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

[wvrevy]

Funkyzeit - Kerry travelled to the Paris Peace talks to discover what BOTH sides were looking for in his attempts to get our government to stop the war. That's hardly "meeting with the enemy", any more than ANY peace talks would be. Did he overstep his bounds on that ? Possibly...even probably. But it was nothing sinister, as your post makes it out to be.

Alice28 - So, should Kerry just ignore the smears against his character then ? Should he ignore these liars saying that he didn't serve his country honorably, when they're in the employ of a man that didn't serve his country AT ALL ? How should he have handled them ?

AFRocks - I swear...you argue like a conract lawyer I already stated she has the RIGHT to say any disgusting thing she wants to...Just as I have every right to claim that I know EXACTLY what it was like to be a black man in the 1950's, since I was once discriminated against by someone that didn't like West Virginians. There is a difference in saying "you have no right to say that" and claiming that someone, legally, doesn't have the right to say something. Now, if you can bother to find something of substance to debate, I'll be glad to respond. Otherwise, you're just wasting my time.

 

[AirForceRocks]

wvrevy, I realize that facts aren't your friend, but since you are so intent on making sure that everyone get their facts straight, would you care to show us proof of the following? (bolding added by me)

Should he ignore these liars saying that he didn't serve his country honorably, when they're in the employ of a man that didn't serve his country AT ALL ?

1) Where is your proof that the Swift Boat Vets are in the employ of President Bush?

2) Don't you find it even slightly insulting to National Guard members to say that being in the National Guard is of no service at all to the country?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
wvrevy, I realize that facts aren't your friend, but since you are so intent on making sure that everyone get their facts straight, would you care to show us proof of the following? (bolding added by me)

Just out of curiosity, is it possible for you to respond to a post without being a insulting in the process ? Just wondering

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
1) Where is your proof that the Swift Boat Vets are in the employ of President Bush?

The New York Times, among many other sources, has shown the MANY links between those two groups. Frankly, you'd have to either be blinded by partisanship or living under a rock not to have seen it by now.

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
2) Don't you find it even slightly insulting to National Guard members to say that being in the National Guard is of no service at all to the country?

Hmmm...Let's see....Am I worried about insulting a bunch of privileged cowards who used daddy's influence to get them into the national guard so that they could avoid duty in Vietnam ?



Nope.

Keep in mind that this was LONG before Shrub turned the guard into a full time job...I'm referring to ONE specific time in our history when it is a KNOWN fact that children of privilege joined the guard to AVOID real service, not to provide real service.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
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.

I get what you're saying, but I wouldn't get overly bent about it. The end result may be that people who flash medals aren't gaining automatic respect and assumptions of valor. That's as it should be.

I know something about the subject from having been born during the war, on a Navy base, from having both a father and a stepfather who served. Both said that upon returning, no one had much respect for Vietnam vets regardless of decorations - cabs wouldn't pick these guys up, people wouldn't hire them, other vets' organizations didn't want them. That was the prevailing mood of the time, from the left, right, and center. Now, three decades later we want to bestow that honor - that's the prevailing mood of this time. We want to distinguish between "those who went" and "those who didn't" - assuming there's big differences. Surely Vietnam wasn't the only place to go to serve the country. (The base I was on was a looooooong way away from Vietnam.) Nowadays a Purple Heart means something - years ago it didn't, so how many didn't apply for them, how many denied their own wounds were all that important?

My stepfather went AWOL once. For a week or two. A buddy of his lost his girlfriend while they were in-country, and found out about it on leave. They must have hit every bar between Boston and some base in Colorado, drowning sorrows, until they finally made the base and flew back to Vietnam. Nowadays that's a serious blight on someone's record. :::shrugs::: I think it's a story of life during war time.

That same guy enlisted in the Army and served two tours. Although, digger deeper, you find out that he was actually drafted, that he was a self-proclaimed ****-up in those days, and he bargained with the draft guy for an extra long weekend at home. The guy says 'ok, if you enlist.' So he did, and partied his lights out with his friends all week, and then reported to base. Another story of life during war time.

The guy served honorably. Has medals and papers to prove it. He's also rung all bells for heroism, imo, not for his Vietnam service but for taking care of some other vet's wife and kid when they were abandoned, for making them his own family, even when his immediate family thought that was nuts.

I always look for the stories behind the stories. They're always there, and they tell you as much about a person as official records do.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Just out of curiosity, is it possible for you to respond to a post without being a insulting in the process ? Just wondering

I was wondering the same thing about you, seeing as it was you (pot, kettle, black) that threw the first insult:

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

The New York Times, among many other sources, has shown the MANY links between those two groups. Frankly, you'd have to either be blinded by partisanship or living under a rock not to have seen it by now.

Yes, I've read about the links - people that have donated to both the Swift Boat Vets and the Bush campaign, etc. And that means that the Swift Boat Vets are employed by President Bush? Interesting.

I find it fascinating that you consider these links substantive and conclusive that the vets are working for Bush. Weren't you one of the folks arguing after the release of the 9/11 report that in spite of the report detailing links between Hussein and bin Laden, that didn't mean that there was a real relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida?

Keep in mind that this was LONG before Shrub turned the guard into a full time job...

Presidents don't make the laws regarding how long National Guard troops can be activated. I think your ire should be directed at Congress, since they are the ones that wrote and passed the laws...long before President Bush was elected, I might add.

Hmmm...Let's see....Am I worried about insulting a bunch of privileged cowards who used daddy's influence to get them into the national guard so that they could avoid duty in Vietnam ?

I'm sure that the more than 20,000 National Guardsmen that served in Viet Nam appreciate being called privileged cowards...

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I was wondering the same thing about you, seeing as it was you (pot, kettle, black) that threw the first insult:

I call it like I see it...You couldn't argue the substance (that the post was deplorable), so you argued semantics....That's not an insult it's an observation.

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Yes, I've read about the links - people that have donated to both the Swift Boat Vets and the Bush campaign, etc. And that means that the Swift Boat Vets are employed by President Bush? Interesting.

How about the fact that AT LEAST two people that worked directly for the campaign also worked with the Swift Boat Liars ? How abou tthe fact that we're talking about ALL of the SBL's seed money funding, and that the group would never have come into existance at all if not for Bob Perry, Bush's biggest financial supporter in Texas and KKKarl Rove's best friend ? How about the fact that it's been PROVEN that Bush/Cheney campaign HQ's have been coordinating SBL and anti-Kerry rallies ? Just how much evidence do you want ? At this point, I don't think pay stubs and social security tax records would convince anyone that refuses to be convinced.

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I find it fascinating that you consider these links substantive and conclusive that the vets are working for Bush. Weren't you one of the folks arguing after the release of the 9/11 report that in spite of the report detailing links between Hussein and bin Laden, that didn't mean that there was a real relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida?

See, here's the problem. You LIE, then complain that someone calls you on it. The 9/11 report could NOT be any more clear. "NO SUBSTANTIVE LINKS." I can certainly see how you could twist that to mean something else

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Presidents don't make the laws regarding how long National Guard troops can be activated. I think your ire should be directed at Congress, since they are the ones that wrote and passed the laws...long before President Bush was elected, I might add.

Oh, brother...lol...Yeah, you're right...It's all congress' fault that we're in a war of choice and that the men fighting it expected to be signing up for 2 weekends / two weeks, but instead are now having to serve two YEARS (if they are ALLOWED to seperate, even then). Sorry for the mix-up...

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I'm sure that the more than 20,000 National Guardsmen that served in Viet Nam appreciate being called privileged cowards...

And you know damn well I'm not talking about people that actually DID serve active duty time. But if you are seriously trying to make the argument that the guard wasn't a place for rich boys to go to avoid the draft, then you're just plain wrong.

 

[AirForceRocks]

I call it like I see it...

I have no problem at all with that - I do the same thing. I just find it rather interesting that you would lob the first insult then complain when someone else does the same thing. Not surprising, just interesting.

How about the fact that it's been PROVEN that Bush/Cheney campaign HQ's have been coordinating SBL and anti-Kerry rallies ?

And that proof is...where? I've seen or read no such thing.

You LIE, then complain that someone calls you on it.

And where exactly did I lie?

Oh, brother...lol...Yeah, you're right...It's all congress' fault that we're in a war of choice and that the men fighting it expected to be signing up for 2 weekends / two weeks, but instead are now having to serve two YEARS (if they are ALLOWED to seperate, even then).

1) Did Congress draft the legislation that allows National Guardsmen to be called up to active duty for up to two years? Yes or no?

2) Did Congress give the President authority pursuant to the War Powers Act to engage in hostilities with Iraq? Yes or no?

3) Did the current members of the National Guard sign up voluntarily for service in the Guard? Yes or no?

And you know damn well I'm not talking about people that actually DID serve active duty time.

Sorry, but I'm not going to play the game of trying to "read into" what you actually post. You said that during that specific time, i.e., the Viet Nam era, the National Guard was a way for the cowardly children of the privileged to avoid service in Viet Nam. This obviously wasn't the case, since thousands of Guardsmen served in-theater during the war.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I have no problem at all with that - I do the same thing. I just find it rather interesting that you would lob the first insult then complain when someone else does the same thing. Not surprising, just interesting.

And yet AGAIN, you can't bother to post my entire statement, just the part that you think makes your point for you. Are Republicans incapable of reading an entire statement, or is it just you and the people running the Shrub smear campaign ?

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
And that proof is...where? I've seen or read no such thing.

Start Here

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
And where exactly did I lie?

You are, yet AGAIN, lying about their being connections between the two, when the commission CLEARLY says that there isn't.

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
1) Did Congress draft the legislation that allows National Guardsmen to be called up to active duty for up to two years? Yes or no?

2) Did Congress give the President authority pursuant to the War Powers Act to engage in hostilities with Iraq? Yes or no?

3) Did the current members of the National Guard sign up voluntarily for service in the Guard? Yes or no?

1)Yes
2) Yes, but it was done under false pretenses by the president.
3) For the GUARD, not for full time, active duty. If they'd wanted to sign up full time, they'd have done so. Sorry, but trying to portray it otherwise is just more lies.

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Sorry, but I'm not going to play the game of trying to "read into" what you actually post. You said that during that specific time, i.e., the Viet Nam era, the National Guard was a way for the cowardly children of the privileged to avoid service in Viet Nam. This obviously wasn't the case, since thousands of Guardsmen served in-theater during the war.

Funny, since "reading into" (or, perhaps, failing to actually READ) my posts is pretty much all you seem to be ABLE to do. Which part of my last post don't you understand this time ? Was or was not the Guard a place for rich kids to avoid active duty during Vietnam ?

 

[Teejay32]

what's the point of casting aspersions on a huge body like the National Guard, 30 years later. That's just plain wrong.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Teejay32
what's the point of casting aspersions on a huge body like the National Guard, 30 years later. That's just plain wrong.

I'm NOT "casting aspersions on the national guard"...I'm repeating a WELL KNOWN fact that privileged kids - those that had the connections available to pull the necessary strings - joined the guard to avoid active duty in Vietnam. Are you disputing that ?

 

[Teejay32]

then cast aspersions on 'privileged kids' or something, instead. Guess it wasn't a foolproof way of avoiding active duty in Vietnam anyway.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Teejay32
then cast aspersions on 'privileged kids' or something, instead. Guess it wasn't a foolproof way of avoiding active duty in Vietnam anyway.

Umm...I thought I was It wasn't I that turned it into some kind of condemnation of every person that ever entered guard duty, but AFRocks. If you don't like the way the conversation turned, talk to her abou it.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
He was learning to fly and flying an F102, which, from every account I have read, is not an easy aircraft to master.

Correct, the F102 is a tricky aircraft to fly. Of course, it would be a tricky aircraft to fly if one hadn't missed a physical thereby having one's certification placed on hold which results in one being grounded.

Like, say, George W. Bush.

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Had his unit been activated he would have gone.

And had the queen had cajones, she'd be king.

I'm sure not knowing when/if one's unit was going to be activated and sent to Viet Nam caused George many anxious moments and sleepless nights.

Of course, he could've ended all the anxiety and sleepless nights if he had taken the easy road and volunteered for Viet Nam.

Like, say, John Kerry.

Originally posted by DawnCt1
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.

It was also a major waste of money to train a pilot and then have him miss a physical so he couldn't put that training to use.

Like, say, George W. Bush.

 

[Saffron]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DawnCt1
Had his unit been activated he would have gone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And had the queen had cajones, she'd be king.

Oh my gosh! ROTFLOL!

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Saffron
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.

Thank you.

Talk about terrifying...........when the eye passed over us, there was this bright light like sunshine. My mother was convinced we were all going to die at that point and God was coming to get us.

Of course, being an X-Files devotee, I thought of alien abduction.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Just out of curiosity, is it possible for you to respond to a post without being a insulting in the process ? Just wondering

I was trying to stay out of this but that comment was just too rich coming from you. Thanks for the chuckle.

Richard

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by richiebaseball


I was trying to stay out of this but that comment was just too rich coming from you. Thanks for the chuckle.

Richard

I don't get insulting unless the person I'm debating makes it that way. If you can't handle that, that's your problem, not mine.

But thanks for your of-so-insightful input

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Hmmm...Let's see....Am I worried about insulting a bunch of privileged cowards who used daddy's influence to get them into the national guard so that they could avoid duty in Vietnam ?



Nope.

Keep in mind that this was LONG before Shrub turned the guard into a full time job...I'm referring to ONE specific time in our history when it is a KNOWN fact that children of privilege joined the guard to AVOID real service, not to provide real service.

It seems Senator John Kerry disagrees with you.

"I will always honor anybody who serves in the National Guard and carries out his or her service commitment."

Now this was in a statement to the National Guard Association of the United States so perhaps the message would change for a different audience, who knows.

And here is retired Maj. Gen. Richard C. Alexander, NGAUS president:

"The Guard during Vietnam was not all that different than it is today or any time in our 367-year history," he said. "Citizens joined and served their country. Some were sent to war. Some of those never came home. Anything else is just a misrepresentation of history Guardsmen know to be true."

In case you want to bring up the part that says "carries out his or her service commitment," George W. Bush received an honorable discharge. Apparently you don't get one of those without fulfilling your commitment. You have a problem with that, take it up with the National Guard.

http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/kerryresponds021304.asp

Richard

 

[peachgirl]

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.

The problem is, they would've had to find him to train him...

"Scheduled" to separate???

Is that the politically correct way to say AWOL????

By the way, since you whine about Kerry leaving Vietnam early, after his 2ND TOUR OF DUTY, surely you know that Bush checked out early as well.

Then again, there wasn't anyone but the dentist to abandon was there?

 

[richiebaseball]

wvrevy, I'm still curious if you have seen the Max Cleland morphing ad. If you have, then we have seen two different commercials. I remember the ad when it was running and that's not the ad I saw.

Richard