Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on September 09, 2004, 04:29:00 PM
http://www.cnsnews.c...L20040909d.html
Post by: dss311 on September 09, 2004, 04:35:00 PM
Hate to see any canidate win (or loose) because of garbage like this.
Post by: pug_ster on September 09, 2004, 05:51:00 PM
| QUOTE (dss311 @ Sep 10 2004, 12:38 AM) |
| Not sure if it is accurate or not either...But if they doctored any papers in regards to a presidential election they should be locked up for a LONG time...... Hate to see any canidate win (or loose) because of garbage like this. |
I am sure that www.cnsnews.com is very pro-Kerry otherwise why I don't see other websites which have this report?
Post by: Dasgooch on September 10, 2004, 02:01:00 PM
Post by: nemt on September 10, 2004, 02:12:00 PM
..and let's just get one thing clear, service in the military, and 270 electoral votes, will make you President.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 10, 2004, 05:45:00 PM
The idiots at CBS are standing by their deception. This is big. It isn't the first time, either...
Also, Barnes' daughter is now going on record saying her Dad is LYING to sell his book.
Follow the money trail, ladies and gentlemen.... It's amazing who you can buy when you are George Soros and mentally deranged.
Post by: pug_ster on September 10, 2004, 07:13:00 PM
| QUOTE (Dasgooch @ Sep 10 2004, 10:04 PM) |
| Actually this story broke yesterday and being covered on a lot of sites including some pretty mainstream sites like abcnews.com and drudgereport.com. There are also reports from this officer's family that supposedly wrote this letter that are saying that the circumstances around this issue don't sound like their father/husband. It looks like to me that the liberal media is trying (yet again) to slander the president because Kerry is slipping in the polls. |
Well, I didn't see that in other websites at that time.
This kind of scandal is just dirty politics like the Switboat Vets crap.
Post by: nemt on September 10, 2004, 07:43:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 10 2004, 08:48 PM) |
| Also, Barnes' daughter is now going on record saying her Dad is LYING to sell his book. |
For the record, Bush joined the Guard before Barnes was ever Lt. Gov.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 11, 2004, 12:45:00 AM
On the other side, we see the shrill chants and tired cliches used to attack Bush, now with verified forgeries and outright lies, on a grand scale.
Which side gets the free pass from the "main stream media" and which is discredited without stating barely a single fact to refute the case?
The media has never been as exposed in it's left-wing bias as it is today. CBS has lost so much credibility, they make Weekly World News look like the paragon of journalism. Anybody that denies this is either fooling themselves, or tremendously dishonest.
Post by: nemt on September 11, 2004, 07:45:00 AM
..and since so few news sources tell the truth anyway, there's little basis of comparison.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 12, 2004, 01:03:00 PM
What does this mean?!??!?
Post by: thomes08 on September 12, 2004, 01:16:00 PM
who gives a fuck all this happened over 30 years ago. I mean fuck none of us are at war so the fact that these 2 people actually served some time is better that all of the people here judging them. an election shouldn't be won on smears
Post by: BenJeremy on September 12, 2004, 01:30:00 PM
| QUOTE (thomes08 @ Sep 12 2004, 04:19 PM) |
| i'm still really confused as to why people care about the military records of these 2 people. Kerry faked it, bush deserted. Kerry is a hero, so is bush. who gives a fuck all this happened over 30 years ago. I mean fuck none of us are at war so the fact that these 2 people actually served some time is better that all of the people here judging them. an election shouldn't be won on smears |
Because KERRY made HIS record an issue first, by making it the Democratic Convention centerpiece, and KERRY keeps bringing up Bush's Air National Guard service at every whistlestop.
At this point, you have the anti-Bush side, which relies, not on FACTS, but on the BELIEF that the evil neo-cons are plotting a new world order to stomp out your ability to smoke pot and have abortions by helping, then killing dictators all over the world. I have yet to see any evidence of Bush ever deliberately lying to the public (he acted on information he had at the time); even Kerry admits this, while he hammers the myth home with vague statements.
Kerry, on the other hand, has shown, time and time again, that he will turncoat on any cause, on any promise made. He has people close to his campaign who work directly for the 527s (MoveOn.Org), even while he denounces Bush for the SwiftBoatVets ads (which he has nothing to do with).
Kerry's credibility has run out completely. People are starting to realize that he is not a man to be trusted with anything, not even the causes he purports to believe in. He'll speak to an Arab group, and tell them he'll eliminate support for Israel, then, hours later, talk to a Jewish group and profess undying support for the regions only democracy (as well as the only religious, sex, and lifestyle -tolerant country in the region). Which is true? There's a reason why he's been called out as a flip-flopper.
Why not ask the DNC why they continually choose supreme liberal losers who can't even hold the mainstream Democrats against a candidate the media has villified for the past 4 years.
Kerry made 30 year old history an issue because he can't stand against Bush on the issues that matter.
Post by: thomes08 on September 12, 2004, 01:35:00 PM
Post by: pug_ster on September 12, 2004, 02:20:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 12 2004, 09:33 PM) |
| Because KERRY made HIS record an issue first, by making it the Democratic Convention centerpiece, and KERRY keeps bringing up Bush's Air National Guard service at every whistlestop. |
Boy, you seemed to say that the Democrats are the cause of all evil, don't you?
The only thing Kerry questioned was of his validity of Bush's service. CBSnews brought up this issue with proof in question.
The next thing you will say that CBS has been working with Kerry on this. If you have proof, please show it.
| QUOTE |
| At this point, you have the anti-Bush side, which relies, not on FACTS, but on the BELIEF that the evil neo-cons are plotting a new world order to stomp out your ability to smoke pot and have abortions by helping, then killing dictators all over the world. I have yet to see any evidence of Bush ever deliberately lying to the public (he acted on information he had at the time); even Kerry admits this, while he hammers the myth home with vague statements. |
Bush doesn't have to admit to lying because he have other people to take the fall. It has been always been true with him and other presidents as long as the paper trail don't lead to the president. Eg. George Tenet is the cause with the Intelligence in Iraq. The solder guards are the cause of the Tortures in Abu Ghraib. I guess it doesn't sound suspecious to you. But, don't be surprised that one day that the Truth will come to light because someone decides to break his/her silence about this matter.
| QUOTE |
| Kerry, on the other hand, has shown, time and time again, that he will turncoat on any cause, on any promise made. He has people close to his campaign who work directly for the 527s (MoveOn.Org), even while he denounces Bush for the SwiftBoatVets ads (which he has nothing to do with). Kerry's credibility has run out completely. People are starting to realize that he is not a man to be trusted with anything, not even the causes he purports to believe in. He'll speak to an Arab group, and tell them he'll eliminate support for Israel, then, hours later, talk to a Jewish group and profess undying support for the regions only democracy (as well as the only religious, sex, and lifestyle -tolerant country in the region). Which is true? There's a reason why he's been called out as a flip-flopper. |
As for the Bush what he has to do with the SwiftVets for Lies, Bush didn't have to do anything, but his aides do all the dirty work.
Okay, I think you have been watching too much foxnews. Kerry didn't say that he himself is a flip-flopper. The Repugs label him as a flipfloper so that is how you understand him by. This is basically BS unless you have some proof.
| QUOTE |
| Kerry made 30 year old history an issue because he can't stand against Bush on the issues that matter. |
Actually, it is an issue because Bush never has show any proof that he showed up for service while he was in Alabama. Unless you have some proof that he was there.
| QUOTE |
| Why not ask the DNC why they continually choose supreme liberal losers who can't even hold the mainstream Democrats against a candidate the media has villified for the past 4 years. |
And I suppose that the Mainstream conservatives are the saviors of the world, right? What you said is all baseless without any Truth into it.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 12, 2004, 04:22:00 PM
| QUOTE |
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, again questioned Bush's record in the National Guard on Sunday. Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question, Kerry said while campaigning in Virginia. NBC |
| QUOTE |
Meanwhile, Kerry came under attack from White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who blamed the Democrat and his supporters for manipulating a new anti-Bush group called Texans for Truth that's challenging Bush's service in the Texas and Alabama Air National Guards over 30 years ago. "I think you are absolutely seeing a coordinated attack by John Kerry and his surrogates on the president," McClellan said. He suggested that Kerry's fall in recent polls is making Democrats desperate. Texans for Truth is an offshoot of MoveOn.org, an anti-Bush activist group, and its leader is a former Democratic consultant. (MoveOn has an incredible array of ties directly to the DNC and senior Kerry Campaign staffers) |
| QUOTE |
In a recent speech, though, Kerry said, "Well, if (Bush) wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.' " ... Kerry used the four-day Democratic convention to establish an identity as a war-wounded veteran now ready to take command Tuscon Citizen |
| QUOTE |
John Kerry has launched a furious attack on the Vietnam record of President Bush and Dick Cheney saying that the Republican pair had "refused" to serve in the war while he was committed to national duty. TimesOnline (UK) |
There's probably a lot more... just skimming from the online news articles. There was a few vile quotes form Kerry I heard on the radio a couple of weeks ago when he made a stop in Michigan. Kerry continues to use Bush's fuzzy Air Guard record as a hammering point; meanwhile, Bush has only stated that he respects, and thanks Kerry for his service, and does not question his record.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 12, 2004, 05:07:00 PM
| QUOTE |
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN SEPT 12, 2004 19:02:38 ET XXXXX DNC TO LAUNCH FRESH ATTACK ON BUSH GUARD DUTY: WILL RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT 1978 CAMPAIGN LIT **Exclusive** Dems are set to take to the airwaves anew with questions about President Bush's National Guard duty, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. Candidate Kerry apparently has rejected former President Clinton's advice not to get further locked in a 2004 Vietnam quagmire. "George W. Bush's campaign literature claimed that he 'served in the U.S. Air Force.' The only problem? He didn't," slams a new DNC press release set for distribution. Dems will attempt to increase the heat on Bush ahead of his planned Tuesday address before The National Guard Association gathering in Las Vegas. (Kerry plans to speak to the group on Thursday, but he personally hold back questioning Bush's service, sources explain.) The coordinated nationwide effort this week by the DNC has been code-named "Project Fortunate Son." "George Bush has a clear pattern of lying about his military service," DNC Communications Director Jano Cabrera blasts in the new release. "From 1978 to the present day, George Bush has refused to tell voters the truth about his service. It's time for the President to come clean." "Flyers distributed to Texas voters during Bush's failed Congressional race say 'he served in the U.S. Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard.' But according to Air Force officials, Air National Guardsmen are not counted as members of the active-duty Air Force." |
Wow.... what a bunch of dumbasses. This will backfire horribly, particularly in light of the forgeries. They believe the crap they've been making up for the last 4 years and now that they are standing knee deep in it, they want to throw it at the public. Real smart (not).
Post by: nemt on September 12, 2004, 05:15:00 PM
John Kerry requested a student deferment, to avoid service.
John Kerry enlisted in the Naval Reserve, not the US Navy, which was as common a route to take for those wishing to avoid combat as the Nat'l Guard.
John Kerry did his first "tour" on the USS Gridley, a guided missile frigate which was in such dangerous combat zones as California and New Zealand.
John Kerry spent the first month of his four month stint as a swift boat captain training far away from any action.
John Kerry volunteered for the swift boats because at the time they were only being used for coastal guard duty, and the VC had no weapons to reach them while they were in the ocean.
John Kerry protested strenuously when the swift boats were reassigned to river patrol missions.
..this is in addition to the issues with his fradulent medals, and his early ticket home.
Post by: pug_ster on September 12, 2004, 06:08:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 13 2004, 12:25 AM) |
| I'm not going to waste time with your blather. Bill Burkett, raving anti-Bush as possible source of forgeries There's probably a lot more... just skimming from the online news articles. There was a few vile quotes form Kerry I heard on the radio a couple of weeks ago when he made a stop in Michigan. Kerry continues to use Bush's fuzzy Air Guard record as a hammering point; meanwhile, Bush has only stated that he respects, and thanks Kerry for his service, and does not question his record. |
BenJeremy, I am sure if I go to moveon.org, I can give you about all the negative dirt about Bush. If I did that, you would say I am making up stories.
While saying that, please refer a more reputable site than a site like Drudge report or any other anti-kerry website for proof.
As for both of you, it seems to me that both of you are fixating on Kerry's Vietnam record because you have a lot of reasons to slander it. This the reason why Kerry has to defend his record and why it seems that Kerry is focused on his record on Vietnam.
Post by: nemt on September 12, 2004, 06:15:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 12 2004, 09:11 PM) |
| As for both of you, it seems to me that both of you are fixating on Kerry's Vietnam record because you have a lot of reasons to slander it. This the reason why Kerry has to defend his record and why you see that stuff in the news. |
I had no interest in Kerry's war record before he attacked the President's, and made viet nam an issue in the first election since 1972.
Like I've said before, military service, and 270 electoral votes, will make you president.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 12, 2004, 06:23:00 PM
You say he's not attacking Bush on a 30 year old item, and he's not standing on his own record, real or contrived, from the Vietnam war; I say he is.
You can deny it all you want right now, though the evidence is there... and even more so Thursday. Kerry is desperate; his campaign is falling apart (and he thinks he's going to fix it with mega-loser Shrum at the helm?) and he's going to get his hands dirty in the smear campaign.
Obviously, the forged documents were the first salvo in the stepped up smear offensive against Bush. Sad that they must make up facts, but then, their most loyal have been believing it for 4 years now (well, a lot longer than that, but 4 years for this SET of lies).
I've seen the left go through more twists and turns than a Chinese Contortionist in an effort to refute the charges the forgeries were made with anything but a 1973 era IBM Typewriter, and I've seen them ignore the big elephant in the room - the obvious factual errors and logical flaws in the "memos" - and it makes me wonder if this really is a form of insanity.
Post by: pug_ster on September 12, 2004, 06:39:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 13 2004, 02:18 AM) |
| I had no interest in Kerry's war record before he attacked the President's, and made viet nam an issue in the first election since 1972. Like I've said before, military service, and 270 electoral votes, will make you president. |
You're right. I rather be talking about Taxes, Health Care, Environment, Education, Jobs, Budget Deficit, etc.... But Bush kept talking about Defense and Terrorists and ignoring all the other issues makes me sick.
At this time, I think whomever wins 270 Electoral votes gets to be President, because the Campaign is getting uglier and uglier everyday.
Post by: nemt on September 12, 2004, 06:52:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 12 2004, 09:42 PM) |
| At this time, I think whomever wins 270 Electoral votes gets to be President, because the Campaign is getting uglier and uglier everyday. |
Okay.
Never post here again, ever.
Post by: pug_ster on September 12, 2004, 06:56:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 13 2004, 02:55 AM) |
| Okay. Never post here again, ever. |
Thanks, but I will skip on that because I like to express my opinions.
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on September 12, 2004, 08:14:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 13 2004, 02:59 AM) |
| Thanks, but I will skip on that because I like to express my opinions. |
You're "e-opinion", because if you expressed your opinion in real life you would get drop kicked in the face.
Post by: pug_ster on September 12, 2004, 08:16:00 PM
| QUOTE (EverythingButAnAnswer @ Sep 13 2004, 04:17 AM) |
| You're "e-opinion", because if you expressed your opinion in real life you would get drop kicked in the face. |
I am sure that you have everything but an answer.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 12, 2004, 08:29:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 12 2004, 11:19 PM) |
| I am sure that you have everything but an answer. |
Oh, I think he'd have an answer if he met you in a street (the aforementioned kick in the face).
Actually, we could talk all day about Kerry's Senate record, but he doesn't want to discuss that.
Go figure.
| QUOTE |
Here are only a few of the questions Kerry hasn't adequately addressed. They don't even have anything to do with swift boats. There are no "gotcha" questions. They're posed in a respectful manner. In fact, many are softballs. After all, few interviewers would wish to alienate Kerry and foreclose the possibility of follow-up interviews. With that in mind, here goes: 1. The Bush campaign maintains that you spent 20 years in the Senate with no signature legislative achievements. What do you consider to be the five most important pieces of legislation that you've authored? a. What's the most important piece of legislation regarding intelligence you've authored? b. What's the most important piece of antiterrorism legislation you've authored? c. What's the most important piece of health-care legislation you've authored? d. What's the most important piece of education legislation you've authored? 2. You'd agree that on paper, Dick Cheney's experience and qualifications dwarf those of your running mate. Why would John Edwards make a better president during the war on terror than Dick Cheney? a. It's been widely reported that John McCain was your first choice as running mate. If true, why did you prefer Senator McCain to Senator Edwards? 3. Earlier this year you told Tim Russert that you'd release all of your military records, yet you've failed to do so and you refuse to release your Vietnam journal. Why shouldn't the public infer that the contents of these documents would undermine your credibility or otherwise damage your candidacy? a. When will you release the documents? 4. You've stated that you believe that life begins at conception yet you voted against the ban on partial-birth abortions. At precisely what point is a life worth protecting? a. Is there any limitation on abortion (waiting periods, parental notification) for which you'd vote? If so, what? 5. You've promised to repeal much of the Bush tax cut and while in the Senate you voted to raise taxes an average of five times per year. If current economic trends remain largely unchanged during a Kerry presidency, would you seek additional tax increases? a. How would you raise taxes and what are the highest marginal tax rates that you'd support? 6. You opposed the 1991 Gulf War even though Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, had invaded another country, and France and Germany had supported the war. In the current conflict no WMDs have been found, France and Germany oppose the action, and Saddam hadn't invaded another country. Yet you recently stated that knowing what you know now, you'd nonetheless authorize the use of force even though you voted against funding it. Could you please reconcile these positions? 7. You acknowledge meeting with representatives of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong in Paris in 1970. Afterward you urged Congress to accept the North Vietnamese proposals. Please explain how this wasn't a violation of the Logan Act and, if you were still in the Naval Reserves at that time, how it wasn't a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibiting unauthorized communications with the enemy. 8. In several speeches before black audiences you've stated that a million African Americans were disenfranchised and had their votes stolen in the 2000 presidential election. There are no official or media investigations that support that statement. What evidence do you have to support the statement and if you believe a million blacks had their votes stolen, why haven't you called for criminal prosecutions and congressional investigations? 9. Do you dispute the National Journal's assessment that you're the nation's most liberal senator? If you do, which senators do you consider to be more liberal and why? 10. Why did you propose cutting the intelligence budget by $6 billion in 1994? 11. As president, would you nominate anyone to be either an attorney general, FBI director, or CIA director who had been a leader and chief spokesman for a group that had discussed and voted upon a plan to assassinate U.S. senators (even if the proposed nominee had opposed such plan)? 12. You have consistently stated that you "never, never" attended the November 1971 Kansas City meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which a plan to assassinate six pro-military U.S. senators was discussed. Several newspapers reported that when confronted with FBI surveillance reports, your campaign "all but conceded" that you were in attendance , but claimed that this was a mere "footnote in history." a. Were you there? b. Did you discuss the assassination of U.S. senators? What did you say? c. Did you vote upon such a plan? How did you vote? Were any similar plans discussed by your group at any time? What were they? d. If the plan was voted down, what steps did you take to insure that supporters of the plan didn't carry it out anyway? e. Especially considering that this took place in an era of political assassinations and assassination attempts (Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., George Wallace, etc.), did you report the discussion to any law-enforcement authorities? If not, why not? f. When did you resign from the organization? g. Do you dispute reports that you continued as a spokesman for the organization for more than a year after the Kansas City meeting? h. If this was a mere footnote in history why have you repeatedly and vehemently denied you were there? i. Did your campaign, as alleged in several newspaper accounts, attempt to get a witness to change his story about your attendance? 13. You have criticized the Patriot Act. What portions would you repeal or amend and why? What evidence do you have of any abuses of the Patriot Act? 14. As president, what would you do about Iran's emerging nuclear capability? 15. During your eight-year tenure on the Senate Intelligence Committee you missed more than thee fourths of all public meetings. It's also been reported that you have skipped or delayed receiving intelligence briefings during the campaign. Why should the public believe that you're serious about this issue? 16. What do you think is appropriate punishment for guards (and their superiors) found guilty of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib? Do you believe they should be stripped of command and receive dishonorable discharges and prison time? 17. On May 6, 2001, on Meet the Press, you stated that you had committed "the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers" in violation of the Geneva Convention. Specifically, you said you burned villages and "used 50-calibre machine guns, which [you] were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people." a. Who ordered you to use 50-caliber machine guns on people? b. How many people did you shoot with the 50s and how many of them were killed or wounded? c. When and where did these shootings occur? d. What other atrocities did you commit and when? e. Which village(s) did you burn down and when? f. Were any of your crewmembers present during the commission of any of these atrocities? g. Did you order them to participate in the atrocities? Did they follow your orders? h. Why were there no reports of these atrocities? Did you order your crew not to report them? i. Are any of these incidents described in your Vietnam journal? If not, why not? j. Did you observe thousands of (or any) other troops committing atrocities? When, where and what kind? Did you report them? If not, why not? k. In light of your admitted atrocities, if Abu Ghraib guards found guilty of abuse should receive prison time and be stripped of command, why do you believe you should be considered for commander-in-chief? 18. Who among the justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court would be a model for your nominees to the federal bench? Why? 19. In a speech before Drake University Law School you characterized U.S. allies in the war in Iraq as "some trumped-up so-called Coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted,..." Do you maintain that Great Britain has been bribed, coerced, bought, or extorted? What about Italy? Japan? Poland? Please specifically identify those members of the Coalition that have been either bribed, coerced, bought, and extorted and the officials who were bribed or bought. 20. You told George Stephanopoulos that you had a plan to get out of Iraq but refused to provide details. Would you consent to having your secret plan privately evaluated by an independent, bi-partisan panel of military experts who could report the plan's merits to the electorate without divulging the details? a. Would you also consent to privately revealing to an independent panel the names of the foreign leaders who secretly support you so that the panel can confirm your story to the electorate? b. Ditto regarding the leaders whom you say have secretly told Senators Biden and Levin that you must win? Obviously, there are a lot more questions Social Security, health care, etc. Certainly there are tougher questions and those more artfully crafted. This is just a start. Feel free to add your own. TV-newsmagazine producers are welcome to use any of the above |
Nope, Kerry doesn't want to cover the things that really matter, either. Please keep your hand on this hand (big flourish) while the other sneaks out your wallet, pocket watch, underwear, etc....
Kerry describes how much his bruise (Purple Heart #2?) hurt, while Ron corrects him...
Post by: pug_ster on September 12, 2004, 08:42:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 13 2004, 04:32 AM) |
| Oh, I think he'd have an answer if he met you in a street (the aforementioned kick in the face). Actually, we could talk all day about Kerry's Senate record, but he doesn't want to discuss that. Go figure. Nope, Kerry doesn't want to cover the things that really matter, either. Please keep your hand on this hand (big flourish) while the other sneaks out your wallet, pocket watch, underwear, etc.... Kerry describes how much his bruise (Purple Heart #2?) hurt, while Ron corrects him... |
I'm afraid those questions are for John Kerry and not me. But I am sure that you have everything but an answer too. But keep those dumbass jokes coming.
I forgot, Tim Russert has some questions for Bush too...
http://www.alternet.org/story/17780
And another site with more questions.
http://www.commondre...s03/1115-08.htm
Post by: nemt on September 12, 2004, 08:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 12 2004, 09:59 PM) |
| Thanks, but I will skip on that because I like to express my opinions. |
Then explain what the hell "At this time, I think whomever wins 270 Electoral votes gets to be President, because the Campaign is getting uglier and uglier everyday." means?
Do you even know how the electoral college works?
Post by: pug_ster on September 12, 2004, 08:49:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 13 2004, 04:49 AM) |
| Then explain what the hell "At this time, I think whomever wins 270 Electoral votes gets to be President, because the Campaign is getting uglier and uglier everyday." means? Do you even know how the electoral college works? |
Of course I do.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm
Post by: pug_ster on September 12, 2004, 09:25:00 PM
| QUOTE (Arvarden @ Sep 13 2004, 05:17 AM) |
| Does the Electoral College violate the principle of one-person-one-vote? |
Yes.
| QUOTE |
| Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives |
Are we talking about supposing Bush's fake document or testing me about the Electoral College?
Post by: nemt on September 13, 2004, 07:37:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 12 2004, 11:52 PM) |
| Of course I do. http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm |
Then justify saying perhaps the stupidest thing ever posted here.
Post by: pug_ster on September 13, 2004, 11:42:00 AM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 13 2004, 03:40 PM) |
| Then justify saying perhaps the stupidest thing ever posted here. |
First you ask me a question, then you say I am stupid for answering your question... Does this make any sense?
You can't make any logical argument against me so you decided to insult me instead. To think someone with your 'intelligence' go to college. You should just quit college to join the Marines so you can vent your frustration on some Iraqis instead.
Post by: nemt on September 13, 2004, 03:07:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 12 2004, 09:42 PM) |
| At this time, I think whomever wins 270 Electoral votes gets to be President, because the Campaign is getting uglier and uglier everyday. |
No, no cop outs, justify saying this retarded statement, or admit you have no idea how the electoral college works.
Post by: pug_ster on September 13, 2004, 03:26:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 13 2004, 11:10 PM) |
| No, no cop outs, justify saying this retarded statement, or admit you have no idea how the electoral college works. |
Okay Mr Insult Nemt, enlighten me. Since you don't like the way I put sentences together anyways.
Post by: nemt on September 13, 2004, 03:32:00 PM
Your reply, "At this time, I think whomever wins 270 Electoral votes gets to be President, because the Campaign is getting uglier and uglier everyday." shows little understanding of what I said, or of the electoral process in general.
Clear as day.
Post by: pug_ster on September 13, 2004, 03:58:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 13 2004, 11:35 PM) |
| The point of my statement, "military service, and 270 electoral votes, will make you president." was to say military service means nothing in the scope of a presidential election, that is to say, service in peace or in war, though commendable, doesn't make one any more qualified to be the President. As 270 votes are the official requirement to be elected to office, this line clearly implies its meaning. Your reply, "At this time, I think whomever wins 270 Electoral votes gets to be President, because the Campaign is getting uglier and uglier everyday." shows little understanding of what I said, or of the electoral process in general. Clear as day. |
Tell me that I am an idiot because I re-iterated what you said. Maybe you don't like the way I put my sentences together?
I think you should stop smoking weed.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 13, 2004, 08:59:00 PM
Post by: pug_ster on September 13, 2004, 10:40:00 PM
Post by: BenJeremy on September 14, 2004, 05:23:00 AM
I'm guessing you don't understand the topic, or you just want to make enough noise to shout down the truth?
Post by: nemt on September 14, 2004, 07:33:00 AM
| QUOTE (Arvarden @ Sep 14 2004, 09:43 AM) |
You are living in a "democratic" country and you are not trusted to vote, you vote for a group of people who cast your vote on your behalf? |
The states elect the President, not the people. This gives a greater fairness to those living in less populated states, as all states are supposed to be equal in the union.
Post by: Yuyu on September 14, 2004, 08:34:00 AM
Post by: pug_ster on September 14, 2004, 08:38:00 AM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 14 2004, 01:26 PM) |
| Lame, pug_ster, very lame indeed. I'm guessing you don't understand the topic, or you just want to make enough noise to shout down the truth? |
Yes I do, but I didn't know that CBS has a news magazine.
Post by: pug_ster on September 14, 2004, 08:48:00 AM
| QUOTE (Yuyu @ Sep 14 2004, 04:37 PM) |
| Pug_ster, after sifting through your several posts of crap, I have decided you obviously are not one to be argued with. Then again, I never much liked arguing with mentally challenged people, kinda takes the fun out of debating, when you know the person that is going to respond is a fuktard. |
Damn Straight, because you have nothing to say, you don't have an argument. Instead of having an intelligent debate, you insult others just like Nemt. Might I add, that Nemt is the Original and you are an imitator.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 14, 2004, 01:12:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 14 2004, 11:41 AM) |
| Yes I do, but I didn't know that CBS has a news magazine. |
Undoubtably, if the above were published, you'd believe it as gospel.
Maybe these were faked....
Then again, maybe not.
At least they aren't a shrill and bizarre distortion of the truth that the forgeries CBS presented are.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 14, 2004, 01:21:00 PM
There was far more information in this CBS NEWS ITEM that supported the idea those memos were forgeries, than their steadfast and asinine stand that they are authentic.
Marcel Matley has backed away from CBS' claims that he authenticated the documents, and CBS has nothing more than to say "Look it can be done, gosh darn it!"
Even the trotted out "Ones vs. Els" is just mroe proof it was done on a word processor (Els prevent the "th" from getting superscripted in modern word processors).
...and still, even with $40,000 of reward money available, nobody has yet produced a typewriter of ANY TYPE that can reproduce those documents.
Post by: pug_ster on September 14, 2004, 03:29:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 14 2004, 09:24 PM) |
| Wow. There was far more information in this CBS NEWS ITEM that supported the idea those memos were forgeries, than their steadfast and asinine stand that they are authentic. Marcel Matley has backed away from CBS' claims that he authenticated the documents, and CBS has nothing more than to say "Look it can be done, gosh darn it!" Even the trotted out "Ones vs. Els" is just mroe proof it was done on a word processor (Els prevent the "th" from getting superscripted in modern word processors). ...and still, even with $40,000 of reward money available, nobody has yet produced a typewriter of ANY TYPE that can reproduce those documents. |
I couldn't imagine what kind of news magazine that CBS make and I don't want to know. Time magazine is fine.
As for the typewriter, IBM makes a Selectric Composer typewriter, Selectric II. It was introduced in 1971 which allows you to type superscripts. This also allows you to type in different kind of fonts too.
Marcel Matley says that only Killian's signature is authentic when matched with Killian's other documents during that time. But he didn't say anything about the authenication of the documents itself.
That said aside, I don't think you and I know if the document is authentic at that time. The only person who knows is if we can get the information from the horse's mouth, Bush himself.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 14, 2004, 03:45:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 14 2004, 06:32 PM) |
| I couldn't imagine what kind of news magazine that CBS make and I don't want to know. Time magazine is fine. As for the typewriter, IBM makes a Selectric Composer typewriter, Selectric II. It was introduced in 1971 which allows you to type superscripts. This also allows you to type in different kind of fonts too. Marcel Matley says that only Killian's signature is authentic when matched with Killian's other documents during that time. But he didn't say anything about the authenication of the documents itself. That said aside, I don't think you and I know if the document is authentic at that time. The only person who knows is if we can get the information from the horse's mouth, Bush himself. |
Wow, that Selectric II "Composer" and a current edition of M$ Word will make those memos every time.
Nobody has recreated those memos with ANY TYPEWRITER EVER PRODUCED.
However, one guy made an exact replica by simply opening up his M$ Word, using the default "Times New Roman" font, default page layout (8.5"x11"), margins, font size, etc... and typing it in.
Really, the factual errors are amazingly obvious, and come on.... "P.O. Box 34567"?!??!?
I suppose when the next memos come out using the phone number 867-5309, you'll believe those, too?
Let's see, everybody but CBS news, and a handful of Bush-hating web sites have descredited those memos thoroughly. The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, NBC, L Times, and any other liberal slanted media organization in this country you care to pick - all of them have slammed the memos as forgeries.
I'm sorry, but if you can't objectively examine the evidence and admit they are forgeries, you are either:
1) Blinded utterly by your hatred for Bush, and thus incapable of rendering a competent decision regarding the election, or any opinion worthy of the bandwidth it occupies.
or:
2) Extremely dishonest, to the point of treasonous activity. Complicent in a knowing act of fraud, and also unworthy of any consideration here at all, except to act as a shining example of a Kerry Supporter, and what we can expect if he ever got elected.
Post by: pug_ster on September 14, 2004, 04:16:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 14 2004, 11:48 PM) |
| Wow, that Selectric II "Composer" and a current edition of M$ Word will make those memos every time. Nobody has recreated those memos with ANY TYPEWRITER EVER PRODUCED. However, one guy made an exact replica by simply opening up his M$ Word, using the default "Times New Roman" font, default page layout (8.5"x11"), margins, font size, etc... and typing it in. Really, the factual errors are amazingly obvious, and come on.... "P.O. Box 34567"?!??!? I suppose when the next memos come out using the phone number 867-5309, you'll believe those, too? Let's see, everybody but CBS news, and a handful of Bush-hating web sites have descredited those memos thoroughly. The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, NBC, L Times, and any other liberal slanted media organization in this country you care to pick - all of them have slammed the memos as forgeries. I'm sorry, but if you can't objectively examine the evidence and admit they are forgeries, you are either: 1) Blinded utterly by your hatred for Bush, and thus incapable of rendering a competent decision regarding the election, or any opinion worthy of the bandwidth it occupies. or: 2) Extremely dishonest, to the point of treasonous activity. Complicent in a knowing act of fraud, and also unworthy of any consideration here at all, except to act as a shining example of a Kerry Supporter, and what we can expect if he ever got elected. |
Hey, you don't have to insult me because I brought up an argument. Don't be like the other 2 empty-minded jerks in this thread who brought no proof so they insult me instead. I didn't make any insults to you and I appreciate the same respect. If you have those proof of the things you said and you have a link, show it.
I am sure that someone who knows how to use a word processor can type that letter in this day and age using M$. The only thing that I am saying it is possible for someone to type up this type of document at that time. Since the media itself doesn't have an in-depth article about 'word processing', I can show an article here:
http://www.stanford....s/wdprhist.html
It is someone's term paper on 'A Brief History of Word Processing' thru 1986. If you read this article. By the 1960's it is possible for someone to have a professionally typed letter like what was written at that time.
Post by: pug_ster on September 14, 2004, 10:04:00 PM
Yeah yeah, I guess I was wrong about the things I said.
http://shapeofdays.t...bm_selectr.html
Sorry, about that BenJeremy. My bad.
Post by: pug_ster on September 15, 2004, 12:37:00 AM
Here
And there's another memo as well.
Post by: nemt on September 15, 2004, 07:53:00 AM
As of today, no one has been able to recreate the documents using any typewriter ever built.
Post by: The unProfessional on September 15, 2004, 09:31:00 AM
Post by: pug_ster on September 15, 2004, 12:53:00 PM
The Texans for Truth offer a $50,000 reward for 'proof' of his military records at that time so I wouldn't be surprised another document would show up next week.
http://www.texansfor...com/reward.html
Post by: BenJeremy on September 15, 2004, 01:30:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 15 2004, 03:56 PM) |
| Unfortunately, Bush did not reveal his records to the public while he 'served' in the Alabama National Guard during 5/72-7/73. So it leaves a lot of room for scrutiny. On the other hand, the Texans for Truth actually have a $50,000 reward for the genuine documents:) http://www.texansfor...com/reward.html |
What, exactly is there to "scrutinize"?
| QUOTE |
scru·ti·ny (skrtn-) n. pl. scru·ti·nies A close, careful examination or study. |
Kind of requires one to have something to look at, doesn't it? putting aside the forgeries and a few widely discredited "witnesses" with axes tto grind, or a flaming liberal streak, there has been nobody of value to come forward with any untoward tales of Bush's activities.
...and of course, payroll records have turned up (Where's my money, Texas Liberal loonies???)
Dispelling myths - an interesting read, but you'll read every sentence grating your teeth, muttering, lies, because you want to believe the worst of Bush. You'll believe the crap shovelled out by people like Kitty Kelley, merely because you want to believe it so bad, you are willing to ignore the truth.
To be honest, I don't believe the worst lies told about Kerry.... that he committed war atrocities. Sadly, however, those lies were told to us by John F. Kerry. To me, that's what matters, even today....
What's funny is that none of the Bush Bashers have an unkind thing to say about Clinton's unabashed draft dodging, but paint Bush as a dodger, though there are several interesting facts one should understand about his service. Read the following; read it with an open mind, if you dare.
| QUOTE |
Norman Turner Lt. Col. USAF Retired 2-tour Vietnam fighter pilot DeFuniak Springs, FL COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired) open public letter to Washington Times 8/24/2004 - A Navy Vet Letters to the Editor 'Bush and I were lieutenants' George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch. It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community's attention. The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers. If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment. The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into non-flying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn't room for all of them anymore. Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam. There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys. The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life. Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard. Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign. Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire. As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to "pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready. Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts: First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly - the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc. If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user. Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000. Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions. While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq. It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen - then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard. In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off. COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired) U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard Herndon, Va. |
Anybody that claims National Guard service is a dodge is incredibly dishonest. In the midst of a Cold War, Bush's unit might have had the call to defend our nation against Soviet bombers. Vietnam was not the only enemy of the United States in 1972. Likewise, the Guard/Reserve units often found themselves on the front lines... and still do. Kerry himself was a NAVAL RESERVIST. One could say (and many have said) Kerry served light duty in 'nam aboard the USS Gridley, which would never have seen action, and volunteered for the Swift Boats before they were actually put into action, with the assumption he never would have seen any action (Big "Doh!" on that one if true, eh?).
So if "scrutiny" is your watchword, it cuts both ways.
I think both men served honorably. I may question Kerry's Purple Hearts (reminds me of an episode of MASH where Major Burns gets a medal for catching an eggshell fragment during an artillery attack), but he used the system to its fullest - no shame in that.
The question then becomes what those men did AFTER the service that might have endangered others lives or lengthened the war. If all Bush did was get drunk and party, he did nothing to cause harm to POWs in Vietnam. Kerry, on the other hand, gave testimony that was outright lies, and those lies were used as propoganda to support America's enemies and used to coerce and torture POWs by Vietnamese. This is not disputed, at all... ignoring all else, this is something no veteran should forgive.
Post by: The unProfessional on September 15, 2004, 03:02:00 PM
Post by: pug_ster on September 15, 2004, 04:04:00 PM
Unfortunately, most of the political stuff we watch out there are full of half truth's. After watching things like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Arnie's speech and said to myself 'wow, sounds very conviencing.' I realized later that some of the stuff they said is not true. So, some of the stuff they have said is worthy of bringing to discussion and others best not to talk about it.
But in this race for the presidency, it seems that both the Democrats and Republicans see who can smear the other candidate better. I don't believe in that and sometimes you have to question, 'why do they do an underhanded thing like that?' Instead talking about the issues that we care about which matters us, we have to talk about things like 'This Bush document is fake' or 'Those Swiftboat Veteran for lies...'
Believe it or not, not all things in moveon.org are BS. It talks about a vigil of 1,000 deaths in Iraq, and how partisan Foxnews is. I don't think there's any lies about that. There are other things in moveon.org's film on Bush's reason on War in Iraq. Like I said, that film has some things that can be debated about and some best to not talk about.
It seems to me that you, BenJeremy, think people liberals voting for Kerry will swallow all the 'Lies' the democrats can give you (AKA. far left Liberals.) I don't know, some people probably do and others don't. But it does not give you or any other pro-bush people the right to 'label' liberals like me as loonies, idiots, etc... If you have read thru this thread you know what I mean. Although sometimes anti-bush people wouldn't abide by these rules and sometimes I am guilty of it too. But I usually try to be fair to the other person and have an honest debate and not put someone else down just to make themselves look good. That is what Bush and Kerry is doing to each other, but I think (at least I hope) that we are better than that.
As for your letter in the bottom of concerning of George Bush's service, I think most anti-bush people probably won't read it because of it but I will read it anyway. But I will ignore all the anti-kerry stuff and read about Bush. Well, I don't have any questions about what he did in Texas and he said why he 'deserted' in Alabama. I mean why Bush himself has tell us and leave this guy to do it? By Bush himself not telling us, I feel that he has something to hide and the news Media will hound him for it. I mean that the Kerry Campagain had to dodge questions about his Vietnam service until he was forced to reveal the truth.
What I am saying below is left open for debate, and might or might not be true. As for Kerry speaking against the war after his Tour Duty. If I understand it, Kerry was pissed off about the war because one of his friend died. That is the reason why he spoke out. He was speaking out why are we fighting the war in Vietnam. Although his more controversal speech about what US soldiers did to the vietnamese people was more about a few apples like what happened in Abu Grabib. I don't think Kerry said anything bad about most of the Soldiers who have served honorably, although most of the veterans thinks otherwise. Like I said, don't flame me, but to leave for open debate.
Post by: The unProfessional on September 15, 2004, 05:08:00 PM
| QUOTE |
Believe it or not, not all things in moveon.org are BS. It talks about a vigil of 1,000 deaths in Iraq, and how partisan Foxnews is |
Exactly... even if you do find truths on moveon.org, they're entirely one-sided. For that reason, it's a lousy source. If you find foxnews to be a bad source of news, you should feel the same way about moveon.org. By slandering foxnews for being partisan, moveon.org is hypocritical. Notice they say nothing about CNN, NY times, Wash. Post, etc. Is that not also partisan?
Post by: BenJeremy on September 15, 2004, 06:31:00 PM
| QUOTE |
John Kerry enlisted in the Navy and signed an Officer Candidate Agreement on February 18, 1966. This agreement called for the Candidate to: -- Par 3 to serve a total period of 6 years in the Naval Reserve of the United States, including active and inactive duty. -- Par 4 agrees that on completion of active duty, he will remain for Service in the Ready Reserve for a period which when added to his active duty will total 5 years. Upon completion of 5 years of satisfactory service on active duty and in the Ready Reserve he will be eligible to transfer to the Standby Reserve for the remaining portion of his service obligation. --Par 5 the candidate understands that the provisions of law require satisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve, unless relieved of such participation by competent authority or as provided by law. Such participation may be satisfied annually by not less 48 drills and not more than 17days active duty for training. Lt. John Forbes Kerry was released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve on 3 January 1970. He wasn't transferred to inactive standby status until 1 July 1972, then Honorably Discharged on 16 February 1978. Where was Lt. Kerry during the18 months from 1970 to 1972? Did he attend the required drills and active duty that he agreed to? Was he AWOL or did he violate his agreed commitment on accepting a commission as an officer in the service of the United States. We do know that he made an unauthorized trip to Paris in June of 1970 to meet with Madam Win Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG) -- the political wing of the Vietcong -- and with representatives of Hanoi who were in Paris for the peace talks-- in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953." |
Dan Rather has cemented himself into history as a major tool, with his latest stunt.... this whole "answer the charges" crap, without a single scrap of legitimate evidence to support it, is worse than poor journalism, and I hope the American public realizes the contempt the Democrats have for their intelligence as a result of this.
Post by: pug_ster on September 15, 2004, 06:37:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 16 2004, 01:11 AM) |
| Quick note... Exactly... even if you do find truths on moveon.org, they're entirely one-sided. For that reason, it's a lousy source. If you find foxnews to be a bad source of news, you should feel the same way about moveon.org. By slandering foxnews for being partisan, moveon.org is hypocritical. Notice they say nothing about CNN, NY times, Wash. Post, etc. Is that not also partisan? |
Exactly, some repugs think that everything in moveon.org are BS. The thing that differentiates you and I are our partisan views otherwise we won't have anything to discuss. There's a difference between cnn and moveon.org. CNN and Foxnews delivers news truthfully too but in a partisan way, though I can't say the same for some of their commentaries. Whereas some of the stuff in moveon.org start getting in the BS level.
Just that in this day and age in the political news that you want to hear, you have to start filtering out the BS from the partisan truth. It is especially true about the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates talking about each other.
Post by: The unProfessional on September 15, 2004, 09:37:00 PM