NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is an interesting article from NewsMax:

Sunday, Nov. 7, 2004 10:11 a.m. EST
Diary Bombshell: Kerry Met With Terrorists

In a bombshell development that could have turned President Bush's victory into a landslide had it come out before the election, John Kerry wrote in his Vietnam War diary that he met with "terrorists" in Paris - a revelation that "flabbergasted" his running mate, John Edwards.


All during the campaign, Kerry had adamantly refused to release his diary, claiming that he'd given exclusive rights to use the document to his biographer, Douglas Brinkely. But when Brinkley told reporters that wasn't true, Kerry still declined to make the diary public.

Story Continues Below



Now we know why.
According to Newsweek magazine, "Kerry's diary included mention of a meeting with some North Vietnamese terrorists in Paris."

Though Kerry's sit-down with North Vietnamese representatives had been reported late in the campaign, his description of them as "terrorists" would have set off smoke alarms.

The prospect that the top Democrat was willing to negotiate with "terrorists" 35 years ago would undoubtedly have cemented the Bush campaign's central message on Kerry: Anyone who would negotiate with terrorists can't be trusted with U.S. national security in a post-9/11 world.

John Edwards was "flabbergasted" by the news, Newsweek said. He recognized immediately how important it was to keep Kerry's terrorist confab secret.

"Let me get this straight," he told campaign staffers who delivered the shocker. "He met with terrorists? Oh, that's good."


Your opinions?

Who cares?

This is newsmax we are talking about... None of their stories are accurate.

Who cares?
59,000,000 Americans.

Good God! He tried to negotiate? He should burn as a sinner!

Negotiation with rebels seemingly works better in many cases in stopping the conflict - Ireland, ETA, Indian Independence (there was a rebellion that concerened the British far more than the actions of Ghandi).

Half of those americans were bible thumpers, a quarter of them still tought Iraq had WMD's and ties to al qaeda, and the other quarter didnt like John Kerry because he "flipflopped"

Good God! He tried to negotiate? He should burn as a sinner!

Negotiation with rebels seemingly works better in many cases in stopping the conflict - Ireland, ETA, Indian Independence (there was a rebellion that concerened the British far more than the actions of Ghandi).

You should remember that Mr Kerry was still in the military when he visited Paris and was not asked to seek peace with the NV. Traitorous at best.

This is newsmax we are talking about... None of their stories are accurate.

Yes you are so correct, they are 100% inaccurate! :rolleyes: Well don't believe anything either from the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, Guardian, and the Boston Globe.

You should remember that Mr Kerry was still in the military when he visited Paris and was not asked to seek peace with the NV. Traitorous at best.
You mean there's something worse than treason? :eek:

Half of those americans were bible thumpers, a quarter of them still tought Iraq had WMD's and ties to al qaeda, and the other quarter didnt like John Kerry because he "flipflopped"

Why do you hate Christians? What have they ever done to you?

Why do you hate Christians? What have they ever done to you?

What haven't they?

Why do you hate Christians? What have they ever done to you?

there is a huge difference between "bible thumpers" and most christians.

What haven't they?
I don't know. Why don't you give some examples, instead of the childish cop-out you posted?

Is this a Weekly World News headline? Was Batboy at the meeting too?

He has not met with the Empire of Presidency. If he would like to do so he must use the proper channels.

there is a huge difference between "bible thumpers" and most christians.

Bible thumpers shouldn't really affect you if you don't want them too. Turn the channel away from them on TV, close the door on them when they preach at your house, ignore thme in public. Really how do bible thumpers affect you. If they do it is because you let them. We have a freedom of expression in this country. Wouldn't most Christians be considered bible thumpers if they talk about their religion? Did you have problems with Carter and his bible thumping, or Clinton, Gore, and Kerry campaigning in black Churches?

BTW the President is not a big time bible thumper. Last time I checked, he hasn't been reading sermons to the country, telling us to convert to Christianity.

What haven't they?

Name one thing they've done to you in particular, besides talking to you about their God. If that is the only thing, and that really bothers you, you need some thicker skin.

Well, newsmax defines the North Vietnamese government as terrorists, because most people would know that the only terrorists in Vietnam were the Americans that killed entire villages. The "terrorists" that John Kerry met with, were members of the North Vietnam government, which took place during peace talks.

Since when did the North Vietnamese earn the title of "Terrorist"? It was a civil war in Vietnam that the USA had no business in. Let it go, it was 35 years ago.. sheesh!

Bible thumpers shouldn't really affect you if you don't want them too. Turn the channel away from them on TV, close the door on them when they preach at your house, ignore thme in public. Really how do bible thumpers affect you. If they do it is because you let them. We have a freedom of expression in this country. Wouldn't most Christians be considered bible thumpers if they talk about their religion? Did you have problems with Carter and his bible thumping, or Clinton, Gore, and Kerry campaigning in black Churches?

BTW the President is not a big time bible thumper. Last time I checked, he hasn't been reading sermons to the country, telling us to convert to Christianity.

By bible thumper, I mean any born again, or evangelical christian.

I'm adding you to my ignore list anyways for "Being a right wing disinformationist."

Its a matter of principal(in a rush sorry for bad spelling) no governemnt should at any times ever negotiate with terrorists.It just send the message that they can get something for their terrosit activities, when really the citizens want the terrorist dead, and nothing more.

Since when did the North Vietnamese earn the title of "Terrorist"? It was a civil war in Vietnam that the USA had no business in. Let it go, it was 35 years ago.. sheesh!


These conservatives are the same people that supported the Vietnam war.

Its a matter of principal(in a rush sorry for bad spelling) no governemnt should at any times ever negotiate with terrorists.It just send the message that they can get something for their terrosit activities, when really the citizens want the terrorist dead, and nothing more.

So the Israelis should never negociate with the Palestinians?

These conservatives are the same people that supported the Vietnam war.

Well it would appear any one who doesn't agree with them is a terrorist.. so whatever. :rolleyes:

Well, newsmax defines the North Vietnamese government as terrorists, because most people would know that the only terrorists in Vietnam were the Americans that killed entire villages. The "terrorists" that John Kerry met with, were members of the North Vietnam government, which took place during peace talks.

The Vietcong annihilated far more villages than the Americans. You are ignorant of the facts of history; blinded by your ideology and hatred.

Well it would appear any one who doesn't agree with them is a terrorist.. so whatever. :rolleyes:

And wasn't pulling out of Fallujah a few months ago appeasing the terrorists...

These conservatives are the same people that supported the Vietnam war.
To quote a line from the movie "Die Hard": "I was in junior high, dickhead."

These conservatives are the same people that supported the Vietnam war.

Well who really started the war in Vietnam? JFK and LBJ.

To quote a line from the movie "Die Hard": "I was in junior high, dickhead."

A flame is a flame even if you try to cover it up with a quote..

Don't flame again. You have been warned.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Neocons working towards their glorious "Project for the New American Century" had both of them by the gonads since they were sworn into the Scull & Bones Men fraternity.

Now, more than ever, the old adage of "whoever you vote for, the government gets in" rings true and loud.

Corporate globalisation will keep rolling on until the rest of humanity is reduced to a domesticated herd of unthinking, terrified zombies.

Four more years...

By bible thumper, I mean any born again, or evangelical christian.

I'm adding you to my ignore list anyways for "Being a right wing disinformationist."

Please ignore me.

Good God! He tried to negotiate? He should burn as a sinner!


OMFG! I hope that was sarcastic! Do you realise how repulsive that sounds?

Here is an interesting article from NewsMax:

Sunday, Nov. 7, 2004 10:11 a.m. EST
Diary Bombshell: Kerry Met With Terrorists

In a bombshell development that could have turned President Bush's victory into a landslide had it come out before the election, John Kerry wrote in his Vietnam War diary that he met with "terrorists" in Paris - a revelation that "flabbergasted" his running mate, John Edwards.


All during the campaign, Kerry had adamantly refused to release his diary, claiming that he'd given exclusive rights to use the document to his biographer, Douglas Brinkely. But when Brinkley told reporters that wasn't true, Kerry still declined to make the diary public.

Story Continues Below



Now we know why.
According to Newsweek magazine, "Kerry's diary included mention of a meeting with some North Vietnamese terrorists in Paris."

Though Kerry's sit-down with North Vietnamese representatives had been reported late in the campaign, his description of them as "terrorists" would have set off smoke alarms.

The prospect that the top Democrat was willing to negotiate with "terrorists" 35 years ago would undoubtedly have cemented the Bush campaign's central message on Kerry: Anyone who would negotiate with terrorists can't be trusted with U.S. national security in a post-9/11 world.

John Edwards was "flabbergasted" by the news, Newsweek said. He recognized immediately how important it was to keep Kerry's terrorist confab secret.

"Let me get this straight," he told campaign staffers who delivered the shocker. "He met with terrorists? Oh, that's good."


Your opinions?
This isn't news anymore. That Kerry met with North Vietnamese representatives has been well established since very early in his campaign for the Democratic nomination.

A flame is a flame even if you try to cover it up with a quote..

Don't flame again. You have been warned.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

See, this is the hypocrisy I was talking about. Leftists on this forum can flame all they want, saying the most horrible things about Americans in general, and Christians in particular, and they have immunity. But let me point out the obvious fallacy of a leftist's post, with an innocent and light-hearted quote (anyone who has seen the movie knows what I'm talking about) and I'm "warned."

This isn't news anymore. That Kerry met with North Vietnamese representatives has been well established since very early in his campaign for the Democratic nomination.

I think the NEWS part was that Kerry called the North Vietnamese TERRORISTS in his own diary.

See, this is the hypocrisy I was talking about. Leftists on this forum can flame all they want, saying the most horrible things about Americans in general, and Christians in particular, and they have immunity. But let me point out the obvious fallacy of a leftist's post, with an innocent and light-hearted quote (anyone who has seen the movie knows what I'm talking about) and I'm "warned."

Oh, I see, so it's the fault of leftists that forced you to flame a player. That makes so much more sense. Give me a break. Worry about your own behaviour.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

How many times has Rumsfeld met with terrorists? What about the Reagan Administration in Central America and the Middle East. Todays Terrorist is Tommorows Freedom Fighter. I'm amazed you could consider this a big deal...

AKI

I think the NEWS part was that Kerry called the North Vietnamese TERRORISTS in his own diary.
Ah. Ok. I must have missed that.

Its a matter of principal(in a rush sorry for bad spelling) no governemnt should at any times ever negotiate with terrorists.It just send the message that they can get something for their terrosit activities, when really the citizens want the terrorist dead, and nothing more.
ermm, kerry was in the army, not in the government, and does this mean that governments and terrorist should take turns blowing the fuck out of each other???? :gundge: :eek: :mp5:

So the Israelis should never negociate with the Palestinians?

I think you're on to something there. Negotiation with terrorists only begats more terrorism. The Israelis have the right idea about how to treat terrorists. Arafat is one of the worst. As I recall, he was kicked out of Jordan, because King Hussein couldn't stand the bad publicity of Arafats politics.

Sad to say, but the U.S. might have escalated terror activity when the Carter administration started to negotiate with the 'Mad Mullahs' in Iran. For those that don't remember, some Iranian terrorists seized the American embassy in Tehran during the late 70's. Carter tried appeasement, but it didn't work to get the hostages released. All that happened was to embolden the terrorists and give others the idea that they could gain from it.

Think of terrorists as spoiled children. If you give in to the child, he only gets worse. Problem is the child only throws a temper tantrum when he doesn't get his way. The terrorist throws a bomb.

Oh, I see, so it's the fault of leftists that forced you to flame a player. That makes so much more sense. Give me a break. Worry about your own behaviour.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

I think what he is trying to say is that leftists dont get warned but rightwing posters do for essentially the same behaviour. He wasnt being critical of leftist posts, he was being critical of the selectiveness of moderator warning and deletions etc.

Oh, I see, so it's the fault of leftists that forced you to flame a player. That makes so much more sense. Give me a break. Worry about your own behaviour.

Stephanie
Game Moderator
Steph, there seems to be general agreement among those on the less, um, "liberal" side of the political spectrum that there is a somewhat more stringent standard applied to posts from the right than to those who post from the left. I've come to accept that as a fact of life on the board, but perhaps you should factor this into your approach. Just a thought.

ermm, kerry was in the army, not in the government, and does this mean that governments and terrorist should take turns blowing the fuck out of each other???? :gundge: :eek: :mp5:
News falsh ... the Army is PART of the government! By attempting to negotiate with the terrorists, Kerry was "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." This is old ground we are covering here.

Ok lets seee.

Kerry gets flamed for negotiating with so-called terrorists.
Bush doesn't, even though his family had strong relations to the Bin Laden family for roughly 25 years (traded in firearms).

Is something wrong here?

Oh, I see, so it's the fault of leftists that forced you to flame a player. That makes so much more sense. Give me a break. Worry about your own behaviour.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

That's not what I said at all. My point was: if you're going to "warn" me for that post, you need to "warn" others, on the left, who post far more offensive things than what I was "warned" for. Or else allow me to make equivalent posts without a "warning." In other words, stop the double-standard.

Steph, there seems to be general agreement among those on the less, um, "liberal" side of the political spectrum that there is a somewhat more stringent standard applied to posts from the right than to those who post from the left. I've come to accept that as a fact of life on the board, but perhaps you should factor this into your approach. Just a thought.

Not true. If you may recall "Gigatron" well he just got a DoS order the other day, he was one of the more liberal posters on this forum. I admit I don't read every thread. If you see a liberal, a conservative , any one flame, bring it to our attention in moderation. We can't possibly read every single post in every single thread. So yes, some times flames do slip through the cracks. If you don't report it or we don't stumble across it, we probably won't ever know about it. Trust me, if there was a bias here on either side, you'd see many more hard-core conservatives and or liberals being deleted. All I did was give him a warning for a obvious flame. That is my job.

OK, so, someone shouldnt get involved in terrorists/freedom fighters?

How do you defend: a) US funding of the Taliban against Russia?
b)Bay of Pigs in Cuba
c)Anti-communist regime perpetuations in South America
d)Sadam Hussain in Iraq
These are all things that happened in the latter half of the 20th Century. Hope you learn how to argue properly in the future.

That's not what I said at all. My point was: if you're going to "warn" me for that post, you need to "warn" others, on the left, who post far more offensive things than what I was "warned" for. Or else allow me to make equivalent posts without a "warning." In other words, stop the double-standard.


All I said was that bible thumpers supported bush. Are you going to argue that?

News falsh ... the Army is PART of the government! By attempting to negotiate with the terrorists, Kerry was "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." This is old ground we are covering here.
No, he was out of the army when he met with them in France.
He was there on a Honeymoon. Marriage you know and all.

So your claim that he was in the army is false.

All I said was that bible thumpers supported bush. Are you going to argue that?
It is the derogatory term "[B]ible thumpers" that I object to, not whether "they" voted for Bush. THAT'S where you're flaming.

The Bush family has their ties to terrorists too my firends. Before some start trying to paint a picture that's obviously partisan, first at least know what your opponents can counter with. In fact there's evidence of ties between our government(US) and terrorists - but supposedly before their declaration of terrorism.

Republicans and Democrats? Conservatives and Liberals? Reformists and Progressives? Once upon a time these labels weren'y derragatory or party titles - they represented the candidates/politicians stance on certain issues. Now-a-days if you're liberal on one issue, your whole-heartedly a liberal and the same for conservatives.
differing party affiliation is not the enemy here. It's the driving forces behind those parties = MONEY. A time is coming where an acute awareness of what the real hinderances of progress and mutual achievements are. It will be realized by all parties as not differing views or interpretations of importance, but what's been 'funding' any sort of progress.
A sad realization must be made. One of shame for all Americans and Politicians alike. It is the fact that no longer is the sole issue, "what's good for our country and our people overall, over all issues."
Right now it's more like, " What's good for our countires profitability markets. How do we up our profits."

This will be the day many realize that Capitalism has serious, adverse, and contagious effects on civilization.


The winners aren't the republicans this year. It's the voters voices that have won a victory.

It is the derogatory term "[B]ible thumpers" that I object to, not whether "they" voted for Bush. THAT'S where you're flaming.

See, that was not a flame.. perhaps borders flamebait.. but I wouldn't say it crossed the line. It's no different then calling people "leftists" or "right wingers" or "bible thumpers" You see the difference from what they said and what you said?

They didn't cross the line into a personal attack. That's the difference.

Here is an interesting article from NewsMax:

Sunday, Nov. 7, 2004 10:11 a.m. EST
Diary Bombshell: Kerry Met With Terrorists

In a bombshell development that could have turned President Bush's victory into a landslide had it come out before the election, John Kerry wrote in his Vietnam War diary that he met with "terrorists" in Paris - a revelation that "flabbergasted" his running mate, John Edwards.


All during the campaign, Kerry had adamantly refused to release his diary, claiming that he'd given exclusive rights to use the document to his biographer, Douglas Brinkely. But when Brinkley told reporters that wasn't true, Kerry still declined to make the diary public.

Story Continues Below



Now we know why.
According to Newsweek magazine, "Kerry's diary included mention of a meeting with some North Vietnamese terrorists in Paris."

Though Kerry's sit-down with North Vietnamese representatives had been reported late in the campaign, his description of them as "terrorists" would have set off smoke alarms.

The prospect that the top Democrat was willing to negotiate with "terrorists" 35 years ago would undoubtedly have cemented the Bush campaign's central message on Kerry: Anyone who would negotiate with terrorists can't be trusted with U.S. national security in a post-9/11 world.

John Edwards was "flabbergasted" by the news, Newsweek said. He recognized immediately how important it was to keep Kerry's terrorist confab secret.

"Let me get this straight," he told campaign staffers who delivered the shocker. "He met with terrorists? Oh, that's good."


Your opinions?




My opinions?


Oh my - he used a word 35 years ago, and that word is now a hot-button issue today. Why on EARTH didn't he think in the early 70s that he might have to deal with terrorism as a top issue when running for President in the next century?

What? Isn't he psychic?

He's not?

Oh - well I won't vote for his sorry ass then! It's a job prerequisite!!!

</sarcasm>



Um, the fact that a person MIGHT have used the term "Terrorist" in a personal diary 35 years ago when referring to a meeting with people that the had fought a guerrila war against is supposed to be a campaign issue?


Hell - the right has already pilloried him for perhaps being over-the-top in his rhetoric in front of the Senate at that time haven't they? So what is this supposed to mean? That he spoke truly back then? That he was right back then (and what would that say about his testimony?)? That the Vietnamese WERE terrorists? And by noting that fact during a meeting during peace talks John Kerry was what? Allying himself with terrorists?


Or is this story's asinine assumption that once somebody called them "terrorists" that nobody in the American government could negotiate with them at all and so the war could never have ended because that would be "negotiating with terrorists"....



Oh, by the way - calling the North Vietnamese "terrorists" doesn't change the fact that they WERE the duly recognized government at the time. And so yes - they were the people to negotiate the end of the war with.




My opinion on this story?


That it is entirely in line with my expectations from NewsMax: Which is to say that it should come printed on a soft, perforated roll about 5 inches wide.....

See, that was not a flame.. perhaps borders flamebait.. but I wouldn't say it crossed the line. It's no different then calling people "leftists" or "right wingers" or "bible thumpers" You see the difference from what they said and what you said?

They didn't cross the line into a personal attack. That's the difference.

OK, I get it now. It's OK if you're referring to a group instead of a particular person. It's like calling African-Americans "n*ggers", just another way to refer to a group of people. Right?

No, I don't see any difference.

OK, I get it now. It's OK if you're referring to a group instead of a particular person. It's like calling African-Americans "n*ggers", just another way to refer to a group of people. Right?

No, I don't see any difference.

Sigh, okay.. well there is not much more I can tell you. I find being called a leftists offensive.. but it's not against the rules.. so what can you do huh! I don't make the rules I only enforce them. The "N" word would be considered flamebait though.. because the "N" word doesn't fall in the same category as the other three, same as if you called Jewish people "kike's" it would also be flamebait. It's the difference between personal attack and personal belief. A persons belief can be argued a persons race can not.

Sigh, okay.. well there is not much more I can tell you. I find being called a leftists offensive.. but it's not against the rules.. so what can you do huh! I don't make the rules I only enforce them. The "N" word would be considered flamebait though.. because the "N" word doesn't fall in the same category as the other three, same as if you called Jewish people "kike's" it would also be flamebait. It's the difference between personal attack and personal belief. A persons belief can be argued a persons race can not.
Wait, what is a kike? I've never heard that word before... do people use that?

Its a matter of principal(in a rush sorry for bad spelling) no governemnt should at any times ever negotiate with terrorists.

They have to, the US is on the Security Council.

Wait, what is a kike? I've never heard that word before... do people use that?

I hope people don't use it, unless they want a warning..lol

It's kind of the equal to the "N" word for Jewish people. It's a very racist thing to say.

Sigh, okay.. well there is not much more I can tell you. I find being called a leftists offensive.. but it's not against the rules.. so what can you do huh! I don't make the rules I only enforce them. The "N" word would be considered flamebait though.. because the "N" word doesn't fall in the same category as the other three, same as if you called Jewish people "kike's" it would also be flamebait. It's the difference between personal attack and personal belief. A persons belief can be argued a persons race can not.
Being Jewish is a religion, not racial.

"Bible thumper" is INTENDED to be derogatory, unlike "leftist." Many people find it truly offensive, not like your feigned offense at "leftist."

Sigh, okay.. well there is not much more I can tell you. I find being called a leftists offensive.. but it's not against the rules.. so what can you do huh! I don't make the rules I only enforce them. The "N" word would be considered flamebait though.. because the "N" word doesn't fall in the same category as the other three, same as if you called Jewish people "kike's" it would also be flamebait. It's the difference between personal attack and personal belief. A persons belief can be argued a persons race can not.


Whats wrong with leftist? Do you also find lefty offensive to. Surely being called a leftist is better than being called a fascist (which even right-moderates get a lot here.)

Does it bother you when rightist is used.

Being Jewish is a religion, not racial.

"Bible thumper" is INTENDED to be derogatory, unlike "leftist." Many people find it truly offensive, not like your feigned offense at "leftist."
Why can't people find leftist offensive?
And why is "bible thumper" more offensive?

I use a bible but I don't thump it lol. What does thumping mean?
Some of these names make no sense.

This story was picked by NewsMax ("the leading conservative news site on the web") from a WorldNetDaily story ("one of the nation’s most prominent conservative internet sites") by Art Moore, whose chief source for the story was Jerome Corsi, co-author of Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth.

Hardly the journalististic standards required of "NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, Guardian, and the Boston Globe."

There is an old Bedouin saying, "When the camel falls, the knives come out." It is never enough for the far-right to simply win. They must personally destroy and discredit anyone who would dare challenge them.

Being Jewish is a religion, not racial.

"Bible thumper" is INTENDED to be derogatory, unlike "leftist." Many people find it truly offensive, not like your feigned offense at "leftist."

IMHO "Bible Thumper" is no more derogatory than the term "Bleeding Heart Liberal", "Tree Hugger", "Communist" or any other term I've seen right-wingers use to describe the left. I haven't seen any of them flagged on NS for using them either. Flamebait maybe, but not a flame.

Besides, there are people who would be proud to be called a "Bible Thumper" on the right as some on the left wouldn't object to being called any of the names I've mentioned above.

Whats wrong with leftist? Do you also find lefty offensive to. Surely being called a leftist is better than being called a fascist (which even right-moderates get a lot here.)

Does it bother you when rightist is used.

It doesn't bother me if I'm called a kike (example only!) since I'm not jewish. I don't know why someone would be offended by being called something they are obviously not. In fact it could be funny being insulted by this confused individual.

First of all, "kike" is a very hateful term applying to a segment of the world's population, designated by race and religion. Leftist/right wing nut job are terms applied to segments of population by choice. You can choose to be liberal, but you don't choose your race. Foul names are offensive to most no matter your political, racial, or religious leanings. If you feel that your side of political and religious issues are more apt to draw warnings and punishment, then keep that in mind and control the text of your posts. If your claims are correct, and many on here feel that they are, then you will put yourself above those who would use personal power to curtail your involvement on these boards. Always take the high road and you'll gain more respect.

As for the excerpts from Kerry's diary; Hello?? Have any of you been listening to the Swifties? Try googling "winter soldier" and read everything about it.

First, let's replace the word "terrorist" with the word "enemy" to help avoid confusion and side-tracking. Also, let's clear up that he was in the Navy, not the Army. He was still in the Navy while on his honeymoon, just on leave. The government does negotiate with enemies as pertaining to peace. It does not negotiate on demands. When the government does negotiate, however, it sends appointed persons to deliver our countries stand on the issues. Kerry appointed himself (while in uniform) to negotiate with this countrie's enemy with no authority. It would be like a republican college kid going to Pakistan (or where ever) to work out agreements with UBL in defiance of our government's policies. This is called treason or providing aid and comfort to the "enemy". Many have questioned over the years why Fonda and Kerry and their bunch weren't prosecuted for treason.

IMHO "Bible Thumper" is no more derogatory than the term "Bleeding Heart Liberal", "Tree Hugger", "Communist" or any other term I've seen right-wingers use to describe the left. I haven't seen any of them flagged on NS for using them either. Flamebait maybe, but not a flame.

Besides, there are people who would be proud to be called a "Bible Thumper" on the right as some on the left wouldn't object to being called any of the names I've mentioned above.

True, there's a lot of hate and ignorance on both sides. As an evangelical Christian, I find the indisciminate use of the terms "bible thumper", "fundie" and at times "fundamentalist" (i.e. when it's clear that the user is using the term as a synonym for "evangelical" or "Christian") to be personally offensive, but I'm taken aback by stuff not directed at me such as the ones you describe. But I don't want those terms banned from the forums. It's easier to pick out the ignorant that way.

This story was picked by NewsMax ("the leading conservative news site on the web") from a WorldNetDaily story ("one of the nation’s most prominent conservative internet sites") by Art Moore, whose chief source for the story was Jerome Corsi, co-author of Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth.

Hardly the journalististic standards required of "NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, Guardian, and the Boston Globe."


I'll say!! The other news sites boast that they are conservative voices. The NYT, CBS, NBC, etc. claim to be unbiased. Ha!!

There is an old Bedouin saying, "When the camel falls, the knives come out." It is never enough for the far-right to simply win. They must personally destroy and discredit anyone who would dare challenge them.

You mean like Kerry and his bunch tried to do to the Vietnam vets? They're getting used to it though. This is the second time he has stuck it to them.

IMHO "Bible Thumper" is no more derogatory than the term "Bleeding Heart Liberal", "Tree Hugger", "Communist" or any other term I've seen right-wingers use to describe the left. I haven't seen any of them flagged on NS for using them either. Flamebait maybe, but not a flame.

Besides, there are people who would be proud to be called a "Bible Thumper" on the right as some on the left wouldn't object to being called any of the names I've mentioned above.

Personally, I've always liked "bed-wetter" for liberals and "neanderthal" for conservatives.

Hardly the journalististic standards required of "NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, Guardian, and the Boston Globe."


Now here are some groups with an unblemished past. Jason Blair and Dan Rather set new standards for journalistic integrity.

I'll say!! The other news sites boast that they are conservative voices. The NYT, CBS, NBC, etc. claim to be unbiased. Ha!!
So true. Also, the journalistic "integrity" of the New York Times? Two words: Jason Blair.

Now here are some groups with an unblemished past. Jason Blair have Dan Rather set new standards for journalistic integrity.

And where have you seen the Guardian as anything but a far-left mouthpiece? Advocate assassinating the president? Puhleeezz.

Might as well throw Air America in there too. :p

Now here are some groups with an unblemished past. Jason Blair have Dan Rather set new standards for journalistic integrity.

Oh, please. Cry me a river of tears. Yes, CBS and the NYTimes have had journalistic lapses. They will have more in the future. They are human institutions and are subject to the same failings as all human institutions. However, fallible though they are, they still hold to an ideal of journalistic ethics which requires, in part, that they test the accuracy of information from all sources, exercise care to avoid inadvertent error, and distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.

The issue advocacy of "news" sources such as NewsMax and WorldNetDaily, as well as "infotainment journalists" such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Michael Savage, assume that because major news sources can never be perfect they themselves are free from any obligation of even attempting to adhere to basis journalistic ethics.

Well who really started the war in Vietnam? JFK and LBJ.
And liberals opposed their war, and continued to oppose the war when Nixon became president. Just because they were Democrats doesn't mean they were acting for liberals.

Not true. If you may recall "Gigatron" well he just got a DoS order the other day, he was one of the more liberal posters on this forum. I admit I don't read every thread. If you see a liberal, a conservative , any one flame, bring it to our attention in moderation. We can't possibly read every single post in every single thread. So yes, some times flames do slip through the cracks. If you don't report it or we don't stumble across it, we probably won't ever know about it. Trust me, if there was a bias here on either side, you'd see many more hard-core conservatives and or liberals being deleted. All I did was give him a warning for a obvious flame. That is my job.
Ok.

Well who really started the war in Vietnam? JFK and LBJ.
And liberals were constantly protesting against their war. Liberals continued to protest when Nixon became president. Just because JFK and LBJ were Democrats, doesn't mean they were acting for liberals.

Democrats=/=liberals

It doesn't bother me if I'm called a kike (example only!) since I'm not jewish. I don't know why someone would be offended by being called something they are obviously not. In fact it could be funny being insulted by this confused individual.
I tend to agree with your basic premise on this. Words have power over us only insofar as we grant it. However, remember what a storm of controversy Whoopie Goldberg and Ted Danson created when he appeared in blackface and she repeatedly used the "n-word" when responding to criticism toward him? All using emotionally-loaded words accomplishes is to deeply offend some people and alienate them.

Until we ALL mature a bit more and learn to disregard or laugh at words intended to offend, certain words will continue to be emotionally laden.

See, this is the hypocrisy I was talking about. Leftists on this forum can flame all they want, saying the most horrible things about Americans in general, and Christians in particular, and they have immunity.
Provide examples.

Oh, please. Cry me a river of tears. Yes, CBS and the NYTimes have had journalistic lapses. They will have more in the future. They are human institutions and are subject to the same failings as all human institutions. However, fallible though they are, they still hold to an ideal of journalistic ethics which requires, in part, that they test the accuracy of information from all sources, exercise care to avoid inadvertent error, and distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.

The issue advocacy of "news" sources such as NewsMax and WorldNetDaily, as well as "infotainment journalists" such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Michael Savage, assume that because major news sources can never be perfect they themselves are free from any obligation of even attempting to adhere to basis journalistic ethics.

Infotainment journalists do not even pretend they are presenting news without a slant. They are entertainers. They make a living of exaggerating the other party, like everyone on Air America does. You also seem to have conveniently overlooked the other half of the Hannity show, Allan Colmes. He's so far left he walks with a limp. They take opposite sides of each issue in debate. No doubt you would think it was more "fair" if it was just Colmes debating with himself, but they at least recognize there are two sides to every issue. As for the bias displayed on the other networks:

http://www.cmpa.com/documents/04.09...er.Campaign.pdf

Who was "fairest and most balanced"?

Unless you're able to provide a hell of a lot more proof that this actually occured, I'm willing to bet your news article is a lie of propaganda.

Unless you're able to provide a hell of a lot more proof that this actually occured, I'm willing to bet your news article is a lie of propaganda.

The article is no doubt propoganda loosely based on facts. The facts are available from many different sources. If you choose to ignore them, then there is nothing more to be said.

To quote ... someone (hope this isent a flame like the die hard one)

"cant we all just get along"

Infotainment journalists do not even pretend they are presenting news without a slant. They are entertainers. You also seem to have conveniently overlooked the other half of the Hannity show, Allan Colmes. He's so far left he walks with a limp. They take opposite sides of each issue in debate. No doubt you would think it was more "fair" if it was just Colmes debating with himself, but they at least recognize there are two sides to every issue.

Allan Colms, every conservative's favorite liberal, is a whimpering lap dog. I don't know of any progressives, myself included, who would be proud to have that trained monkey speak on our behalf. If Hannity had to go up against Amy Goodman, Alexander Cockburn, Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Nat Hentoff, Noam Chomsky, or Bill Maher then it might be a real debate.

The problem with the infotainers I mentioned is they have blurred the line between news, commentary, and entertainment. Turn on CNN, Fox, or MSNBC anymore and you can't tell where the hard news ends and the commentary begins.

Well who really started the war in Vietnam? JFK and LBJ.


no it was the french that drug us into it...but i believe the vietnamese themselves started the whole thing..with just a dash of chinese support

I think what he is trying to say is that leftists dont get warned but rightwing posters do for essentially the same behaviour. He wasnt being critical of leftist posts, he was being critical of the selectiveness of moderator warning and deletions etc.


i firmly agree i was actually banned for responding harshly to a very improper post that was highly left-wing and the original left wing poster never even got warned..i think these moderators have their own little left wing slant...
now warn me or ban me again if you must..thanx

Are folks on the right genetically predisposed to always think they are the underdog and that someone is out to get them?

Stop your whining.

Well who really started the war in Vietnam?

That honor goes to Napoleon III and Admiral Rigault Genouilly. In response to anti-Catholic persecutions of Europeans in Southeast Asia, Napoleon III sent Admiral Genouilly to Vietnam with 14 ships and 5,000 men in 1858. He quickly occupied Da Nang, later conquered Saigon, and eventually forced Vietnamese Emperor Tu Duc to sign a peace treaty giving France control of the country by 1861.

The year the United States began fighting its most devisive conflict the seeds had been sown for its second most divisive conflict.

Well who really started the war in Vietnam?

An argument could also be made that the source of division in Vietnam goes back to the late 1500s when the figurehead Le Emperor gave control of the south to the Nguyen clan, who ruled from the city of Hue, and the north to the Trinh clan, who ruled from Hanoi. The 17th and 18th century ethnic/cultural strife between the two clans eventually broke out into civil war in 1772, just about the time a band of disgruntled colonists in North America were making noise about restrictions imposed upon them by their British rulers.

Here is an interesting article from NewsMax:

Sunday, Nov. 7, 2004 10:11 a.m. EST
Diary Bombshell: Kerry Met With Terrorists

In a bombshell development that could have turned President Bush's victory into a landslide had it come out before the election, John Kerry wrote in his Vietnam War diary that he met with "terrorists" in Paris - a revelation that "flabbergasted" his running mate, John Edwards.


All during the campaign, Kerry had adamantly refused to release his diary, claiming that he'd given exclusive rights to use the document to his biographer, Douglas Brinkely. But when Brinkley told reporters that wasn't true, Kerry still declined to make the diary public.

Story Continues Below



Now we know why.
According to Newsweek magazine, "Kerry's diary included mention of a meeting with some North Vietnamese terrorists in Paris."

Though Kerry's sit-down with North Vietnamese representatives had been reported late in the campaign, his description of them as "terrorists" would have set off smoke alarms.

The prospect that the top Democrat was willing to negotiate with "terrorists" 35 years ago would undoubtedly have cemented the Bush campaign's central message on Kerry: Anyone who would negotiate with terrorists can't be trusted with U.S. national security in a post-9/11 world.

John Edwards was "flabbergasted" by the news, Newsweek said. He recognized immediately how important it was to keep Kerry's terrorist confab secret.

"Let me get this straight," he told campaign staffers who delivered the shocker. "He met with terrorists? Oh, that's good."


Your opinions?
Yes, Kerry met with terrorists, this was all known well before the election and yet, 53 million americans still voted for him. :)

Even in victory the radical right feels compelled to throw mud, spew lies, assassinate character, and do all you can do to impugn the patriotism and values of half the people in this country.

And we are all supposed to get along and compromise with you people?

Oh, please. Cry me a river of tears. Yes, CBS and the NYTimes have had journalistic lapses. They will have more in the future. They are human institutions and are subject to the same failings as all human institutions. However, fallible though they are, they still hold to an ideal of journalistic ethics which requires, in part, that they test the accuracy of information from all sources, exercise care to avoid inadvertent error, and distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.

The issue advocacy of "news" sources such as NewsMax and WorldNetDaily, as well as "infotainment journalists" such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Michael Savage, assume that because major news sources can never be perfect they themselves are free from any obligation of even attempting to adhere to basis journalistic ethics.

News is a business. That's why it is typically managed as part of the network's entertainment division. That's why Roone Arledge from ABC sports took over the lackluster ABC news division. That's why being first is more important than being right. And all the previously mentioned media outlets have a tremendous bias in favor of the liberal contender. Post-debate surveys found that reporting unfavorable to Bush outnumbered favorable reporting by at least 2:1. It was almost the reverse for Kerry. It's not hard to find more examples of the big media bias against conservatives. You are the only one trying to maintain the big media ideal of non-partiality. Read the book 'Bias' by that CBS reporter, Goldberg. It's a good story about how the big media reporters don't even realize they are biased. On the other hand, it might be advocacy. You make the call.

There's nothing wrong with an 'advocacy' news source. Given the failings of the traditional media, it's nice to have a source that will at least alert one to a problem or a story. The National Rifle Assn is pretty good at this. I don't take their word, I investigate for myself. Same with Newsmax and same with Drudge. It isn't too hard to find press releases and raw news anymore.

One thing for certain. Rush Limbaugh is a hell of a lot more entertaining than Al Franken or Randi Rhodes (sp?) on Air America. I used to listen to them for a chuckle or two, but they have become so bitter, that it isn't fun anymore.

fellow Americans....you people?

In your post you plainly exhibit your feelings. Kerry supporters are "fellow Americans" and "you people" are the Bush supporters. As for tearing down fellow Americans, look around. Calling OUR president (not just mine) "chimp" and "idiot" and "incompetent" and "drunk"....the names and slander go on and on. Yet I'll bet you're one of the ones sitting back and asking "why don't other countries respect us?". Maybe because we disrespect the elected leader of our country and in so doing, by implication, ourselves?

If you don't like someone criticizing Kerry in a thread, then don't contribute to that thread's longevity by posting. Or, if you want to defend your former candidate, don't expect others not to dish out what has been served to them.

In your post you plainly exhibit your feelings. Kerry supporters are "fellow Americans" and "you people" are the Bush supporters. As for tearing down fellow Americans, look around. Calling OUR president (not just mine) "chimp" and "idiot" and "incompetent" and "drunk"....the names and slander go on and on. Yet I'll bet you're one of the ones sitting back and asking "why don't other countries respect us?". Maybe because we disrespect the elected leader of our country and in so doing, by implication, ourselves?

If you don't like someone criticizing Kerry in a thread, then don't contribute to that thread's longevity by posting. Or, if you want to defend your former candidate, don't expect others not to dish out what has been served to them.

It isn't criticism I mind. Disagreement, argument, criticism are wonderful and the lifeblood of democracy. What I object to is when "you people" (right-wing attack dogs) skip right over the critical discussion and go straight for tearing a person down personally. When you don't address political or philosophical differences, but rather claim you have the corner on morality and patriotism and those who disagree with you aren't really good Americans. I object to the politics of character assassination.

It isn't criticism I mind. Disagreement, argument, criticism are wonderful and the lifeblood of democracy. What I object to is when "you people" (right-wing attack dogs) skip right over the critical discussion and go straight for tearing a person down personally. When you don't address political or philosophical differences, but rather claim you have the corner on morality and patriotism and those who disagree with you aren't really good Americans. I object to the politics of character assassination.

And I have done this? I've provided an unbiased poll citing the bias in network news and news networks, and I've encouraged you to explore and try to understand exactly why so many Nam vets dislike Kerry so much.

In your post you plainly exhibit your feelings. Kerry supporters are "fellow Americans" and "you people" are the Bush supporters. As for tearing down fellow Americans, look around. Calling OUR president (not just mine) "chimp" and "idiot" and "incompetent" and "drunk"....the names and slander go on and on. Yet I'll bet you're one of the ones sitting back and asking "why don't other countries respect us?". Maybe because we disrespect the elected leader of our country and in so doing, by implication, ourselves?

If you don't like someone criticizing Kerry in a thread, then don't contribute to that thread's longevity by posting. Or, if you want to defend your former candidate, don't expect others not to dish out what has been served to them.

Actually, other countries don't respect us because we assert our law and values over cultures that have different world views, because we believe that our way is the best way without regard to other people's concept of "good, better, and best", because when Americans deal with other cultures we are sometimes rude, self-important, and curt, and because we are the center of double standards. It doesn't have a thing to do with our level of respect for the president. We preach Democracy but are a practicing Republic. We aren't only disrespected in the world, we are hated. Why? Our foreign policy. Most countries (that aren't us, that is), hate Bush more than any of our citizens ever could (and no, they're not ALL terrorists).

http://www.aci.net/kalliste/rummy-saddam.jpg

And I have done this? I've provided an unbiased poll citing the bias in network news and news networks, and I've encouraged you to explore and try to understand exactly why so many Nam vets dislike Kerry so much.


I never claimed you did. My original post responded to "Areyoukiddingme" who implied that half of all Americans voted for a "traitor" and by extension are themselves traitors.

I never claimed you did. My original post responded to "Areyoukiddingme" who implied that half of all Americans voted for a "traitor" and by extension are themselves traitors.
I implied nothing, my friend. I merely stated that it was well known that Kerry met illegally with terrorists and the enemies of the USA, and still 53 million Americans voted for him. Calm yourself down. This is how the left impugns the right, by taking what was said, and blowing is vastly out of proportion.

Well I'm glad that Battery Charger had the good sense to point out the Rumsfeld-Hussein meeting in the 80s. You know, when the USA supplied conventional and chemical weapons to Iraq.

But that was back when Saddam was just a crazy psychopath against his own people...and the Kurds... and the Iranians... and he was friends with the US government ;)

But how things change...

I implied nothing, my friend. I merely stated that it was well known that Kerry met illegally with terrorists and the enemies of the USA, and still 53 million Americans voted for him. Calm yourself down. This is how the left impugns the right, by taking what was said, and blowing is vastly out of proportion.

It is not "well known." The entire basis of this story, which you then use to impugn an honorable man as well as every person who voted for him, ultimately goes back to those Swift Boat Idiots for Whatever Passes for Truth these days.

And I have done this? I've provided an unbiased poll citing the bias in network news and news networks, and I've encouraged you to explore and try to understand exactly why so many Nam vets dislike Kerry so much.

'Nam vets do not like Kerry nor Bush very much.

Here is an interesting article from NewsMax:

Sunday, Nov. 7, 2004 10:11 a.m. EST
Diary Bombshell: Kerry Met With Terrorists

In a bombshell development that could have turned President Bush's victory into a landslide had it come out before the election, John Kerry wrote in his Vietnam War diary that he met with "terrorists" in Paris - a revelation that "flabbergasted" his running mate, John Edwards.


All during the campaign, Kerry had adamantly refused to release his diary, claiming that he'd given exclusive rights to use the document to his biographer, Douglas Brinkely. But when Brinkley told reporters that wasn't true, Kerry still declined to make the diary public.

Story Continues Below



Now we know why.
According to Newsweek magazine, "Kerry's diary included mention of a meeting with some North Vietnamese terrorists in Paris."

Though Kerry's sit-down with North Vietnamese representatives had been reported late in the campaign, his description of them as "terrorists" would have set off smoke alarms.

The prospect that the top Democrat was willing to negotiate with "terrorists" 35 years ago would undoubtedly have cemented the Bush campaign's central message on Kerry: Anyone who would negotiate with terrorists can't be trusted with U.S. national security in a post-9/11 world.

John Edwards was "flabbergasted" by the news, Newsweek said. He recognized immediately how important it was to keep Kerry's terrorist confab secret.

"Let me get this straight," he told campaign staffers who delivered the shocker. "He met with terrorists? Oh, that's good."


Your opinions?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.....

But seriously...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

You're an idiot.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.....

But seriously...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

You're an idiot.
You're rude.

Anyways, is anyone at all surprised that Kerry met with terrorists? He was a part of the North Vietnamese war effort.

You're rude.

Anyways, is anyone at all surprised that Kerry met with terrorists? He was a part of the North Vietnamese war effort.

Factcheck.org (endorsed by Dick Cheney himself,) properly refutes the Kerry character assassination. End of story (especially since most sources not specifically conseratively biased have also debunked the situation.)

Also, Newsmax states that this is in Kerry's book/diary. HAs anyone else a source for this, perhaps Kerry's book itself? Where's the substantiation for this?

Does no one care that Kerry dedicated a large portion of his life trying to get the POW's home and later lead a congressional investigation (along with Senator McCain, who forgave Kerry completely at that time for Kerry's controversial stance in his youth,) to determine the ultimate fate of possible unreleased POW's? What horrible hate-filled lenses some people see the world through.

You're an idiot.Is it really necessary to make a post consisting of nothing but flaming?

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

Post-debate surveys found that reporting unfavorable to Bush outnumbered favorable reporting by at least 2:1. It was almost the reverse for Kerry. It's not hard to find more examples of the big media bias against conservatives.

Post-debate surveys show that Bush lost all three debates. ;P Were people supposed to not talk about it?

I think the NEWS part was that Kerry called the North Vietnamese TERRORISTS in his own diary.

And I'm going to hunt those diaries down. Bring 'em to justice.

(Who cares. Seriously. It is a diary.)

Is it really necessary to make a post consisting of nothing but flaming?

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

Not "necessary" but certainly worthwhile.