The Implosion of John Kerry?

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
*sigh* and just because someone says something doesn't make it true....


tell me, do they have copies of the original request that was supposedly "denied the first time around"?

And although you may not think you are marring the value of any Purple Heart, that is exactly what you are doing. Putting forth the idea that someone can easily cheat the system that awards them puts ANY Purple Heart award under question, whether you like to believe that or not. Which is exactly why so many veterans are disturbed by these ads and assertions.

it only puts them under question if you choose to question them/ whether you believe it or not.


if you are correct about it putting other recipients at question, then wouldn't that be more cause to question his honesty, and motives..
the vets should be upset that he pulled it off, his behaviour tarnished the award, not the people who have exposed his deception..


if you cannot debate without the condescending attitude ,this will be my last response to you

 

[MICKEY88]

instead of blaming the President for unemployment and Bankruptcy, let's put the blame where it belongs.

unemployment figures are up due in part to companies outsourcing, why aren't americans screaming about the companies who are sending jobs overseas, or moving businesses overseas, for every customer service call answered by someone overseas, there is at least one american job lost, actually more..put all these people in one building and you need custodial, and maintenance people to take care of the building...

just one small example...

as for bankruptcy, the main cause of this is Americans living beyond their means and having to have cars for every family member, the best of everything...and the banks who flood people with easy credit cards

etc....

 

[Maleficent13]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I'm in a really bad mood today, which is usually not a very good time to read mudslinging debates.

Do you think that the fact that the American public gets so taken in by the propoganda from all sides means that the majority of "us" have low IQ's? Or is it something else?

minniepumpernickel: to your first statement: sorry you're in a bad mood! Hope it gets better!

To your second statement: I was so tempted to write "Why yes, yes I do", but it wasn't really accurate. I don't think IQ has anything to do with it. I think it's more stubbornness and the inability to admit you might be wrong. I know that the way I feel about many things political today was not the way I felt about them even a year ago. I am not afraid to admit that and even say that I was very wrong about my views at some points in my life, but most won't admit that.

I think EsmeraldaX had it also when she said something about feeling passionately but not checking into it to see if your feelings are supported with rational thought.

Also, a lot of people are just lazy (and I don't necessarily exclude myself from laziness sometimes), and believing the propaganda from all sides is a lot easier than researching it yourself.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Name calling? Where, exactly, did I engage in name-calling?

And I stand by my assertion that questioning the ability of the review board to properly award Purple Hearts questions every Purple Heart awarded. If all it takes is someone *saying* the Purple Heart was falsely awarded to put one into question, then how can you not see that it tarnishes the value of all of them awarded? Where's the proof that it was falsely awarded (other than someone just saying that it is so)?

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by Maleficent13
I know that the way I feel about many things political today was not the way I felt about them even a year ago. I am not afraid to admit that and even say that I was very wrong about my views at some points in my life, but most won't admit that.

I think EsmeraldaX had it also when she said something about feeling passionately but not checking into it to see if your feelings are supported with rational thought.

Also, a lot of people are just lazy (and I don't necessarily exclude myself from laziness sometimes), and believing the propaganda from all sides is a lot easier than researching it yourself.

I usually hate making "I agree!" kinda posts, but I've just gotta say.....I totally agree, Mal. Like you, my views have changed DRAMATICALLY over the course of my lifetime.

 

[bsears]

And I stand by my assertion that questioning the ability of the review board to properly award Purple Hearts questions every Purple Heart awarded. If all it takes is someone *saying* the Purple Heart was falsely awarded to put one into question, then how can you not see that it tarnishes the value of all of them awarded?

Of course it does. And that is precisely what has angered so many vets.

And, by the way, hasn't it been shown that the swift vet doctor who claims he treated Kerry's wound is not the doctor who signed any of Kerry's medical treatment papers?

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by Missy1961
Answer this: are you better off then you were 4 years ago?

Most of us aren't.

I am far better off than I was 4 years ago. But I recognize that President Bush has very little to do with it. I took some personal initiative, sorted out some things in my life, moved and ended up finding a much better job than I had. I made my life better. President Bush and Sen. Kerry cannot do that for me.

 

[Teejay32]

I think Vietnam is an 100% emotional issue. It is for me at least, and I was a baby during Vietnam.

A lot of people just plain don't like Kerry for being affiliated with VVAW, for example. I don't. I think protesting the war for the sake of ending the war is admirable, but these guys seemed to have an organized campaign going to show, not the war, but US servicepeople themselves in the worst possible light. Kerry has his name on a book called "The New Soldier", out-of-print, but it's a perfect example of that. And supposedly all of the protests were done in the name of the young men dying over there, but many of the vocal activists were supporting communism. (?) Communism isn't normally a side effect of being against sending people off to war, and I don't think that Kerry was heavily involved in that aspect of it. But, I think people deserve to know more about this side of the protests, as much as they deserve to know more about the actions of the US government.

I've heard Kerry described before as "politically tone-deaf", and that seems to be right if he couldn't foresee the clash between servicemen that's going on now. If he could, like many people, foresee this then he's probably taken a calculated risk - that his actual service record, combined with the current at-war atmosphere, be enough to protect him from the tougher questions about his actions during the 70s. He could handle this as a national leader would, but hearing "they're attacking me" and "right-wing conspiracy" all over again sounds more like a career politician at work.

No one is responsible for this but Kerry though. I can't blame liberals or Democrats or Socialists for it, and he doesn't have to blame conservatives or evil Republicans or brainwashed idiots for inventing issues.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Thanks guys that is very interesting.

I kind of meant it along the lines of Old Kicker's post about the media and what they feed us, etc. It seems like everything on the news is dumbed down just to feed the public's insatiable need for more trash, or scandal. I was just wondering if that is some kind of inadvertent statement on what we base our voting selection on, or what?

The public has a very short attention span, so I'm sure we'll be on to the next saga withing the blink of an eye anyway. Oh well.

Thanks Mal, I'm trying to snap out of it!

 

[Kendra17]

The point I was really trying to make, above all, is this:

4-Most importantly, the Kerry Campaign's nonresponse to the Swift Boat Veterans' accusations is essentially anti-American. And, why would use such strong language? Because the Kerry campaign is NOT responding to and not denying the allegations of his Boatmates and fellow Viet Nam veterans. Rather the Kerry campaign has hired lawyers to block the airing of TV spots paid for and produced by the Swift Boat veterans. He is (tellingly) not accusing the veterans of slander or libel. How is he doing this? The Kerry campaign is threatening the TV stations that carried this spot with legal action. The fact that the Kerry campaign is NOT addressing the issues brought up by eyewitnesses to his war service--the very war service that he bases his campaign on--is telling.

Essentially, the Kerry campaign, in their threats against the television stations, are trying--with heavy-handed legal tactics--to subvert the First Amendment Rights of American citizens.

In the letter Kerry's lawyers drafted to the tv stations (NOT to the Swift Boat veterans), he DID accuse the SBV of libel (which, as Kerry's guys know, will be unprovable, since the SBVs allegations and ad production/etc. does not fall under the legal definition of libel or slander).

He is not accusing the SBV directly of libel. He is threatening the TV stations with legal action if they air the ad. . .he is NOT threatening the SBV with legal action. This I thought was curious and I think the threat of legal action is tantamount to attempting to subvert and/or suppress the SBV's First Amendment Rights.

As for the sites I linked. Yes, I know the Kerry supporters, for the most part, are obviously eager to dismiss some of the news found here. Just because these particular sites may report news that favors Bush or disfavors Kerry, does NOT negate the validity of the reports. The point is, these sites are reporting or scooping these stories. They are sourced, not just plain allegation. And, there have not been any stories that state otherwise. The TRUTH is that there are over 250 SBV who do not think Kerry is a fit leader. Some of Kerry's crewmembers have supported Kerry. NONE of his commanding officers, NONE of his Officers In Charge (OIC) support him. This is important, because they would obviously have a different perspective on Kerry's behaviors and actions than Kerry's subordinates would have.

(Drudgereport, today for instance, reported that Kerry and Teresa had a big huge shouting match in public (she's a charmer . Now, certain sites won't print this or report this because it depicts the Kerrys unfavorably. This does not make the story untrue. . .like it or not. Also, the NY Daily News also restated the Cambodia issue today. . .because the Daily News may be more conservative with its political views doesn't change the fact that Kerry's Commanding Officers firmly state Kerry was absolutely not in Cambodia then.)

Edited to add: Here's an apt quote from the New York Daily News today:

Kerry's people are trying hard to discredit his discreditors. They call "Unfit for Command" co-author O'Neill a Republican hack with a decades-long grudge against Kerry. They say Texas moneymen close to Karl Rove are behind the TV spots and are warning TV stations, in writing, not to air them. They maintain that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth are motivated by jealousy of Kerry or anger at his post-Vietnam anti-war activities. They want to dismiss all questions about Kerry's war record as sleazy slander.

Sorry, but that's not going to wash. The issue is not whether the charges against Kerry are politically motivated (they obviously are) or who is paying for them. There's just one relevant question: Are the allegations true? Specifically, is it true he lied about being in Cambodia.

 

[Patch'sD]

It will be up to the american people to decide who's story to believe. I think the Swift Boat Veterans have every right to bring up there side of the story as those who feel that Bush's National Guard Service is questionable. However, I don't think having them silenced is the answer on either side.

 

[rcyannacci]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Missy1961
Answer this: are you better off then you were 4 years ago?

Most of us aren't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that the answer to this question, for me at least, is less about financial gains/losses (although I'm worst off financially than I was 4 years ago, I think that has more to do with the antics of the TX Legislature) and more about issues of security, well-being, and even international relations.

I think many of us can agree that we feel less secure than we did pre-9/11, we just disagree with what would make us feel more secure. The attacks on civil liberties enacted by this administration doesn't make me feel more secure, only that the attacks are coming from all sides and from people/institutions that I want to be able to trust as a citizen. The war against Iraq has me petrified about the growing sense of anti-Americanism across the globe, among people/nations we once counted as allies. I go on with my daily business, but I've noticed subtle changes in my reactions to people in public places. I'm certainly more hesitant in my actions and less friendly. And, that's a sad thing.

I also had a serious health issue this year and came face to face with the mess that is called health care in this country. I had added stress on top of my illness that was unnecessary. Realizing that health care is a complicated issue, I felt that democrats were on the right track and am saddened to see what this administration calls "success."

So, no I don't feel like I'm better off 4 years later and it doesn't have anything to do with my taxes/etc.

(PS- feel free to disagree, flame, etc. but I may not be able to get back to the boards. I'm traveling and finally accessed a public computer. Sorry if that categorizes me as a "drive-by")

 

[danacara]

Originally posted by Kendra17

It looks like this can be the downfall of the Kerry campaign and, essentially, the end (we can only hope) of the Democratic Party.

Please tell me you are holding your breath for it

 

[Maleficent13]

Originally posted by danacara
Please tell me you are holding your breath for it

*snerk*

where is the originator of *snerk* these days, anyway?

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Name calling? Where, exactly, did I engage in name-calling?

And I stand by my assertion that questioning the ability of the review board to properly award Purple Hearts questions every Purple Heart awarded. If all it takes is someone *saying* the Purple Heart was falsely awarded to put one into question, then how can you not see that it tarnishes the value of all of them awarded? Where's the proof that it was falsely awarded (other than someone just saying that it is so)?

my apologies on the name calling part, I looked at the wrong post, my original post referencing that has been edited to remove my name calling comment...


Sorry,,,

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Maleficent13
*snerk*

where is the originator of *snerk* these days, anyway?

I pm'd her awhile ago and she said that she only comes back to answer pm's. I hope she comes back more too.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by bsears
Of course it does. And that is precisely what has angered so many vets.

And, by the way, hasn't it been shown that the swift vet doctor who claims he treated Kerry's wound is not the doctor who signed any of Kerry's medical treatment papers?

a news report I saw this morning said they have concluded that the doctor did indeed treat kerry , but do to a large caseload a nurse or someone else signed the paperwork..

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by danacara
Please tell me you are holding your breath for it

Another Democratic desire to suppress free speech!

Hey, you might not LIKE what I am saying and that is absolutely okay with me. But, I also notice that you have nothing of SUBSTANCE to add to the allegations at hand.

Have a wonderful day!

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Missy1961
Answer this: are you better off then you were 4 years ago?

Most of us aren't.

Most? Please define most and how they aren't.

 

[PamOKW]

I haven't read this whole thread but it brings to my mind something that has me confused. First, I'm with Sen McCain (an honest to God war hero) who feels that what happened 30+ years ago is of little consequence. Let's move beyond who did what when they were in their 20's.

The really more puzzling part of this to me is the raising of this Vietnam war hero banner and condemnation of those who didn't serve in Vietnam by many of the very same people who did exactly the same thing. How many Kennedys served in Vietnam? How many Kennedys have entered military service at all since WWII? Vietnam was a different war and for a very different reason than the battle we are engaged in now. I thank those who served but I do not condemn those who avoided service. Remember it was a draft not a volunteer service. Bill Clinton did his damndest to avoid joining the service but that was a non-issue for the same people who now support Kerry. Bush did serve. Maybe it wasn't in "war hero" mode but it was more than Clinton and probably equivalent to Gore's service. Many of the celebrities and Democrats who are crowing about Kerry's service are the same people who spat on soliders returning from Vietnam. I just don't get it.

Bottom-line -- what the heck does it have to do with today's problems? I'd rather hear what Senator Kerry has been doing on terrorism, health care, etc. during his tenure in the Senate. If he's elected President, how is he going to move those issues forward in a non-partisan manner?

Under Cinton, the presidency became a never-ending campaign. I'd like to see us elect a President and then all stand behind him/her for the length of their term instead of facing off like two gangs in West Side Story.