roll call votes over 70% of the time.actually that attendence record is for the Senate Intelligence Committee's public hearings and not for the whole of the Senate. Kerry's defense is that most of the hearings held by that committee were closed and the attendence record for the closed meetings are not available so his total attendence for that one committee are not available. Though Kerry could always recquest that his attendance records for the closed meetings be made public to my knowledge he has not yet done so.

He has consistenly voted against pay increases for active duty military personnel, against better housing for their families, indeed against virtually ALL defense spending.Consistently might not be the best of words to use. In 1999 he voted for a bill that would authorize a military pay raise of 4.8 percent in 2000 and annual pay increases through 2006 of 0.5 percent above the inflation rate. The bill would also provide additional incentives to certain enlisted personnel who remain on active duty for an additional year, provide additional pension options and benefits along with other provissions. In 1997 adopt the conference report providing $268.3 billion for defense programs. In 1999 Kerry voted for the authorization of 288 Billion dollars for defense spending. then again in 2001 he voted for authorizing $343 Billion dollars for military activities of the Defense Department, military construction, and defense activities of the Department of Energy.

Kerry has not voted for every defense bill that landed in front of him but I think that this statement is a bit of an exaggeration.

He has stated that, "I'd like to see our troops dispersed around the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

He has maintained that we no longer need the CIA, and has called Yasser Arafat "a statesman" and a "role model!" 34 years ago in 1970 he did say this. The conditions then and now are not entirely identicle and I am not too sure how relivant 34 year-old statments are but that is for voters to decide for themselves.

He has voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of the U.S. Government; to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%; to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%; to cut the funding for the NSA by 80%; and then voted to increase OUR funding for United Nations operations by 800%!Just read these, I do not feel up to debunking a claim spread via a chain letter (aka spam).
http://snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=268

Oh, please. Let's not get started on Kerry's medals. I mean, never even overnight in the MASH unit yet still three Purple Hearts? And all of his awards earned in 4 months in Vietnam when most of those new in-country still would have trouble finding their ass with both hands after only 4 months? What a crock.If you have a problem with Kerry's medals than you really ought to hold that against the people that gave him the medals as I do not believe that he ever asked for a single one of them. If you think that they US Navys regulations for awarding medals is flawed than that is fine, but realize that John Kerry was never a high enough ranking official in the Navy to affect those decissions.


Kerry's Senate voting record for those that claim that Kerry never voted for anything substantial.
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

anybody still reading this post?

Actually, about the $87 billion appropriation that the Bush campaign spouts,
Kerry is telling the truth, he did not vote for it and vote for it, he co-sponsored a legislation that would pay the $87 billion by rolling back the tax cuts to individuals that make over $400k a year. That one was defeated, the Bush plan that borrowed the money (that Kerry voted against) was accepted.

so not only is Kerry reluctant to support the defence of our soldiers overseas by whatever means (someone else's if his couldnt be done), but also his first choice was to raise american's taxes?...I dont care if they do make 400k a year, that is still their money, not the government's, and what's more that top 1 or 2% of the money earners pay ~50% of the nation's income tax. If you robbed Bill Gates of a few million dollars....is that not as big a crime as taking a few thousand from a middle class citizen?

Evidently kerry didnt feel that our soldiers' safety was worth letting the wealthy keep their money.

If you have a problem with Kerry's medals than you really ought to hold that against the people that gave him the medals as I do not believe that he ever asked for a single one of them.

actually, Kerry filled out at least one of the application/recommendations for a purple heart himself, which (as a commisioned officer) he did have the power to influence the recommendation process.

so not only is Kerry reluctant to support the defence of our soldiers overseas by whatever means (someone else's if his couldnt be done), but also his first choice was to raise american's taxes?...I dont care if they do make 400k a year, that is still their money, not the government's, and what's more that top 1 or 2% of the money earners pay ~50% of the nation's income tax. If you robbed Bill Gates of a few million dollars....is that not as big a crime as taking a few thousand from a middle class citizen?

Evidently kerry didnt feel that our soldiers' safety was worth letting the wealthy keep their money.

Heven forbid the president is actually RESPONSIBLE with money...:rolleyes:

Heven forbid the president is actually RESPONSIBLE with money...:rolleyes:
And playing god with the lives of the troops in Iraq by withholding funding to them because he wanted to repeal a tax cut is being responsible? That's being horribly irresponsible. That's telling the troops "Hey guys, while you are in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and while you might need more money to get the job done... Win one for the Gipper!!"

And playing god with the lives of the troops in Iraq by withholding funding to them because he wanted to repeal a tax cut is being responsible? That's being horribly irresponsible. That's telling the troops "Hey guys, while you are in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and while you might need more money to get the job done... Win one for the Gipper!!"

Then to be honest, you have to also criticize Bush for threatening to veto the version of the bill that included the tax-break rollback...or is it a case of it's okay for Bush to do it, but not Kerry? Hmmm. No matter which version got signed, the men were going to get the funding (after Bush had already sent them into Iraq without the proper armor.

Really, I could say that Bush was saying, "Hey guys, I'm sending you to war without proper armor, and when it comes time to actually fund you, I'm going to insist that the richest 1% keep their tax cut instead of funding your expenses."

Simply, you can't criticize one without also criticizing the other.

One of the big things (in my mind) is why he changed his stance on the war. He's only anti-Iraq war because Dean was beating him for the democratic nomination and he was against the war. Kerry then voted against the extra $(insert whatever big number goes here) for the occupation/rebuilding/whatever so he could back his claim to be anti-war. Having dug that hole for himself, he's making it deeper by trying to explain it away. In other words (specifically mine), he's a brown nosed pansy without a spine. He's still a small step above Bush, but both of them fall somewhere between Foghorn Leghorn and Micky Mouse as far as qualifications go.

Thats complete bullshit man....u've bought into the conservative lies....kerry voted against the resolution to fund the war because he wanted the $ to come from a tax roll back, as an earlier version of the bill had indicated. he voted against the bill because it increased the deficit, not so he could come off as anti-war. anyone who knows the slightest bit about the senate knows that senators vote against bills as a form of protest because they liked another version better.

I myself am against us giving Iran enriched uranium (or any kind of 'nuclear fuel' - not sure exactly what kinds of it there are), but I don't think we ever were going to GIVE it to them. We were merely going to take what they had.

And also, from Kerry's web site:

"The Kerry-Edwards strategy uses all of our resources and the might of international alliances to... end nuclear weapons programs in nations like North Korea and Iran."

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:sLIQH8dr0dgJ:www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/strategy.html+john+kerry+iran&hl=en

You didn't answer the question. Why does Kerry think it's a good idea to do the same thing in Iraq that failed miserably in N. Korea? Why would he want to give Iran this material, then see if they could be trusted with it? If not then sanction them??? Wow that's like giving a psychopath a gun and telling him that those people in that market are out to get him. Then seeing what happens.

Look at his Senate record. 20 years and not ONE piece of substantial legislation.
Your sure about that?
I saw a NRA thing against kerry and they referenced a lot of votes by him. (IF the NRA hates him, he must be good ^_^)
Also, the republicans are loosing their mind over him having the most liberal voting record in history (which f*cks over their claims of flip-flopping, how can someone change position with the political win AND keep the most liberal voting record)

That is one hell of a rant Etrusca,

for his voting record, VoteSmart has his roll call at 95% plus every year from 1999 to 2002, check it out here
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103

2000: voted for a bill that extended benefits to Military retirees that joined before 1956
2000: voted against a bill that allowed the president to dismantle nuclear weopons
1999: voted yes for a military pay raise of 4.8% for 2000 and annual pay raises subsequently
1998: voted yes to a bill authorizing $274 billion for military construction in 1999

I personally believe that the U.N. is only strong when we support it, and that we should be responsive to the desires of the UN

About killing all anti terrorism operations I just find that hard to believe.
Its possible he voted to cutting anti-terrorist funding, before 9/11, the popular view in congress was anti-terrorism is a waste of money. Thats the thing I hate about whenever the bush camp quotes his record, they're quoting it completely out of context.

In the entire campaign, Kerry has not held one consistent position. (Except gay marriage, but that's pretty trivial at a time like this.) His foreign policy was never consistent when he was in the Senate, for that matter, and that makes him a dark horse - who knows what he'll do when he's elected? He'll probably be ambivalent, which is a notch above appeasing but still not exactly a sound wartime policy.

Oh, and he's a compulsive liar whenever it seems he's threatened. Usually the lie is really, really easy to check, like the classic $87 Billion line and the recent coverup thereof that it was late at night and he wasn't thinking, but a quick lookup says it was at noon.

I don't know about his record on the economic front, but his campaign promises (continuing the War on Terror only moreso, universal health insurance, public school funding, and tax raises on the rich only - to paraphrase a recent commercial) tend to indicate that he'll at least double Bush's atrocious deficit rate.
Okay, undoing Bush's Corporate/rich tax cuts will nearly erase the deficit (at least yearly) Also, Heaven forbid that a politician act like one. Its called campaigning, you say whatever you think you have to in order to get elected. Bush did it too. Zeb (sp?) Miller actually said it best, "20 years of Senate Record tells you more about a man than 4 months of campaigning" (Paraphrase) That is why I'm voting for Kerry, because of his record, and that he's not Bush.

As an outsider.. and someone that doesn't really care:

Why do many of the Kerry supporters feel the need to be rude/condescending to anyone who doesn't agree with them.

The way I see it:

If Gore had won and done the same thing all the republicans would be bi tching and moaning about how horrible the war in Iraq is and how stupid Al Gore is.. Democrats would be defending him in equal measure.

Partisan politics completely blinds people.

Granted.. no one will agree with this for the above reason.

Chris.I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a republican, in 2000, i supported Nader (probably part of the reason we're in this mess right now). Also, I have a hard time believing that Gore would have done all the things Bush has for several reasons.
A) No personal vendetta against Hussein (bushes' own words (albeit paraphrased "He tried to kill my father.")
B) No Vice President pushing him to do things for personal reasons (Halliburton in Iraq NO BID!!!)

Your sure about that?
I saw a NRA thing against kerry and they referenced a lot of votes by him. (IF the NRA hates him, he must be good ^_^)
Also, the republicans are loosing their mind over him having the most liberal voting record in history (which f*cks over their claims of flip-flopping, how can someone change position with the political win AND keep the most liberal voting record)

Voting is one thing....but sponsoring meaningful legislation is another. Kerry did not sponsor ONE piece of substantial legislation in 20 years. In my book, that means he really did nothing but draw a paycheck.

Voting is one thing....but sponsoring meaningful legislation is another. Kerry did not sponsor ONE piece of substantial legislation in 20 years. In my book, that means he really did nothing but draw a paycheck.

I don't know how you can keep saying this after it's been debunked repeatedly. Nop use setting up a link either, as you obviously have not bothered to read them. Oh, I guess the fact that Kerry spearheaded the Iran-Contra investigation means nothing to you as well. Oh, wait, that was an investigation into illegal arms trading and hostage deals carried out by your precious Republicans, so I guess it means nothing to you. :rolleyes:

The Neo-Cons in charge are what's wrong with America. You support them. Why do you hate America? Do you self-loathe because of our freedoms?

also his first choice was to raise american's taxesThe money that they spend (being the elected representatives of the citizens) is the responsibility of every citizen of the US and as a result the debt that they incure is ours. Personally I do not know of a way of getting out of debt without paying it but I am willing to listen to suggestions.

actually, Kerry filled out at least one of the application/recommendations for a purple heart himself, which (as a commisioned officer) he did have the power to influence the recommendation process.I was thinking more of the ability of influencing what criteria exist to recieve a medal other than the ability to recomend a person for a medal.

I had not heard about Kerry recommending himself for a purple heart. Can you provide me with any additional information on that?

He really has not done ANYTHING. His Senate record is pretty much empty. However, with such a shoddy record, many feel that he is not qualified to be President. I have a problem with him because although he says he won't, he WILL raise our taxes to pay for more social programs. The 1960's showed us that those programs are a disaster and thats where he wants to take us again. Not to even mention his weak stance on the military.

Agreed, BP.

You don't have a sig. Therefore no link. Bush's policy seems to be consistently "kick enemy butt but always look nice at any cost", which kind of sucks (like the Afghan food boxes fiasco, or giving humanitarian aid to Fallujah and defeating the purpose of besieging the city) but that isn't the change-on-a-dime we're seeing with Kerry. Nor is it nearly as bad in a wartime president.

Domestic policy? Yes, Bush flip-flops. He panders shamelessly (though not incompatible things to different people). And he's consistent in his war against the First Amendment. At least he's consistent about tax cuts as well. But domestic policy comes second right about now - not getting nuked or taken over by a dictatorship is high on my list of priorities right now.

Why is neither candidate willing to attack Saudi Arabia? That's just stupid. Iran is on both lists, and a good thing too, but Saudi Arabia should be obvious. Neither is brilliant, but Bush is at least competent. His foreign policy, that is.

This won't be the last time you hear me say it - I really wish Condi Rice were running.

Obviously, because the last post was my first in this corner of the 'Net, I am a mindless tool of the GOP. Congratulations, you've deduced my deep, dark secret.

LOL! Welcome to the wonderful world of liberal mindlessness! :D

how can someone change position with the political win AND keep the most liberal voting record)

Um ... because the only bills he voted for were liberal ones? Duh.

The Neo-Cons in charge are what's wrong with America. You support them. Why do you hate America? Do you self-loathe because of our freedoms?

Sounds to me as if YOU"RE the one who hates America and is filled with self-loathing.

You didn't answer the question. Why does Kerry think it's a good idea to do the same thing in Iraq that failed miserably in N. Korea? Why would he want to give Iran this material, then see if they could be trusted with it? If not then sanction them???

I see I misunderstood you. Sorry about that. As for nuclear fuel, the same page on Kerry's web site states:

"Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear."

Feel free at any point to correct any misinterpretations I might have, but it does not sound to me, that this would allow for Iran to actually build a nuke of any form. Clinton's situation in North Korea did have a negative outcome, but unlike Kerry's proposal, there was no apparent plan to regulate or watch North Korea and how they used such fuel. Also, at least from what I read, Kerry's plan is to do this to specifically address the world's worries, and leave them with no excuses when they get their fuel of any kind that could lead them to pursuing any weapons programs.

If they really want fuel, and not a weapons program, give to them only the fuel they need, no more no less, and then see what they say. Either they'll be silenced, the world's worries stopped, or if they decline, we'll know their real motive, and take action appropriatley. And also, it emphasizes that such an aid supply would come from a *collection* of states, not simply the U.S.

An infinitley better solution than just jumping into war and ignoring your intelligence, your alternatives, and what the vast majority of the globe thinks is right.

Kerry received the Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, three awards of the Purple Heart, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, a Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Combat Action Ribbon for his service in Vietnam.
Kerry was also a member of Task Force 115, which was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for Extraordinary Heroism *SNIP*I'll stop reading at this post, and start replying.
Silver Star Is not extremely difficult to achieve for an Officer. During DS all officers in my company got one. Not quite dime a dozen.
Bronze Star is fairly common, all Squad leaders and above who did not get SS got BS. Almost dime a dozen.
All the other medals, big phooey, I have lots, and lots I have 4 that all deal with DS as in the ones he has for Vietnam. Every unit I have ever served with had at least the PUC, with most having numerous, and Congressional and Foreign military UCs. He had nothing to do with those!

But, lets talk about the PH (Purple Hearts). It is so written, that any service member that receive's the 3rd or more PH while serving in a single combat tour will have his tour terminated. *Mr. Kerry SERVED FIVE (5) MONTHS OF HIS TWELVE (12) MONTH COMMITMENT* before he returned home. That's SEVEN (7) month's earlier than his comrades. If you want a QUITTER, a person who has proven he DOES NOT have the intestinal fortitude to go the distance, YOU HAVE FOUND that with Mr. Kerry.

Um ... because the only bills he voted for were liberal ones? Duh.

Ah, so he's NOT a flip-flopper. Thanks for clearing that up Eutrusca.

Sounds to me as if YOU"RE the one who hates America and is filled with self-loathing.

Whatever gave you that idea? I love America, but I hate the Anti-American activities of the Bush administration. You support the anti-American activities of the Bush administration, so my only conclusion is that you hate America.

Is it because of our freedoms Eutrusca?

If you want a QUITTER, a person who has proven he DOES NOT have the intestinal fortitude to go the distance, YOU HAVE FOUND that with Mr. Kerry.Couldn't the same thing be said for Bush with his complete avoidence of the vietnam conflict? I have not looked into it personally yet but from what I understand during the Vietnam Conflict one of the ways out was to join the National Guard, which at the time had something like a 2+ year waiting list. So if Bush jumped into the National Guard couldn't that qualify him for the lael of a coward that is only concerned with the appearance of serving his country when he is only loking after his own interests? Again, I have not looked into the specifics of National Guard duty nor the conditions surrounding Bush's enlistment personally.

Couldn't the same thing be said for Bush with his complete avoidence of the vietnam conflict? I have not looked into it personally yet but from what I understand during the Vietnam Conflict one of the ways out was to join the National Guard, which at the time had something like a 2+ year waiting list. So if Bush jumped into the National Guard couldn't that qualify him for the lael of a coward that is only concerned with the appearance of serving his country when he is only loking after his own interests? Again, I have not looked into the specifics of National Guard duty nor the conditions surrounding Bush's enlistment personally.
You might have forgotten otr not heard that Bush left the Guard early to help a freind campaign. He also did'nt show up when he supposed to numerous ties. I wouldn't say "AWOL", but maybe absent repeatily.

If Kerry was doing his job, then his voting record should be of no consequence, he is a representative of the people of Mass. and last time I checked, they are fairly liberal.

If Kerry was doing his job, then his voting record should be of no consequence, he is a representative of the people of Mass. and last time I checked, they are fairly liberal.
Since Republicans are against/hate Kerry for his votes and he votes what he is supposed to. (Mass being "liberal"). That means Republicans hate Massachusetts.
Gee that makes must make people all warm inside :)

You might have forgotten otr not heard that Bush left the Guard early to help a freind campaign. He also did'nt show up when he supposed to numerous ties. I wouldn't say "AWOL", but maybe absent repeatily.No, I am familiar with that whole questionable situation. Personally I think that if compairing military service records Bush has nothing on Kerry. At least Kerry knows what it is to go to war and kill a man. Bush just knows how to dodge duty and let others die while he stays where it is nice and safe ... but that is just my opinion.

*Mr. Kerry SERVED FIVE (5) MONTHS OF HIS TWELVE (12) MONTH COMMITMENT* before he returned home. That's SEVEN (7) month's earlier than his comrades. If you want a QUITTER, a person who has proven he DOES NOT have the intestinal fortitude to go the distance, YOU HAVE FOUND that with Mr. Kerry.

He also got, as you said, 3 purple hearts, meaning he would be sent home.