Food for Thought - Political Thread

[AllyandJack]

Originally posted by auntpolly
So you don't think that a good service record has been hugely important to Republicans in the past?

Is anybody even reading what I'm saying?!?!

I SAID that BOTH parties manipulate these things when it suits them. Both sides manipulate these issues. That's what politicians do. Republicans and Democrats are guilty of this. But, people are saying that it's solely the Republican's fault that this is such a big issue and that they are the only party to manipulate the issues. Things like this always get manipulated to suit their own party. Next time it might be something like who has more experience and whether experience matters or not. The time after that, the party that said experience shouldn't matter will come out and say the other candidate doesn't have enough experience. And, yes, that flip-flopping party could be the Democratic party. It could also be the Republican party. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[auntpolly]

Don't you remember them making fun of poor Dukakis? OMG I remember thinking about the big fuss after he had the picture of himself taken in the tank -- it was a bad idea but people were so mean. Everyone was so insistant that George Sr. was the tough guy! I knew right after that we didn't have a chance -- and for such a dumb reason!

So now we have the tough guy and we can't use it! (%#*^#!!) Can't say what I really want to say here!

 

[jrydberg]

Just to be clear, I don't care whether Republicans or Democrats use their military record to run on. But honestly, what happened 30 years ago doesn't strike me as particularly relevant regardless of what party you belong to. In short, if a good military record is all you got, not going to get my vote.

 

[peachgirl]

So now we have the tough guy and we can't use it! (%#*^#!!) Can't say what I really want to say here!

Yes we can, we just have to be prepared for the vicious attacks like they pulled on McCain.

It's all they have. Of course they'll say military record doesn't matter even though it was hugely important for George Sr. What else do you expect?? Think they're going to concede that Kerry's record makes Bush's look like a vacation??


<center><IMG width="300" SRC="http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/images/11.jpg"></center>

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Yes we can, we just have to be prepared for the vicious attacks like they pulled on McCain.




<center><IMG width="300" SRC="http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/images/11.jpg"></center>

Thanks! I was starting to hyperventilate there for a minute!

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Just to be clear, I don't care whether Republicans or Democrats use their military record to run on. But honestly, what happened 30 years ago doesn't strike me as particularly relevant regardless of what party you belong to. In short, if a good military record is all you got, not going to get my vote.

Seriously, you don't think it's relevant that the commander in chief...the man that WILL be sending men into combat, thanks to our current situation in Iraq...should actually know what it is he's getting those men into ? I mean, as an abstract concept, sure, anyone can "understand" what it must be like to be in a combat situation. But, since Kerry's actually been there, you really don't think he'll look at sending men into that situation with a little more reverance ? Not that he'd be hesitant to do so if the need arose, of course (read: Afghanistan), but that he would truly exhaust all other options before deciding to launch a "preventative" war ?

 

[AllyandJack]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Seriously, you don't think it's relevant that the commander in chief...the man that WILL be sending men into combat, thanks to our current situation in Iraq...should actually know what it is he's getting those men into ? I mean, as an abstract concept, sure, anyone can "understand" what it must be like to be in a combat situation. But, since Kerry's actually been there, you really don't think he'll look at sending men into that situation with a little more reverance ? Not that he'd be hesitant to do so if the need arose, of course (read: Afghanistan), but that he would truly exhaust all other options before deciding to launch a "preventative" war ?

Clinton didn't serve and he didn't have any problems sending troops off to fight. If it's not a requirement for Clinton, it's not a requirement for anyone else - unless they're Republican, then it's a requirement, right? I think I'm catching on here.....

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Seriously, you don't think it's relevant that the commander in chief...the man that WILL be sending men into combat, thanks to our current situation in Iraq...should actually know what it is he's getting those men into ? I mean, as an abstract concept, sure, anyone can "understand" what it must be like to be in a combat situation. But, since Kerry's actually been there, you really don't think he'll look at sending men into that situation with a little more reverance ? Not that he'd be hesitant to do so if the need arose, of course (read: Afghanistan), but that he would truly exhaust all other options before deciding to launch a "preventative" war ?

Do I detect a note of irony in this post? If so, good job!

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Seriously, you don't think it's relevant that the commander in chief...the man that WILL be sending men into combat, thanks to our current situation in Iraq...should actually know what it is he's getting those men into ? I mean, as an abstract concept, sure, anyone can "understand" what it must be like to be in a combat situation. But, since Kerry's actually been there, you really don't think he'll look at sending men into that situation with a little more reverance ? Not that he'd be hesitant to do so if the need arose, of course (read: Afghanistan), but that he would truly exhaust all other options before deciding to launch a "preventative" war ?

I'm not saying it's totally irrelevant. But in the overall picture, it's VERY minor to me. In both cases, these are events that happened 30 years ago. What has happened in those intervening 30 years is far more important to me. That's all I'm really saying.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AllyandJack
Clinton didn't serve and he didn't have any problems sending troops off to fight. If it's not a requirement for Clinton, it's not a requirement for anyone else - unless they're Republican, then it's a requirement, right? I think I'm catching on here.....

Yeah, you're catching on...But it's the defensive posture of the right that you seem to be catching. I'm sorry, were we at war when Clinton was elected ? No, we weren't. Has Bush handled the war in Iraq well ? Take a look at Najaf and tell me what you think of that. We rushed to war in Iraq when we hadn't even finished the job in Afghanistan and there was no NEED to do so. I'm sorry, but I doubt that a man that has actually been under enemy fire and fought for his country makes that same decision, no matter what Kerry says in the press to impress hawkish independant voters.

 

[AllyandJack]

I never said the war in Iraq was perfect. So, I'm not even going to get into an arugment over that. I personally think we should get out of there and let them kill each other. But, that's just me.

And, Clinton never went to "war." He just send troops to random places. It got ugly back then, too. He didn't appear to have any plan either. Maybe the President DOES have to have a military background. Maybe it should be a requirement for both parties.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by auntpolly
So now we have the tough guy and we can't use it! (%#*^#!!) Can't say what I really want to say here!

Sure, you can use it. There is a whole lot of animosity against Kerry which stems from the Vietnam years, not just election-year bickering, and it probably grows like a two-headed monster every time someone sings his praises. Go right ahead.

I cannot believe that people are this tone-deaf when it comes to the Vietnam era. I had no idea.

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by Teejay32
Sure, you can use it. There is a whole lot of animosity against Kerry which stems from the Vietnam years, not just election-year bickering, and it probably grows like a two-headed monster every time someone sings his praises. Go right ahead.

I cannot believe that people are this tone-deaf when it comes to the Vietnam era. I had no idea.

I'm going to have to admit that I don't know what you're talking about -- tone deaf? Better spell it out for me.

But I'll just say that I <i>was</i> making a little joke about needing a <i>tough</i> guy -- obviously since I liked Dukakis and Clinton. I have to admire Kerry, though, because I never would have wanted to go to Vietnam, (being a girl it wasn't an issue to me, but I kept wishing I could hide away the boys I knew who went) but he went, and then spoke his mind about it, which is just the kind of thing that will win me over. Won't win everyone over, sure enough. But it's one of the things I like about him.

 

[bsears]

And now today another of the Swift Boat Vets is proven to be a bold faced liar. I sat and watched as Thurlow debated Rassmann ( a republican by the way ) and claimed there was no gunfire when Kerry pulled Rassmann from the water. Thurlow sat there and stated unequivocally that Rassman was "mistaken". The Thurlow tried to keep his own records hidden, until the press sued for them under the FOA. And there we have it....Thurlow got his medal at the exact same time as Kerry for what he did while under fire. I find this disgusting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

People are not tone deaf, they are being lied to. Lied to by an expertly orchestrated smear campaign. Ask McCain.

 

[peachgirl]

And now today another of the Swift Boat Vets is proven to be a bold faced liar.

One by one, they'll be proven for the scum that they are.

Thanks for the link.

"I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth.

A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire

Amazing, just amazing....

He said he was unwilling to authorize release of his military records because he feared attempts by the Kerry campaign to discredit him and other anti-Kerry veterans.

I would be too if I were him. That happens when you're lying.

<center><IMG width="300" SRC="http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/images/11.jpg"></center>

 

[faithinkarma]

Unfortunately, while the original ads were all over the news, almost ( stressing almost ) competing with the Peterson trial, the exposure of the lies will probably be like the admission that Ricky Nelson's death had nothing to do with drugs, back page news hardly worthy of mention.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by auntpolly
But I'll just say that I <i>was</i> making a little joke about needing a <i>tough</i> guy -- obviously since I liked Dukakis and Clinton. I have to admire Kerry, though, because I never would have wanted to go to Vietnam, (being a girl it wasn't an issue to me, but I kept wishing I could hide away the boys I knew who went) but he went, and then spoke his mind about it, which is just the kind of thing that will win me over. Won't win everyone over, sure enough. But it's one of the things I like about him.

That sounds more reasonable already. By tone-deafness I meant that I feel like a bearer of bad news in telling people that a lot of vets hold grudges against Kerry - didn't think that was news at all. It's an old issue, what's new is that because it's an election year they are immediately dismissed as "scum." Or "Republicans." (Same thing? lol)

I said something about that in a post last week or so...either the Kerry campaign didn't see this clash coming (more tone-deafness) or they took steps to insulate their guy from tough questions by discrediting those speaking out. Either way it looks like the same behavior people scream about when it comes from Bush supporters.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Unfortunately, while the original ads were all over the news, almost ( stressing almost ) competing with the Peterson trial, the exposure of the lies will probably be like the admission that Ricky Nelson's death had nothing to do with drugs, back page news hardly worthy of mention.

I'm afraid you're right. Just look at this thread. This little bit of news stopped it dead in it's tracks.

I guess it takes a while to figure out excuses that will explain this one.....

<center><IMG width="300" SRC="http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/images/11.jpg"></center>

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by peachgirl
One by one, they'll be proven for the scum that they are.

Two down, one hundred eighty-seven to go. Good luck.

 

[AllyandJack]

Originally posted by Teejay32
That sounds more reasonable already. By tone-deafness I meant that I feel like a bearer of bad news in telling people that a lot of vets hold grudges against Kerry - didn't think that was news at all. It's an old issue, what's new is that because it's an election year they are immediately dismissed as "scum." Or "Republicans." (Same thing? lol)

Funny...yeah...LOL....

The debates are fun...the name-calling has to go. But, I guess we should all be used to it. Unless it's a Republican calling a Democrat something, then it's wrong. Right? I think I may be getting the hang of this....

I'm still not voting for Kerry...I don't care if he single-handedly saved every soldier who returned from Vietnam. I don't like him. I don't trust him. I'm not even scum...er...Republican.....

I agree about it being old news. I grew up in MA and the only thing I knew about Kerry's war service was how he declared himself a war criminal when he got back. This whole hero thing is new to me.