| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote: Me: You give the impression of someone who has collected 'talking points' in order to repeat them. As do you. No, I respond to you, and I won't be doing that anymore. Sometimes it's worth the trouble to show you that your attacks are disputed and open to different views. On top of that, you seem to have trouble assimilating contradictory information when you are shown your way to it. I don't trust the sources. Yet you consistently trust less credible sources than those I cite. BTW, I have plenty of problems with the media, but not for their "liberal bias". |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:37:44 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... Since when does speaking out on a non-war that ended up costing 50,000 US lives with no particular strategic value constitute traitorous behavior? Opposing the war is one thing. False testimony to Congress is another. You can say it was false. I'm not sure that it's been determined ABSOLUTELY that he *wasn't* in Cambodia on Xmas Eve. It's becoming "conventional wisdom", but that doesn't make it true. Actually I was talking about the Winter Soldier testimony. There are so many falsehoods in Kerry's history it is easy to get them confused. Are we just supposed to sit idly by while Democrats and Republicans wage non-war in such a fashion, especially when one had actually been there to see the full effects? What were the full effects of the anti-war movement? You tell me. I guess you'd like to be one of the only generation of vets to have lost a war. A war that wasn't lost militarily. It doesn't matter what you or I "want to be". The war was lost when it started. Not according to the interview I read with the North Vietnamese general leading the Tet offensive. He said after that disaster the North Vietnamese were militarily incapable of continuing the conflict. They only decided not to sue for peace when they realized the anti-war movement was spinning the outcome of that campaign in a very negative way back in America. I have no problems with anti-war efforts provided they make their case based on facts. I have huge problems with liars saying anything to support their agenda. You mean like the "Swifties"? Is *that* what you mean? Do you mean like saying things like he didn't deserve a Purple Heart, when, according to regs, he certainly did? If a scratch deserves a purple heart he is welcome to it. Too bad it diminishes the Purple Hearts of all those soldier who were really injured. Too bad a Purple Heart will never again be as proudly worn. Of course not, but hangiing around with Hanoi Jane and making all sorts of false claims doesn't help in ascribing any virtue to his actions. Vietnam vetss are entitled to feel however they'd like about it. But when they start stretching the truth, they are just as accountable as the rest of us. Yet Presidential candidates are less accountable. Hey, lets party this xmas in Cambodia and sear our memories. Or let's go to Alabama and party like it's 1969. Let's not get pulled over though. They might find the coke. Lack of cogent response noted. ScottW |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being commonplace until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American G.I.s were subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I think Kerry is a large factor in that treatement. Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation. Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted to. "Free fire" zones are against international law. So are .50 cal machine guns. There are good reasons why we win wars and the international community doe not. As for the "Winter Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate, not recounting his own deeds. So you admit Kerry was duped by a bunch of fraudulent lying anti-war fanatics? Those are some credentials for President. ScottW |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Me: You give the impression of someone who has collected 'talking points' in order to repeat them. As do you. No, I respond to you, and I won't be doing that anymore. Sometimes it's worth the trouble to show you that your attacks are disputed and open to different views. On top of that, you seem to have trouble assimilating contradictory information when you are shown your way to it. I don't trust the sources. Yet you consistently trust less credible sources than those I cite. BTW, I have plenty of problems with the media, but not for their "liberal bias". You quote the LA times. A paper that violated every polling rule in the book in an attempt to influence an election by showing Cruz Bustamante leading in the recent Ca. governors race. They did this by inflating the percentage of black people in Ca. to 20% If ever the people get tired of being lied to the LA times will be among the first to go under. ScottW |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:07:19 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote: You mean like the "Swifties"? Is *that* what you mean? Do you mean like saying things like he didn't deserve a Purple Heart, when, according to regs, he certainly did? If a scratch deserves a purple heart he is welcome to it. Too bad it diminishes the Purple Hearts of all those soldier who were really injured. Too bad a Purple Heart will never again be as proudly worn. It wasn't a "scratch". It was a small piece of shrapnel in his arm, the kind of wound that *many* soldiers have gotten Purple Hearts for. When you start qualifying what a wound is and how important it is, I think that *that* diminishes the award. Max Cleland doesn't seem to worry about it. And I've seen a *much* smaller piece of shrapnel kill a man, a piece about the size of a grain of sand. And your last statement is *soooo* melodramatic. Too bad you couldn't have ever had the possibility to actually wear one - please don't speak for me, someone who *could* have had the chance to wear one had he been sent to Grenada (that massive Reagan war effort). |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:07:19 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote: Vietnam vets are entitled to feel however they'd like about it. But when they start stretching the truth, they are just as accountable as the rest of us. Yet Presidential candidates are less accountable. Hey, lets party this xmas in Cambodia and sear our memories. Or let's go to Alabama and party like it's 1969. Let's not get pulled over though. They might find the coke. Lack of cogent response noted. Oh, it was a cogent as yours was. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:12:48 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being commonplace until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American G.I.s were subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I think Kerry is a large factor in that treatement. Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation. Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted to. "Free fire" zones are against international law. So are .50 cal machine guns. Since when? There are good reasons why we win wars and the international community doe not. As for the "Winter Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate, not recounting his own deeds. So you admit Kerry was duped by a bunch of fraudulent lying anti-war fanatics? Those are some credentials for President. Are you denying that there were many atrocities commited in Vietnam? And I like the way that Kerry's detractors now claim that *he* claimed that it was "American policy to commit atrocities" when in fact, what he said was, "I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command", which is *not* saying that it was "official policy". It's all very much "eye of the beholder" stuff. As someone who was against the war in Vietnam but who later served, I see things a certain way, and those who are freaked out about a young guy who had the courage of his convictions see things *their* way. The hysteria that a few are promoting certainly is a testiment to the desperation that some have in trying to keep President Bush in office. --------------------------- For every fatal shooting, there are roughly three nonfatal shootings. Folks, this is unacceptable in America, We're going to do something about it. - GWB, Pennsylvania, May 14, 2001 |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 02:23:46 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote: I don't trust the sources. You mean like WorldNetDaily, which tells this lie: "The wound that made John Kerry eligible for the first of three Purple Hearts was not severe enough to warrant consideration, according to the physician who treated him in December 1968". Then they go on to quote the undocumented testimony of Dr. Letson, who suddenly remembers all sorts of details about a "superficial wound" in 1968, with a little hearsay thrown in for good measure. Frankly, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't particularly want even a 3 cm piece of hot iron 3 cm under my skin *anywhere*, especially in jungle waters. No, it wasn't the type of wound that Max Cleland got, but it was certainly deserving of that particular Purple Heart by military standards and one that he was rightly put in for. Happened all of the time. If you don't like the way the regs read, then perhaps you should ask the military to toughen the standards. Maybe you require stitches, or loss of a limb. The current standards don't even require a break in the skin. |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Big issue. Censorship of political speech. See above. Since the ads have been shown to contain falsehoods, why is it not within Cleland's rights to ask they be withdrawn? Free speech. Free speech, except for Cleland? I guess he's free to ask for censorship, it's just moronic to do so. Asking for ads containing proven falsehoods to be withdrawn is not the same as censorship. You must mean the one that equated Bush with Hitler. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being commonplace until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American G.I.s were subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I think Kerry is a large factor in that treatement. Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation. Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted to. "Free fire" zones are against international law. As for the "Winter Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate, not recounting his own deeds. "In as much as I...." |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Me: O'Neil was in Cambodia, too, or so he told Nixon (Nixon tapes! at last on topic). And Kerry could have been on the border in the morning and fifty miles away by night. Kerry said he was there at a time when he wasn't. Not necessarily. It could be the same case as with O'Neil in the White House speaking informally. Or do think O'Neil is also a liar? Kerry NEVER was in Cambodia. |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:07:19 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: You mean like the "Swifties"? Is *that* what you mean? Do you mean like saying things like he didn't deserve a Purple Heart, when, according to regs, he certainly did? If a scratch deserves a purple heart he is welcome to it. Too bad it diminishes the Purple Hearts of all those soldier who were really injured. Too bad a Purple Heart will never again be as proudly worn. It wasn't a "scratch". It was a small piece of shrapnel in his arm, the kind of wound that *many* soldiers have gotten Purple Hearts for. When you start qualifying what a wound is and how important it is, I think that *that* diminishes the award. Max Cleland doesn't seem to worry about it. And I've seen a *much* smaller piece of shrapnel kill a man, a piece about the size of a grain of sand. It was a "boo-boo" treated by a band aid. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being commonplace until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American G.I.s were subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I think Kerry is a large factor in that treatement. Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation. Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted to. "Free fire" zones are against international law. As for the "Winter Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate, not recounting his own deeds. "In as much as I...." That's the "free fire zone" part. |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Big issue. Censorship of political speech. See above. Since the ads have been shown to contain falsehoods, why is it not within Cleland's rights to ask they be withdrawn? Free speech. Free speech, except for Cleland? I guess he's free to ask for censorship, it's just moronic to do so. Asking for ads containing proven falsehoods to be withdrawn is not the same as censorship. You must mean the one that equated Bush with Hitler. The one sent in to a MoveOn contest? However heinous, that would still be a political opinion, different in kind from the Swiftee claims. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article hFyXc.46758$yh.15224@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Me: You give the impression of someone who has collected 'talking points' in order to repeat them. As do you. No, I respond to you, and I won't be doing that anymore. Sometimes it's worth the trouble to show you that your attacks are disputed and open to different views. On top of that, you seem to have trouble assimilating contradictory information when you are shown your way to it. I don't trust the sources. Yet you consistently trust less credible sources than those I cite. BTW, I have plenty of problems with the media, but not for their "liberal bias". You quote the LA times. A paper that violated every polling rule in the book in an attempt to influence an election by showing Cruz Bustamante leading in the recent Ca. governors race. They did this by inflating the percentage of black people in Ca. to 20% If ever the people get tired of being lied to the LA times will be among the first to go under. That would be an example of something I would have a problem with. Note that this is a bias in favor of a particular candidate, not a liberal slant as such. |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article axyXc.46704$yh.16910@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being commonplace until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American G.I.s were subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I think Kerry is a large factor in that treatement. Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation. Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted to. "Free fire" zones are against international law. So are .50 cal machine guns. There are good reasons why we win wars and the international community doe not. So you can't blame Kerry for participating in an action he later found to violate international law. As for the "Winter Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate, not recounting his own deeds. So you admit Kerry was duped by a bunch of fraudulent lying anti-war fanatics? Those are some credentials for President. Them's some slanted words you got there. Sorry, the Winter stories are credible. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:07:19 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: Vietnam vets are entitled to feel however they'd like about it. But when they start stretching the truth, they are just as accountable as the rest of us. Yet Presidential candidates are less accountable. Hey, lets party this xmas in Cambodia and sear our memories. Or let's go to Alabama and party like it's 1969. Let's not get pulled over though. They might find the coke. Lack of cogent response noted. Oh, it was a cogent as yours was. Obviously you need to study your candidates history a bit. Can anyone name one piece of important legislation Kerry sponsored in his 20 years in the senate? ScottW |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:43:15 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:07:19 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: Vietnam vets are entitled to feel however they'd like about it. But when they start stretching the truth, they are just as accountable as the rest of us. Yet Presidential candidates are less accountable. Hey, lets party this xmas in Cambodia and sear our memories. Or let's go to Alabama and party like it's 1969. Let's not get pulled over though. They might find the coke. Lack of cogent response noted. Oh, it was a cogent as yours was. Obviously you need to study your candidates history a bit. Can anyone name one piece of important legislation Kerry sponsored in his 20 years in the senate? What does this have to do with "accountability" and "party this xmas in Cambodia and sear our memories"? I'll say this much - President Bush's biggest legacy as governor of Texas, other than throwing the switch on a lot of criminals (152 in 6 years) was the fact that he seemed to be a bit of a consensus-builder, and he's thrown that out the window, not only on the national stage, but the international one as well. About Kerry, how about the Frist-Kerry bill on AIDS? As to the charge that Kerry voted against body armor and the like, who sent them into combat that way in the first place? It's not like we didn't have time to get our troops prepared or anything. One of the biggest misnomers about serving in the Senate is that it takes sponsoring tons of bills to be effective. Ask Dick Cheney. Much of the work in the Senate involves getting bills passed, serving on committees, etc. ---------------------- "They misunderestimated me." - GWB, Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000 |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:12:48 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being commonplace until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American G.I.s were subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I think Kerry is a large factor in that treatement. Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation. Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted to. "Free fire" zones are against international law. So are .50 cal machine guns. Since when? Since Kerry said so, but apparently you also agree that is a false statement. Here's a bit of history you should know about your candidate. http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.a...04 0311d.html There are good reasons why we win wars and the international community doe not. As for the "Winter Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate, not recounting his own deeds. So you admit Kerry was duped by a bunch of fraudulent lying anti-war fanatics? Those are some credentials for President. Are you denying that there were many atrocities commited in Vietnam? Beyond Mi lai I haven't seen any charge of atrocity proven. And I like the way that Kerry's detractors now claim that *he* claimed that it was "American policy to commit atrocities" when in fact, what he said was, "I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command", which is *not* saying that it was "official policy". Wasn't Kerry one of those officers? Sounds like a confession. But reality is the Winter Soldier investigation was fraut with fraudulent testimony. The link I provided above is but one example. For Kerry to be the spokesman on the national stage and propogate such lies isn't the making of a president. http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/in...pic=Historians It's all very much "eye of the beholder" stuff. As someone who was against the war in Vietnam but who later served, I see things a certain way, and those who are freaked out about a young guy who had the courage of his convictions see things *their* way. The hysteria that a few are promoting certainly is a testiment to the desperation that some have in trying to keep President Bush in office. It could be what it is, hysteria to keep Kerry from the presidency. I am not enamored with GW, particularly on the issue of immigration. But Kerry lacks even a smidge of credibility and for him to attack everyone who served in Vietnam is unforgiveable. The media conspiracy to support this guy is also amazing. Why were there no reports of the vets turning their backs on Kerry in Cincinnatti? Will it come the point of the media mass manipulation being capable of picking our president? |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article hFyXc.46758$yh.15224@fed1read05, "ScottW" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Me: You give the impression of someone who has collected 'talking points' in order to repeat them. As do you. No, I respond to you, and I won't be doing that anymore. Sometimes it's worth the trouble to show you that your attacks are disputed and open to different views. On top of that, you seem to have trouble assimilating contradictory information when you are shown your way to it. I don't trust the sources. Yet you consistently trust less credible sources than those I cite. BTW, I have plenty of problems with the media, but not for their "liberal bias". You quote the LA times. A paper that violated every polling rule in the book in an attempt to influence an election by showing Cruz Bustamante leading in the recent Ca. governors race. They did this by inflating the percentage of black people in Ca. to 20% If ever the people get tired of being lied to the LA times will be among the first to go under. That would be an example of something I would have a problem with. Note that this is a bias in favor of a particular candidate, not a liberal slant as such. Ridiculous, it was an obvious democratic party/liberal bias. Cruz wasn't their boy. He was all they had as all other democrats refused to throw their hat in the ring instead opposing the recall. ScottW |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article axyXc.46704$yh.16910@fed1read05, "ScottW" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being commonplace until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American G.I.s were subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I think Kerry is a large factor in that treatement. Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation. Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted to. "Free fire" zones are against international law. So are .50 cal machine guns. There are good reasons why we win wars and the international community doe not. So you can't blame Kerry for participating in an action he later found to violate international law. Actually, it doesn't. I was just pointing out another of Kerry's lies. As for the "Winter Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate, not recounting his own deeds. So you admit Kerry was duped by a bunch of fraudulent lying anti-war fanatics? Those are some credentials for President. Them's some slanted words you got there. Sorry, the Winter stories are credible. One of the things that prevents me from embracing some of the agenda of the left is their consistent refusal to demand the truth above all else. ScottW |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article vlIXc.48115$yh.17273@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote: One of the things that prevents me from embracing some of the agenda of the left is their consistent refusal to demand the truth above all else. You must have a real problem with Bush and co, going back to 1988. Bye! |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article 2iIXc.48093$yh.30334@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote: You quote the LA times. A paper that violated every polling rule in the book in an attempt to influence an election by showing Cruz Bustamante leading in the recent Ca. governors race. They did this by inflating the percentage of black people in Ca. to 20% If ever the people get tired of being lied to the LA times will be among the first to go under. That would be an example of something I would have a problem with. Note that this is a bias in favor of a particular candidate, not a liberal slant as such. Ridiculous, it was an obvious democratic party/liberal bias. Cruz wasn't their boy. He was all they had as all other democrats refused to throw their hat in the ring instead opposing the recall. Whether or not that is true, I agreed with you in opposing Bustamante. |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article dMHXc.47886$yh.14955@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote: Can anyone name one piece of important legislation Kerry sponsored in his 20 years in the senate? Kerry's accomplishments include unearthing Iran-Contra and BCCI. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Big issue. Censorship of political speech. See above. Since the ads have been shown to contain falsehoods, why is it not within Cleland's rights to ask they be withdrawn? Free speech. Free speech, except for Cleland? I guess he's free to ask for censorship, it's just moronic to do so. Asking for ads containing proven falsehoods to be withdrawn is not the same as censorship. When that happens we can discuss it. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Big issue. Censorship of political speech. See above. Since the ads have been shown to contain falsehoods, why is it not within Cleland's rights to ask they be withdrawn? Free speech. Free speech, except for Cleland? I guess he's free to ask for censorship, it's just moronic to do so. Asking for ads containing proven falsehoods to be withdrawn is not the same as censorship. You must mean the one that equated Bush with Hitler. Touché. |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being commonplace until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American G.I.s were subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I think Kerry is a large factor in that treatement. Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation. Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted to. "Free fire" zones are against international law. As for the "Winter Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate, not recounting his own deeds. Wrong again. He admitted that he was a war criminal. |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:43:15 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:07:19 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: Vietnam vets are entitled to feel however they'd like about it. But when they start stretching the truth, they are just as accountable as the rest of us. Yet Presidential candidates are less accountable. Hey, lets party this xmas in Cambodia and sear our memories. Or let's go to Alabama and party like it's 1969. Let's not get pulled over though. They might find the coke. Lack of cogent response noted. Oh, it was a cogent as yours was. Obviously you need to study your candidates history a bit. Can anyone name one piece of important legislation Kerry sponsored in his 20 years in the senate? What does this have to do with "accountability" and "party this xmas in Cambodia and sear our memories"? Nice oxymoron. Please do hold Kerry accountable for repeating this false statement some 20 times. I'll say this much - President Bush's biggest legacy as governor of Texas, other than throwing the switch on a lot of criminals (152 in 6 years) was the fact that he seemed to be a bit of a consensus-builder, and he's thrown that out the window, not only on the national stage, but the international one as well. About Kerry, how about the Frist-Kerry bill on AIDS? How about it? I know if passed the senate but I don't recall it ever making past the house and actually resulting in action. As to the charge that Kerry voted against body armor and the like, who sent them into combat that way in the first place? It's not like we didn't have time to get our troops prepared or anything. Military equipment is always being upgraded. If we always waited for every soldier to have the latest & greatest we would never have a combat ready unit. In any case, are you trying to claim that Kerry would have voted for body armor funding if it had been proposed before the war? That makes his vote even more perplexing. ScottW |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article 2iIXc.48093$yh.30334@fed1read05, "ScottW" wrote: You quote the LA times. A paper that violated every polling rule in the book in an attempt to influence an election by showing Cruz Bustamante leading in the recent Ca. governors race. They did this by inflating the percentage of black people in Ca. to 20% If ever the people get tired of being lied to the LA times will be among the first to go under. That would be an example of something I would have a problem with. Note that this is a bias in favor of a particular candidate, not a liberal slant as such. Ridiculous, it was an obvious democratic party/liberal bias. Cruz wasn't their boy. He was all they had as all other democrats refused to throw their hat in the ring instead opposing the recall. Whether or not that is true, I agreed with you in opposing Bustamante. Which makes the actions of the LA times and their fraudulent polling even more outrageous, don't you think? They completely ignored the agenda of the candidate they attempt to sway the election too in their mindless anti-republican vendetta. ScottW |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Me: You give the impression of someone who has collected 'talking points' in order to repeat them. As do you. No, I respond to you, With your talking points. The thing about Kerry disparaging Viet Nam Vets at those hearings was true. That there were G.I.'s coming home from VN that were abused by anti-war leftists is a direct consequence of his words and I will never forgive him for it. While I don't doubt that there were some atrocities commited by U.S. troops they were few and far between and don't compare in quantity or ugliness to what the VC were doing to us and their own people. and I won't be doing that anymore. Sometimes it's worth the trouble to show you that your attacks are disputed and open to different views. Likewise. On top of that, you seem to have trouble assimilating contradictory information when you are shown your way to it. I don't trust the sources. Yet you consistently trust less credible sources than those I cite. OSAF. BTW, I have plenty of problems with the media, but not for their "liberal bias". I'm sure you love their liberal bias. |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ScottW" wrote in message news:hFyXc.46758$yh.15224@fed1read05... "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Me: You give the impression of someone who has collected 'talking points' in order to repeat them. As do you. No, I respond to you, and I won't be doing that anymore. Sometimes it's worth the trouble to show you that your attacks are disputed and open to different views. On top of that, you seem to have trouble assimilating contradictory information when you are shown your way to it. I don't trust the sources. Yet you consistently trust less credible sources than those I cite. BTW, I have plenty of problems with the media, but not for their "liberal bias". You quote the LA times. A paper that violated every polling rule in the book in an attempt to influence an election by showing Cruz Bustamante leading in the recent Ca. governors race. They did this by inflating the percentage of black people in Ca. to 20% If ever the people get tired of being lied to the LA times will be among the first to go under. ScottW More recently they ran an editorial claiming that a recent CBO report showed that the tax burden had shifted to the middle class due to the Bush tax cuts. Nowhere is that shown to be true. At most there is .2% increase in the middle class tax burden, the top 50% of income earners still pay over 90% of the income tax. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article hFyXc.46758$yh.15224@fed1read05, "ScottW" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Me: You give the impression of someone who has collected 'talking points' in order to repeat them. As do you. No, I respond to you, and I won't be doing that anymore. Sometimes it's worth the trouble to show you that your attacks are disputed and open to different views. On top of that, you seem to have trouble assimilating contradictory information when you are shown your way to it. I don't trust the sources. Yet you consistently trust less credible sources than those I cite. BTW, I have plenty of problems with the media, but not for their "liberal bias". You quote the LA times. A paper that violated every polling rule in the book in an attempt to influence an election by showing Cruz Bustamante leading in the recent Ca. governors race. They did this by inflating the percentage of black people in Ca. to 20% If ever the people get tired of being lied to the LA times will be among the first to go under. That would be an example of something I would have a problem with. Note that this is a bias in favor of a particular candidate, not a liberal slant as such. The hell it's not. They had information on Gray Davis that was confirmed that he was a ****ing nut case and was abusive to his staff. They have never in my memory ever supported any conservative. They are a left wing paper as are the NY Times and the Washington Post. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ScottW" wrote in message news:1syXc.46685$yh.38959@fed1read05... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:37:44 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... Since when does speaking out on a non-war that ended up costing 50,000 US lives with no particular strategic value constitute traitorous behavior? Opposing the war is one thing. False testimony to Congress is another. You can say it was false. I'm not sure that it's been determined ABSOLUTELY that he *wasn't* in Cambodia on Xmas Eve. It's becoming "conventional wisdom", but that doesn't make it true. Actually I was talking about the Winter Soldier testimony. There are so many falsehoods in Kerry's history it is easy to get them confused. Are we just supposed to sit idly by while Democrats and Republicans wage non-war in such a fashion, especially when one had actually been there to see the full effects? What were the full effects of the anti-war movement? You tell me. I guess you'd like to be one of the only generation of vets to have lost a war. A war that wasn't lost militarily. It doesn't matter what you or I "want to be". The war was lost when it started. Not according to the interview I read with the North Vietnamese general leading the Tet offensive. He said after that disaster the North Vietnamese were militarily incapable of continuing the conflict. They only decided not to sue for peace when they realized the anti-war movement was spinning the outcome of that campaign in a very negative way back in America. I have no problems with anti-war efforts provided they make their case based on facts. I have huge problems with liars saying anything to support their agenda. You mean like the "Swifties"? Is *that* what you mean? Do you mean like saying things like he didn't deserve a Purple Heart, when, according to regs, he certainly did? If a scratch deserves a purple heart he is welcome to it. Too bad it diminishes the Purple Hearts of all those soldier who were really injured. Too bad a Purple Heart will never again be as proudly worn. A scratch does earn you a Purple Heart, but only if recieved during enemy fire. According to Kerry's own journal there was no enemy fire when he got the wound that "earned" him his first Purple Heart. Of course not, but hangiing around with Hanoi Jane and making all sorts of false claims doesn't help in ascribing any virtue to his actions. Vietnam vetss are entitled to feel however they'd like about it. But when they start stretching the truth, they are just as accountable as the rest of us. Yet Presidential candidates are less accountable. Hey, lets party this xmas in Cambodia and sear our memories. Or let's go to Alabama and party like it's 1969. Let's not get pulled over though. They might find the coke. Lack of cogent response noted. ScottW |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Me: You give the impression of someone who has collected 'talking points' in order to repeat them. As do you. No, I respond to you, With your talking points. I'm not starting politcal attack threads. The thing about Kerry disparaging Viet Nam Vets at those hearings was true. That there were G.I.'s coming home from VN that were abused by anti-war leftists is a direct consequence of his words and I will never forgive him for it. While I don't doubt that there were some atrocities commited by U.S. troops they were few and far between and don't compare in quantity or ugliness to what the VC were doing to us and their own people. It was courageous to stand up for vets by denouncing the leadership that sent them into an ill-advised military action. Kerry was careful to support the troops, unlike more radical protesters. Your justification for atrocity is unconvincing. and I won't be doing that anymore. Sometimes it's worth the trouble to show you that your attacks are disputed and open to different views. Likewise. Except that I don't start political attack threads. See the difference? On top of that, you seem to have trouble assimilating contradictory information when you are shown your way to it. I don't trust the sources. Yet you consistently trust less credible sources than those I cite. OSAF. Even Bush has contradicted the Swifties. BTW, I have plenty of problems with the media, but not for their "liberal bias". I'm sure you love their liberal bias. Maybe I will, when I see it. |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article LhJXc.48546$yh.43295@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article 2iIXc.48093$yh.30334@fed1read05, "ScottW" wrote: You quote the LA times. A paper that violated every polling rule in the book in an attempt to influence an election by showing Cruz Bustamante leading in the recent Ca. governors race. They did this by inflating the percentage of black people in Ca. to 20% If ever the people get tired of being lied to the LA times will be among the first to go under. That would be an example of something I would have a problem with. Note that this is a bias in favor of a particular candidate, not a liberal slant as such. Ridiculous, it was an obvious democratic party/liberal bias. Cruz wasn't their boy. He was all they had as all other democrats refused to throw their hat in the ring instead opposing the recall. Whether or not that is true, I agreed with you in opposing Bustamante. Which makes the actions of the LA times and their fraudulent polling even more outrageous, don't you think? They completely ignored the agenda of the candidate they attempt to sway the election too in their mindless anti-republican vendetta. The LA Times has done many outrageous things over the years, especially concerning local politics. However, their fact-based reporting, as in the report on the Swifties, is considered credible. Things are improving on the opinion page. |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being commonplace until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American G.I.s were subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I think Kerry is a large factor in that treatement. Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation. Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted to. "Free fire" zones are against international law. As for the "Winter Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate, not recounting his own deeds. Wrong again. He admitted that he was a war criminal. Read the Senate testimony. To reduce it to "I was a war criminal" requires torturing context. |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Big issue. Censorship of political speech. See above. Since the ads have been shown to contain falsehoods, why is it not within Cleland's rights to ask they be withdrawn? Free speech. Free speech, except for Cleland? I guess he's free to ask for censorship, it's just moronic to do so. Asking for ads containing proven falsehoods to be withdrawn is not the same as censorship. When that happens we can discuss it. It did, and you're calling it 'censorship'. Or did you miss the Bush interview? |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote: Me: That would be an example of something I would have a problem with. Note that this is a bias in favor of a particular candidate, not a liberal slant as such. The hell it's not. They had information on Gray Davis that was confirmed that he was a ****ing nut case and was abusive to his staff. They have never in my memory ever supported any conservative. They are a left wing paper as are the NY Times and the Washington Post. Ooh, did Gray Davis yell at the staff? What sensitive types right-wingers turn out to be... The LA Times is biased in favor of the financial holdings of the family that owns it. And the other two managed to forget their bias when they rolled over for the right in reporting on the last presidential election. The NY Times still has apologized for its discredited Whitewater reporting. |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote: Me: That would be an example of something I would have a problem with. Note that this is a bias in favor of a particular candidate, not a liberal slant as such. The hell it's not. They had information on Gray Davis that was confirmed that he was a ****ing nut case and was abusive to his staff. They have never in my memory ever supported any conservative. They are a left wing paper as are the NY Times and the Washington Post. Ooh, did Gray Davis yell at the staff? What sensitive types right-wingers turn out to be... The LA Times is biased in favor of the financial holdings of the family that owns it. And the other two managed to forget their bias when they rolled over for the right in reporting on the last presidential election. The NY Times still has not apologized for its discredited Whitewater reporting. |
Linear Mode
