red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
CharlestonChad said:Crickets Chirping in the background.
or the voices in your head
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
CharlestonChad said:Crickets Chirping in the background.
Dr Grump said:I have listened to one of the men who was on the boat with Kerry during that fight. Remember, this is an eye-witness account, not some Swiftie looking from a distance, and the version I heard (not read) from the person's lips. From what he said, the guy was not shot in the back; they thought he was reloading his weapon.
As for treason, I only have one thing to say: was he charged with treason? If not, your point is moot.
GunnyL said:First, save your "eyewitness" explanation. I laready have stated I will not judge him on his actions without verifiable evidence. You say some "eyewitness" who was not a "Swiftie" (if not, then WHO and WHAT was this eyewitness -- a Vietnamese?) said he didn't, and other witnesses said he did. So what do you have? Hearsay from both sides.
The fact is, he was engaged in combat, and if he felt the Vietnamese he shot was a threat by undescernable actions, then he was justified in opening fire, IMO, and I cannot say I would not have done the same without having been there.
As for treason, whether or not he was charged with it, he committed it. I still recall the political climate of the day. Charging an anti-war jackass with being one would have raised such a wail the Man in the Moon would have heard it. It was popular to be anti-government, and anti-Vietnam, and basically an unpatriotic, UnAmerican piece of shit. Simple as that.
CharlestonChad said:What's worse: A man that lied in the past, or a man that lies right now?
Dr Grump said:As is Bush. They both are easy to pick apart. Sometimes I get the impression with the 2004 elections, a lot of the MOR people voted for who they disliked the least as opposed to who they actually liked...
red states rule said:Kerry showed his true self when he spit in the face of all Viet Nam troops when he called them war criminals
He called US troops in Iraq terrorists
He has turned his back on Joe Liberman
and he made the insane statement Israel would not be cat war if he was elected
The man is a loon
Bonnie said:And if you look at it from that persepctive it says even less about Kerry
I don't know, many many people stood in line for hours to vote, that usually means people are pretty invested in the outcome.
When did Bush say that, and why do you consider that a lie?
If I remember correctly, didn't Saddam Hussein have a standing policy of paying the family of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000?
You do know what Al Qaeda is, don't you? I'm sure you've heard the term Islam before? Shirley you must know that they are all connected.
What was the name of that well known terrorist who was found dead in Iraq? Jeez, the name escapes me now. But they all sound the same after a while, don't they?
Try the next lie.
Avatar4321 said:Let's think about this:
You have a problem with President Bush because he served in the Military but wasnt assigned to Vietnam, he isnt worthy of being President.
Yet, President Clinton dodged the draft altogether and you guys declared for years that it didnt matter...
You cant figure out why Clinton is being brought up? Its easy. To demonstrate how hypocritical you are.
CharlestonChad said:If those are the links they are using to justify their claims, then we are much more guilty than Saddam has ever been. Bush has direct ties with the Bin Laden family, and every government in the middle east.
Either you can admit you are wrong and that secular Iraq did not have operational relations with Saddam and Iraq, or you can keep you can keep hugging Bush's nuts b/c you know that by 2009, your party will no longer inhabit the WhiteHouse.
CharlestonChad said:He said that before we began the war in Iraq. I consider it a lie because there has NEVER been any evidence that Saddam and Al-Qaeda have ever had an operational connection.
Yes, Saddam paid the families $15,000 more than the industry standard. Not sure how this relates to Al-Qaeda.
He paid it to families of Hezbollah and Hamas. Islamic terrorist organizations, both. Thus, the claim that he supported terrorism and terrorist organizations is true. End of story.
So what if Al Qaeda is a radical Islamic terror group. We're talking about Iraq being connect to Al Qaeda through means other than association by religion.
Leftwing, literalist argument. I don't care WHAT the specific name of the Islamic terrorist organizations he supported and dealt with were. The fact remains he can be directly linked to Islamic terrorist organizations.
Muhammad Aliasshtazzaysh
You have to find some credible source that can find a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in which Mr. Bush described.
Bonnie said:Oh yes because Hussein would never have any ties to terrorism, yet Bush is the evil overlord...
If you are actually being anything other than sarcastic you have my sympathies..
CharlestonChad said:He said that before we began the war in Iraq. I consider it a lie because there has NEVER been any evidence that Saddam and Al-Qaeda have ever had an operational connection.
Yes, Saddam paid the families $15,000 more than the industry standard. Not sure how this relates to Al-Qaeda.
So what if Al Qaeda is a radical Islamic terror group. We're talking about Iraq being connect to Al Qaeda through means other than association by religion.
Muhammad Aliasshtazzaysh
You have to find some credible source that can find a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in which Mr. Bush described.
Now, far be it from me to correct such an astute and enlightened poster such as yourself, but don't you mean to say something like "Either you can admit you are wrong and that secular Iraq (i.e. Saddam's regime) did not have operational relations with Usama bin Laden, or blah, blah, blah." Of course, you are forgetting that the Clinton administration first identified the link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. So this is not simply an issue you can lay at GWB's feet - unless of course, you are intellectually dishonest. Note that I am not laying blame at Clinton's feet either, rather I am using his administration's findings to help support the GWB administration argument that Usama bin Laden had direct, operational ties with Saddam Hussein's regime in secular Iraq.CharlestonChad said:Either you can admit you are wrong and that secular Iraq did not have operational relations with Saddam and Iraq, or you can keep you can keep hugging Bush's nuts b/c you know that by 2009, your party will no longer inhabit the WhiteHouse.
CockySOB said:Note that I am not laying blame at Clinton's feet either, rather I am using his administration's findings to help support the GWB administration argument that Usama bin Laden had direct, operational ties with Saddam Hussein's regime in secular Iraq.
sec·u·lar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-lr)
adj.
Worldly rather than spiritual.
Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
Relating to or advocating secularism.
Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
Lasting from century to century.
Not the first time I used that rhetoric in this thread. Sorry if the fact that they have met before isn't considered "ties with AlQaeda".Oh, now it's "operational connection". It never ceases to amaze me the hoops posters like you will jump through to keep from admitting you're wrong.
Not funny, and one more indication of how a liberals outrage is always relative.
Moron. I even made Islam bold and you still didn't get it. When will people like you wake up to the fact that the root cause, the real problem, the true threat, is Islam?
Not, apparently, until Abdul Marwan Al-Killerinfidels comes up behind you and slowly cuts your head off.
Try reading a fucking newspaper once in a while.
CockySOB said:Now, far be it from me to correct such an astute and enlightened poster such as yourself, but don't you mean to say something like "Either you can admit you are wrong and that secular Iraq (i.e. Saddam's regime) did not have operational relations with Usama bin Laden, or blah, blah, blah." .