Ann Coulter on Kerry

[NightTrain]

Let's review. You seem to be experiencing technical difficulties.

A) I posted an excerpt from her new book outlining some facts about Kerry.

B) You posted a reply to the effect that she's full of shit.

C) I asked if you just didn't like what she said, or if she was incorrect.

D) You responded with a site that has nothing to do with the topic.

E) I pointed out that your site has nothing to do with the topic.

F) You replied that it was the first site you found. And that I didn't respond to your site that doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.


I'm detecting reluctance on your part to engage in an honest discussion of Ann Coulter's take on Kerry.

If you'd like to bow out, just say so. Otherwise, may I suggest that you look beyond your first site that you happened across and keep the discussion on track?

 

[Annie]

NT I think what ya got there is a 'failure to communicate.'

 

[Calypso]

In the spirit of the upcoming election, I am going to break this article down in a Bush vs. Kerry format. My comments are in bold, with the original text posted in-between.

Kerry was indisputably brave in Vietnam, and it's kind of cute to see Democrats pretend to admire military service. Physical courage, like chastity, is something liberals usually deride, but are tickled when it accidentally manifests itself in one of their own. One has to stand in awe of Kerry's military service 33 years ago. Of course, that's where it ends, including with Kerry -- inasmuch as, upon his return from war in 1970, he promptly began trashing his fellow Vietnam vets by calling them genocidal murderers.

The fact that even Ann Coulter has to admit that Kerry was “indisputably brave” says it all. Republicans – why won’t you listen to this woman that you love you so much? Kerry is brave! When he came back from the war, he proved he was even braver by standing up and protesting the war on behalf of his fellow Vietnam vets. I have yet to ever see an account or transcript of Kerry calling his fellow vets “genocidal murderers” – but if one of you can point me to it I will read it. He did describe some of the atrocities committed during the war in his 1971 Senate Testimony.

George Bush gets a big fat “F” in this category, which Coulter admits at the start of the next category. He not good at going to war himself, but he’s good at sending others to do it!

But if Bush can't talk to Kerry about the horrors of war, then Kerry sure as hell can't talk to anyone about the plight of the middle class. Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by marrying their wives and daughters. For over 30 years, Kerry's primary occupation has been stalking lonely heiresses. Not to get back to his combat experience, but Kerry sees a room full of wealthy widows as "a target-rich environment." This is a guy whose experience dealing with tax problems is based on spending his entire adult life being supported by rich women.

What does a kept man know about taxes? In 1970, Kerry married into the family of Julia Thorne -- a family estimated to be worth about $300 million. She got depressed, so he promptly left her and was soon seen catting around with Hollywood starlets, mostly while the cad was still married.
(Apparently, JFK really was his mentor.)

Thorne is well-bred enough to say nothing ill of her Lothario ex-husband. He is, after all, the father of her children -- a fact that never seemed to constrain him. When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled -- and Heinz is worth more than $700 million.

Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests, but he can't even stand up to his wife. Heinz made Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement, presumably aware of how careless he is with other people's property, such as other people's Vietnam War medals, which Kerry threw on the ground during a 1971 anti-war demonstration.

At pains to make Kerry sound like a normal American, his campaign has described how Kerry risked everything, mortgaging his home in Boston to help pay for his presidential campaign. Technically, Kerry took out a $6 million mortgage for "his share" of "the family's home" -- which was bought with the Heinz family fortune.
(Why should he spend his own money? He didn't throw away his own medals.)

I'm sure the average working stiff in Massachusetts can relate to a guy who borrows $6 million against his house to pay for TV ads. Kerry's campaign has stoutly insisted that he will pay off the mortgage himself, with no help from his rich wife. Let's see: According to tax returns released by his campaign, in 2002, Kerry's income was $144,091.

But as The Washington Post recently reported, even a $5 million mortgage paid back over 30 years at favorable interest rates would cost $30,389 a month or $364,668 a year.

This all boils down to a lot of petty insults and one fact: Kerry is rich.

What, Bush isn’t rich? He’s a multi-millionaire! His 1,583-acre ranch near Crawford, Texas has a man-made lake stocked with bass, seven canyons and miles of creek front.

According to Forbes Magazine, should Kerry be elected he would be the third richest president ever when accounting for inflation. Guess who the richest would be? George Washington. No U.S president has ever been an average Joe, and may I suggest it’s not necessarily a bad thing.

The Democrats' joy at nominating Kerry is perplexing. To be sure, liberals take a peculiar, wrathful pleasure in supporting pacifist military types. And Kerry's life story is not without a certain feral aggression.

But if we're going to determine fitness for office based on life experience, Kerry clearly has no experience dealing with problems of typical Americans since he is a cad and a gigolo living in the lap of other men's money.

Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born poseur with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich woman's money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him to run for president.

Wow! Three entire paragraphs of nothing but immature name-calling!

I’d also like to take this space to reply to the attacks on Kerry’s personal life. I am of the opinion that if he gets the job done well, then I don’t care what he does in his free time (I love Bill Clinton!) – but in case you still want to make it an issue, here’s a sampling of the track record for the “moral party”, your fellow republicans:

Rep. Henry Hyde - Broke up a family during his seven-year adulterous affair!
Mike Bowers - Cheated on his wife for FIFTEEN YEARS!
George Bush - Linda Tripp says had he an affair with a woman named "Jennifer"
Newt Gingrich Dumped his ex-wife while she was in a hospital bed suffering from cancer....
Bob Dole - Cheated on his first wife with his current wife, Elizabeth Dole.
Ronald Reagan - Dumped Jane Wyman by cheating on her with several Hollywood starlets (why does that sound familiar …)
Guy Millner - Has been married three times, partly because he has sex with women he isn't married to....
Rush Limbaugh - Fat as he may be, he cheated on two of his three wives...
Bill Randall - A Florida Congressional candidate and minister, he fathered an illegitimate child during his affair!
Bill McCartney - Promise Keepers founder who didn't keep his Promise to his wife and then lied about it for 20 years!
Rep. Dan Burton - Had at least six adulterous affairs, and fathered a bastard son who, today, he ignores!!
Rep. Bob Barr - Cheated on all three of his wives - and coerced one into having an abortion - then lied about it! (I thought republicans were pro-life?)
Sen. Strom Thurmond - Cheated on his fourth wife at age 88!!

You can find these and more at http://www.americaheldhostile.com/cheating.html

If Democrats want to talk about middle-class tax cuts, couldn't they nominate someone who hasn't been a poodle to rich women for past 33 years? Don't forget -- John Kerry is strong on defense:

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988
He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system
He voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle
He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16
He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
He voted to Kill the B-1
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the Patriot anti Missile system
He voted to Kill the FA-18
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the F117

In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops.
With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs. He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of the US Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%.

But then he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800%!!!

As stated before in this forum, a lot of these votes were actually concerning much broader financial spending bills, and not concerned with specific weapons systems. Still, Kerry did vote against spending money on these weapons systems. What was he thinking? Maybe he was swayed by the opinions of George H.W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

President Bush's own father announced in his 1992 State of the Union address that he would be ceasing further production of B-2 bombers and MX missiles, and would cut military spending by 30 percent over several years.

Three days later, in a speech before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Dick Cheney said:

“Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.”

Then he attacked the then democratically controlled congress, including Kerry:

“Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.”

These votes came at a time when America at large was more concerned about budgeting than defense. Wow, hindsight is a $@%&!.

But you don’t need hindsight to see that Bush’s budget cuts are undermining our military. He cuts spending and denies help to our soldiers while the country is actively at war! This article on the Army Times website recounts just a few … http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php
Here’s an excerpt for those of you who will just scream in outrage and not actually go and read the link:

“… the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.”

So, Bush tends to fair about the same or worse in areas that you guys consider to be John Kerry’s weak points. Should I even bother to go onto Bush’s weak points? I think my point is proven. Thanks for the help Ann Coulter, but I still think you’re a nutcase.

 

[NightTrain]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Calypso. Let's stay on topic and focus on Kerry in this thread, you're more than welcome to start another thread discussing Bush and other Republicans.

The fact that even Ann Coulter has to admit that Kerry was “indisputably brave” says it all. Republicans – why won’t you listen to this woman that you love you so much? Kerry is brave! When he came back from the war, he proved he was even braver by standing up and protesting the war on behalf of his fellow Vietnam vets. I have yet to ever see an account or transcript of Kerry calling his fellow vets “genocidal murderers” – but if one of you can point me to it I will read it. He did describe some of the atrocities committed during the war in his 1971 Senate Testimony.

Here's an article written by a Green Beret that served two combat tours in Vietnam and was highly decorated :

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004...iVietnam.War.Efforts.Unpatriotic-681312.shtml

-SNIP- From Valley Forge, Kerry and Fonda headed for Detroit and their next propaganda scheme - the Winter Soldier investigation, in which more than 125 self-proclaimed Vietnam veterans testified at a hotel conference that they witnessed U.S. soldiers committing wholesale rape, torture and murder in Vietnam.

After Detroit, Kerry went to the nation's capital, where, as a national leader of VVAW, he organized one of the most confrontational protests of the entire Vietnam War: Operation Dewey Canyon III. It began April 18, 1971, with nearly 1,000 Vietnam vets gathered on the Washington Mall for what they called "a limited incursion into the country of Congress."

Kerry's VVAW members mocked the uniform of U.S. soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues emblazoned with pro-communist graffiti.

VVAW activists later were dubbed as "revolutionary communists" by the Boston Herald Traveler, which reported an "abundance of Viet Cong flags, clenched fists raised in the air, and placards in support of China, Cuba, the U.S.S.R., North Korea and the Hanoi government."

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing chaired by Sen. J. William Fulbright on April 23, 1971, Kerry took his case to Congress. In a room crammed with people and television cameras, including some from the Soviet bloc, Kerry, dressed in green fatigues decorated with a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Heart ribbons, gave testimony that defined him and made possible his career in national politics.

Much of Kerry's speech was treasonous slander. With a wide brush he falsely painted the American GIs in Vietnam as so brutal that today they easily could be mistaken for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen killers.

Using unsubstantiated testimony gathered at the Winter Soldier investigation, Kerry reported to the world through the Fulbright Committee that U.S. soldiers had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

Kerry's testimony became a propaganda bonanza for the communists.

In a 1995 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Col. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and who received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975, described how individuals such as Kerry and Fonda gave aid and encouragement to Hanoi. "Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former prisoner of war, publicly complained about the testimony Kerry and others gave before the Fulbright Committee. "They used Sen. Fulbright a great deal," McCain wrote in the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S. News & World Report.

"All through this period," McCain observed, his captors were "bombarding us with antiwar quotes from people in high places back in Washington. This was the most effective propaganda they had to use against us. ... When Ramsey Clark came over, [my jailers] thought that was a great coup for their cause."

Interestingly, Col. Bui Tin was directly involved with the interrogation of American POWs during the war. He appeared before the Senate Select Committee for POW/MIA Affairs in November 1991, telling the committee that Vietnamese cadre, of whom he had charge, kept extensive files, including reports on the "behavior and thought process" of every prisoner. Bui Tin admitted that he was one of McCain's handlers because McCain was considered a "special prisoner."

Later it was discovered that many of the Winter Soldier "eyewitnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.

Kerry voiced support for the People's Peace Treaty, a supposed "people's declaration to end the war," reportedly drawn up by activists in communist East Germany. It included nine points, all of which were taken from Viet Cong peace proposals at the Paris peace talks as conditions for ending the war.

Kerry became even more of a press celebrity during the protest when he threw medals the press reported were his over a barricade and onto the steps of the Capitol. Wearing his combat jacket, Kerry addressed the rally of 250,000 demonstrators from the Capitol steps.

In less than a week Kerry was transformed from a little-known former Swift boat skipper to a national icon for a movement that spoke out against U.S. involvement in Vietnam. -SNIP-

Swift Boat Veterans For Truth :

http://coral.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=WarCrimes

Senator John Kerry has made his 4-month combat tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his bid for the Presidency. His campaign jets a handful of veterans around the country, and trots them out at public appearances to sing his praises. John Kerry wants us to believe that these men represent all those he calls his "band of brothers."

But most combat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam see him in a very different light.

-SNIP-

John Kerry's lies about the activities of the Swift boats were part of a larger pattern of deception. As a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, telling the Senators and a national audience that American troops "...had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..." and accused the U.S. military of committing war crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Kerry's charges were based on a VVAW conference called the "Winter Soldier Investigation" -- a leftist propaganda event funded primarily by Jane Fonda. None of the Winter Soldier "witnesses" Kerry cited were willing to sign affadavits, and their gruesome stories lacked the names, dates and places that would allow their claims to be tested. Few were willing to cooperate with military investigators. The Naval Investigative Service found that several of the veterans said to have given statements at Winter Soldier were in fact imposters using the name of real veterans.

False testimony and exaggerations were primary characteristics of the war crimes disinformation campaign, and also of the VVAW itself. Executive Secretary Al Hubbard, for example, claimed to have been an Air Force Captain wounded in Vietnam piloting a transport plane. In fact, Hubbard had been a staff sergeant who was not a pilot and who was never assigned to Vietnam.

John Kerry and the VVAW worked closely with America's wartime enemies, arranged multiple meetings with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong leadership, and consistently supported their positions. Kerry and his radical comrades also played a key role in defining the false, damaging image of Vietnam veterans as psychologically disabled alcoholics and addicts, haunted by the crimes they had been forced to commit in a "racist" war.

Interesting :

http://www.newsmax.com/printer.cfm?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/222651.shtml

Gen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S.

The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry with helping him achieve victory.

These Veterans ask some pointed questions that I'd like to see answered :

http://www.ussyorktown.com/yorktown/kerry.htm

Quote from someone that served with Kerry :

I am ashamed that Mr. Kerry is a member of the Swift Boat Sailors in Vietnam. I too was a "Brown Water Sailor", and a Swift Boat Sailor who served in Vietnam. I knew Mr. Kerry, and would only trust him as far as I could throw a 2 ton rock up hill......Wallace Benjamin Foreman, QM1, USN, Ret.

 

[NightTrain]

High level Vietnamese communists certainly think Kerry is a swell guy :

Kerry Honored by Vietnamese Communists

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545

Communist Vietnamese honor John Kerry, the war protestor, as a hero in their victory over the United States in the Vietnam War.
In the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum (formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum") in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), a photograph of John Kerry hangs in a room dedicated to the anti-war activists who helped the Vietnamese Communists win the Vietnam War. The photograph shows Senator Kerry being greeted by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Comrade Do Muoi.

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/owens200404230859.asp

Today, Senator Kerry appeals to veterans in his quest for the White House. He invokes his Vietnam service at every turn. But . . . how can he? If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service. Who can be proud of committing war crimes of the sort that Kerry recounted in his 1971 testimony? But if he is proud of his service today, perhaps it is because he always knew that his indictment in 1971 was a piece of political theater that he, an aspiring politician, exploited merely as a "good issue." If the latter is true, he should apologize to all the men who served in that war, for slandering them to advance his political fortunes.

— Mackubin Thomas Owens, a contributing editor to National Review Online, is a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He led a Marine infantry platoon in Vietnam in 1968-69.

 

[Calypso]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Calypso. Let's stay on topic and focus on Kerry in this thread, you're more than welcome to start another thread discussing Bush and other Republicans.

Oh well, I've already worked myself into such a fine mood here, so I think I'll just keep going. Besides, Republicans seems to believe that the idea of Kerry having ANY faults makes him an automatic no-way for President. I am not going to attempt to argue that Kerry is perfect, he's not perfect - just really good - and way better than Bush. Now, last time I checked - this presidential race was between Bush and Kerry. So the question I am asking is simple: "Who is the better man for the job?"

You say: "Well Kerry may have been brave in the war, but he protested it later! How horrible! Here's a bunch of ways that he protested! See? Doesn't that make him an awful person?"

By the way, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, one of the resources you cited, is led by the same right-wing operatives that launched a campaign 4 years ago against John McCain (which you Republicans have decided to like again right now ...) They are hardly just a bunch of old war vets with no political agenda.

I say: "You're right! Kerry did protest the war! What a bastard! Forget that in America, where we believe in freedom, it is our right and duty to protest. Forget that without protest, we would still be just a bunch of British Colonies."

Meanwhile, you conveniently forget that you are attacking John Kerry in favor of George W. Bush, a man who has never seen any combat and who has a very questionable service record!

So even if I accept your idea that protesting a war in a peaceful, mature, and organized manner is a BAD THING (which I don't), I still don't think it makes Kerry worse than a little man who likes to dress up like a pilot on a ship and say things like "bring it on" (hell I won't be there).

In fact, I'd say it makes Kerry decidedly better. While I'm at it, a rabid squirrel who decided to play chicken with a mac truck has a better record on defense than George W. Bush.

So I say again, "Who is the better man for the job?"

By the way, I still didn't see the "genocidal murderers" quote ... which makes Ann Coulter a (in the words of the great Al Franken) LIAR!"

 

[freeandfun1]

I've seen combat and I wouldn't support Kerry! So there! Bwahhhhhhhh!

Kerry's military record has NOTHING to do with why I don't like the guy and I feel sorry for you if you think that his service ALONE qualifies him.

You are grasping for straws and doing a pretty pathetic job of it quite frankly.

 

[insein]

I've seen combat and I wouldn't support Kerry! So there! Bwahhhhhhhh!

Kerry's military record has NOTHING to do with why I don't like the guy and I feel sorry for you if you think that his service ALONE qualifies him.

You are grasping for straws and doing a pretty pathetic job of it quite frankly.

We've been over this. Military record has very little to do with a person's ability to lead. Otherwise Bob Dole would have won in a landslide of Draft Dodging Bill.

I don't care if Kerry served. Thats great that he did and i commend him for answering the call of duty. But i don't want a president whose answer to every foreign policy issue is "I fought in Vietnam."

 

[Calypso]

I've seen combat and I wouldn't support Kerry! So there! Bwahhhhhhhh!

Kerry's military record has NOTHING to do with why I don't like the guy and I feel sorry for you if you think that his service ALONE qualifies him.

You are grasping for straws and doing a pretty pathetic job of it quite frankly.

Please, feel free to put some facts in your next post. I am not here to discuss political opinions with you - I think we both know we don't agree. I am genuinely looking to get opposing facts from Republicans so I can form a better opinion in the upcoming election. If you can't bother to get facts, at least post links to someone else's opinions as NightTrain has been doing (it makes it look like facts).

An how am I grasping for straws? Specific example please. Or do you think that my argument that Kerry does not have to be perfect, just better than Bush, is somehow flawed? Or maybe by grasping for straws you mean the tactic that the Bush campaign is currently using with Sandy Berger. They are somehow trying to assert that another man's crimes make John Kerry a bad candidate? Silly! Only a republican would buy that one!

Kerry's service is what I am least concered about in the upcoming election, but it also seems to be what Republicans are most concerned about, so I am trying to talk on your terms.

If you'd like I can discuss Kerry's social, economic, and environmental records, we can

OR better yet, you tell me what you think qualifies Bush to be president.

 

[5stringJeff]

If you'd like I can discuss Kerry's social, economic, and environmental records, we can

OR better yet, you tell me what you think qualifies Bush to be president.

1. Kerry has been rated the most liberal member of the Senate for a few years running. That alone gives me reason to distrust him. The fact that he wants to take both sides of every issue makes me distrust him even more. The fact that he tries to brush off criticism with "I'm a decorated Vietnam Vet" makes me distrust evn more.

2. Bush has already served as President. He has liberated two countries and reduced the threat of terrorism substantially. He has lowered taxes for everyone in America. He has also increased the scope and size of Medicare, the NEA, and the Education Dept. - something you liberals should be pleased with.

 

[freeandfun1]

Please, feel free to put some facts in your next post. I am not here to discuss political opinions with you - I think we both know we don't agree. I am genuinely looking to get opposing facts from Republicans so I can form a better opinion in the upcoming election. If you can't bother to get facts, at least post links to someone else's opinions as NightTrain has been doing (it makes it look like facts).

An how am I grasping for straws? Specific example please. Or do you think that my argument that Kerry does not have to be perfect, just better than Bush, is somehow flawed? Or maybe by grasping for straws you mean the tactic that the Bush campaign is currently using with Sandy Berger. They are somehow trying to assert that another man's crimes make John Kerry a bad candidate? Silly! Only a republican would buy that one!

Kerry's service is what I am least concered about in the upcoming election, but it also seems to be what Republicans are most concerned about, so I am trying to talk on your terms.

If you'd like I can discuss Kerry's social, economic, and environmental records, we can

OR better yet, you tell me what you think qualifies Bush to be president.

So tell me what policies he HAS voted to support. Since the man has missed 2/3's of the Senate votes, he apparently has been too busy to do what he is getting paid to do.

What is it that you want to debate about Kerry?

What makes Bush qualified..... what makes any president qualified? He was elected. And frankly, over the last nearly four years he has proven to me that he has what it takes to get a vote from me for another four years.

We have not had a terrorist attack in the USA since 9-11 which is quite amazing in my opinion. I fully expected one. So somebody is doing something right.

As far as Berger/Kerry - well, I can't believe that you are even going to TRY and defend what Berger has done. It just shows your partisanship.

 

[NightTrain]

Oh well, I've already worked myself into such a fine mood here, so I think I'll just keep going. Besides, Republicans seems to believe that the idea of Kerry having ANY faults makes him an automatic no-way for President. I am not going to attempt to argue that Kerry is perfect, he's not perfect - just really good - and way better than Bush. Now, last time I checked - this presidential race was between Bush and Kerry. So the question I am asking is simple: "Who is the better man for the job?"

Actually, no you won't. You'll abide by my polite suggestion or you'll find yourself enroute to greener internet pastures at mach 2.

You say: "Well Kerry may have been brave in the war, but he protested it later! How horrible! Here's a bunch of ways that he protested! See? Doesn't that make him an awful person?"

I see clear evidence that he aided the enemy in a time of war and was instrumental in fostering revilement of our military personnel with testimony that was based on lies by Fonda & her merry comrades. It speaks volumes about his character.

I say: "You're right! Kerry did protest the war! What a bastard! Forget that in America, where we believe in freedom, it is our right and duty to protest. Forget that without protest, we would still be just a bunch of British Colonies."

Oh. So, back in 1776, George Washington passed around a doobie to our Founding Fathers and they protested until Britain relented?

By the way, I still didn't see the "genocidal murderers" quote ... which makes Ann Coulter a (in the words of the great Al Franken) LIAR!"

Uh, did you read what he said? What else could you call the people Kerry was describing? Men having bad hair days?

 

[Calypso]

1. Kerry has been rated the most liberal member of the Senate for a few years running. That alone gives me reason to distrust him. The fact that he wants to take both sides of every issue makes me distrust him even more. The fact that he tries to brush off criticism with "I'm a decorated Vietnam Vet" makes me distrust evn more.QUOTE]

Haha ... I know you guys think liberal is a bad word, but by definition alone it is not. If you don't like liberals, that's a personal issue. If that alone makes you want to vote for Bush, I can't help you. I deal in facts.

The "both sides of every issue" is largely an argument fabricated by the right-wing. However, as discussed in my first post, he did vote against some weapons systems and then after 9/11 vote for them. As also discussed in my first post, Bush Senior and Dick Cheney are in the same boat. Things change, and a good president would adapt. But not George W! He chooses a course of action (often in conflict with the opinions of his more informed political advisors) and goes with it! He cannot adapt or change a plan to suit conflict. He calls this "steady leadership". I call this "stupidity".

As far the common Vietnam Vet defense from Kerry, as I said it's all you Republicans seem to understand. You dismiss other issues as "liberal" or "left-wing". The second Kerry stops reminding you he's a Vietnam Vet you start attacking him for his protests again. But as I said Kerry is very strong, if not stronger, in other areas. I will elaborate in my next post.

 

[Calypso]

*** edited by NT ***

You were warned. Last chance.

 

[Calypso]

warned for what? if your views are that fragile that you haveta kick a lone liberal out of a republican chat room lest they debunk your entire belief system, that is just sad.

 

[NightTrain]

You were warned and persisted in doing what you wanted to do anyway.

To reiterate, you are more than welcome to discuss Bush in another thread already dedicated to that discussion or create one yourself.

You're banned for 24 hours, after which time you may return if you so choose.

Have a nice day.

 

[5stringJeff]

The "both sides of every issue" is largely an argument fabricated by the right-wing. However, as discussed in my first post, he did vote against some weapons systems and then after 9/11 vote for them. As also discussed in my first post, Bush Senior and Dick Cheney are in the same boat. Things change, and a good president would adapt. But not George W! He chooses a course of action (often in conflict with the opinions of his more informed political advisors) and goes with it! He cannot adapt or change a plan to suit conflict. He calls this "steady leadership". I call this "stupidity".

As far the common Vietnam Vet defense from Kerry, as I said it's all you Republicans seem to understand. You dismiss other issues as "liberal" or "left-wing". The second Kerry stops reminding you he's a Vietnam Vet you start attacking him for his protests again. But as I said Kerry is very strong, if not stronger, in other areas. I will elaborate in my next post.

OK Mr. Banned, who said this: "I actually voted for the Iraq War, before I voted against it." ?

Answer: John Kerry

Who has come out as pro-choice, but believing that life begins at conception - anathema to the pro-abortion crowd?

John Kerry.

Who voted against the first Gulf War, which had UN sanction, but voted for the second Gulf War, which had UN sanction?

John Kerry.

It is no secret - John Kerry has more flip-flops than an ABC store in Waikiki. Even the late night hosts on TV make jokes about it. Your "vast right-wing conspiracy" theories sound steoretypically naive.

As far as John Kerry being "strong," his 20 year voting record shows that the only thing he feels strongly about is taking more and more of your money in the form of taxes and expanding our federal government at the cost of your freedoms.

 

[OCA]

OK Mr. Banned, who said this: "I actually voted for the Iraq War, before I voted against it." ?

Answer: John Kerry

Who has come out as pro-choice, but believing that life begins at conception - anathema to the pro-abortion crowd?

John Kerry.

Who voted against the first Gulf War, which had UN sanction, but voted for the second Gulf War, which had UN sanction?

John Kerry.

It is no secret - John Kerry has more flip-flops than an ABC store in Waikiki. Even the late night hosts on TV make jokes about it. Your "vast right-wing conspiracy" theories sound steoretypically naive.

As far as John Kerry being "strong," his 20 year voting record shows that the only thing he feels strongly about is taking more and more of your money in the form of taxes and expanding our federal government at the cost of your freedoms.

Hell yes! That was unbelievably strong Jeff! Kudos!

How anyone liberal or conservative can vote for someone who has demonstrated at every chance to want to take more of your hardearned cash and squander it and hand over the sovereignty of America to Kofi Anan is beyond me.

Y'all know that if this clown is elected he has proposed repealing the tax cuts retroactively meaning we will all be hit with 1 big fat bill from the government right?