tiggersmom2
<font color=navy>Can think for herself<br><font co
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Messages
- 8,601
I agree jimmiej
Kerry and Bush supporters. A question for y'all.
- Thread starter Elwood Blues
- Start date
I agree jimmiej
I'd say it's your interpretation of this that is deceptive and dishonest. He clearly states he represents these vets, and tells their stories. How is that not an accusation of war crimes and other atrocities? Whether it's a first hand account or not is immaterial to the poltiical message of the testimony and the devastating effect that had on the soldiers still fighting in Vietnam.
WillyJ
<font color=purple>NyQuil Aficionado<br><font colo
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,951
Wecome to the DIS Rokkitsci! 
Now about your post. .
I think your confusing Kerry with John Ashcroft, who lost the governor's race in Mo. to a dead man before being appointed Att. General.
Generally an election with an incumbent is a referendum on that person. . and yes, every Democratic is voting agaist Bush and no, none of us have any reason to vote for Keryy. We tried our best to fool you , but you were too smart for us so we might as well admit it. .
You know, I'd heard bush didn't get along with his daddy, but I didn't know it was because he was secretly a Democratic!
Boy George has taken a 236 billion budget surplus and ran it into a $445 billion a year deficit. By running the country like a teenager with a credit card, he has brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy. . but other then that, he's done great!
Could you be more specific? Which day was that? AM or PM?
Well we showed them by renaming French Fries and French Toast to Freedom Fries and Toast.. a harsh lesson they'll not soon forget!
Bush took world-wide pro-American sympathy and support for going into Afghanistan and turned into world wide fear and loathing by going into the mess in Iraq. He dropped cluster bombs and napalm on Iraqi children while claiming to be liberating them. He sat in the most highly secure office in the world and told terrorists to "Bring it On" and since our soldiers have been fighting them and dying every day.
And after claiming there fewer terrorist attacks world wide last year and pointing to that as proof we were more secure, Bush and his administration had to admit they'd added wrong and there were more terrorists attacks world-wide then ever last year. . and yet he still says were safer.
Keerry is not a dead cat; he's a Senator. . perhaps this confusion explains some of your observations..
But other then those minor things, I agree; you're post was awesome!!
Now about your post. .
I think your confusing Kerry with John Ashcroft, who lost the governor's race in Mo. to a dead man before being appointed Att. General.
Generally an election with an incumbent is a referendum on that person. . and yes, every Democratic is voting agaist Bush and no, none of us have any reason to vote for Keryy. We tried our best to fool you , but you were too smart for us so we might as well admit it. .
You know, I'd heard bush didn't get along with his daddy, but I didn't know it was because he was secretly a Democratic!
Boy George has taken a 236 billion budget surplus and ran it into a $445 billion a year deficit. By running the country like a teenager with a credit card, he has brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy. . but other then that, he's done great!
Could you be more specific? Which day was that? AM or PM?
Well we showed them by renaming French Fries and French Toast to Freedom Fries and Toast.. a harsh lesson they'll not soon forget!
Bush took world-wide pro-American sympathy and support for going into Afghanistan and turned into world wide fear and loathing by going into the mess in Iraq. He dropped cluster bombs and napalm on Iraqi children while claiming to be liberating them. He sat in the most highly secure office in the world and told terrorists to "Bring it On" and since our soldiers have been fighting them and dying every day.
And after claiming there fewer terrorist attacks world wide last year and pointing to that as proof we were more secure, Bush and his administration had to admit they'd added wrong and there were more terrorists attacks world-wide then ever last year. . and yet he still says were safer.
Keerry is not a dead cat; he's a Senator. . perhaps this confusion explains some of your observations..
But other then those minor things, I agree; you're post was awesome!!
Deb & Bill
DVC-Trivia Contest, Apr-2006: Honorable Mention
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2000
- Messages
- 60,919
Who could say anything bad about Ralph Nader?
Saffron
Palm Tree Hugger
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2001
- Messages
- 8,454
Originally posted by bsnyder
I'd say it's your interpretation of this that is deceptive and dishonest. He clearly states he represents these vets, and tells their stories.
Which Vets Bet? There's nothing to interpret there, which Vets was he talking about? When you say, "these vets" which vets do you mean?
How is that not an accusation of war crimes and other atrocities?
To accuse someone you charge them with some sort of offense. What offense did he charge them with? He repeated their stories, at their request, he didn't charge them with anything, they charged themselves.
Whether it's a first hand account or not is immaterial to the poltiical message of the testimony and the devastating effect that had on the soldiers still fighting in Vietnam.
What devestating effects did it have on the soldiers still fighting in Vietnam? How many were devestated by his testimony? Who are those that were devestated by his testimony?
I'd say it's your interpretation of this that is deceptive and dishonest. He clearly states he represents these vets, and tells their stories.
Which Vets Bet? There's nothing to interpret there, which Vets was he talking about? When you say, "these vets" which vets do you mean?
How is that not an accusation of war crimes and other atrocities?
To accuse someone you charge them with some sort of offense. What offense did he charge them with? He repeated their stories, at their request, he didn't charge them with anything, they charged themselves.
Whether it's a first hand account or not is immaterial to the poltiical message of the testimony and the devastating effect that had on the soldiers still fighting in Vietnam.
What devestating effects did it have on the soldiers still fighting in Vietnam? How many were devestated by his testimony? Who are those that were devestated by his testimony?
WillyJ
<font color=purple>NyQuil Aficionado<br><font colo
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,951
Oh c'mon Bet! You're more then intelligent enough to know the difference between summerizing testimony from a long list of people who have asked you represent them. . and making false accusations against said people. .
And there is no doubt that the ad and the AM radio neo-nazis like Rush Linthead edit his testimony to make it sound like he was saying he witnesses those acts personally. . and that is dishonest and disgraceful.
We lost Vietnam because there was nothing to win in Vietnam and both a Dem (Johnson) and a Repub. (Nixon) kept sending kids over there to die knowing it just to try and save face for their own legacies. .
That's what was an atrocity and criminal about Vietnam, and nothing Kerry said made any difference one way or the other. .
And there is no doubt that the ad and the AM radio neo-nazis like Rush Linthead edit his testimony to make it sound like he was saying he witnesses those acts personally. . and that is dishonest and disgraceful.
We lost Vietnam because there was nothing to win in Vietnam and both a Dem (Johnson) and a Repub. (Nixon) kept sending kids over there to die knowing it just to try and save face for their own legacies. .
That's what was an atrocity and criminal about Vietnam, and nothing Kerry said made any difference one way or the other. .
John F. Kerry has spent his entire life plotting to be president. This alone should disqualify him for the job. Anyone whose sole interest in life is to BE president must necessarily commit himself to making 'politically correct' decisions throughout his life. By the time the chance comes to actually campaign for the job, that person has no moral core - all he has is a lifetime of compromise.
During peacetime, our nation can survive almost anyone in the White House - witness the eight years of drift we survived under Clinton.
Clinton is another example of a person who spent his entire life wanting to BE president. Luckily for the USA, when he finally achieved HIS goal, he was done. The legacy of Clinton will be one of 'eight wasted years.' Luckily, he inherited a booming economy, the global respect the nation had from the first Gulf War, the 'peace dividend' that accrued to him as a result of Reagan and Bush41 defeating the USSR, democracy bursting out all over the world, and a nation that was united.
What did Clinton do? He squandered it all - he never made ONE tough decision in his entire term. Why is that? He was president and didnt want to lose any of his precious "popularity."
John Kerry is the same sort of man. The only difference is that he does not have the personal charisma and inner drive that Clinton had. As much as I deplore what Clinton did, I have tremendous admiration for his intellect and his accomplishment of actually starting with nothing and achieving something.
John F. Kerry is the opposite. He was born with everything - and married more. Yet he has not a single accomplishment to his credit. I challange all supporters of Kerry to name ONE thing that he has done in the past TWENTY years. Just one - try to think of one thing.
What John Kerry is is a high born elitist who think he deserves whatever he wants without having to qualify himself for the job. He thinks that if he needs something to say about his accomplishments, then he will just make something up.
For instance, whatever else anyone says about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they have been proven to be correct about Kerry and the "Christmas in Cambodia under orders from Nixon" story. The Kerry camp is busily trying to re-write history by changing long established statements from Kerry on the grounds that they are no longer 'valid.'
They never were valid, and Kerry knew at the time that was a lie. Now why did Kerry lie like that? The answer there is obvious. He was trying to make a point about the evils of Richard Nixon. So he made up a story that would bolster that point. He asserted that this was the "turning point in my life." It was then that he determined that Nixon had to be defeated. It was "seared into my memory" said Kerry. It was Christmas and he was in Cambodia under orders all the while Nixon was claiming there were no troops there.
SEARED INTO HIS MEMORY.
But - oooooops. The simple fact is that he was never in Cambodia, Christmas or any other time, and Nixon was not even president at that time.
Now, this is as clear an insight into the thinking process of Kerry as anyone can get. I challange every Kerry supporter to imagine what they would be saying about a GOP candidate for president who showed such a moral ambivalence toward the truth.
The only defense such a story could have is that Kerry THOUGHT he was in Cambodia, but that does not answer why he thought Nixon was president. And if Kerry thought he was really in Cambodia, then the rest of the crew would have thought so also. They all say "We were never in Cambodia."
Actually, the sad truth is that Kerry MAY have convinced himself that he was in Cambodia AFTER he came home from the war because that was a good position to take in furthering his ambition. THIS is what I believe. Kerry makes up fantasies of what he WISHES he HAD done in situations that are already past. And he does not have the ability, or the desire, to separate his fantasy about HIS version of history and the true history.
That comports well with his statements concerning the war in IRAQ.
Kerry is nothing more than a Monday Morning Quarterback. After the game is over, he goes back and says "well, I certainly would not have thrown that interception. I would have called an end-around and scored a touchdown." We all know this type of mealy-mouth individual. After the event has taken place, they know all the answers.
And this comes from a man who did little if anything DURING the game. While Kerry was on the intelligence committee, the terrorst threat to our nation gathered in Islamist cells all over the world. The single item that everyone can agree on is that our intelligence gathering apparatus was not up to the job over the past decade. Kerry was in the key Senate committee that could have done the work to anticipate these failures. WHERE was Kerry? Who knows - he was never AT the committee meetings. He had the worst record of any member - absent over 3/4 of the time. And after the FIRST attack on the WTC in 93, Kerry never attended even ONE meeting. Now he wants us to think that he has all the answers. He is a phoney as a three dollar bill. And he is lazy.
As to the rest of the 250 Swift Boat Vets for the Truth, I have as much confidence in their recollections as I do for the dozen vets who support Kerry. The actual truth of what happens during a war can probably never be known with certainty. The term "fog of war" has always aptly described the ungodly situation where men are trying to kill each other and avoid being killed. What they remember is sometimes shaded by events that transpire after the event. Nobody can speak with absolute certainty. However, this group of Swift Boat Vets seem to be particularly firm in their recollections of what did NOT happen. They know that Kerry is "embellishing" his record of the events. They know that Kerry did this for the PURPOSE of getting some "medals" that he could use in a political future. This is all you need to know about Kerry.
Kerry is definately unfit for command.
He has but one good quality.
He marries well.
During peacetime, our nation can survive almost anyone in the White House - witness the eight years of drift we survived under Clinton.
Clinton is another example of a person who spent his entire life wanting to BE president. Luckily for the USA, when he finally achieved HIS goal, he was done. The legacy of Clinton will be one of 'eight wasted years.' Luckily, he inherited a booming economy, the global respect the nation had from the first Gulf War, the 'peace dividend' that accrued to him as a result of Reagan and Bush41 defeating the USSR, democracy bursting out all over the world, and a nation that was united.
What did Clinton do? He squandered it all - he never made ONE tough decision in his entire term. Why is that? He was president and didnt want to lose any of his precious "popularity."
John Kerry is the same sort of man. The only difference is that he does not have the personal charisma and inner drive that Clinton had. As much as I deplore what Clinton did, I have tremendous admiration for his intellect and his accomplishment of actually starting with nothing and achieving something.
John F. Kerry is the opposite. He was born with everything - and married more. Yet he has not a single accomplishment to his credit. I challange all supporters of Kerry to name ONE thing that he has done in the past TWENTY years. Just one - try to think of one thing.
What John Kerry is is a high born elitist who think he deserves whatever he wants without having to qualify himself for the job. He thinks that if he needs something to say about his accomplishments, then he will just make something up.
For instance, whatever else anyone says about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they have been proven to be correct about Kerry and the "Christmas in Cambodia under orders from Nixon" story. The Kerry camp is busily trying to re-write history by changing long established statements from Kerry on the grounds that they are no longer 'valid.'
They never were valid, and Kerry knew at the time that was a lie. Now why did Kerry lie like that? The answer there is obvious. He was trying to make a point about the evils of Richard Nixon. So he made up a story that would bolster that point. He asserted that this was the "turning point in my life." It was then that he determined that Nixon had to be defeated. It was "seared into my memory" said Kerry. It was Christmas and he was in Cambodia under orders all the while Nixon was claiming there were no troops there.
SEARED INTO HIS MEMORY.
But - oooooops. The simple fact is that he was never in Cambodia, Christmas or any other time, and Nixon was not even president at that time.
Now, this is as clear an insight into the thinking process of Kerry as anyone can get. I challange every Kerry supporter to imagine what they would be saying about a GOP candidate for president who showed such a moral ambivalence toward the truth.
The only defense such a story could have is that Kerry THOUGHT he was in Cambodia, but that does not answer why he thought Nixon was president. And if Kerry thought he was really in Cambodia, then the rest of the crew would have thought so also. They all say "We were never in Cambodia."
Actually, the sad truth is that Kerry MAY have convinced himself that he was in Cambodia AFTER he came home from the war because that was a good position to take in furthering his ambition. THIS is what I believe. Kerry makes up fantasies of what he WISHES he HAD done in situations that are already past. And he does not have the ability, or the desire, to separate his fantasy about HIS version of history and the true history.
That comports well with his statements concerning the war in IRAQ.
Kerry is nothing more than a Monday Morning Quarterback. After the game is over, he goes back and says "well, I certainly would not have thrown that interception. I would have called an end-around and scored a touchdown." We all know this type of mealy-mouth individual. After the event has taken place, they know all the answers.
And this comes from a man who did little if anything DURING the game. While Kerry was on the intelligence committee, the terrorst threat to our nation gathered in Islamist cells all over the world. The single item that everyone can agree on is that our intelligence gathering apparatus was not up to the job over the past decade. Kerry was in the key Senate committee that could have done the work to anticipate these failures. WHERE was Kerry? Who knows - he was never AT the committee meetings. He had the worst record of any member - absent over 3/4 of the time. And after the FIRST attack on the WTC in 93, Kerry never attended even ONE meeting. Now he wants us to think that he has all the answers. He is a phoney as a three dollar bill. And he is lazy.
As to the rest of the 250 Swift Boat Vets for the Truth, I have as much confidence in their recollections as I do for the dozen vets who support Kerry. The actual truth of what happens during a war can probably never be known with certainty. The term "fog of war" has always aptly described the ungodly situation where men are trying to kill each other and avoid being killed. What they remember is sometimes shaded by events that transpire after the event. Nobody can speak with absolute certainty. However, this group of Swift Boat Vets seem to be particularly firm in their recollections of what did NOT happen. They know that Kerry is "embellishing" his record of the events. They know that Kerry did this for the PURPOSE of getting some "medals" that he could use in a political future. This is all you need to know about Kerry.
Kerry is definately unfit for command.
He has but one good quality.
He marries well.
bsnyder....
I was gracious enough to answer a question that you posed when I knew what your response would be, so why don't you be kind enough to do the same....
Since you accuse Kerry of attempting to suppress free speech by calling on the publisher to remove the SBVT book , do you make the same accusation against Bush when he did it?
You could answer this one too, because I can't seem to get anyone on the right to do it..
Since the SBVT believe that Kerry is a liar, deserted his men, shot himself to get out of Vietnam, lied to a congressional hearing under oath and is guilty of much more and Bush says that Kerry served his country with honor and distinction and is a true American war hero.......
Which one of them is the liar?
To WillyJ
I wish I knew how to format these messages to make them more readable. I will learn.
But first, I want to respond to your response to me. I understand that you have a grab-bag of DNC tested one-liners to toss at any given statement someone might make. I sincerely hope you do not think that these actually represent rebuttals of my statments. Please don't confuse knee-jerk spasmodic reactions for rational thought process.
Additionally, when you make satirical statements, please know that I enjoy them. I am good at satire myself when I choose to be. But I try not to waste time on satire on a bulletin board. If we were face to face that would be better. However, if you use satire, please follow it up with some substance. Don't leave me wondering whether or not you really had some sort of idea percolating in your head.
As for the prior 12 years of DEMOCRATIC rule, it is obvious I was talking about Clinton and Carter. I will choose better words in the future.
About voting - yes, most times a person exercises his vote to vote AGAINST someone rather than FOR someone. That is what I did in the 00 election. I did not particularly like Bush, but I knew that a Gore presidency would be a disaster. So, I voted against Gore by pulling the lever for Bush. However, THIS time, I will proudly vote FOR Bush. He has done all that is humanly possible to expect. He has been consistent and strong. He and Blair will be remembered in history books yet to be written as the two statesmen who stood alone to turn back the advance of radical Islam. He deserves our undying gratitude.
Much of the remainder of you message is now lost to my memory, so I cannot respond to specifics. Although I do recall you thought much of it was "rolling on the floor funny" - at least that is my interpretation of the little icons. This is good. I enjoy spreading humor. But I would much prefer to discuss specifics on a message board.
So, should you ever come up with a real rebuttal to anything I say, please get back to me.
Until then - have fun - laugh it up.
Nothing changes my basic premise - Kerry has no accomplishments - no plan - no credibility - no conscience - but he does marry well.
I wish I knew how to format these messages to make them more readable. I will learn.
But first, I want to respond to your response to me. I understand that you have a grab-bag of DNC tested one-liners to toss at any given statement someone might make. I sincerely hope you do not think that these actually represent rebuttals of my statments. Please don't confuse knee-jerk spasmodic reactions for rational thought process.
Additionally, when you make satirical statements, please know that I enjoy them. I am good at satire myself when I choose to be. But I try not to waste time on satire on a bulletin board. If we were face to face that would be better. However, if you use satire, please follow it up with some substance. Don't leave me wondering whether or not you really had some sort of idea percolating in your head.
As for the prior 12 years of DEMOCRATIC rule, it is obvious I was talking about Clinton and Carter. I will choose better words in the future.
About voting - yes, most times a person exercises his vote to vote AGAINST someone rather than FOR someone. That is what I did in the 00 election. I did not particularly like Bush, but I knew that a Gore presidency would be a disaster. So, I voted against Gore by pulling the lever for Bush. However, THIS time, I will proudly vote FOR Bush. He has done all that is humanly possible to expect. He has been consistent and strong. He and Blair will be remembered in history books yet to be written as the two statesmen who stood alone to turn back the advance of radical Islam. He deserves our undying gratitude.
Much of the remainder of you message is now lost to my memory, so I cannot respond to specifics. Although I do recall you thought much of it was "rolling on the floor funny" - at least that is my interpretation of the little icons. This is good. I enjoy spreading humor. But I would much prefer to discuss specifics on a message board.
So, should you ever come up with a real rebuttal to anything I say, please get back to me.
Until then - have fun - laugh it up.
Nothing changes my basic premise - Kerry has no accomplishments - no plan - no credibility - no conscience - but he does marry well.
Rokkisci-
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm interesting!
Thanks for your posts.
BTW, this is NOT a political message board. The thread you
are posting on IS political, of course. You might find the rest
of the board not to your liking as we make jokes, send hugs
and pixie dust, love each other and support each other even
though we sometimes argue on these political threads. We
are passionate about our politics but this is NOT a political
bulletin board. Thanks for listening and we welcome you and
hope you enjoy our community!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm interesting!
Thanks for your posts.
BTW, this is NOT a political message board. The thread you
are posting on IS political, of course. You might find the rest
of the board not to your liking as we make jokes, send hugs
and pixie dust, love each other and support each other even
though we sometimes argue on these political threads. We
are passionate about our politics but this is NOT a political
bulletin board. Thanks for listening and we welcome you and
hope you enjoy our community!
Elwood Blues
"We're going to take things away from you on behal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,964
If they charged themselves, so did Kerry.
O - I am sorry - I am new here - just passing through actually. I am not really a Disney person, but a couple of my grandchildren really love Disney. so I checked out the site. How I got here I don't even know, but here I am anyway.
I happened to see the title about Kerry and Bush, so I thought I would drop in and take a look-see.
I found some things I really disagree wtih. along with some things I do agree with.
Perhaps I will read more and speak less often.
Thanx
I happened to see the title about Kerry and Bush, so I thought I would drop in and take a look-see.
I found some things I really disagree wtih. along with some things I do agree with.
Perhaps I will read more and speak less often.
Thanx
Well, we like a good argument as you can see but we do include
the heads-flowers,pirates, there's even a spaceship-you can
see all the options under the smiles box when you post. I'm
not trying to scare you away-just explain what's going on here.
Your posts are new and even though I don't agree with one
single bit of your rhetoric, I honor your right to your opinion
See how fun the smileys can be!?I particularly like this one
You will also get a feel for the personalities on the board
once you've been here a while. Have fun and keep comin'
back!
Keep posting Rokkitsci! The only reason this might be considered a non political thread is if your position is disagreed with. I thought the retorts to your most eloquent posts were just as silly as you did.
The truth cannot be argued with.
Thanks for joining the DIS Rokkitsci.
The truth cannot be argued with.
Thanks for joining the DIS Rokkitsci.
Saffron
Palm Tree Hugger
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2001
- Messages
- 8,454
Hmmm. So if a neighbor charges you with a crime, the newspapers print the charge and I read it to Will, I'm charging you too?
I thought I was just reading what was printed; what the court, your neighbor and who ever esle was interviewed said. I didn't know I was charging or accusing you of anything, I thought I was just repeating a story. 
Ya learn something new everyday! And TXTink ... who said this was a non-political thread?
Elwood Blues
"We're going to take things away from you on behal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,964
Originally posted by Saffron
Hmmm. So if a neighbor charges you with a crime, the newspapers print the charge and I read it to Will, I'm charging you too?
huh?
Maybe I did confuse you.
What I meant was if you claim that they (the other vets that Kerry was speaking on their behalf) charged themselves by admitting to committing war crimes then Kerry also charged himself by admitting to committing such crimes on two tv shows.
I'm not disputing the circumstances that led to the admission by Kerry, I'm just saying that if he did commit those acts, he's a self admitted war criminal. If he didn't (and he hasn't as of now retracted those statements) do any such things, he's a liar.
If your ok with either of those being true, that's your choice but it does not take away the seriousness of the admission. And again, if you still refuse to call Kerry a war criminal because he was "caught up in the moment or ordered to do so", it doesn't change the fact (in the letter of law) he committed war crimes.
Saffron
Palm Tree Hugger
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2001
- Messages
- 8,454
Rokkitsci ... don't take it personally. It's just kind of odd when people start out on the CB with their first thread, especially a controversial thread. Like you said, most people are looking for info on Disney and start on the trip planning boards and end up here. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that at all!!!! I too would like to welcome you on board. 
Like I said, it's a little odd, because usually when that happens, it's someone who has been banned from the DIS who is coming back under another name or someone who for whatever reason tries to hide who they are. Please, throw your opnion out there like everyone elses.
I would like to comment on two things posted to WillyJ. I'm sure when he's able to this afernoon he'll reply to both of your posts.
You said:
1.) Do you think other candidates, such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Regean etc. who were involved in politics most their lives, had the same life long ambition and did what was every politically correct to do to get the job, or is it just the Democrats that have life long ambitions to become president one day who do those things?
2.) If Kerry is this person: "Anyone whose sole interest in life is to BE president must necessarily commit himself to making 'politically correct' decisions throughout his life." Why would he have joined a miniority group, the V V AW, who was not only seen as unpolitically correct, but as communists, un American, unpatriotic, and on and on and on.
3.) You said you couldn't remember anything else WillyJ posted to you after a certain point, so let me help you out. What he said to you after you stopped commenting on his post was:
Again, welcome to the DIS, especially the CB. All are welcome here. We don't make the rules or own the boards, Pete does! We just have to play by the rules.
Like I said, it's a little odd, because usually when that happens, it's someone who has been banned from the DIS who is coming back under another name or someone who for whatever reason tries to hide who they are. Please, throw your opnion out there like everyone elses.I would like to comment on two things posted to WillyJ. I'm sure when he's able to this afernoon he'll reply to both of your posts.
You said:
1.) Do you think other candidates, such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Regean etc. who were involved in politics most their lives, had the same life long ambition and did what was every politically correct to do to get the job, or is it just the Democrats that have life long ambitions to become president one day who do those things?
2.) If Kerry is this person: "Anyone whose sole interest in life is to BE president must necessarily commit himself to making 'politically correct' decisions throughout his life." Why would he have joined a miniority group, the V V AW, who was not only seen as unpolitically correct, but as communists, un American, unpatriotic, and on and on and on.
3.) You said you couldn't remember anything else WillyJ posted to you after a certain point, so let me help you out. What he said to you after you stopped commenting on his post was:
Again, welcome to the DIS, especially the CB.
All are welcome here. We don't make the rules or own the boards, Pete does! We just have to play by the rules. Peachgirl, let me make myself clear. Up until a few weeks ago, I have consistently maintained the same position on John Kerry's Vietnam experience. I agreed with President Bush....that he served his country with honor and distiniction in Vietnam. I know this has been discussed ad nauseum on the DIS for months (years?) now but if you go back and check the other threads, I've never commented before on Kerry's war record. And I know Saffron can vouch for me, in private conversations I've had with her, and back up my position on this.
The Swiftvets ads and book opened up a firestorm on the internet, that I have been following closely for the last few weeks. And I've watched the mainstream media spike that story completely....they just totally ignored it until two days ago, when they were forced to cover it because their favorite candidate, John Kerry, had no choice but to finally address the charges. But instead of investigating it, they've investigated the Swiftvets themselves, in an attempt to discredit the story. This is the exact opposite of what occured with the "Favored Son" book, and the allegations of George W. Bush's drug use. I can just imagine the time and resources the NYT (and others) spent trying to find a shred of proof against George Bush. And so, I can only conclude that the book was libelous and that Bush had every right to threaten the publisher with a lawsuit.
So, I object to the double standard that's being applied here. George Bush's National Guard service has been subjected to the most intense and tedious scrutiny. Along with the rumours of drug use, his past alcohol problems, etc.
John Kerry is still relatively unknown to many voters. His record, including his Vietnam service and his activities after he came home from Vietnam, should receive the same kind of scrutiny. Then the voters can make an informed decision.
So, am I understanding you? It was okay for Bush to succeed in getting a book banned, but it's not okay for Kerry to attempt to do the same thing?
Nice sidestep on the Bush vs SBVT. No matter whether it's been fully investigated or not, Bush, by saying that Kerry served honorably is saying that the SBVT are lying. So, if you believe Bush you have to believe that the swifties are lying.
There's just no other option. Either Bush is lying or they are.
I find it ironic that right now we have Bush and Kerry making the same claim in regards to Kerry's service and the SBVT in effect calling them both liars.
Nice sidestep on the Bush vs SBVT. No matter whether it's been fully investigated or not, Bush, by saying that Kerry served honorably is saying that the SBVT are lying. So, if you believe Bush you have to believe that the swifties are lying.
There's just no other option. Either Bush is lying or they are.
I find it ironic that right now we have Bush and Kerry making the same claim in regards to Kerry's service and the SBVT in effect calling them both liars.
Saffron
Palm Tree Hugger
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2001
- Messages
- 8,454
Well yes Elwood, your post was confusing. I said this to bsnyder:
Which in turn you said to me:
To me, that looks like you were telling me that Kerry charged the men, whose stories he repeated before Congress, with war crimes or atrocities. He did not. He simply repeated their stories. It wasn't clear to me, since you brought the other men into your statement ("if they charged themselves"). In the context in which I read your post, my analogy makes sense.
As far as war crimes, I didn't read anywhere on this thread that Kerry had admitted to war crimes until *I* read and posted the second page of Dick Cavett's interview with O'Neil and Kerry, up til then I only read that he had admitted to committing "attrocities". So I stand corrected. He has charged himself with committing war crimes. I REFUSE to indict him or the thousands and thousands of men who did the same US government sanctioned and ordered things, knowingly or unknowingly. I didn't fight in the war. I will not make any accusations against anybody who lived through that hellish experience. If Kerry wants to, as a man who served honorably and valiantly according to all records, accuse himself, then so be it. It's on his head. And I stand behind him 100%, his accounts of his actions are his for life. If that's how how he feels about his service and what he knows to be true, who am I to try to take that away from him? And I will not charge or accuse any American soldier as a liar who said they did NOT do the things Kerry claims he did.
Which in turn you said to me:
To me, that looks like you were telling me that Kerry charged the men, whose stories he repeated before Congress, with war crimes or atrocities. He did not. He simply repeated their stories. It wasn't clear to me, since you brought the other men into your statement ("if they charged themselves"). In the context in which I read your post, my analogy makes sense.
As far as war crimes, I didn't read anywhere on this thread that Kerry had admitted to war crimes until *I* read and posted the second page of Dick Cavett's interview with O'Neil and Kerry, up til then I only read that he had admitted to committing "attrocities". So I stand corrected. He has charged himself with committing war crimes. I REFUSE to indict him or the thousands and thousands of men who did the same US government sanctioned and ordered things, knowingly or unknowingly. I didn't fight in the war. I will not make any accusations against anybody who lived through that hellish experience. If Kerry wants to, as a man who served honorably and valiantly according to all records, accuse himself, then so be it. It's on his head. And I stand behind him 100%, his accounts of his actions are his for life. If that's how how he feels about his service and what he knows to be true, who am I to try to take that away from him? And I will not charge or accuse any American soldier as a liar who said they did NOT do the things Kerry claims he did.
-
2025 Destination D23 Schedule Unveiled With No Disney Parks Panel
-
New Disney Loungefly The Nightmare Before Christmas Sally
-
Menus Revealed for 2025 Swan & Dolphin Food and Wine Classic
-
Disneyland Shares the FIRST LOOK at Oogie Boogie Bash Merch
-
4 Questions to Ask Before Picking a Disney Resort
-
Live Video Podcast: Disney 2025 Q3 Earnings, Imagineering Update & More
-
Disney Cruise Line to Exit Australia, Is This Why?
Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
New Posts
- Sticky
