Kerry and Bush supporters. A question for y'all.

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
Sad, but true. President Reagan was able to disagree on political issues, but maintain a positive relationship even with those with whom he disagreed the most. It seems that both sides have lost this ability to maintain even minimally cordial relationships outside the political arena. That's a great loss to everyone because we all suffer the consequences.

Maybe I've watched 1 too many episodes of "The X-Files" but I really do get the feeling something (or someone) is actively engaged in keeping the pot boiling for their own advantage.


Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to re-line my hat with aluminum foil.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
I don't think it will, but you won't have to worry about it again unless they add another amendment.

And, this time around, the right wing can't on Dick Cheney's casting the deciding vote their way on the "Gay Marriage" amendment.

That was the amendment you were talking about.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Yea, welcome back and glad youse guyz are ok.

See, I can be nice sometimes.

Thank you. I still can't believe we survived a category 4 1/2 hurricane while in our own home. It is truly staggering to think about.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Criticize his policy positions, his statements, or his "behavior" all you want. But making the accusation that he's basically using his amputee status for political purposes is disgusting.

I agree. But why did they send Max to deliver that letter? They could have picked anyone. IMO, it was a political stunt and they should have know better than to allow Max to get into that predicament. For all we know he was in on it. They knew what they were doing and betting on the reaction they got and played it to the hilt.

 

[peachgirl]

"What do you consider the following?

"Let me tell you something lady...Max Cleeland gave more to this country than you or I ever thought about, and you simply aren't worthy of criticizing him."

I consider it someone's opinion...you're all for saying whatever you want to say, right?


"So what does one have to do in this country to be considered worthy of criticizing Mr. Cleland...?"

Have facts to prove it....
Criticize his actions all you want, no problem. But to use his disabilities as a way to demean him and his actions is inexcusable. I can assure you, had that been a Vietnam veteran confronting Kerry, we wouldn't be hearing the right claim that the veteran was the " the ultimate Republican--a professional victim, defined entirely by his triple-amputee status, who will do anything for the party hacks. "

Perhaps those who were pow's and complain about Kerry are simply the ultimate Republicans-- professional victims, defined entirely by their pow status, who will do anything for the party hacks.

I am incensed over Dole's comments of late. I suppose under the rules of the right, it's perfectly acceptable for me to say that Dole is ultimate Republican--a professional victim, defined entirely by his war injuries, who will do anything for the party hacks.

It may be to Republicans, but it's not to me.

"Hmmm...so now it's "vile and disgusting" to criticize someone for using their war injuries for political purposes?"

Yes, unless you can prove it. Point to the facts that say Cleland used his war injuries for political purposes. Facts, not opinions.
Is he not allowed to express those opinions because he was severly injured while serving in Vietnam? Is every action he takes question and claimed to be because of those injuries?

I do think that those who served our country in the military, and especially those who died or suffered catastrophic injuries deserve a bit of respect, just the tiniest shred of it.

So, if you want to use their injuries to attack them, have the facts to back it up.


But, never worry, we now have Dawn questioning whether Cleland should be considered a war hero because she doesn't think him getting arms and legs blown off in Vietnam counts unless they were blown off under certain circumstances.

As I said, there is simply no limit to the depths some Republicans and the Republican party will go to win.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
I agree. But why did they send Max to deliver that letter? They could have picked anyone. IMO, it was a political stunt and they should have know better than to allow Max to get into that predicament. For all we know he was in on it. They knew what they were doing and betting on the reaction they got and played it to the hilt.

Why do you assume that anyone "sent" Max anywhere ? Those 8 senators asked Max to deliver the letter, yes. But why is it that Max, a decorated veteran in his own right WITHOUT that amputee status, must have been "using" that status rather than just being involved in the process ? He's been a visible supporter of the Kerry campaign for a while now...does that mean he's always been "using his amputee status" as an advantage ?

I'm sorry, but the accusation is just disgusting to me.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
And, this time around, the right wing can't on Dick Cheney's casting the deciding vote their way on the "Gay Marriage" amendment.

That was the amendment you were talking about.

VP Cheney couldn't cast the deciding vote on the gay marriage amendment even if he wanted to, so I'm not sure what you mean here, but back to the topic...

I consider it someone's opinion...you're all for saying whatever you want to say, right?

Absolutely, and the opinion of wvrevy seems to be that bsnyder doesn't have the right to express her opinion unless she has served in the military. I'm just curious as to when any of us lost the right to express an opinion simply because we didn't or don't serve in the armed forces.

Have facts to prove it....

Since when do opinions require facts to prove them? Opinions are just that - unless I've missed something, we aren't required to have any kind of facts in order to express an opinion.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Why do you assume that anyone "sent" Max anywhere ? Those 8 senators asked Max to deliver the letter, yes. But why is it that Max, a decorated veteran in his own right WITHOUT that amputee status, must have been "using" that status rather than just being involved in the process ? He's been a visible supporter of the Kerry campaign for a while now...does that mean he's always been "using his amputee status" as an advantage ?

I'm sorry, but the accusation is just disgusting to me.

We can play "what if" games all day. Won't do any good. We can also play a "name that motivation" game all day too. No one will really know. The bottom line to me (and you've done it too) is how do his actions appear from an outsiders prespective. Perception plays a big part in trying to understand motivation. Intention kinda gets lost in the theatrics. Wouldn't you say?

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
We can play "what if" games all day. Won't do any good. We can also play a "name that motivation" game all day too. No one will really know. The bottom line to me (and you've done it too) is how do his actions appear from an outsiders prespective. Perception plays a big part in trying to understand motivation. Intention kinda gets lost in the theatrics. Wouldn't you say?

The problem is that often perception is colored by other factors; in this case, by one's political leanings. Almost everyone is doing to have a slightly different perception of this event and it is debateable whether any agreement about it could ever be reached.

What appears to be lacking in all of this is the essential respect and honor due to anyone who served (or is serving) in the U.S. armed forces. The campaigns, the media and now the public are engaging is a major muckfest, dragging the names and reputations of those who have honorably served their country through the mire in some effort to gain the slightest degree of political leverage.

We are treating honorable men who made incredible sacrifices like pawns in some political chess game. In the process, we claim to separate the behavior from the person, but in reality all that's done is to heap more muck on them. It seems in Max Cleland's case, America is not done "spitting" on him for his service in Vietnam.

The politicans have used a sledgehammer to reopen the wounds of Vietnam and they are toying with the emotions and psyche of those who lived through that time, many of whom have vivid memories of sacrifice and loss. In this process, we've begun to question who qualifies as a "hero"; we've tarnished the ideals and valor represented by medals such as the Purple Heart, Bronze and Silver Star among others; we've denigrated the very sacrifices honorable men made when their country called them to serve.

JMO, but we all need to take a step or two back and get a new perspective on what we are really doing. Real people's honor, reputation, integrity and dignity are being tarnished, smeared, besmirched and sacrificed on the almighty altar of political gain. I really have to wonder if the presidency is worth all this unjustified, unnecessary effort. When the smoke clears, the ballots are counted and the winner is sworn in next January 20th, will the inauguration platform be built on the torn, shattered and ruined names of many honorable men who valiantly served their country? If that happens, I wonder if we can live with ourselves asking another generation of young men and women to make the same sacrifices, seeing how we treat these men now.

And yes, my undies are firmly cinched right now. I'll slink away to try to straighten them out ...

 

[dckiss]

Ok heres my take. I know that there can be 5 guys go into combat and when the smoke clears we have 5 different stories as to what happened. I have read Unfit for command by the swift boat captains. To be honest, most of the section about Mr. Kerry's service in Nam is a bunch of hearsay and conjecture.
With that said what alarmed me is what he did when he came back to the united states. He met with the enemy during a time of war while he was still a memeber of the Us Navy reserve. He was disloyal to his commrads still in Nam. He had a close association with Jane Fonda who as most of you know did radio broadcast telling us troops to mutny. I have no problem with John Protesting the war, my problem was the way he did it. There is no way I could ever vote for him because of this. I would rather not vote at all than vote for Mr. Kerry. Plus which is he a War Hero or a Anti War Protestor? He seems to want to play both sides of the fence. I am worried as to what he would do to our boys in Iraq and other places he was disloayal once lets not give him a chance to be disloyal again.

 

[Saffron]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
...What appears to be lacking in all of this is the essential respect and honor due to anyone who served (or is serving) in the U.S. armed forces. The campaigns, the media and now the public are engaging is a major muckfest, dragging the names and reputations of those who have honorably served their country through the mire in some effort to gain the slightest degree of political leverage.

We are treating honorable men who made incredible sacrifices like pawns in some political chess game. In the process, we claim to separate the behavior from the person, but in reality all that's done is to heap more muck on them. It seems in Max Cleland's case, America is not done "spitting" on him for his service in Vietnam.

The politicans have used a sledgehammer to reopen the wounds of Vietnam and they are toying with the emotions and psyche of those who lived through that time, many of whom have vivid memories of sacrifice and loss. In this process, we've begun to question who qualifies as a "hero"; we've tarnished the ideals and valor represented by medals such as the Purple Heart, Bronze and Silver Star among others; we've denigrated the very sacrifices honorable men made when their country called them to serve.

JMO, but we all need to take a step or two back and get a new perspective on what we are really doing. Real people's honor, reputation, integrity and dignity are being tarnished, smeared, besmirched and sacrificed on the almighty altar of political gain...

AMEN! AMEN! Amen!

ThAnswr ... I imagine Charley was a terrifying experience. I'm glad you and your family are okay.

I'm ducking out of this thread once again.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by dckiss
Ok heres my take. I know that there can be 5 guys go into combat and when the smoke clears we have 5 different stories as to what happened. I have read Unfit for command by the swift boat captains. To be honest, most of the section about Mr. Kerry's service in Nam is a bunch of hearsay and conjecture.
With that said what alarmed me is what he did when he came back to the united states. He met with the enemy during a time of war while he was still a memeber of the Us Navy reserve. He was disloyal to his commrads still in Nam. He had a close association with Jane Fonda who as most of you know did radio broadcast telling us troops to mutny. I have no problem with John Protesting the war, my problem was the way he did it. There is no way I could ever vote for him because of this. I would rather not vote at all than vote for Mr. Kerry. Plus which is he a War Hero or a Anti War Protestor? He seems to want to play both sides of the fence. I am worried as to what he would do to our boys in Iraq and other places he was disloayal once lets not give him a chance to be disloyal again.

See...this is what I meant before about correcting disinformation when I see it

1 - Kerry never "met with the enemy", he testified in front of congress to things he had been told.

2 - He is BOTH a war hero AND an anti-war protester. Who is better qualified to disagree with the way a war is being run than one of the people that was FIGHTING in that war ?

3 - He was once on the same stage as Jane Fonda. Once. That makes him a "close associate" of her ?

4 - He was "disloyal" for saying that those men were dying for nothing ? How is it disloyal to want senseless killing to stop ?

See...THIS is the reason why that book should be in the fiction section of bookstores...

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Absolutely, and the opinion of wvrevy seems to be that bsnyder doesn't have the right to express her opinion unless she has served in the military. I'm just curious as to when any of us lost the right to express an opinion simply because we didn't or don't serve in the armed forces.

Back to the same ol' boring argument about semantics, eh, Brenda ? Fine...you win....She's entitled to her opinion, despicable as it is. Happy now ?

 

[AirForceRocks]

Back to the same ol' boring argument about semantics, eh, Brenda ?

The thing is, it isn't semantics at all. For someone that has spent a considerable amount of bandwidth complaining that anyone that doesn't agree with the Bush administration is unfairly labeled as "unpatriotic" you didn't seem to mind questioning bsnyder's right to criticize Mr. Cleland simply because she hasn't served in the military.

What exactly is the difference between what you complain about and what you did?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
The thing is, it isn't semantics at all. For someone that has spent a considerable amount of bandwidth complaining that anyone that doesn't agree with the Bush administration is unfairly labeled as "unpatriotic" you didn't seem to mind questioning bsnyder's right to criticize Mr. Cleland simply because she hasn't served in the military.

What exactly is the difference between what you complain about and what you did?

Whatever...You right wingers have become expert at taking things out of context, so I'll just leave you to your juvenile little games.

 

[Funkyzeit mit Bruno]

Originally posted by wvrevy


1 - Kerry never "met with the enemy", he testified in front of congress to things he had been told.

Some say he did meet with the enemy.

Traveling to Paris, Kerry met with the official delegations from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (Viet Cong). According to the Judicial Watch complaint, the Vietnamese Communists eagerly met Kerry and benefited directly from the obvious propaganda victory.

The Judicial Watch filing claims that these acts are clear violations of the legal prohibitions on individual citizens negotiating with foreign powers (18 U.S.C. 953) and the constitutional prohibition against giving support to our nation's enemies in wartime (Article III, Section 3).

"Additionally, (meeting with the communists) as a commissioned officer of the Naval Reserve," Farrell said, "Senator Kerry violated Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/082704op_antrim

Maybe Kerry didn't know who the enemy was. His 1971 senate testimony makes it clear he didn't think communism was a serious enemy. In 1991 he didn't think Iraq was an enemy. Maybe to Kerry enemies are determined by the level of threat posed to his political career, not the level of threat posed to the nation.

 

[Alice28]

Originally posted by dckiss
Ok heres my take. I know that there can be 5 guys go into combat and when the smoke clears we have 5 different stories as to what happened. I have read Unfit for command by the swift boat captains. To be honest, most of the section about Mr. Kerry's service in Nam is a bunch of hearsay and conjecture.
With that said what alarmed me is what he did when he came back to the united states. He met with the enemy during a time of war while he was still a memeber of the Us Navy reserve. He was disloyal to his commrads still in Nam. He had a close association with Jane Fonda who as most of you know did radio broadcast telling us troops to mutny. I have no problem with John Protesting the war, my problem was the way he did it. There is no way I could ever vote for him because of this. I would rather not vote at all than vote for Mr. Kerry. Plus which is he a War Hero or a Anti War Protestor? He seems to want to play both sides of the fence. I am worried as to what he would do to our boys in Iraq and other places he was disloayal once lets not give him a chance to be disloyal again.

These are my thoughts exactly. I don't care about the purple hearts so much as how he acted when he came back. And you know what, fine, he could have acted that way, but I don't understand why 35 years later he seems to be building his platform on his honorable service in Vietnam, and that he's a war hero, etc., when he himself put down what he did when he returned home. I don't get that at all.

I want to hear why John Kerry would be a good president based on what he has done for the past umpteen years in the Senate. Please Mr. Kerry, tell me what bills you have helped pass and how they have helped thousands of Americans. Tell me how you have worked together with members of the Senate, even those who are republicans, and how you worked as one to get bills passed. Tell me why there were so many votes you didn't participate in. I don't care about Vietnam so much as what have you done the last 20 years that makes you a strong leader? Why is Massachusetts a better state because it's had you as a senator? THAT is what I am not seeing here in this campaign. I mean, maybe he has done some great things, but they certainly are not being played up by either his campaign or the media. I don't want to hear why Bush is evil, why he's a terrible leader, the worst president ever....I want to hear what JOHN KERRY HAS ACCOMPLISHED IN THE US SENATE, and why they are issues that I would support as well.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Whatever...You right wingers have become expert at taking things out of context, so I'll just leave you to your juvenile little games.

And I see you playing juvenile games. When you are unable to answer the question, try to deflect attention by attacking the questioner.

It's good to know that some things never change...

 

[DisneyMomx7]

I'm amazed at how much attention is paid to John Kerry's war record, when he volunteered to serve our country. Where was Bush? Hiding behind daddy's connections to get into the Guard (which anyone who lived through Viet Nam knew was a way to get out of going to war) and then he didn't even have the decency to show up. Maybe someone should bring up what was going on during Bush' drinking days and who knows what else since he refused to comment on whether he ever used drugs.

Anyone who has a son in the draft age should worry about
Bush being re-elected (or elected for the 1st time) since he's bound and determined to get us involved all around the world and there are only so many soldiers. I for one have no intention of watching my son go off to War that was built upon lies - let his daughters go first!


KERRY/EDWARDS SUPPORTER

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by DisneyMomx7
I'm amazed at how much attention is paid to John Kerry's war record, when he volunteered to serve our country. Where was Bush?

KERRY/EDWARDS SUPPORTER

He was learning to fly and flying an F102, which, from every account I have read, is not an easy aircraft to master. Had his unit been activated he would have gone. Near the end of his service, the F102 was being phased out. It would have been a major waste of money to train someone on a different fighter plane when he was scheduled to separate from the service so soon.