Kerry Lie

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
-- You don't have to be afraid to put security at the top of the list of important items for this country. It should be common sense.

If the country isn't secure, what does the rest really matter? Do you not remember the impact on the economy of 9/11? How many thousands of people lost jobs because of the attacks? How many businesses went under? And when the economy suffers, everything else suffers as well, because just at the time that more people need government services, less money is available to provide those services.

AFR, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you stated. The above should be repeated because it resonates with logic.

*Edited to add- All of your statements were logical. It seems that security is the sticky wicket.
 
Originally posted by Kendra17
I was just thinking about this today. . .if the liberals could actually prove their assertion that Bush wasn't really elected, could he then run again in 2008 and serve a third term?


Oooo, we could only hope.
 
Hey AirForceRocks....great to see you back. Where did you disappear to? I was worried, thought you were :space: by aliens.
 
Originally posted by BostonTigger
Hey AirForceRocks....great to see you back. Where did you disappear to? I was worried, thought you were :space: by aliens.

Nah, I've not been beamed up yet!

Some health issues for my FIL, so my priorities have been reordered.
 

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Nah, I've not been beamed up yet!

Some health issues for my FIL, so my priorities have been reordered.

I hope all is ok with him?! I'll keep him in my thoughts and prayers.
 
Originally posted by AirForceRocks
If the country isn't secure, what does the rest really matter? Do you not remember the impact on the economy of 9/11? How many thousands of people lost jobs because of the attacks? How many businesses went under? And when the economy suffers, everything else suffers as well, because just at the time that more people need government services, less money is available to provide those services./

I know how many thousands lost their LIVES because of 9/11 but exactly how many people lost JOBS because of the attacks? I know the businesses directly around the WTC were affected but you tell me exactly how many other people lost jobs because of 9/11? Less money is availabe to provide those services because of the tax cuts to the top percentage of wage earners not because the local corner vendors lost their jobs.


Originally posted by AirForceRocks
What are you talking about? Did you not see all of the protestors in NYC this past week? It didn't seem to me that anyone was afraid of protestors or dissent../

I did see all the 100's of thousands of protestors in NYC that did not want to see W in office for 4 more years. I also saw the Young Republican - caught on tape- kicking the peaceful protestor inside the convention. Why hasn't he been arrested for assault on that woman?? I also saw several people being removed from the convention because they didn't spout the party line.


Originally posted by AirForceRocks
And your point is...what? Who cares if they don't want another 4 years of President Bush? They'll have the same opportunity to cast their vote in November as everyone else. And them not wanting President Bush again has nothing to do with 9/11 - they didn't want him the first time either, even prior to 9/11.

That is true but when all Bush is running on is how his being there for 9-11 meant so much, I am just pointing out that it didn't mean so much to the majority of the people that were directly affected by events of 9-11.
 
I know how many thousands lost their LIVES because of 9/11 but exactly how many people lost JOBS because of the attacks?

In Manhattan, approximately 100,000. In the airline industry, more than 200,000. Thousands of people lost jobs in travel related industries, including hotels, restaurants, resort destinations, etc. because people were afraid to travel.

Less money is availabe to provide those services because of the tax cuts to the top percentage of wage earners not because the local corner vendors lost their jobs.

You might want to get your facts straight. ALL taxpayers got tax cuts, not the just the upper wage earners. And it isn't just the local corner vendors that lost their jobs.

Why hasn't he been arrested for assault on that woman??

I don't know that he wasn't arrested - do you?

I also saw several people being removed from the convention because they didn't spout the party line.

Open your eyes - the people that removed weren't party members that were there to have another view heard. They were demonstrators that weren't supposed to be in the building anyway.

That is true but when all Bush is running on is how his being there for 9-11 meant so much, I am just pointing out that it didn't mean so much to the majority of the people that were directly affected by events of 9-11.

Do you mean those few local street vendors that lost their jobs?
 
Just to clarify for Elwood about what and why I posted the link I posted:

I posted the FBI files, which I linked to and read from the Freeper site Winter Soilder, the one the SBVT supports. I wanted to make sure I didn't link anything that could be considered the least bit slanted in Kerry's favor.

In the article that Kendra posted, that came from the site Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry, a site that's just a tiny bit slanted against Kerry :tongue:, the article states:
Numerous media outlets claim witnesses and FBI documents conclusively place Kerry at that November 1971 meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in Kansas City.

I thought maybe someone would want to read the FBI files and see for themselves where it states that Kerry was at the meeting and knew about some sort of assination plot, as Kendra's article clearly states that "various media outlets" know this for a fact.

Believe me, the SBVT would love nothing more than to find that damning information in any file on Kerry or ANY other member of the V V AW. The only points of interest out of the 21,000+ pages posted on the SBVT site about the FBI files are these, that are posted on the site :

August 27, 2004 -- Found in the VVAW FBI Files on page 25 of Section 15.PDF:

On April four, one nine seven two, a confidential source, who has furnished reliable information in the past, advised [REDACTED] that on April four, one nine seven two, a representive of the North Vietnamese Government at the Paris Peace talks telephoned the 'movement' in the United States to be ready to take action, presumably demonstrations, to counter expected escalation of bombing by American air forces in South Vietnam and North Vietnam as a result of the increased military action of North Vietnamese forces in Quang Tri Province, South Vietnam.

Though no longer a member of the VVAW's national leadership by this time, John Kerry was still representing the organization at public events. On April 22, 1972 the Associated Press reported that "Antiwar protestors in New York City planned a mile-long march from the edge of Central Park to Bryant Park in mid-Manhattan for a rally featuring speeches by John Kerry, a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska."

And this one:

August 13, 2004 -- Found in the VVAW FBI Files on page 251 of Section 10.PDF:

From the Sunday Oklahoman, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, November 7, 1971 by Bryce Patterson

The political power structure within the United States can and must change if the nation is to avoid violent efforts to seize power. John F. Kerry, a member of the executive committee of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, said in Oklahoma City Saturday.

Meeting with reporters before speaking at the University of Oklahoma, Kerry said, "If it (the government) doesn't change we are asking for trouble. If it is not done, those who are talking about seizing it will have every right to go after it."

Kerry emphasized that he and those he represents are totally opposed to any such violence.


John Kerry plants himself firmly on both sides of a key issue of that turbulent era: whether it would be legitimate to overthrow the government of the United States by force.
I guess the SBVT are trying to say that he's a "flip flopper" here? :confused3 LOL! :p

The SBVT are asking for help in reading the files so they can post anything negative then can find about Kerry, so maybe the story that Kendra posted will lead them in that direction? They are looking for volunteers to read the files too! :hyper: This is their statement for all of you interested:

Okay, here it is -- the mother lode of FBI files on Vietnam Veterans Against the War. This archive contains 21,477 pages of documents received in response to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, bundled up by the FBI as PDF-format Files of Unusual Size.

So pick a file -- any file. We would ask serious researchers to send us short overviews of the material you read so we can index the information a bit better. And of course, if you find anything especially interesting please call it to our attention. We have some concern about the bandwidth this is likely to consume ... ... in addition to giving you a warm, glowing feeling of accomplishment. Enjoy...
I took out the sentence where they ask for money, because I didn't want my post to get deleted for soliciting on the DIS. ;) :p

There are only a little over 1,000 pages about the action of the V V A W during the month of November, 1971, posted on the link I posted in my first post. The files look like this:

Section 08 (October / November 1971, 284 pages, 9.59 MB
Section 09 (October / November 1971, 294 pages, 16.1 MB
Section 10 (November / December 1971, 294 pages, 24.5 MB
Section 11 (August / December 1971, 283 pages, 6.89 MB


Maybe someone from the DIS can get the SBVT the breaking story! You never know! :eek:

If indeed there may be new files released that might give the article Kendra posted some credibility, I would think we would all have to wonder about a couple of things:

1.) Why were 21,000+ pages of files released, but not the most damning information? What is the FBI trying to hide by not releasing that particular file with the rest of the files? Should the new files released be trusted as factual?

2.) If the FBI indeed knew about some assination plot set forth by the much hated (in those days and I guess still by some) V V A W but did nothing ... arrested no one ... why is that? Was the FBI incompetent? Or did they somehow want and hope the assinations took place? :eek: Or were they in cahoots with the V V A W? :eek:

3.) Which FBI agents and Nixon administration members will take the fall when it all comes out about the assination plot, knowing now that the FBI did nothing to stop it! :eek:

Just throwing that out there. :p

And lastly Elwood, no I didn't read all 21,000+ pages, I only read the pages I thought might contain names of people I know, but, I never found their names in any of the files I read. :tongue:
 
Oh and here is a link to the letter of exemption of why some files will not be released, IF all have not. That link too is from the Freeper site, Winter Soldier.

So, if any new files are released, that would be very interesting. ::yes::
 
Great post, Saffron!

You may be completely correct. I posted a very slanted site, and actually, that was because that was the absolute only thing I could find that was fairly recent.

What my DH heard on the radio was something that was supposed to be either a file being released, a new witness, something of that sort.

I still can't find a "big huge" breaking news story, but he heard there was something coming.

Still, I hadn't heard about that story at all back in March, and that was news to me (although my DH DID hear it and never mentioned it). And, I don't think it was debunked, either, it just couldn't be proven beyond any doubt. So, maybe something will happen, maybe not.

Thanks for posting your info.
 
Originally posted by MJames41
Would that be why the Democrats for their convention had anyone who wanted to protest stuck in their own personal gulag far away from any of the convention activity? I still don't understand that one. At least in NY the protestors were allowed near the convention site, in Boston, the party "of the people" didn't want the people to get too close at all.

Confining protestors to a given area is just another indication of how willing we are to give up our freedoms. I loved it: Protest, but just don't do it where the politicians can hear you. Exercise your first amendment rights, but don't make the politicians uncomfortable.

Give the security minded a blank check and I can guarantee you more and more freedoms are going to be curtailed for the sake of security.

We're becoming a nation of sheep all in the name of security. This is what's going to be the downfall of the United States of America.
 
Originally posted by ThAnswr
Confining protestors to a given area is just another indication of how willing we are to give up our freedoms. I loved it: Protest, but just don't do it where the politicians can hear you. Exercise your first amendment rights, but don't make the politicians uncomfortable.

Give the security minded a blank check and I can guarantee you more and more freedoms are going to be curtailed for the sake of security.

We're becoming a nation of sheep all in the name of security. This is what's going to be the downfall of the United States of America.

This is incorrect. Protesters are permitted to protest, but security (and not just security as related to terrorism) has, for many many years, been an issue.

Crowd control does not mean sheep control. Crowd control is about keeping protesters away from the delegates and the convention site so that Chicago '68 is not repeated. No one was denied their free speech rights, no one was denied their right to assemble--even the anarchists. (But consider this: isn't an organization of anarchists a fundamentally flawed and contradictory concept? Do these anarchists have to have membership cards? Do they have to register? Doesn't this make them bad anarchists?)
 
Originally posted by ThAnswr
Confining protestors to a given area is just another indication of how willing we are to give up our freedoms. I loved it: Protest, but just don't do it where the politicians can hear you. Exercise your first amendment rights, but don't make the politicians uncomfortable.

Give the security minded a blank check and I can guarantee you more and more freedoms are going to be curtailed for the sake of security.

We're becoming a nation of sheep all in the name of security. This is what's going to be the downfall of the United States of America.

I don't see how that suppresses free speech or the right to assemble.

Do people have the right to assemble wherever they want?
 











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







New Posts





DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top