Should this book be banned?

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Sorry for not reading all the way through this and if this has been responded to.

Isn't that what Kerry did at the Senate hearing in '71?

Are you ok with and do you fully believe what Kerry said in that hearing and those two TV shows? All of it? Some of it?

Not that it will do any good, because it's been said a million times, but here's a million and one...

He only repeated the stories that were told to him in his testimony. If you can't learn the definitions and the differences between "accusing" and "relaying", I can't help you.

I believe that in the climate that existed over 30 years ago, Kerry used language that now, all these years later, seems extreme. With the passage of time, most people are able to accept and learn to live with things that are at the time they are happening, horrific. I believe that is what Kerry has done.

I believe he served his country honorably and he is a hero that deserves our thanks and respect.

when he made his 4 month service

This is another lie that needs to be put to rest. I would be amazed if you didn't know that the 4 months he served in Vietnam was his 2nd tour of duty.

Perhaps I'll start saying Richard Nixon every time I say George Bush...after all they were and are masters at dirty tricks politics.

Another freeper pointer perhaps????


<center><IMG width="200" SRC="http://irregularradio.com/lovetoomuch.gif"></center>

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
And I heard that the networks wil run them (all?) but not carry some keynote speakers at the RNC. Did they show all of the DNC keynote speakers?

No, they did not. They will give the exact same amount of prime time coverage to the RNC that they did the DNC.

They're pretty blatant, but they know they can't get away with anything that blatant!

 

[bsnyder]

when he made his 4 month service

If I said this, then I apologize and stand corrected. He did indeed serve more than 4 months. And he deserves respect for serving honorably.

But it doesn't erase the rest of his history about Vietnam.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Not that it will do any good, because it's been said a million times, but here's a million and one...

He only repeated the stories that were told to him in his testimony. If you can't learn the definitions and the differences between "accusing" and "relaying", I can't help you.

I believe that in the climate that existed over 30 years ago, Kerry used language that now, all these years later, seems extreme. With the passage of time, most people are able to accept and learn to live with things that are at the time they are happening, horrific. I believe that is what Kerry has done.

I believe he served his country honorably and he is a hero that deserves our thanks and respect.



This is another lie that needs to be put to rest. I would be amazed if you didn't know that the 4 months he served in Vietnam was his 2nd tour of duty.

Perhaps I'll start saying Richard Nixon every time I say George Bush...after all they were and are masters at dirty tricks politics.

Another freeper pointer perhaps????


<center><IMG width="200" SRC="http://irregularradio.com/lovetoomuch.gif"></center>

Peachgirl, what was the point of his testimony?

 

[bsnyder]

Peachgirl, so if someone tells me something despicably horrible about you, and I know that it is a gross distortion and exaggeration of the truth, and I post it on a thread, on the DIS, that would be okay as long as I qualify that I'm only relaying what I heard?

 

[peachgirl]

But it doesn't erase the rest of his history about Vietnam.

Which is it, he served honorably or he didn't, because I've seen you say both, just today.

 

[bsnyder]

No you haven't.

He volunteered to go. He put himself in the line of fire, over and over again. I don't care about the severity of his wounds. Any one of them could have turned out very differently, but for chance. A peice of shrapnel in the thigh doesn't sound too bad, but it could have just as easily put an eye out. I realize that, and he deserves credit for his service over there. Do I think he padded that resume. Yep, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Most soldiers do it, in battle, and by being there, they earn the right to.

But he was no hero after the war. And what he's done since he chose this ridiculous campaign strategy in his bid for the Presidency is nothing short of disgraceful!

I answered your question, how about answering mine. Both of them.

 

[Saffron]

I watched Kerry's entire testimony before Congress in March or April on C-Span, probably March, (saw the taped proceddings and listened to the rest by audio tape, they only videod a portion of the proceedings) then watched the Dick Cavett show, then watched the testimony again, I think anybody anytime could see Kerry's side representing the V V A W and O'Neill's side representing whatever group he was representing (I can't remember the name of it now) and Nixon. And check C-Span's schedule, they used to play the testimony like every other night!

I realize a certain population of voters didn't live through the whole Vietnam controversy, but a certain population did. Some of us know from living through the experience, we don't need the media to help us remember. For the rest of the voters, the truth is out there if they seek it. I'm sure the younger generations have relatives, neigbors, professors, etc. who lived through the era who can tell them what went on, then they can research on their own. Why would they go to the main stream media for the news? While you think it's a liberal biased media, I agree sometimes, disagree others. Do you don't think the main stream media has been covering the Iraq War liberally or even close to unbiased?

About relaying ones life story? No, you shouldn't repeat something that you hear about Peachgirl on the DIS, but if she comes to you and asks you to post her story on the DIS, that would be something you should do, if you can.

I guess it just depends on who you see as an "after war hero"? Were there any? Who would that be, from either side of the controversy?

Who cares what the SBVT say in their ad! John McCane denounces it, and as a Vietnam Veteran ( which Bush isn't) and a former Vietnam War POW, I'm with him!

 

[peachgirl]

Who cares what the SBVT say in their ad! John McCane denounces it, and as a Vietnam Veteran ( which Bush isn't) and a former Vietnam War POW, I'm with him!

I'm with you.

No problem bsnyder...
1) Don't know
2)No




<center><IMG width="200" SRC="http://irregularradio.com/lovetoomuch.gif"></center>

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Saffron


For the rest of the voters, the truth is out there if they seek it. I'm sure the younger generations have relatives, neigbors, professors, etc. who lived through the era who can tell them what went on, then they can research on their own. Why would they go to the main stream media for the news?


Who cares what the SBVT say in their ad! John McCane denounces it, and as a Vietnam Veteran ( which Bush isn't) and a former Vietnam War POW, I'm with him!

That's not how the newspapers and broadcasts covered George W. Bush's National Guard service in the run up to the 2000 election, and even still today. There have been literally hundreds of articles and stories on that subject in the NYT, the Washington Post, USA Today, and the major network broadcasts. That's where the vast majority of Americans get their news (although the numbers are dwindling, because of those outlets' increasing lack of credibility to be unbiased).

And they would say, if you asked why they ran so many stories about Bush's Guard service, that it's their function to inform the public so they know all the facts before they choose a President.

 

[Saffron]

Or, maybe it's because the mainstream media wanted questions answered and if Bush didn't release his six records, until February 10th and 11th of 2004, maybe that's why. Maybe if he had released them for the run in 2000, they press would have stopped hounding him for them? Just another perspective.

 

[bsnyder]

President Bush did release some records in 2000, and he's released more, in a trickle, since then. Neither candidate has released their entire record. And that's a legitimate issue for the media to cover. And the bottom line is, we'll probably never know the whole truth about either man's service, unless they both release all their records, which looks doubtful at this point. Even then, that might not clear up all the questions. It was 30+ years ago!

But so far, the coverage has been lopsided, to Kerry's advantage, by a huge margin.

There's a perfectly logical explaination for the bias of the mainstream media, particularly on the issue that's become so relevant in this Presidential election - Vietnam. The vast majority of editors and chief correspondents at all the major news outlets are part of the baby-boomer Vietnam era when the country was clearly more liberal than it is today, and they bring their own experiences and personal observations into their coverage of events. The bias may not even be completely intentional in some cases. But it's there, and anyone who thinks it's not is either just thrilled because it bolsters their own liberal viewpoint, or they're not paying attention.

 

[Saffron]

Umm, how could the country have been more liberal then, if we were just starting to go through all the "revolutions" that made the country what it is today? We baby boomers were the beginning of the "counter revolution". Do you not remember the Civil Rights Movement, the Woman's Rights Movements etc. etc. They weren't established, they were something we were fighting for.

We have since reared a couple of generations on the principals we forged in the 60's and 70's. How do you figure it was more liberal then?

And really? about Bush's records? Find Law has all of Bush's and Kerry's records that they have released. SIX for Bush, FORTY FIVE for Kerry. I *think* they're all dated at the time they were either requested or released, and Bush's all state they were released either February 10 or 11th, 2004. I wonder why they would only have those 6 records if more are out there?

 

[bsnyder]

From a political standpoint, the country leaned much more to the left in the 60's and 70's. In the 80's we had the Reagan Revolution and conservatism made a comeback.

And again, from a political standpoint, and IMO, it would be a huge mistake for the Kerry campaign to play "dueling records" and try to compare the number of documents each candidate has released. He's already made a huge blunder in his strategy of focusing totally on his Vietnam service record.

We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.

 

[Saffron]

Who said the Kerry campaign was going to play dueling records about the number of records released? Honestly, that was me posting, not a representative of Kerry's!

I was pointing out that one of the candidates has been much more open with his military records, than the other. The fact is, one, Kerry, has released 45 records, spanning the day he entered the service in 1966 until his honorable discharge from the reserves in 1978. The other, Bush, has released 6, which happen to be one dental record, payroll accounts and points earned accounts for one year out of his 6 years of service, May of 1972 til May of 1973. . That's all, just the facts as I know them.

 

[bsnyder]

Maggie, that was just me, fleshing out it in terms of poltiical strategy.

And I would totally agree that from the record we have, John Kerry has released a larger number of documents than George Bush has. Which is meaningless, really, because neither one of them has released all of them and I can't imagine that they would, at this point.

Clearly, they both have things they don't want made public, or they would have released everything already.