Michael Moore just said ME....

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by Mouse Man
The above is enough for me not to vote for Bush in the upcoming election.

Really? How do you feel about Senator John Kerry?

In retrospect, it is clear that John Kerry had but one goal as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. His goal was to remove the issue of Prisoners of War and Missing in Action, as a roadblock to trade and normalization of relations with Vietnam. The question is.... why?
All we need to do is look at two events which occurred shortly after the committee presented its finding, in January 1993.

Francis Zwenig, staff director for the Committee, who was often seen during hearings whispering in Kerry's ear, became Vice President of the U.S. - Vietnam Trade Council. Ms Zwenig, who helped shaped the conclusion of the committee and its final report was now benefitting financially from the committee's efforts to close the POW/MIA issue.

In June of 1993, as reported in a Boston Herald article by Michael E. Knell, "Colliers International brokered a $905 million dollar deal to develop a deep sea port in Vietnam.." To skirt the trade embargo still in effect against Vietnam, Colliers International acted through its partner firm Colliers Jardine based in Singapore. At the time the deal was brokered, C. Stewart Forbes was the Chief Executive Officer of Colliers International.

All through 1993 and into early 1994, John Kerry pushed for the lifting of the trade embargo against Vietnam, citing of Vietnamese cooperation on the POW/MIA issue. As evidenced in the articles of Sydney Schanberg and scripted event involving Senator Kerry and Col. Pham Duc Dia, Vietnamese cooperation was clearly a myth.

Yet, Kerry persisted in his campaign to lift the trade embargo. Finally, his efforts were rewarded in February 1994, when President Clinton lifted the embargo.

Did Kerry have an another agenda, beyond the stated goals of the committee? Before you answer that question, there is one other piece of information you need to know. C. Stewart Forbes CEO of Colliers International and John Forbes Kerry are cousins.

Did financial gain motivate Kerry's actions as Chairman of the Select Committee?

Perhaps someone in the media will ask the question.

http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/sellout.htm

Richard

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by wvrevy
And this, gadies and lentlemen, is the power of political "spin"

I'm sorry are you referring to your "hundreds of thousands of troops" comment?

Richard

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
The same people who are bashing Bush for not doing something before 9/11 and now bashing Bush because he has taken pre-emptive action in Iraq! The hypocrisy is baffling!

All the Democrats in the US would have bashed Bush had he taken big time pre-emptive action in 01, yet he did it in Iraq and it's wrong.

You people are just making the case for Bush without realizing it!

Can you please state exactly what action that you think we have prevented Iraq from taking? Do you mean against us?

You seem confused about who and where the terrorists came from. Where do you think that they came from? Do you think that they were Iraquis? Do you dislike all Arabs?

I'm dumbfounded that we have people out there who think like what I imagine you are thinking. Am I wrong?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
You know as well as I do that throwing around terms such as "hundreds of thousands" conjures up visions of things that don't really exist.

Hundreds of thousands is an accurate description of 150,000. It's an accurate description of 100,000. In fact, it would be an accurate description of any number from 100,000 to 999,999.

Why you would disagree with the use of the term in this situation is obvious but it is no less correct because you dislike it.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by richiebaseball

http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/sellout.htm

Richard

Looks like a DawnCt source to me.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
I'm sorry are you referring to your "hundreds of thousands of troops" comment?

Richard

No, actually he was referring to this:

Originally posted by richiebaseball

http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjoh...com/sellout.htm

Richard

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy
And this, gadies and lentlemen, is the power of political "spin"

Al Gore never claimed to have "invented the internet". Not once. Read below from Snopes.com. This claim is patently false, yet republicans to this day try to make a farce of the ex VP by repeating it over and over until those too gullible to look up the information themselves take it as gospel

When you make those kinds of statements, it becomes obvious that you could care less about the truth...only about furthering your own agenda.


personal attack aside...what is my agenda...what is my political affiliation....???


so basically you're saying that if someone disagrees with you...they are gullible and haven't taken the time to look up the facts......

what makes your sources any more credible than mine....

that way of thinking speaks volumes..

I'd give more credibility to your words if it weren't for the eye rolling like a teenager...

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Hundreds of thousands is an accurate description of 150,000. It's an accurate description of 100,000. In fact, it would be an accurate description of any number from 100,000 to 999,999.

While you may be technically correct, using the term "hundreds of thousands of troops" certainly conjures up much more than 150,000. And I dare say that the vast majority, and I do mean the vast majority of normal people would agree regardless which side of the aisle they were on.

Shall we start a poll?

Richard

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
No, actually he was referring to this:

Okay, let's hear your expert opinion on POW/MIA's in Vietnam?

Richard

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Hundreds of thousands is an accurate description of 150,000. It's an accurate description of 100,000. In fact, it would be an accurate description of any number from 100,000 to 999,999.

(I have never made an all-eye-roll response before, but it's certainly called for)

 

[MosMom]

if there were no WMD....why was Saddam afraid of weapons inspectors.......

Who says he was afraid? Do you think he could have been messing with the UN just to be a jerk? Certainly seems like the type who would get a kick out of jacking them around.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by MosMom
Who says he was afraid? Do you think he could have been messing with the UN just to be a jerk? Certainly seems like the type who would get a kick out of jacking them around.

Could be. Apparently he didn't see the big stick.

Richard

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Jimbo


(I have never made an all-eye-roll response before, but it's certainly called for)

Yes it is. I guess the concept of "hundreds" being plural is beyond ThreeCircles.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Yes it is. I guess the concept of "hundreds" being plural is beyond ThreeCircles.

Perhaps you two could give your high school math instructors a call and see what their thoughts on the subject are.

Are you honestly going to argue that "hundreds of thousands" is not correct in describing 100,000 to 999,999? Let's see it. Make your argument.

This should be good!

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Hundreds of thousands is an accurate description of 150,000. It's an accurate description of 100,000. In fact, it would be an accurate description of any number from 100,000 to 999,999.

Why you would disagree with the use of the term in this situation is obvious but it is no less correct because you dislike it.

I don't believe it would be an accurate description of 100,000,,,no more than dozens of eggs would be an acurate description of one dozen eggs

hundreds of thousands implies plurality..100,000, does not.....

99,999 falls short of being 100,000 therefore 199,999 also falls short of being hundreds of thousands...




but since it's Friday I'll let ya have this one, but then you must also agree.....with this logic..people can no longer question the Administrations numbers on job creation..because the numbers are just a figure of speech....

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by MosMom
Who says he was afraid? Do you think he could have been messing with the UN just to be a jerk? Certainly seems like the type who would get a kick out of jacking them around.

then he got what he deserved...

 

[Jimbo]

So after a couple more posts I'll be able to say that I've made thousands of posts on the DIS boards, right? This is really a ridiculous argument!

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Perhaps you two could give your high school math instructors a call and see what their thoughts on the subject are.

Are you honestly going to argue that "hundreds of thousands" is not correct in describing 100,000 to 999,999? Let's see it. Make your argument.

This should be good!

Not only good, but quite easy.

Hundreds - please note the "s" at the end which denotes multiples of "hundred". Anything between 200,000 and 999,999 could correctly be referred to as "hundreds of thousands". Anything between 100,000 and 199,999 could not be correctly referred to as "hundreds of thousands".

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Perhaps you two could give your high school math instructors a call and see what their thoughts on the subject are.

Are you honestly going to argue that "hundreds of thousands" is not correct in describing 100,000 to 999,999? Let's see it. Make your argument.

This should be good!

Sorry to disappoint you but apparently unlike you, I am not a product of the public school system.

Hey, I say tomato, you say watermelon.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Not only good, but quite easy.

Hundreds - please note the "s" at the end which denotes multiples of "hundred". Anything between 200,000 and 999,999 could correctly be referred to as "hundreds of thousands". Anything between 100,000 and 199,999 could not be correctly referred to as "hundreds of thousands".

Ah, stating your opinion as fact, Brenda? How unlike you. Oh, wait... Nevermind.