Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
They're at it again.
Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are still open. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s. Stephen |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen wrote:
In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are still open. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s. Stephen True, but he didn't do it for many weeks in which the smear campaign against Kerry via the Swift boat ads continued (and still does). I find it quite interesting that he didn't condemn the 527 advertising until some Democrat 527's started hitting back with the historically accurate comparison of Bush's smear campaign against John McCain in 1980 as similar to the current campaign against Kerry. Obviously, Bush's advisors probably told him to try and bury this issue before it perhaps buries him. Bruce J. Richman |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are still open. OSAF. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s. Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie they choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their candidate the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced. You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans. Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same? The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat ads to be pulled. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... Stephen wrote: In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are still open. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s. Stephen True, but he didn't do it for many weeks in which the smear campaign against Kerry via the Swift boat ads continued (and still does). I find it quite interesting that he didn't condemn the 527 advertising until some Democrat 527's started hitting back with the historically accurate comparison of Bush's smear campaign against John McCain in 1980 as similar to the current campaign against Kerry. Obviously, Bush's advisors probably told him to try and bury this issue before it perhaps buries him. Bruce J. Richman Why do the Kerry people think it's OK to impose censorship on the Swift Boat ads? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are still open. OSAF. The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s. Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie they choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their candidate the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced. I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on Bush's doorstep. Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son. You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans. Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same? If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper basket,' I might agree with you about Bush. The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat ads to be pulled. Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did not. Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison. Now go play by yourself. Don't forget to use one of these (OT) next time you start a political attack thread. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are still open. OSAF. The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry. At least that's the way it gets reported. When you hear them speak in context, it's somewhat different. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s. Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie they choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their candidate the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced. I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on Bush's doorstep. But that's not what they're asking for. Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son. OSAF. You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans. Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same? If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper basket,' I might agree with you about Bush. He instructed all his records be released and they were. To the press. The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat ads to be pulled. Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did not. Which is meaningless to this discussion. Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison. It's important to find the truth about Kerry since he almost single-handedly is responsible for smearing all Viet Nam vets. I think there is substance to the Swift Boat claims since it's Kerry who has changed his story, not the Swifties. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen wrote:
In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are still open. OSAF. The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s. Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie they choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their candidate the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced. I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on Bush's doorstep. Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son. You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans. Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same? If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper basket,' I might agree with you about Bush. The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat ads to be pulled. Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did not. Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison. Now go play by yourself. Don't forget to use one of these (OT) next time you start a political attack thread. Political attack threads are one of his favorite activities. Personal attack threads are a close second. He has a documented RAO history of initiating both - and quite frequently. No wonder he identifies with a political party known for its smear tactics - even against other Republicans (John McCain - 1980) as well as Vietnam heroes like Max Cleland. Bruce J. Richman |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:29:04 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. Well, when they stretch the truth, maybe they should be spanked. We're already hearing untrue things bandied around, things like you only get a Purple Heart for "enemy fire", for instance and that this would disqualify his first Purple Heart (it wouldn't). We have a doctor who comes out of the woodwork claiming that he treated Kerry, but it's his corpsman who's the "doctor of record" (funny how the doctor treats every scratch, right)?. Also, he suddenly remembers all sorts of details about a minor injury to a Naval LT (jj) that he treated 35 years ago. We have reports saying that you could "request" leaving a combat zone after 3 Purple Hearts when Naval regs at the time REQUIRED transfer out of the combat zone (although you *could* request to stay if you were gung-ho). Anyone can say anything they want about things that happened 35 years ago, so you pretty much have to go on the written record. And the written record supports Kerry. I'm with Bush though - let's get rid of all of the 527s please. However, Bush shouldn't be such a weasel and condemn those specific ads (talk about parsing his words carefully). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Weil wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:29:04 GMT, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. Well, when they stretch the truth, maybe they should be spanked. We're already hearing untrue things bandied around, things like you only get a Purple Heart for "enemy fire", for instance and that this would disqualify his first Purple Heart (it wouldn't). We have a doctor who comes out of the woodwork claiming that he treated Kerry, but it's his corpsman who's the "doctor of record" (funny how the doctor treats every scratch, right)?. Also, he suddenly remembers all sorts of details about a minor injury to a Naval LT (jj) that he treated 35 years ago. We have reports saying that you could "request" leaving a combat zone after 3 Purple Hearts when Naval regs at the time REQUIRED transfer out of the combat zone (although you *could* request to stay if you were gung-ho). Anyone can say anything they want about things that happened 35 years ago, so you pretty much have to go on the written record. And the written record supports Kerry. I'm with Bush though - let's get rid of all of the 527s please. However, Bush shouldn't be such a weasel and condemn those specific ads (talk about parsing his words carefully). That might be a good idea. That said, it's worth noting that Bush did *not* even condemn (in a vague, non-specific way) *any* of these ads for several weeks *after* the first appearance of the attack ads against Kerry by the so-called Swift Boat Veterans. It's no accident that his rather belated and transparently cynnical "condemnation" comes only after mounting evidence that the Swift Boat Vetrans for Truth were blatantly lying (according to actual Navy records and eyewitness accounts). In all likelihood, Bush's handlers advised him to try and bury this issue before it buried him - via public backlash from uncomitted voters who resent personal attacks in political campaigns. Bruce J. Richman |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article k.net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are still open. OSAF. The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry. At least that's the way it gets reported. When you hear them speak in context, it's somewhat different. L-y-i-n-g. The real deal, the telling of deliberate untruths. Even the formerly dormant press is catching on. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s. Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie they choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their candidate the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced. I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on Bush's doorstep. But that's not what they're asking for. Says who? Side issue, anyway. This was all started with the Swifties, aided by the Bush campaign. Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son. OSAF. They made up stuff about: Dukakis, Clinton, McCain, Gore, and now Kerry. You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans. Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same? If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper basket,' I might agree with you about Bush. He instructed all his records be released and they were. To the press. This is a side-issue that Bush has lost. Whether he was technically AWOL when he blew off reporting to safe domestic service isn't much of an issue. The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat ads to be pulled. Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did not. Which is meaningless to this discussion. I don't accept your definition of 'meaningless'. Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison. It's important to find the truth about Kerry since he almost single-handedly is responsible for smearing all Viet Nam vets. Ah, the "Winter Soldiers" talking point. Kerry stood up for all Vietnam vets by acknowledging the real experience of Vietnam for some. I think there is substance to the Swift Boat claims since it's Kerry who has changed his story, not the Swifties. The Swifts are liars. This is your chance to recognize the McCarthy tactics at work. Free your mind. Start by turning off your radio. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are still open. OSAF. The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry. At least that's the way it gets reported. When you hear them speak in context, it's somewhat different. L-y-i-n-g. The real deal, the telling of deliberate untruths. Even the formerly dormant press is catching on. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s. Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie they choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their candidate the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced. I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on Bush's doorstep. But that's not what they're asking for. Says who? Max Cleland for one. They want the spots pulled from the air. Side issue, anyway. Big issue. Censorship of political speech. This was all started with the Swifties, aided by the Bush campaign. Not proven, even if true not worse than the moveon.org people and the Kerry campaign. Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son. OSAF. They made up stuff about: Dukakis, Clinton, McCain, Gore, and now Kerry. No proof of the Swift Boat people co-ordinating with the Bush campaign. You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans. Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same? If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper basket,' I might agree with you about Bush. He instructed all his records be released and they were. To the press. This is a side-issue that Bush has lost. Whether he was technically AWOL when he blew off reporting to safe domestic service isn't much of an issue. The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat ads to be pulled. Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did not. Which is meaningless to this discussion. I don't accept your definition of 'meaningless'. Bush became a pilot, his asking not to be sent overseas is of no consequence. If the miltary wants you somewhere, you go. Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison. It's important to find the truth about Kerry since he almost single-handedly is responsible for smearing all Viet Nam vets. Ah, the "Winter Soldiers" talking point. Kerry stood up for all Vietnam vets by acknowledging the real experience of Vietnam for some. More OSAF. I think there is substance to the Swift Boat claims since it's Kerry who has changed his story, not the Swifties. The Swifts are liars. Then why has Kerry changed his story when challenged on it by the Swifties? This is your chance to recognize the McCarthy tactics at work. Free your mind. Start by turning off your radio. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... Stephen wrote: In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are still open. OSAF. The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s. Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie they choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their candidate the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced. I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on Bush's doorstep. Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son. You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans. Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same? If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper basket,' I might agree with you about Bush. The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat ads to be pulled. Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did not. Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison. Now go play by yourself. Don't forget to use one of these (OT) next time you start a political attack thread. Political attack threads are one of his favorite activities. Personal attack threads are a close second. He has a documented RAO history of initiating both - and quite frequently. I think you may have the edge in attacks Bruce since you pretty much stopped doing anything else about 2 months after you showed up here. No wonder he identifies with a political party known for its smear tactics - I do not identify with the Democrats who are the leaders of smear IMO. even against other Republicans (John McCain - 1980) as well as Vietnam heroes like Max Cleland. Cleland is one of the people wanting to violate the free speech of the swifties. McCain still campaigns for Bush. As does the mayor of Youngstown Ohio, I love his name. Bruce J. Richman |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Political attack threads are one of his favorite activities. Personal attack threads are a close second. He has a documented RAO history of initiating both - and quite frequently. Concerning political threads McKelvy is without possible contestations the RAO first class troller. Concerning personal attack threads, hypocrit attitude, character assassination (lol), defamation, slandering, abusive diagnostics on public forums, unethical attitude and libel our coward licenced psychologist and Jewish zealot(*) the good Doctor Bruce J. Richman win in all categories. :-) Note that if you have had the good taste to chose a French president you would not have any metaphysical concerns about his real or fictive bravoure. ;-) (*) Bruce J. Richman is now a world class luminary since he has actively participated to the training of Abou Ghraib jailers as psychologist consultor. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... Dave Weil wrote: On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:29:04 GMT, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. Well, when they stretch the truth, maybe they should be spanked. We're already hearing untrue things bandied around, things like you only get a Purple Heart for "enemy fire", for instance and that this would disqualify his first Purple Heart (it wouldn't). The regs at the time allowed for the awarding of a purple heart for unintentional self inflicted wounds, but only if enemy fire is present. According to Kerry's own journal entry 9 days afte the date of the incident, he had not been shot at. We have a doctor who comes out of the woodwork claiming that he treated Kerry, but it's his corpsman who's the "doctor of record" (funny how the doctor treats every scratch, right)?. Also, he suddenly remembers all sorts of details about a minor injury to a Naval LT (jj) that he treated 35 years ago. We have reports saying that you could "request" leaving a combat zone after 3 Purple Hearts when Naval regs at the time REQUIRED transfer out of the combat zone (although you *could* request to stay if you were gung-ho). Anyone can say anything they want about things that happened 35 years ago, so you pretty much have to go on the written record. And the written record supports Kerry. I'm with Bush though - let's get rid of all of the 527s please. However, Bush shouldn't be such a weasel and condemn those specific ads (talk about parsing his words carefully). That might be a good idea. That said, it's worth noting that Bush did *not* even condemn (in a vague, non-specific way) *any* of these ads for several weeks *after* the first appearance of the attack ads against Kerry by the so-called Swift Boat Veterans. It's no accident that his rather belated and transparently cynnical "condemnation" comes only after mounting evidence that the Swift Boat Vetrans for Truth were blatantly lying (according to actual Navy records and eyewitness accounts). Or maybe it has to with the fact there might be a connection between the Swift Boat ads and the fact that Kerry's poll numbers have fallen amongst Vetrans, and that he has had to change his story since their ads started running. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are still open. OSAF. The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry. At least that's the way it gets reported. When you hear them speak in context, it's somewhat different. L-y-i-n-g. The real deal, the telling of deliberate untruths. Even the formerly dormant press is catching on. Lying! Yes, fabrication, deception, bearing false witness. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s. Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie they choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their candidate the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced. I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on Bush's doorstep. But that's not what they're asking for. Says who? Max Cleland for one. They want the spots pulled from the air. 'Want', not the same as 'order'. Side issue, anyway. 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? And why won't Bush step out of his house to greet him? This was all started with the Swifties, aided by the Bush campaign. Not proven, even if true not worse than the moveon.org people and the Kerry campaign. The moveon.org ads aren't fabricated, so it's not an equivalent situation. Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son. OSAF. They made up stuff about: Dukakis, Clinton, McCain, Gore, and now Kerry. No proof of the Swift Boat people co-ordinating with the Bush campaign. It doesn't matter. Besides, Rove doesn't leave proof. You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans. Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same? If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper basket,' I might agree with you about Bush. He instructed all his records be released and they were. To the press. This is a side-issue that Bush has lost. Whether he was technically AWOL when he blew off reporting to safe domestic service isn't much of an issue. The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat ads to be pulled. Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did not. Which is meaningless to this discussion. I don't accept your definition of 'meaningless'. Bush became a pilot, his asking not to be sent overseas is of no consequence. If the miltary wants you somewhere, you go. To campaign for a GOP senate race. Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison. It's important to find the truth about Kerry since he almost single-handedly is responsible for smearing all Viet Nam vets. Ah, the "Winter Soldiers" talking point. Kerry stood up for all Vietnam vets by acknowledging the real experience of Vietnam for some. More OSAF. That doesn't change it. Besides, your statement is all but nonsense. I think there is substance to the Swift Boat claims since it's Kerry who has changed his story, not the Swifties. The Swifts are liars. Then why has Kerry changed his story when challenged on it by the Swifties? Any changes are inconsequential. The Swifties have no proof, no credibility and are transparently partisan. This is your chance to recognize the McCarthy tactics at work. Free your mind. Start by turning off your radio. Media Matters has a good website. They link to original sources (news clips, etc) so you can use your own judgment. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are still open. OSAF. The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry. At least that's the way it gets reported. When you hear them speak in context, it's somewhat different. L-y-i-n-g. The real deal, the telling of deliberate untruths. Even the formerly dormant press is catching on. Not so's you'd notice. They did scores of stories on the 3 major networks about Bush supposedly being AWOl, they've done about 8 on the Swift Boat allegations. Lying! Yes, fabrication, deception, bearing false witness. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s. Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie they choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their candidate the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced. I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on Bush's doorstep. But that's not what they're asking for. Says who? Max Cleland for one. They want the spots pulled from the air. 'Want', not the same as 'order'. Nobody from the Bush campaign even hinted at such a thing for the Democrat 527's which have spent 4 times as much. Side issue, anyway. 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. And why won't Bush step out of his house to greet him? No reason to participate in political theatre, especially since yesterday it was Kerry who said we should move on and start talking about the issues. This was all started with the Swifties, aided by the Bush campaign. Not proven, even if true not worse than the moveon.org people and the Kerry campaign. The moveon.org ads aren't fabricated, Bull****. so it's not an equivalent situation. Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son. OSAF. They made up stuff about: Dukakis, Clinton, McCain, Gore, and now Kerry. No proof of the Swift Boat people co-ordinating with the Bush campaign. It doesn't matter. Besides, Rove doesn't leave proof. Then the ad should continue and Kerry should release his records. The seriousness of the charge warrents an investigation. You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans. Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same? If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper basket,' I might agree with you about Bush. He instructed all his records be released and they were. To the press. This is a side-issue that Bush has lost. Whether he was technically AWOL when he blew off reporting to safe domestic service isn't much of an issue. The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat ads to be pulled. Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did not. Which is meaningless to this discussion. I don't accept your definition of 'meaningless'. Bush became a pilot, his asking not to be sent overseas is of no consequence. If the miltary wants you somewhere, you go. To campaign for a GOP senate race. He had permission. Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison. It's important to find the truth about Kerry since he almost single-handedly is responsible for smearing all Viet Nam vets. Ah, the "Winter Soldiers" talking point. Kerry stood up for all Vietnam vets by acknowledging the real experience of Vietnam for some. More OSAF. That doesn't change it. Besides, your statement is all but nonsense. 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. I think there is substance to the Swift Boat claims since it's Kerry who has changed his story, not the Swifties. The Swifts are liars. Then why has Kerry changed his story when challenged on it by the Swifties? Any changes are inconsequential. They got him to retract the bull**** about being in Cambodia. Hardly inconsequential. The Swifties have no proof, no credibility and are transparently partisan. This is your chance to recognize the McCarthy tactics at work. Free your mind. Start by turning off your radio. Media Matters has a good website. They link to original sources (news clips, etc) so you can use your own judgment. I always do. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are still open. OSAF. The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry. At least that's the way it gets reported. When you hear them speak in context, it's somewhat different. L-y-i-n-g. The real deal, the telling of deliberate untruths. Even the formerly dormant press is catching on. Not so's you'd notice. They did scores of stories on the 3 major networks about Bush supposedly being AWOl, they've done about 8 on the Swift Boat allegations. The LA Times, the NY Times, and the Washington Post have discredited the Swifts. Despite this, the attacks continue. Again, you're trying to make equivalent unequal things. Lying! Yes, fabrication, deception, bearing false witness. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s. Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie they choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their candidate the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced. I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on Bush's doorstep. But that's not what they're asking for. Says who? Max Cleland for one. They want the spots pulled from the air. 'Want', not the same as 'order'. Nobody from the Bush campaign even hinted at such a thing for the Democrat 527's which have spent 4 times as much. So what? Side issue, anyway. 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? And why won't Bush step out of his house to greet him? No reason to participate in political theatre, especially since yesterday it was Kerry who said we should move on and start talking about the issues. Didja know the guy Dubya sent out in his place took money from the big Swiftee backer? This was all started with the Swifties, aided by the Bush campaign. Not proven, even if true not worse than the moveon.org people and the Kerry campaign. The moveon.org ads aren't fabricated, Bull****. Besides, Kerry denounced them explicitly, not like Bush's equivocation. so it's not an equivalent situation. Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son. OSAF. They made up stuff about: Dukakis, Clinton, McCain, Gore, and now Kerry. No proof of the Swift Boat people co-ordinating with the Bush campaign. It doesn't matter. Besides, Rove doesn't leave proof. Then the ad should continue and Kerry should release his records. The seriousness of the charge warrents an investigation. No, the ad having been shown to be false should be discontinued. The Navy has explicitly supported Kerry's story. You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans. Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same? If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper basket,' I might agree with you about Bush. He instructed all his records be released and they were. To the press. This is a side-issue that Bush has lost. Whether he was technically AWOL when he blew off reporting to safe domestic service isn't much of an issue. The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat ads to be pulled. Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did not. Which is meaningless to this discussion. I don't accept your definition of 'meaningless'. Bush became a pilot, his asking not to be sent overseas is of no consequence. If the miltary wants you somewhere, you go. To campaign for a GOP senate race. He had permission. He's still missing two months. Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison. It's important to find the truth about Kerry since he almost single-handedly is responsible for smearing all Viet Nam vets. Ah, the "Winter Soldiers" talking point. Kerry stood up for all Vietnam vets by acknowledging the real experience of Vietnam for some. More OSAF. That doesn't change it. Besides, your statement is all but nonsense. 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. Stories of Vietnam atrocities are still coming out. You can't blame Kerry for the sins of the US government, Johnson, and Nixon. I think there is substance to the Swift Boat claims since it's Kerry who has changed his story, not the Swifties. The Swifts are liars. Then why has Kerry changed his story when challenged on it by the Swifties? Any changes are inconsequential. They got him to retract the bull**** about being in Cambodia. Hardly inconsequential. 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. The Swifties have no proof, no credibility and are transparently partisan. This is your chance to recognize the McCarthy tactics at work. Free your mind. Start by turning off your radio. Media Matters has a good website. They link to original sources (news clips, etc) so you can use your own judgment. I always do. You give the impression of someone who has collected 'talking points' in order to repeat them. On top of that, you seem to have trouble assimilating contradictory information when you are shown your way to it. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 said:
In article .net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: snip 200+ lines of political "debate" http://lelombrik.free.fr/LoMBriK/STFU.jpg -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote: MINe 109 said: In article .net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: snip 200+ lines of political "debate" http://lelombrik.free.fr/LoMBriK/STFU.jpg Girlie-men, beware! http://tinyurl.com/4sv7z As I'm the only one responding to the off-topic political threads, I'll declare victory and go home. Stephen |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Michael McKelvy wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. Who CARES? Really. Both of them were questionable back as young adults. This is just a tactic by Bush to avoid the debate moving to experience - because 20+ years in government is actually fairly impressive. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Michael McKelvy wrote: Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same? The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat ads to be pulled. There's a spot in Farenhieght 9/11 where Moore shows a copy of Bush's service record that he obtained several years before Bush released his version - and that he held onto. The interesting thing is that it clearly shows the name of the other person who was named alone with him. Just ask him what happened. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... Dave Weil wrote: That might be a good idea. That said, it's worth noting that Bush did *not* even condemn (in a vague, non-specific way) *any* of these ads for several weeks *after* the first appearance of the attack ads against Kerry by the so-called Swift Boat Veterans. I heard a couple of attorneys on both side debate the legality of 527's and the requirement to prove control and coordination with a campaign to disallow the 527 exemption. Both agreed the president could condemn specific adds from a group provided it caused no reaction. If the president condemned a swift boat add and they pulled it as a consequence, he risked being in violation of the law. Reality is the dems revealed the potential of 527's with the success of moveon.org . Now they're regretting it. I also have to say the first add has some disputeable content but the book still shows him to be a repeat liar (christmas in Cambodia). However the second (current add) is Kerry's own words and reveals him to be the traitor he is. The resentment to his antiwar actions among Vietnam vets appears to be very strong. ScottW |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message hlink.net... Michael McKelvy wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. Who CARES? Really. Both of them were questionable back as young adults. This is just a tactic by Bush to avoid the debate moving to experience - because 20+ years in government is actually fairly impressive. With what accomplishments to show for those 20+ years? The ability to get reelected in Mass.? ScottW |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"ScottW" a écrit dans le message news:
q0nXc.46509$yh.5830@fed1read05... "Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message hlink.net... Michael McKelvy wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. Who CARES? Really. Both of them were questionable back as young adults. This is just a tactic by Bush to avoid the debate moving to experience - because 20+ years in government is actually fairly impressive. With what accomplishments to show for those 20+ years? The ability to get reelected in Mass.? Taratatarata! Tararatataratata! Tatratatatraratatatatata! ScottW is back on the battlefield. :-) Nice to see you back and well Scott... Dave was a little bit depressed past last months. I guess that he will recover soon all his vitality. :-) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW wrote: "Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message hlink.net... Michael McKelvy wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. Who CARES? Really. Both of them were questionable back as young adults. This is just a tactic by Bush to avoid the debate moving to experience - because 20+ years in government is actually fairly impressive. With what accomplishments to show for those 20+ years? The ability to get reelected in Mass.? I doubt if you could or I survive in politics for that long. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:05:36 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... Dave Weil wrote: That might be a good idea. That said, it's worth noting that Bush did *not* even condemn (in a vague, non-specific way) *any* of these ads for several weeks *after* the first appearance of the attack ads against Kerry by the so-called Swift Boat Veterans. I heard a couple of attorneys on both side debate the legality of 527's and the requirement to prove control and coordination with a campaign to disallow the 527 exemption. Both agreed the president could condemn specific adds from a group provided it caused no reaction. If the president condemned a swift boat add and they pulled it as a consequence, he risked being in violation of the law. So, does this mean that the President has lost the right of free expression? Reality is the dems revealed the potential of 527's with the success of moveon.org . Now they're regretting it. I don't disagree, although there is a long history from both sides of this sort of brokered advertising. I'm tired of having side groups do the dirty work for the candidates. This doesn't mean that they can't air the most foul sort of invective, but they'd better have their facts straight or face the consequences. I also have to say the first add has some disputeable content but the book still shows him to be a repeat liar (christmas in Cambodia). I don't think that this proves that he's a liar. I think that it shows the fog of war. I can certainly imagine being 5 miles one side or the other of the border in jungle terrain and thinking that you've crossed that border. However the second (current add) is Kerry's own words and reveals him to be the traitor he is. The resentment to his antiwar actions among Vietnam vets appears to be very strong. 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? 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? 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. ScottW |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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? Just guessing here, but doesn't that which is actually said have something to do with it? I guess content means nothing in Weil-land. Or, did I lose track of something in the midst of all the Weilish? 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? This is interesting. In the first paragraph Weil suggests that merely knowing the topic is sufficent to judge the statement. Now, he changes his belief system to claim that it isn't sufficient to know the topic, but one must personally experience it? Given that the ground undulates in Weil-land, does that mean that visitors should take Dramamine 2 hours before entering? Vietnam vets are entitled to feel however they'd like about it. I thought this was about statements not emotions. I can hear verbal and read written statements, but unlike Weil I can't read minds too well. But when they start stretching the truth, they are just as accountable as the rest of us. I thought that being there was required? Now, all that is required is being accountable? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"ScottW" wrote in message news:a%mXc.46508$yh.1224@fed1read05... "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... Dave Weil wrote: That might be a good idea. That said, it's worth noting that Bush did *not* even condemn (in a vague, non-specific way) *any* of these ads for several weeks *after* the first appearance of the attack ads against Kerry by the so-called Swift Boat Veterans. I heard a couple of attorneys on both side debate the legality of 527's and the requirement to prove control and coordination with a campaign to disallow the 527 exemption. Both agreed the president could condemn specific adds from a group provided it caused no reaction. If the president condemned a swift boat add and they pulled it as a consequence, he risked being in violation of the law. Reality is the dems revealed the potential of 527's with the success of moveon.org . Now they're regretting it. I also have to say the first add has some disputeable content but the book still shows him to be a repeat liar (christmas in Cambodia). However the second (current add) is Kerry's own words and reveals him to be the traitor he is. The resentment to his antiwar actions among Vietnam vets appears to be very strong. Now his minions are out to trash the personal lives of the vets willing to stand up to his (I'll be nice here) 'embellishments'. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message k.net... ScottW wrote: "Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message hlink.net... Michael McKelvy wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. Who CARES? Really. Both of them were questionable back as young adults. This is just a tactic by Bush to avoid the debate moving to experience - because 20+ years in government is actually fairly impressive. With what accomplishments to show for those 20+ years? The ability to get reelected in Mass.? I doubt if you could or I survive in politics for that long. You're not a good enough liar, I suppose! |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"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? 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? 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. YES! SCORE! |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" 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? Just guessing here, but doesn't that which is actually said have something to do with it? I guess content means nothing in Weil-land. Or, did I lose track of something in the midst of all the Weilish? 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? This is interesting. In the first paragraph Weil suggests that merely knowing the topic is sufficent to judge the statement. Now, he changes his belief system to claim that it isn't sufficient to know the topic, but one must personally experience it? Given that the ground undulates in Weil-land, does that mean that visitors should take Dramamine 2 hours before entering? Vietnam vets are entitled to feel however they'd like about it. I thought this was about statements not emotions. I can hear verbal and read written statements, but unlike Weil I can't read minds too well. But when they start stretching the truth, they are just as accountable as the rest of us. I thought that being there was required? Now, all that is required is being accountable? Arny, this is a discussion about truth and virtue. You are definitey NOT invited. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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? 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. 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. 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. (note: reply via reply due to cox news server being down half the day and missing numerours posts). ScottW |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. 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? 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. (note: reply via reply due to cox news server being down half the day and missing numerours posts). |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:37:44 -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? Actually, according to the regs, he did not, if one sticks to the factual unembellished events. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article et, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during his National Guard service. That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are still open. OSAF. The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry. At least that's the way it gets reported. When you hear them speak in context, it's somewhat different. L-y-i-n-g. The real deal, the telling of deliberate untruths. Even the formerly dormant press is catching on. Not so's you'd notice. They did scores of stories on the 3 major networks about Bush supposedly being AWOl, they've done about 8 on the Swift Boat allegations. The LA Times, the NY Times, and the Washington Post have discredited the Swifts. Despite this, the attacks continue. The 3 newpapers you mention are decidedly pro Kerry, their investigations ain't worth spit. Again, you're trying to make equivalent unequal things. Lying! Yes, fabrication, deception, bearing false witness. It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced. No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s. Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie they choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their candidate the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced. I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on Bush's doorstep. But that's not what they're asking for. Says who? Max Cleland for one. They want the spots pulled from the air. 'Want', not the same as 'order'. Nobody from the Bush campaign even hinted at such a thing for the Democrat 527's which have spent 4 times as much. So what? Side issue, anyway. 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. And why won't Bush step out of his house to greet him? No reason to participate in political theatre, especially since yesterday it was Kerry who said we should move on and start talking about the issues. Didja know the guy Dubya sent out in his place took money from the big Swiftee backer? Didn't know and don't care. This was all started with the Swifties, aided by the Bush campaign. Not proven, even if true not worse than the moveon.org people and the Kerry campaign. The moveon.org ads aren't fabricated, Bull****. Besides, Kerry denounced them explicitly, not like Bush's equivocation. so it's not an equivalent situation. Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son. OSAF. They made up stuff about: Dukakis, Clinton, McCain, Gore, and now Kerry. No proof of the Swift Boat people co-ordinating with the Bush campaign. It doesn't matter. Besides, Rove doesn't leave proof. Then the ad should continue and Kerry should release his records. The seriousness of the charge warrents an investigation. No, the ad having been shown to be false should be discontinued. Sorry there's still that pesky 1st Ammendment. They have not been PROVEN to be false. The Navy has explicitly supported Kerry's story. You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans. Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same? If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper basket,' I might agree with you about Bush. He instructed all his records be released and they were. To the press. This is a side-issue that Bush has lost. Whether he was technically AWOL when he blew off reporting to safe domestic service isn't much of an issue. The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat ads to be pulled. Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did not. Which is meaningless to this discussion. I don't accept your definition of 'meaningless'. Bush became a pilot, his asking not to be sent overseas is of no consequence. If the miltary wants you somewhere, you go. To campaign for a GOP senate race. He had permission. He's still missing two months. With permission. Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison. It's important to find the truth about Kerry since he almost single-handedly is responsible for smearing all Viet Nam vets. Ah, the "Winter Soldiers" talking point. Kerry stood up for all Vietnam vets by acknowledging the real experience of Vietnam for some. More OSAF. That doesn't change it. Besides, your statement is all but nonsense. 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. Stories of Vietnam atrocities are still coming out. You can't blame Kerry for the sins of the US government, Johnson, and Nixon. I don't, I blame him for his own sins, either he's a liar or a war criminal. I think there is substance to the Swift Boat claims since it's Kerry who has changed his story, not the Swifties. The Swifts are liars. Then why has Kerry changed his story when challenged on it by the Swifties? Any changes are inconsequential. They got him to retract the bull**** about being in Cambodia. Hardly inconsequential. 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. The Swifties have no proof, no credibility and are transparently partisan. This is your chance to recognize the McCarthy tactics at work. Free your mind. Start by turning off your radio. Media Matters has a good website. They link to original sources (news clips, etc) so you can use your own judgment. I always do. You give the impression of someone who has collected 'talking points' in order to repeat them. As do you. 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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote: The 3 newpapers you mention are decidedly pro Kerry, their investigations ain't worth spit. Where'd that open mind go? How about a nice cuppa? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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. Next! |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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? |