Cia Agrees With Kerry.

[TWAnr]

I find it fascinating that so many veterans can be lying through their teeth. If they're that dishonorable, it's weird how they found the honor to serve their country. I guess the only truthful statements are ones which are in support of Kerry. Funny how that works. 🙄

[post="174820"][/post]​

Well, here is how the Urban Legends Reference Pages describe it:

How well all of these men knew John Kerry is questionable, and discrepancies between how some of them described Kerry thirty-five years ago and how they describe him today suggest that their opinions are largely based upon political differences rather than objective assessments of Kerry's military record.

Swift Justice

 

[NWA/AMT]

If you think the term "liberal" is derogatory, that's your problem. If that's what you are, why are you so ashamed of it?

[post="174733"][/post]​

Surely it couldn't be hearing it used in a derogatory fashion for two decades by the NeoCons as they took over the Republican party. Perish the thought! They needed a new term to use on their opponents because nobody was falling for their use of "Commie" anymore and they settled on "Liberal", of course pronounced with the same distaste. They used it freely on everyone who disagreed with them, lumping them all together for easier "Us and Them" pidgeonholing of their opposition.

One need only look to such NeoCon leading lights as Ann Coulter to see why anyone would think the term Liberal is derogatory. She calls them 'traitors', as has Rush Limbaugh, and barely stops short of calling for them to be put in camps. No hint of the civility necessary for true Democracy comes from the right wing, only a sort of ideological demonizing of anyone who dares agree with them. Still wonder why America is so sharply divided? It sure ain't the so-called 'Liberals' fault, they've been bending over backwards, (and forwards), for two decades trying to appear reasonable.

For the same two decades the NeoCons have been fighting some mythical "Liberal Agenda", not realizing that the true Liberal agenda collapsed in the late 1970s when the conservative Democrats failed to back Jimmy Carter's reforms. Since then the 'Liberal' has been merely the NeoCon equivalent of the Boogyman; something to scare the children with.

You notice, though, that even though they control every branch of the government - Legislative, Executive and Judicial - the Republicans haven't bothered to fix much? After two decades of telling the American people that the government is the problem, not the solution, why is the government getting bigger? (I'm not counting the good folks at Homeland Security either.) Two decades of repeating the NeoCon mantra of deregulation has dismantled entire industries and the 'free market' dogma has decimated the american economy in an fruitless race to the bottom. Turns out they don't want to fix the problems, they just want to blame the Liberals for them.

The last REAL Republican this nation saw was Dwight Eisenhower, a man of vision who saw that capitalism worked best when managed, albeit with a light hand. Someone who had the vision to see that allowing the Pentagon to determine all facets of national policy was an abrogation on our constitutional responsibilities. Someone who realized, like Lincoln, that governments are formed for a purpose and its up to the people and their leaders to see it keeps to that purpose.

I don't know if John Kerry is that kind of man but I know for sure that George Bush isn't.

 

[NWA/AMT]

I find it fascinating that so many veterans can be lying through their teeth.

[post="174820"][/post]​

No, they're just being used by those who did not deign to serve with them then and now see them as a useful tool, again.

I guess the only truthful statements are ones which are in support of Kerry.

No, those are just the ones that have actual documentation to back them up.

The term poetic justice comes to mind.

So does the term juvenile spite. Too bad Kerry can't use quotes from Bush about Vietnam but I suppose "Please, Dad, I don't want to go" isn't really that useful.

 

[NWA/AMT]

It's amazing. The same guys who called Clinton a draft dodger think Bush is the second coming of Patton.

[post="174830"][/post]​

Whats really amazing is that in their minds having your wealthy father use his political influence to have your name moved above hundreds of others on the ANG waiting list is somehow more honorable than actually having served in Vietnam.

 

[FredF]

Oh my, I am so underwhelmed. A support of swift boats was a lobyist for a company that received a grand from the Bush Administratiion. Boy a real smoking gun there huh?

When the heck is the washing post going to report the moveon.org staffer working for the Kerry camp or the law firms that represent Moveon.org and whatever that other leftist trash group is and the Kerry campaign?

When that happens, you can talk about what campaing is co-ordinating with what groups. Untill then, unless you have an affidavit, shut up about it.

 

[FredF]

It's amazing. The same guys who called Clinton a draft dodger think Bush is the second coming of Patton.

[post="174830"][/post]​

Yet you seem to ignore the fact that the same people that said Clinton's draft dodging was un-important are the ones both condeming Bush for serving in the Guard and Celebrating Kerry as a war hero.

 

[KCFlyer]

Yet you seem to ignore the fact that the same people that said Clinton's draft dodging was un-important are the ones both condeming Bush for serving in the Guard and Celebrating Kerry as a war hero.

[post="175017"][/post]​

No sir, I don't ignore that. I thought that what Bill Clinton did in the 1960's did not impact what he was trying to do in the 1990's. I think what John Kerry did in the 1960's doesn't carry over into what he wants to do in the 2000's. I don't think what Bush did in the 1960's really matters over what he's done to this country over the last 4 years, and what he plans to do should he be reelected almost 40 years later. Are you the same person you were in the 1960's? I'm not.

I STILL haven't seen a moveon.org ad on television. I have to go to the internet to see one. I HAVE seen the swift boat ads.

And you know something? I believe that a person who has seen war...a person who has been under enemy fire...a person who has seen his fellow soldiers killed (especially in a war that didn't threaten the security of the USA), has a better understanding of what is involved in war than a person who "served" because he got the kid glove treatment in the Air National Guard in TEXAS instead of Hanoi. I think a person who actually DID see combat has a better grip on what war is, and can balance that experience in deciding to go to war, is better than a President who never saw a shot fired from the enemy, who never sweated in the jungles of a war zone, who never watched his friend die from enemy fire. Instead we have a president who took a vote from the Congress that granted him the right to go to war if the problem could not be diffused diplomatically, or if they could prove (which they did not) that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. They didn't even try diplomacy. They didn't have any real "proof" of Iraq being an imminent threat. They changed the reasons for the war (after we had commited the troops and commenced the fighting) from ties to 9/11 to ties to nukes, to liberating the country. Only after a YEAR AND A HALF have they even uncovered a "could have" with Libyan ties. Saddam wasn't much liked by Osama. Osama was a religious militant. Saddam was a secular dictator. He might as well have been an American in Osama's eyes.

When either of the candidates does happen to talk about the present situation and not what John Kerry did or didn't do 40 years ago, neither side is being totally honest. Want to know why so many Iraqi's still hate the US despite being "liberated"? Because after the first gulf war, the US encouraged them to rise up against Saddam. They did. The US sat back and watched as Saddam gassed his own people. During the first gulf war, I have to wonder how many Iraqi's who were encouraged to rise up sat back and said "What the F#$% are they doing" when we stopped 30 miles short of Saddam's palace. Bet we might have won them over had we kept going. Instead, we leave it up to them to oust Saddam, then did nothing when they tried and were summarily killed. But that's the past.

Anywho...we are stuck in Iraq, no matter who is elected. Might as well keep them there if Bush is elected, since Iran's next up on his war radar screen, and we can save a ton in transportation costs if the troops just stay put. And what happens when Tony Blair isn't PM in Britain any more? Do you think the incoming PM might *gasp* listen to the will of the people and tell Bush and Cheney "Sorry old chaps, but my country has said "enough"". Then we're pretty much on our own, and we can commence hating the British as much as we hate the French and Germans.

As far as jobs and the economy, I see a lot of Walmart's cropping up in my area, but I KNOW several folks whose job paying $40-$50K per year have been "offshored", leaving them to take two "Walmart" style jobs to make end's meet. Maybe that's why we have such a big deficeit....Bush cut taxes, but we are LOSING jobs that were paying taxes on $40-$50k jobs and replacing with jobs that only pay $10k. Meanwhile....since only the top 5% of wealth (made up oddly enough of a lot of CEO's) we cut their taxes so they pay less, let them cut jobs that used to pay well, eliminating that chunk of taxes coming in, and replacing them with jobs that pay so little, they don't even have to pay any taxes. Talk about your "trickle down".

 

[FredF]

BULL. Pardon me if I don't believe that it does not matter to you. If it didn't, you would not have posted it.

At least own up to that.


Also,, Bush cut everyones taxes not just for those paying the most. How much of a burden do you think peple shoul bear? My goodness.

In case you forgot, I would like to remind you of two very importand concepts in our country. First, one of the principles that this country was found on is Laze fare which means government should have the least amount of interferance with business as possable yet you are blaiming the Administration for companies exporting jobs overseas. Go blame the companies, but that leads me to the second point.

Business exist to make money. Period. If a company beleives that it is more economical for them to hire workers offshore, then they should be able to do that. It is called a free market. It is not, nor should it be, the function of government to tell companies who they can and cannot hire, within non-discrimitory practices. Sounds to me, like you are advocating some sort of Quota system for business.

Government control of business is called socialism. Ask Gorbechev how well that worked out.

 

[KCFlyer]

BULL. Pardon me if I don't believe that it does not matter to you. If it didn't, you would not have posted it.

At least own up to that.

[post="175249"][/post]​

It doesn't matter. I post it because I feel that this election is being "Fuhrmaned"...you know, how when the OJ trial shifted it's focus from OJ killing his wife to the trial of Dennis Fuhrman, the racist cop. The focus of the trial shifted from the issue of OJ killing his wife to Fuhrman's use of the "N word" in the past 10 years. Nothing at all to do with the case - shifted for focus away from the real issue. That's what this campaign has become...shift the focus from today and back 40 years.

 

[AgMedallion]

And you know something? I believe that a person who has seen war...a person who has been under enemy fire...a person who has seen his fellow soldiers killed (especially in a war that didn't threaten the security of the USA), has a better understanding of what is involved in war than a person who "served" because he got the kid glove treatment in the Air National Guard in TEXAS instead of Hanoi.

Yet I'll bet that most Dems who say this now said Clinton would be better qualified as Commander In Chief than either Bush 41 in '92 or Bob Dole in '96, both of whom are war heroes in my book, esp the latter. Every minute that GWB spent training and flying fighters in the Texas ANG is one more minute than Clinton ever served in the military. He was busy smoking pot in England ("I never broke the drug laws of this country" is what he said in Clintonspeak, i.e. lying, but not technically). But the Dems didn't give a damn about military experience in either '92 or '96. Now, all of a sudden, they have a new religion because their guy served active duty while GWB merely did ANG service (which means he was taking a chance of being activated, a chance Clinton never had to face). Damned hypocrites.

When either of the candidates does happen to talk about the present situation and not what John Kerry did or didn't do 40 years ago

Let's get one thing straight, Kerry is the one who made his military service 35 years ago the centerpiece of the Dems National Convention. Now it's payback time because there's alot of Vietnam vets who served their country honorably and are now rightfully po'd at having been called War Criminals by Kerry. Even Kerry has said he was over the top in the comments he made back then. But, like Jane Fonda, can't admit he was wrong or, more importantly, apologize.

 

[KCFlyer]

But the Dems didn't give a damn about military experience in either '92 or '96. Now, all of a sudden, they have a new religion because their guy served active duty while GWB merely did ANG service (which means he was taking a chance of being activated, a chance Clinton never had to face). Damned hypocrites.

we weren't at war during those years either. Look...all I am saying is that Bush junior was quick to commit troops. IMHO, too quick. And I don't want a guy with a quick trigger finger running my country. Clinton can't be elected again, so whatever he did is a moot point. And the only reason that they have "religion" is because 1) we are at war and 2) the swift boat group seems to want to make it a major issue. And Bush won't come out and say "that's dirty pool". Hell...Bush said he believed Kerry, but stopped short of saying he didn't approve of the swift boat ads. Therefore, he is keeping it as a campaign issue. And the response is, Bush never saw enemy fire. As they say, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Speaking of hypocrites...it seemed when Clinton was running, his marijuana use was a key issue of the Republicans, but when anyone questioned Bush's drug and alcohol abuse in the late 70's and early 80's, they immediatly say that what he did then doesn't matter...It was a long time ago and is was "foolish youth". Why was Clinton's Inhaling marjuana such a big issue back in the campaigns of the 1990's?

 

[AgMedallion]

No hint of the civility necessary for true Democracy comes from the right wing, only a sort of ideological demonizing of anyone who dares agree with them. Still wonder why America is so sharply divided? It sure ain't the so-called 'Liberals' fault, they've been bending over backwards, (and forwards), for two decades trying to appear reasonable.

Civility? Bending over backwards? That's pure unadulterated BS. Like when Hillary demanded to know what Bush knew about 9/11 and when he knew it? Or Teddy Kennedy calling GWB a liar? Or the hundreds/thousands of times that the Dems, just as those elitist snobs did with Reagan, called GWB, a Yale/Harvard grad, stupid? Or their continual claims that the Republicans are heartless racists who will abolish Social Security. The Dems constantly preach class warfare. They truly do believe that there are two Americas. Even though I'm middle class and have benefitted greatly from GWB's tax cuts, to hear the Dems talk, I must be filthy rich.

 

[FredF]

KC you are just having a bad day today or what. His drug useage was not the issue, it was his ducking, dodging, splitting semantic hairs that was the issue. Bush came straight out and admitted what he did. Said it was wrong, said he had reformed his ways. Appologized for his indescretions.

This is kind of like when everyone tried to say that the impeachment was about sex when the truth was it was about lying under oath to a federal grand jury.

It is the same deal here with Kerry.

Oh and by the way, did you see where the switf boat group sent a letter to Kerry offerring to stop their ad campaign. All he had to do was appologize for what he said AFTER the war a bout those he served with.


Here again, we are trying to hold individuals accountable to their actions. Admit to what they did and take the proper measures in the present tense. Do not try to hide, convolute, or obscure what happened or pretend it never happened. Something Kerry seems to have learned from Clinton. Like the true master who is famous for saying it depends on what the definition of is is,, Kerry is now trying to say that it dempends on what the definition of we is.

Give me a break. Take responsability for your actions. I don't care if you are an 8 year old kid, or running for president, own up to your actions, good, bad, or indeferent but own up to what you did.

How in the world can we trust a person that cannot grasp that simple concept and why should be put them in charge of our country?

 

[AgMedallion]

we weren't at war during those years either.

That's the problem. We damn sure were at war except the fool in the White House was busy doing you-know-what while treating the terrorist events from 1/20/93 to 1/20/2001 as mere law enforcement issues. I'm quite sure Al Qaeda was terrified when Clinton was having those subpoenas and indictments issued. Yeah, right. 🙄

Why was Clinton's Inhaling marjuana such a big issue back in the campaigns of the 1990's?

You forgot...he didn't "inhale". 😀

 

[sentrido]

Even though I'm middle class and have benefitted greatly from GWB's tax cuts, to hear the Dems talk, I must be filthy rich.

[post="175294"][/post]​

How exactly have you benefitted?