He might not be as good a speaker, but I'm starting to think Kerry is more principled.
People say he flip-flopped on Iraq, but everyone did. Nearly all americans believed the government when they told them they knew there were WMD in Iraq. How hard is his claim he believed the intelligence to swallow when it reflects how most people felt? I don't think he's alone in having multiple positions on the war.
And agree with him or not, his stand against Vietnam took courage politically. I don't think Clinton would have dared do it. He just skirted serving and kept quiet about it.
Kerry has shown real leadership and courage in combat. I think thats more important than how rowsing his speeches are. Do you want someone who can talk it or walk it?
And he has the respect of some good politcians, including John McCain.
I'm not saying he's perfect, but he might be better than clinton..
Who do you like more, Kerry or Clinton?
-
The_Lurker
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2862
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 12:00 pm
Clinton.
Because Clinton can't be President ever again.
The bottom line on Kerry.....he aided the enemy in Viet Nam.
His, and Jane Fonda's protests fueled enemy agression against people like my father.
Dids you know that interviews with NVA leaders stated that the anti-war protests aided their war strategy?
These are the kinds of things that people don't take time to think about. What are the consequences of my actions. Bottom line...war protests fuel the enemies agression towards our soldiers.
...and the media is the conduit.
Because Clinton can't be President ever again.
The bottom line on Kerry.....he aided the enemy in Viet Nam.
His, and Jane Fonda's protests fueled enemy agression against people like my father.
Dids you know that interviews with NVA leaders stated that the anti-war protests aided their war strategy?
These are the kinds of things that people don't take time to think about. What are the consequences of my actions. Bottom line...war protests fuel the enemies agression towards our soldiers.
...and the media is the conduit.
-
nepenthe
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 12:00 pm
- Location: between pain, bliss and the Garden State
Evan,
With all due respect to your father.
Nixon admitted that without the war protests the VietNam war would have continued.
I would like an explanation on how an enemy we are shooting upon becomes more aggressive because of protests half way around the world. Perhaps it was our soldiers morale that was effected.
With all due respect to your father.
Nixon admitted that without the war protests the VietNam war would have continued.
I would like an explanation on how an enemy we are shooting upon becomes more aggressive because of protests half way around the world. Perhaps it was our soldiers morale that was effected.
I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.
That's hard to pick because I know much less about how Kerry would carry out his Presidency. I'm sure I'd be pleased with the improvement compared to what we have now, but I'm a big Clinton fan despite some disagreements I had with a few policies. I'm afraid that the Republican machine is a tough beast to wage war against for 4 years and not sure anyone could handle it as well as Clinton. I've even begun to lean a little toward Edwards lately. Kerry troubles me with foreign policy, but then all the Dems do.
Still..... "President Kerry" sounds awfully nice after the last 3½ years.
Also, I have no problem with any of Kerry's Vietnam positions. A silver and bronze star, 3 purple hearts. He's damn well earned the right to criticize. Not that you need that anyway.
Still..... "President Kerry" sounds awfully nice after the last 3½ years.
Also, I have no problem with any of Kerry's Vietnam positions. A silver and bronze star, 3 purple hearts. He's damn well earned the right to criticize. Not that you need that anyway.
Originally posted by nepenthe
Evan,
With all due respect to your father.
Nixon admitted that without the war protests the VietNam war would have continued.
I would like an explanation on how an enemy we are shooting upon becomes more aggressive because of protests half way around the world. Perhaps it was our soldiers morale that was effected.
Easy.
Enemy leaders watch the news. They see American protests and how it creates division. They in turn instensify agression towards our soldiers. In turn, the protests to war intensify in America. The media is the conduit for both.
Look at Iraq. The opposition loyal to Saddam knows that they can never take back the country by force but they may be able to get us to leave prematurely. So they do suicide bombings and other terrorist acts. The opposition goes and watches CNN. They see protests in America on TV. They see it as being effective. So they intensify their campaign. In turn, the protests in America rise due to our soldiers being killed. The opposition see this as being more effective.....so they in turn intensify their attacks.
It's a vicious cycle and one that has been studied. I'm learning all about it now in the school I'm teaching at.
-
nepenthe
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 12:00 pm
- Location: between pain, bliss and the Garden State
Originally posted by UOD
Easy.
Enemy leaders watch the news. They see American protests and how it creates division. They in turn instensify agression towards our soldiers. In turn, the protests to war intensify in America. The media is the conduit for both.
Look at Iraq. The opposition loyal to Saddam knows that they can never take back the country by force but they may be able to get us to leave prematurely. So they do suicide bombings and other terrorist acts. The opposition goes and watches CNN. They see protests in America on TV. They see it as being effective. So they intensify their campaign. In turn, the protests in America rise due to our soldiers being killed. The opposition see this as being more effective.....so they in turn intensify their attacks.
It's a vicious cycle and one that has been studied. I'm learning all about it now in the school I'm teaching at.
So then it would be better if the people would simply kept their collective mouths shut and went along with the VietNam war. Do you see any problem with that? Again, if our soldiers are shooting at these people, it is difficult to believe that they need any more incentive to fire back in defense of themselves and their land.
The protests versus the Iraq war had far more air play at the onset than it does now.
Guerilla warfare pre-dates broadcast media. Information ministries can incite and steady the populace and its soldiers with all manner of propaganda, truthful or apocryphal.
I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.
I just thought that this might be a bit interesting to some...
A bit o' trivia about possibly a second JFK as President. As the facts show it seems that Kerry, if actually elected would be the third richest President in our nation's history. This is according to Forbes and as I just saw last night on MSNBC as well.
I will include Forbes fine print prior to their discoveries:
"It is difficult to compare personal wealth across historical periods, but below is our best estimate of the relative net worths of the richest five U.S. presidents. The rankings are based on our own calculations and extensive interviews with presidential historians."
included in these facts are ranking the President's name their party and finally their term.
1. George Washington No affiliation 1789-1797
2. John F. Kennedy Democrat 1961-1963
** John F. Kerry Democrat NA
3. Andrew Jackson Democrat 1829-1837
4. Lyndon B. Johnson Democrat 1963-1969
5. Herbert Hoover Republican 1929-1933
I found it also quite interesting that there are so many Democrats at the top of this list. Last time I heard some knob telling me that tax cuts for the rich is wrong and the cuts should go to the working class and our economy would benefit with cuts for the working class blah blah blah...I could have sworn that part of their same schpeel stated that Republicans only care about the rich and that more common then not Republicans were people of higher incomes etc...etc...etc.
Well...
This little tid-bit of information gives me and my fellow Republicans a little more water to dump on the fires certain rhetoric spewing leftiestry to start.
Just thought that this might be of interest to some...
oh yeah...my answer is "neither one of them." One can't decide to sh*t or get off the pot as far as where they stand on issues let alone, if it a number one or a number two Johnny boy?
To consider Clinton would only prove that after all he has done you were either asleep the whole time or the massive explosion in Oklahoma wasn't enought to even wake yer dead brain.
Pondering all the things our nation has been through, what would be the current state if Gore was elected in 2000?
Yet again it appears that Democrats are going to vote for another wishy-washy Charlie Brown. Aparently for Democrats history repeats itself even if it seems like last week.
May I offer this to those Democrats that voted for Gore in 2000.
Less then four years ago your party wanted Gore to hold the most powerful position in the world and to control the most powerful military this planet has seen. However, in less then 1200 days your party has for almost all accounts completely disassociated themselves from the same man. How is that even possible?
Do any of you Liberals ever shut up with the Bush bull**** and simply stop and ponder with assiduity? I mean I would think Clinton would have caused at least some reservations on that decision you made to back such a historically known goof off. Apparently Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Ruby Ridge, impeachment hearings, a statement of "well that would all depend on what you mean by the word IS," the slaughter of innocent men, women and children...the same children the FBI said they were saving from David Koresh if you even remember and then finally the enormous explosion in Oklahoma as a response to the Waco atrocities all wasn't enough to get the brain slightly questioning its decisions of the past.
But to get so far left as to actually arrive at the place finding yourself backing such a, for a lack of better words to describe accurately, a little spoiled **** liar like Gore simply takes the cake. Well, no it doesn't come to think of it...
Although I must admit after Gore showed puiblicly the depths of true Liberal comradery towards a former running mate, party affiliate and fellow man by refusing to simply phone Lieberman with his decision to back Dean. (ironically, who won't even become the Democratic nominee) still doesn't in some small little way in any respect cause you to rethink what the hell you all are doing?
Then after unanimous votes said declare war on terror, YES!! even your great 'in the wings man' Kerry voted for it. Hard to believe he actually got a definite answer one way or the other. Well recent news and issues only support my disbelief that he didn't turn in a blank, dripping wet, tattered ballot. The wishy-washy goof couldn't tie his shoes if it wasn't for that kick some ass and take names wife of his.
Man I don't even know why i go on anymore....I'll simply close with a plea to the liberal left....Please don't merely vote but vote with an educated vote. I fear what you might do to the country. You do realize that it is just as much mine as it is a homosexuals or an aethiests.
A moto I created years ago for myself...might be something to follow yourself...at least simply do what you read with such important issues as your vote.
"Ponder, theorize, reason, think...calculate, philosophize, speculate, debate - postulation"
a note to those who will deem it necessary to post negative replies about my length of the post...I simply ask: if you read the entire post including my last statement...then why didn't you conclude after your postulation that to respond to the length of the post only demands the rebuttle..."You didn't have to read it in the first place."
I will include Forbes fine print prior to their discoveries:
"It is difficult to compare personal wealth across historical periods, but below is our best estimate of the relative net worths of the richest five U.S. presidents. The rankings are based on our own calculations and extensive interviews with presidential historians."
included in these facts are ranking the President's name their party and finally their term.
1. George Washington No affiliation 1789-1797
2. John F. Kennedy Democrat 1961-1963
** John F. Kerry Democrat NA
3. Andrew Jackson Democrat 1829-1837
4. Lyndon B. Johnson Democrat 1963-1969
5. Herbert Hoover Republican 1929-1933
I found it also quite interesting that there are so many Democrats at the top of this list. Last time I heard some knob telling me that tax cuts for the rich is wrong and the cuts should go to the working class and our economy would benefit with cuts for the working class blah blah blah...I could have sworn that part of their same schpeel stated that Republicans only care about the rich and that more common then not Republicans were people of higher incomes etc...etc...etc.
Well...
This little tid-bit of information gives me and my fellow Republicans a little more water to dump on the fires certain rhetoric spewing leftiestry to start.
Just thought that this might be of interest to some...
oh yeah...my answer is "neither one of them." One can't decide to sh*t or get off the pot as far as where they stand on issues let alone, if it a number one or a number two Johnny boy?
To consider Clinton would only prove that after all he has done you were either asleep the whole time or the massive explosion in Oklahoma wasn't enought to even wake yer dead brain.
Pondering all the things our nation has been through, what would be the current state if Gore was elected in 2000?
Yet again it appears that Democrats are going to vote for another wishy-washy Charlie Brown. Aparently for Democrats history repeats itself even if it seems like last week.
May I offer this to those Democrats that voted for Gore in 2000.
Less then four years ago your party wanted Gore to hold the most powerful position in the world and to control the most powerful military this planet has seen. However, in less then 1200 days your party has for almost all accounts completely disassociated themselves from the same man. How is that even possible?
Do any of you Liberals ever shut up with the Bush bull**** and simply stop and ponder with assiduity? I mean I would think Clinton would have caused at least some reservations on that decision you made to back such a historically known goof off. Apparently Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Ruby Ridge, impeachment hearings, a statement of "well that would all depend on what you mean by the word IS," the slaughter of innocent men, women and children...the same children the FBI said they were saving from David Koresh if you even remember and then finally the enormous explosion in Oklahoma as a response to the Waco atrocities all wasn't enough to get the brain slightly questioning its decisions of the past.
But to get so far left as to actually arrive at the place finding yourself backing such a, for a lack of better words to describe accurately, a little spoiled **** liar like Gore simply takes the cake. Well, no it doesn't come to think of it...
Although I must admit after Gore showed puiblicly the depths of true Liberal comradery towards a former running mate, party affiliate and fellow man by refusing to simply phone Lieberman with his decision to back Dean. (ironically, who won't even become the Democratic nominee) still doesn't in some small little way in any respect cause you to rethink what the hell you all are doing?
Then after unanimous votes said declare war on terror, YES!! even your great 'in the wings man' Kerry voted for it. Hard to believe he actually got a definite answer one way or the other. Well recent news and issues only support my disbelief that he didn't turn in a blank, dripping wet, tattered ballot. The wishy-washy goof couldn't tie his shoes if it wasn't for that kick some ass and take names wife of his.
Man I don't even know why i go on anymore....I'll simply close with a plea to the liberal left....Please don't merely vote but vote with an educated vote. I fear what you might do to the country. You do realize that it is just as much mine as it is a homosexuals or an aethiests.
A moto I created years ago for myself...might be something to follow yourself...at least simply do what you read with such important issues as your vote.
"Ponder, theorize, reason, think...calculate, philosophize, speculate, debate - postulation"
a note to those who will deem it necessary to post negative replies about my length of the post...I simply ask: if you read the entire post including my last statement...then why didn't you conclude after your postulation that to respond to the length of the post only demands the rebuttle..."You didn't have to read it in the first place."
Originally posted by nepenthe
So then it would be better if the people would simply kept their collective mouths shut and went along with the VietNam war.
Better for who? Better for the soldiers? NO.
Protest all you want...just realize that there are consequences to your actions.
I prefer to write letters, call them on the phone, or visit them personally...and VOTE!
It's a catch 22 David.
Do you really think protestors appreciate the responsibility that comes with freedom?
-
mountainman
- SG VIP
- Posts: 15451
- Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: Colorado
Originally posted by jayyy
Yeah, but if the democrats were going to win anyway and you were forced to choose, who would you go with?
I guess in your guys cases I'm asking who you *dislike* more
Lesser of 2 evils, I take it ?
I haven't really seen Kerry in a position like El Presidente. That is a hard decision to make without seeing him in the spot light light Clinton has already been in.
-
General_Jack_As
- Posts: 885
- Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 12:00 pm
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
Duly noted, that no president (or man) has ever been perfect and each one of them has had their flaws. But as of right now, I would rather see a morally corrupt bill clinton in office, than a self ritchous, jesus christ superstar of the middle east bush in office. We had absolutly no reason what so ever to be in iraq.
Bush has his tounge so far up the oil industries ass that its not even funny. The ABSOLUTE LEAST he could have done for this country is lower my ****ing gas prices or put a cap or something on it. Cause if we are getting all the oil from iraq then we should get some kind of cut, but no, the oil companies (which includes the presidency) are keeping the extra profits for themselves instead of passing it on to the american people..
We also have bush to thank for a f*cked foriegn policy with our european neighbors. Yeah its easy for all of you to say "We went and saved their ass twice in the world wars! France owes us" Truth be told, no one owes us a god damned thing. I am very thankful for the backing of brittian, I feel our two countries are economically and politically dependant upon each other. But what bush did to ruin relations with france and germany was just plain stupidity. Not to mention the way he made Colon Powell look to the UN. Colon Powell was by all means a Global Emimnce, and how he was made to look like a liar with those intelligence reports to the UN.
I don't know who I am going to vote for though in the upcoming elections. This will be my first time voting because I just turned 18. The democratic party doesn't have any real leadership right now, and besides switching parties like that would have unforseen affects in an allready unstable economy. Besides after another 4 years, there will never be a bush president, cause jeb sure as hell isn't getting in. So another 4 years and by then the democratic party will have their sh*t straight. Bush has my vote this time around only because, his re-election has the least negative affects on the economy.
I think it was roosevelt who said "You don't switch horses mid stream"
Bush has his tounge so far up the oil industries ass that its not even funny. The ABSOLUTE LEAST he could have done for this country is lower my ****ing gas prices or put a cap or something on it. Cause if we are getting all the oil from iraq then we should get some kind of cut, but no, the oil companies (which includes the presidency) are keeping the extra profits for themselves instead of passing it on to the american people..
We also have bush to thank for a f*cked foriegn policy with our european neighbors. Yeah its easy for all of you to say "We went and saved their ass twice in the world wars! France owes us" Truth be told, no one owes us a god damned thing. I am very thankful for the backing of brittian, I feel our two countries are economically and politically dependant upon each other. But what bush did to ruin relations with france and germany was just plain stupidity. Not to mention the way he made Colon Powell look to the UN. Colon Powell was by all means a Global Emimnce, and how he was made to look like a liar with those intelligence reports to the UN.
I don't know who I am going to vote for though in the upcoming elections. This will be my first time voting because I just turned 18. The democratic party doesn't have any real leadership right now, and besides switching parties like that would have unforseen affects in an allready unstable economy. Besides after another 4 years, there will never be a bush president, cause jeb sure as hell isn't getting in. So another 4 years and by then the democratic party will have their sh*t straight. Bush has my vote this time around only because, his re-election has the least negative affects on the economy.
I think it was roosevelt who said "You don't switch horses mid stream"
God Bless America
Originally posted by UOD
Do you really think protestors appreciate the responsibility that comes with freedom?
If I may jump in...In Kerry's case, yes. 3 purple hearts, a bronze star and a silver star...IMHO..he "earned" the right to say what he wanted about that war.
You are aware that with the Jane Fonda thing, that the picture floating around the internet showing the two together is a fake?
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/feb04/207249.asp
Sandusky, an Illinois resident who appears in a widely viewed television ad for Kerry and is traveling the region stumping for his old comrade, said Kerry regularly risked his own life to save those of his crew.
Sandusky vowed Thursday to steer clear of the "blood and guts" stories, but he did recount the time Kerry earned the Silver Star by ordering the boat beached so he could chase down and kill an enemy soldier who wielded a rocket launcher.
"John knew it was the only way," Sandusky said. "He knew (the enemy soldier) was going to launch."...
"We all know what kind of person he is, because you can't hide it in war. You just can't," said Milwaukee veteran Roger Quindel.
-
Ghosthunter
- SG VIP
- Posts: 18183
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 12:00 pm
Originally posted by General_Jack_As
Duly noted, that no president (or man) has ever been perfect and each one of them has had their flaws. But as of right now, I would rather see a morally corrupt bill clinton in office, than a self ritchous, jesus christ superstar of the middle east bush in office. We had absolutly no reason what so ever to be in iraq.
Bush has his tounge so far up the oil industries ass that its not even funny. The ABSOLUTE LEAST he could have done for this country is lower my ****ing gas prices or put a cap or something on it. Cause if we are getting all the oil from iraq then we should get some kind of cut, but no, the oil companies (which includes the presidency) are keeping the extra profits for themselves instead of passing it on to the american people..
We also have bush to thank for a f*cked foriegn policy with our european neighbors. Yeah its easy for all of you to say "We went and saved their ass twice in the world wars! France owes us" Truth be told, no one owes us a god damned thing. I am very thankful for the backing of brittian, I feel our two countries are economically and politically dependant upon each other. But what bush did to ruin relations with france and germany was just plain stupidity. Not to mention the way he made Colon Powell look to the UN. Colon Powell was by all means a Global Emimnce, and how he was made to look like a liar with those intelligence reports to the UN.
I don't know who I am going to vote for though in the upcoming elections. This will be my first time voting because I just turned 18. The democratic party doesn't have any real leadership right now, and besides switching parties like that would have unforseen affects in an allready unstable economy. Besides after another 4 years, there will never be a bush president, cause jeb sure as hell isn't getting in. So another 4 years and by then the democratic party will have their sh*t straight. Bush has my vote this time around only because, his re-election has the least negative affects on the economy.
I think it was roosevelt who said "You don't switch horses mid stream"
Gualini will be President in 4 years!
And if you dont like how Bush handles foreign affairs, get ready they dont call gualini the gestapo for nothing.
-
Ghosthunter
- SG VIP
- Posts: 18183
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 12:00 pm
Originally posted by UOD
Easy.
Enemy leaders watch the news. They see American protests and how it creates division. They in turn instensify agression towards our soldiers. In turn, the protests to war intensify in America. The media is the conduit for both.
Look at Iraq. The opposition loyal to Saddam knows that they can never take back the country by force but they may be able to get us to leave prematurely. So they do suicide bombings and other terrorist acts. The opposition goes and watches CNN. They see protests in America on TV. They see it as being effective. So they intensify their campaign. In turn, the protests in America rise due to our soldiers being killed. The opposition see this as being more effective.....so they in turn intensify their attacks.
It's a vicious cycle and one that has been studied. I'm learning all about it now in the school I'm teaching at.
I was doing some research on the vietnam war that was completely unrelated to this topic, but fell across this information that I felt fit in with what Evan's saying here...it's an interview conducted by Ken North (who was a war correspondent of ABC News) with Hanoi Hannah (Thu Houng) in 1991.
Don: Many American soldiers think you received excellent intelligence on their unit positions and battle readiness and casualties. What was the main source of your information on US troops in Vietnam?
Hannah: US Army Stars and Stripes. We read from it. We had it flown in everyday. And we also read Newsweek, Time and several newspapers. We could also intercept the AP and UPI wires and of course we had the news from our Vietnam News Agency and we rewrote it. We had many sources of news. We took remarks of American journalists and put it in our broadcasts, especially remarks about casualties...high casualties. There was the list of Missing in Action, those who were killed on the battlefield, we read the news with the native place.
......
Don: Do you remember any articles in particular that you used?
Hannah: Yes, Arnaud DeBorchegrave in Newsweek. I remember we used his articles. And Don Luce about the tiger cages in South Vietnam. We would often say to the GIs that the Saigon regime was not worth their support.
http://www.psywarrior.com/hannah.html
------
“The most beautiful thing we can experience in life is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: for his eyes are closed.” - Albert Einstein
“The most beautiful thing we can experience in life is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: for his eyes are closed.” - Albert Einstein
Re: I just thought that this might be a bit interesting to some...
Originally posted by Thcranky1
This little tid-bit of information gives me and my fellow Republicans a little more water to dump on the fires certain rhetoric spewing leftiestry to start.
I'm not quite sure I understand your point...Democrats want to take money out of their own pockets by raising taxes for the rich...and this is an indication that they're insincere??
UOD,
With respect, you cannot seriously state that a man with THREE Purple Hearts, A Bronze Star (for pulling an injured sailor back aboard his river patrol boat during a firefight while injured himself) and a Silver Star (for jumping off his patrol boat, chasing a Viet Cong into a hut and killing him and recovering a rocket launcher) can be charged with giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
It's ridiculous. Kerry is a hard core decorated combat soldier, and from all accounts, a helluva one at that. That he used his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to speak against the war when the easy popular thing to do would've been to do nothing... he get's my respect for that.
Please, be rational. I'm not in his fan club, but his record in combat stands on it's own. At least he's been there and done that.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
With respect, you cannot seriously state that a man with THREE Purple Hearts, A Bronze Star (for pulling an injured sailor back aboard his river patrol boat during a firefight while injured himself) and a Silver Star (for jumping off his patrol boat, chasing a Viet Cong into a hut and killing him and recovering a rocket launcher) can be charged with giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
It's ridiculous. Kerry is a hard core decorated combat soldier, and from all accounts, a helluva one at that. That he used his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to speak against the war when the easy popular thing to do would've been to do nothing... he get's my respect for that.
Please, be rational. I'm not in his fan club, but his record in combat stands on it's own. At least he's been there and done that.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Originally posted by Bouncer
UOD,
With respect, you cannot seriously state that a man with THREE Purple Hearts, A Bronze Star (for pulling an injured sailor back aboard his river patrol boat during a firefight while injured himself) and a Silver Star (for jumping off his patrol boat, chasing a Viet Cong into a hut and killing him and recovering a rocket launcher) can be charged with giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
It's ridiculous. Kerry is a hard core decorated combat soldier, and from all accounts, a helluva one at that. That he used his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to speak against the war when the easy popular thing to do would've been to do nothing... he get's my respect for that.
Please, be rational. I'm not in his fan club, but his record in combat stands on it's own. At least he's been there and done that.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Did you see the site http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm
All I'm saying is that his protest actions had consequences for the soldiers back in Viet Nam.
He was a decorated Naval officer....don't you think that promoted division amongst the ranks and compromised the authority of the other officers back in Nam?
All I'm saying in a friendly way, and I do agree with you for the most part, is that his actions had consequences that maybe he didn't think about.
and to wrap it up ...
The dude that thinks that the Iraqi war...either of them...was for oil for the United States...we haven't used mid-east oil in any quantity since the embargo in the mid 70's. The United States decided then and rightly so that "she would never again depend on her needs from such an unstable source.' The United States gets 2/3 of our oil from Venezuela and Columbia. And thinking back to prior times we remember how unstable those places were. Well obviously America is protecting her investmants because they most certainly are fully functioning and stable free democracies today. So the oil thing should either be studied on prior to making claims or just plain silenced.
To the idea that Bush did anything or caused Powell to do anything is again something to be studied up on or silenced. It was Powell's job to research and state things as they were understood in the intelligence reports...not the President's. You are claiming it backwards. Powell states what is what from his offices findings that were issued to the administration from the Brittish Intelligence Agency.
Also saying that Bush has done anything to the German's or the French relations is showing even more need for knowledge because it was in fact the French and the German's that stabbed Powell in the back after they promised him their support but then gave none. That is stabbing him in the back. The French and German's were wrong not your President and your country!!!!!
As far as the other foreign relations I sure wish you'd tell me who other then Saddam himself is actually pissed that the man who can only be compared to the likes of Hitler is out of power.
Finally if you think we had no reason to be in Iraq or remove Saddam from power then tell me exactly what the world power, the world self-feeder and the icon world wide for freedom and democracy is suppose to do after 19 times...19 times Saddam ignored the United Nations and resolution 1442? Hell it had been over half a decade!!! How long were we and more importantly the United Nations suppose to wait? I think for someone to claim that Iraq shouldn't have been delt with really doesn't have any idea to the atrosities against humanity that have taken place becuase of Saddam's rule.
It is very obvious that Bush stated that we (menaing the UN and the US) need to do something about this guy, shoot actually Bush was the only saving grace for the UN. If it was up to the UN to do anything we would still be waiting for them to decide to take action against Mohammed Aidid and the Habir Gedr militia.
Remember as well that the only three countries that countered going into Iraq wanted to wait only 30 more days...that was it!! What the hell, now that you can look back, would 30 days have made any different? Am I to believe that those who use that as argument against Bush know there would have been any difference? I hope not because it would have only been more time for a dictator in power.
Tell me now that US troops are in Hatii along with Aussies and the FRENCH how bad relations are between the US and the FRENCH!!!
These claims about Bush and money are extremely hilarious as well because the candidate for the Dems no matter what you might have heard about his killing and fighting abilities...would go down in US History as the third richest President ever. Bush is Waaayyyyy down the list from Katsup Kerry.
Of course I have yet to mention the inconsistencies in Kerry's comments and his voting history. If you research it you'd see that Kerry voted for the invasion of Iraq as well as the rest of Congress. Remember that Executive order gives Bush the ability to not even seek a vote before going to Iraq or any war. Did Bush do that? Nope, he went to the UN they said go and then to the Congress and they as well as Kerry said go.
I'm waiting for one truthful and real claim to be made by any person who says how terrible Bush is as a President.
Taxes...oh yeah...taxes...if we were to tax the rich, the 1%...don't you see that for those 1% it would mean BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars not the mere 'dinner and night to the movies with the family' amount of money that the rest of the 99% would feel when taxed. Also consider that the 1% is who employs the 99% and to put such a crunch on them would only come to one thing...them to have to make cuts in their business ultimately causing the loss of jobs for those people whom you claim to represent. Think about it, when up to the owner of a business who just got a bill for umpteen hundreds of thousands of dollars due to tax increases, do you think he is gonna take the brunt end of that? Hell no!!! He is gonna start laying people off. However if that same business owner was to get a tax break which saves him the money then he is going to...as a businessman invest that money either in his business or in the market. For Sure!!! So having done this he is enablling a budget for research and development for his business or others in the nation, causing the need for people and the creation of jobs. So to the taxes claim, again it is apparent that those who oppose tax cuts for the rich not only need an economics class but they also need a US Government class as well. I say the latter because it is and always has been the Congress who decides what to do with taxes and how taxpayers money is spent. If you ever hear anyone say that Bush is wasting tax payers money then please for me tell that person that they are pontificating their own foolisness. Never has a president passed a tax bill and NEVER has a president ever spent one penny of tax payers money...NEVER!!!
Prior to election time I seriously hope that people have considered very seriously that todays Democratic party is nothing like that which was of Roosevelt and JFK and others. Democrats have lossed sight and are out of touch with their party's original message. When rhetoric becomes the forefront and tactical ways of a political party it is very detrimental not only to that party but to the country as well.
On that note, please let me remind everyone that this same party supported Al Gore for president less then four years ago. Now what do they think of him or even 'say' to the guy? Gore is now an embarrasement to the party. Not to mention that in his political ignorance, he rushed out waaaaaay too soon and gave his backing to a Dem that isn't even the candidate now. Obviously he has political genius as well as great candor seeing how he treated his running mate Lieberman. Not even a call to tell him that he was gonna go with Dean. However, please someone answer "How does a political party go from complete and total acceptance of their presidential candidate to nothing short of avoidance and embarrasment in less then 4 years? THINK about that...it is true what Lieberman stated about todays Democratic ideology...He said that his party is at a critical time and seriously needs to evaluate its purposes, not only for the country but for itself.
Now let me warn you Democrats...before you start saying how stupid and lame Lieberman is...Remember that he was your selection for Vice President less the four years ago...LOL
I shouldn't have said that so we could see all the crap that would get slung on Lieberman...
For the sake of my country your country and the world for our children...if yer gonna vote then PLEASE educate that vote!!!!
PEACE!!!
--Thcranky1
To the idea that Bush did anything or caused Powell to do anything is again something to be studied up on or silenced. It was Powell's job to research and state things as they were understood in the intelligence reports...not the President's. You are claiming it backwards. Powell states what is what from his offices findings that were issued to the administration from the Brittish Intelligence Agency.
Also saying that Bush has done anything to the German's or the French relations is showing even more need for knowledge because it was in fact the French and the German's that stabbed Powell in the back after they promised him their support but then gave none. That is stabbing him in the back. The French and German's were wrong not your President and your country!!!!!
As far as the other foreign relations I sure wish you'd tell me who other then Saddam himself is actually pissed that the man who can only be compared to the likes of Hitler is out of power.
Finally if you think we had no reason to be in Iraq or remove Saddam from power then tell me exactly what the world power, the world self-feeder and the icon world wide for freedom and democracy is suppose to do after 19 times...19 times Saddam ignored the United Nations and resolution 1442? Hell it had been over half a decade!!! How long were we and more importantly the United Nations suppose to wait? I think for someone to claim that Iraq shouldn't have been delt with really doesn't have any idea to the atrosities against humanity that have taken place becuase of Saddam's rule.
It is very obvious that Bush stated that we (menaing the UN and the US) need to do something about this guy, shoot actually Bush was the only saving grace for the UN. If it was up to the UN to do anything we would still be waiting for them to decide to take action against Mohammed Aidid and the Habir Gedr militia.
Remember as well that the only three countries that countered going into Iraq wanted to wait only 30 more days...that was it!! What the hell, now that you can look back, would 30 days have made any different? Am I to believe that those who use that as argument against Bush know there would have been any difference? I hope not because it would have only been more time for a dictator in power.
Tell me now that US troops are in Hatii along with Aussies and the FRENCH how bad relations are between the US and the FRENCH!!!
These claims about Bush and money are extremely hilarious as well because the candidate for the Dems no matter what you might have heard about his killing and fighting abilities...would go down in US History as the third richest President ever. Bush is Waaayyyyy down the list from Katsup Kerry.
Of course I have yet to mention the inconsistencies in Kerry's comments and his voting history. If you research it you'd see that Kerry voted for the invasion of Iraq as well as the rest of Congress. Remember that Executive order gives Bush the ability to not even seek a vote before going to Iraq or any war. Did Bush do that? Nope, he went to the UN they said go and then to the Congress and they as well as Kerry said go.
I'm waiting for one truthful and real claim to be made by any person who says how terrible Bush is as a President.
Taxes...oh yeah...taxes...if we were to tax the rich, the 1%...don't you see that for those 1% it would mean BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars not the mere 'dinner and night to the movies with the family' amount of money that the rest of the 99% would feel when taxed. Also consider that the 1% is who employs the 99% and to put such a crunch on them would only come to one thing...them to have to make cuts in their business ultimately causing the loss of jobs for those people whom you claim to represent. Think about it, when up to the owner of a business who just got a bill for umpteen hundreds of thousands of dollars due to tax increases, do you think he is gonna take the brunt end of that? Hell no!!! He is gonna start laying people off. However if that same business owner was to get a tax break which saves him the money then he is going to...as a businessman invest that money either in his business or in the market. For Sure!!! So having done this he is enablling a budget for research and development for his business or others in the nation, causing the need for people and the creation of jobs. So to the taxes claim, again it is apparent that those who oppose tax cuts for the rich not only need an economics class but they also need a US Government class as well. I say the latter because it is and always has been the Congress who decides what to do with taxes and how taxpayers money is spent. If you ever hear anyone say that Bush is wasting tax payers money then please for me tell that person that they are pontificating their own foolisness. Never has a president passed a tax bill and NEVER has a president ever spent one penny of tax payers money...NEVER!!!
Prior to election time I seriously hope that people have considered very seriously that todays Democratic party is nothing like that which was of Roosevelt and JFK and others. Democrats have lossed sight and are out of touch with their party's original message. When rhetoric becomes the forefront and tactical ways of a political party it is very detrimental not only to that party but to the country as well.
On that note, please let me remind everyone that this same party supported Al Gore for president less then four years ago. Now what do they think of him or even 'say' to the guy? Gore is now an embarrasement to the party. Not to mention that in his political ignorance, he rushed out waaaaaay too soon and gave his backing to a Dem that isn't even the candidate now. Obviously he has political genius as well as great candor seeing how he treated his running mate Lieberman. Not even a call to tell him that he was gonna go with Dean. However, please someone answer "How does a political party go from complete and total acceptance of their presidential candidate to nothing short of avoidance and embarrasment in less then 4 years? THINK about that...it is true what Lieberman stated about todays Democratic ideology...He said that his party is at a critical time and seriously needs to evaluate its purposes, not only for the country but for itself.
Now let me warn you Democrats...before you start saying how stupid and lame Lieberman is...Remember that he was your selection for Vice President less the four years ago...LOL
I shouldn't have said that so we could see all the crap that would get slung on Lieberman...
For the sake of my country your country and the world for our children...if yer gonna vote then PLEASE educate that vote!!!!
PEACE!!!
--Thcranky1
-
Onethenumber2
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:52 pm
- Location: somewhere South of the North Pole
I find it strange .....or maybe I just didnt read to well...... no one has figured out what he "really" meant.
Jayy meant Hill Clil vs. Ted Kenedy clone kerry am I right??
But seriously how great of a matchup would that be. Stuck up politician deathmatch!
Out of the 2 I would say Kerry before either clinton but thats probably because I dont know as much about Kerry. I do know he hasnt screwed any interns (that the public knows of) and that he hasnt commited perjury (yet), and he is not a girl (so we think) so uh yeah Kerry is da man over either Clinton.
Anybody heard any word on who the kerry runningmate will be?
Jayy meant Hill Clil vs. Ted Kenedy clone kerry am I right??
But seriously how great of a matchup would that be. Stuck up politician deathmatch!
Out of the 2 I would say Kerry before either clinton but thats probably because I dont know as much about Kerry. I do know he hasnt screwed any interns (that the public knows of) and that he hasnt commited perjury (yet), and he is not a girl (so we think) so uh yeah Kerry is da man over either Clinton.
Anybody heard any word on who the kerry runningmate will be?
XP 1600+ @1606 Mhz, GIGABYTE Mobo WD 60GB 8MBc, 512 MB pc 2100 DDR, GF 2 Ultra, Win XP Pro, CDRWx40
War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things: The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks nothing (is) worth a war, is worse.
-John Stuart Mill “The Contest in America”
War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things: The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks nothing (is) worth a war, is worse.
-John Stuart Mill “The Contest in America”
