The protests have begun in N.Y.!

[KarlMarx]

WRONG. for one, the reason repubs took control in 2002 was because of the WAR in iraq, and the post 9/11 paranoia. and big ups to the bush team for EXPLOTING THE CRAP OUT OF 9/11 like they still do today. instead of saying, hey, we have a lot lot of enemies, because of x.y and z, but look what we've done, the bush camp continues to shamelessly use 9/11 as their backdrop pushing a false sense of security, and moreover, trying to distract from a war with no exit stradegy, job growth nil, and innovation crippled.

we taxed ourselves OUT OF DEBT, which somehow, COINCIDENTALLY, MIRACULOUSLY gave us the boom of the 90s.

Wrong, the Republicans gained a majority in Congress in 1994.

Wrong about "taxing ourselves out of debt". First of all, we did not have zero debt during the Clinton years (i.e. the total amount the Federal Government owes to its various lenders). We had achieved a budget surplus (i.e. the Federal Government took in more than it managed to spend). Secondly, the reason why there was a budget surplus was because Congress reduced the tax on Capital Gains. Because of this, investors were more likely to buy and sell shares. This helped push up the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which caused more buying and selling, which increased the revenue to the government in the form of Captial Gains, which erased the budget deficit. So actually THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. By LOWERING taxes, we achieved a budget surplus.

yeah, the voters really 'swept' clinton right back into office two years later! call it a short attention span.

But the Congress still maintained a Republican majority and continue to do so to this day. Furthermore, despite your claims, Clinton was never once elected by a popular majority. He never got more than 48% of the vote. Why? Because in 1992 and in 1996 there were three way races. So most of the country didn't want Clinton in office, either. In fact George W. Bush received more popular votes than Clinton ever did. He won by getting over 49.5% of the popular vote (but over 50% of the electoral votes).

Which raises a question, if GWB "stole" the election, why didn't his father do the same in 1992? After all, George H.W. Bush was a sitting president in 1992 and had a lot of connections. Yet, you believe that his son, whose father was then retired from the presidency for over 8 years and was a complete outsider in Washington had somehow gotten his fingers into the workings of the Federal Government right up to the level of the Supreme Court and caused the election of 2000 to go his way. If GWB has that kind of Svengali influence, why then has the Supreme Court voted against several pieces of legislation (e.g. refusing to hear anything about gay marriage) since he's come to office?

the people were really trying to drive home a point that the country is in the shitter. unemployed and uninsured are on the rise, and money keeps pumping into a neverending put in iraq. there are many other reasons, but to keep it so large and still pretty mellow overall should tell you that these people are really serious. and *that* is the america that i love! :usa:

Wrong again....unemployment has been on the decrease and is now less than 5.5%. As for the number of uninsured being on the rise. You can thank lawyers like John Edwards (Kerry's running mate) for that. The reason there are so many uninsured is that the cost of health benefits have sky rocketed, therefore many employees don't offer it any longer. Why have health care benefits' cost skyrocketed? LITIGATION. Because of needless litigation, insurance companies have to pay out multi-million dollar settlements, the cost of which is passed on to the consumer. Also, because doctors are afraid of being sued, they practice CYA (cover your ass) and order unnecessary tests and medical procedures to protect themselves from being sued. In addition the Trial Lawyers Association is one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.

um... there were tons of protestors because he was a 'liberator', and passed incredible legislation like the PATRIOT ACT? where the HELL have i been?!!! :duh3:

you want to talk about track records, let's talk failed business after another, DUI getting, and substance abuse? nuff said.

The president doesn't pass legislation, the Congress does. The President can only veto legislation (read the Constitution). And for your information, the Patriot Act was crafted by Congress and passed nearly unanimously. Senators Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry were among those that voted for it.

As for your charges that GWB was a substance abuser, that is entirely a fabrication of a reporter (who later turned out to have been a felon himself). No police records exist of GWB having been arrested (by the way, no one with a criminal record can hold the office of the Presidency). Of course, you'll probably say that the records were probably destroyed by GWB's father or some other tripe.

 

[Bonnie]

:happy2:

you have a link to prove your PROPAGANDA? no, because you are a flat out LIAR. let's leave it at that.

yeah, we don't have lives over here like you 'regular' people, but we pony up when it comes time to pay the piper, JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE. what a load of

LOL....LOL...... Me Thinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much..LOL LOL.........LOL........LOL............... :cof:

 

[Bern80]

that's a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE than 'there is not one grain of truth in anything he just said.' damn flip-flopping PROPAGANDA PUSHERS. you slandered me and you were WRONG about it!

No, it is the way you chose to interpret it

this ain't no maturity game! it's the war on terror! right? it's all for global power and leverage, not acting 'grown up'

my response was based on what you said. You essentially said (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that NK was going forward with its nuclear development because they didn't like Bush's personality. Why would you base a countries entire nuclear program on someone's personality?

you want to earn the respect of everyone on this board and not because they have a heavy partisan bias? explain to us exactly why and how we actually posted a surplus, NOT A DEFICIT in the 90s? i'd really be anxious to hear that one!

You won't get an answer to that because I'm not talking about what happened in the 90's, I'm talking about now and the future. I told what I think will happen if we raise taxes at this particular juncture and I think it spells the end of the growth we are experiencing.

we spent 100+ BILLION DOLLARS ON THE WAR IN IRAQ. WE WILL CONTINUE TO PAY BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS until the american people will finally wake up and realise they don't have to live in fear of constant 'terror'

not sure i get this part. Do mean we don't have to live in terror like we did before 9/11 or are just be 'sarcastic'?

, and they CAN DO THE RIGHT THING, in say, SUDAN? how many BILLIONS do you think it would take to keep the HUNDREDS DYING EVERYDAY from dying? remember, that's 100,000,000,000.00 dollars, and i am being incredibly conservative on that number. the real number is here:www.costofwar.com: i sure as hell could use some of that money. and some people would sure like to have their friends and family back, too. we didn't HAVE to go war iraq. doing so was a BAD BUSINESS move no matter how you slice it, and it's what bush does best (or worst) AND GUESS WHAT, BUB, *YOU* ARE ALSO PAYING FOR IT!

How is trying to start freedom in a country the wrong thing. The bad business move would have been letting Saddam get away with violating yet another UN resolution. I don't have problem with paying for someone elses freedom, do you?

great stuff, man! and be sure to tell us all about the 'history' of iraq, including the thousands of years of war in that region.

My point is you are a part of the instant gratification society. If it doesn't happen now or 5 minutes ago it must not be working or will never work, right. You are right about the thousands of years of war in that region so how is it you think total peace can rein in less than 2?

answer the question, please.

I did. You just didn't like the answer. I said Bush chose the country of the dictator that kept violating UN resolutions (and said dictators killing innocents as well).

are you the kind of guy who reminds people who lost their job that they should have worked harder? what a nice guy! fact is, CEOs and the big guys are getting bigger, and guys like you and me are getting smaller. and that's not what THE AMERICA I KNOW is all about.

No I am the guy who reminds people that where you are in life is ultimately where you chose to be. Your friend could have chosen to be doctor or start his own business. He chose to work for who ever laid him off and that is a risk in any company where you work for someone else. And don't lump me in with you cause i'm not sitting around waiting for the gov't to get me a job. There are class wars going on right now, but it is not between the haves and have nots. It is between the motivated and not motivated. The driven and the not so driven. The people that feel a job is their right and those that know better.

 

[spillmind]

What bothers me most about Sen. Kerry's statements about his war experiences is that I hear him saying "I was a hero over there and everyone else was a war criminal." I find it awful hard to get past that.

where did he say that? a little proof, please?

 

[spillmind]

LOL....LOL...... Me Thinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much..LOL LOL.........LOL........LOL............... :cof:

*YAWN* as i expected from the old LIAR.

 

[spillmind]

Yeah. What a sick bastard to make it sound like every soldier was over there was committing war crimes when that is far from the truth. As far as his little political statement at the end, what about it? If he was concerned about the way soldiers were going to be treated, why did he say that shit and make it sound like everyone over there was committing war crimes? Speaking of thirty years later, it wasn't much longer than that when he started back peddling on what he said. As time passes, more and more of John Kerry's stories from the time hold less and less water.

Simply put, he's a piece of shit.

i implore you to post some PROOF that this is EXACTLY what he said. i know this is only bullsh!t PERCEPTION, and not the truth.

 

[spillmind]

Wrong about "taxing ourselves out of debt". First of all, we did not have zero debt during the Clinton years (i.e. the total amount the Federal Government owes to its various lenders). We had achieved a budget surplus (i.e. the Federal Government took in more than it managed to spend). Secondly, the reason why there was a budget surplus was because Congress reduced the tax on Capital Gains. Because of this, investors were more likely to buy and sell shares. This helped push up the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which caused more buying and selling, which increased the revenue to the government in the form of Captial Gains, which erased the budget deficit. So actually THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. By LOWERING taxes, we achieved a budget surplus.

oh yeah! you mean right AFTER 12 years of tax increases?

Wrong again....unemployment has been on the decrease and is now less than 5.5%. As for the number of uninsured being on the rise. You can thank lawyers like John Edwards (Kerry's running mate) for that. The reason there are so many uninsured is that the cost of health benefits have sky rocketed, therefore many employees don't offer it any longer. Why have health care benefits' cost skyrocketed? LITIGATION. Because of needless litigation, insurance companies have to pay out multi-million dollar settlements, the cost of which is passed on to the consumer. Also, because doctors are afraid of being sued, they practice CYA (cover your ass) and order unnecessary tests and medical procedures to protect themselves from being sued. In addition the Trial Lawyers Association is one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.

what a load! post these figures! i'm not buying you blaming edwards for employers costs skyrocketing! more propaganda pushing! you won't because you can't back up these assertions! please!

As for your charges that GWB was a substance abuser, that is entirely a fabrication of a reporter (who later turned out to have been a felon himself). No police records exist of GWB having been arrested (by the way, no one with a criminal record can hold the office of the Presidency). Of course, you'll probably say that the records were probably destroyed by GWB's father or some other tripe.

go on and DENY he ever go a DUI. and DENY the fact that he did coke. just because the propaganda machine doesn't say it is so, doesn't make it true in a bushie's demented world. *you* are the only one who is fooled, my friend!

 

[CSM]

where did he say that? a little proof, please?

Please read my post again...I said I hear him saying that. I did not mean to say that I was quoting him. You are right...it is my perception/interpretation of what he is saying/doing. That perception is what I cannot get past.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Statement of Mr. John Kerry



...I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony....

WINTER SOLDIER INVESTIGATION



I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they 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 Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we f eel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

FEELINGS OF MEN COMING BACK FROM VIETNAM



...In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart....

WHAT WAS FOUND AND LEARNED IN VIETNAM



We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone on peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Vietcong, North Vietnamese, or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how money from American taxes was used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by our flag, as blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

We watched the U.S. falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings," with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater or let us say a non-third-world people theater, and so we watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the high for the reoccupation by the North Vietnamese because we watched pride allow the most unimportant of battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point. And so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 881's and Fire Base 6's and so many others.

VIETNAMIZATION



Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese....

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doen'st have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say they we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations, and if you read carefully the President's last speech to the people of this country, you can see that he says and says clearly:


But the issue, gentlemen, the issue is communism, and the question is whether or not we will leave that country to the Communists or whether or not we will try to give it hope to be a free people.


But the point is they are not a free people now under us. They are not a free people, and we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now....

REQUEST FOR ACTION BY CONGRESS



We are asking here in Washington for some action, action from the Congress of the United States of America which as the power to raise and maintain armies, and which by the Constitution also has the power to declare war.

We have come here, not to the President, because we believe that this body can be responsive to the will of the people, and we believe that the will of the people says that we should be out of Vietnam now....

WHERE IS THE LEADERSHIP?



We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric, and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded.

The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching begin them in the sun in this country....

*

Editorial Note: Concluding his formal statement, Kerry commented about administration attempts to disown veterans and looked forward thirty years (to 2001) when the nation could look back proudly to a time when it turned from this war and the hate and fears driving us in Vietnam.

Following his formal testimony, the committee members questioned him during their discussion of some of the legislative proposals under consideration. In the course of this discussion, Kerry spoke with considerable familiarity and understanding about disengagement and withdrawal proposals being considered. In response to a question from Senator Aiken, Kerry endorsed "extensive reparations to the people of Indochina" as a "very definite obligation" of the U.S. (p. 191).
Kerry also commented on growth of American opposition to the war, the actions of Lt. Calley at My Lai, and strategic implications of the war.

*

...It is my opinion that the United States is still reacting in very much the 1945 mood and postwar cold-war period when we reacted to the forces which were at work in World War II and came out of it with this paranoia about the Russians and how the world was going to be divided up between the super powers, and the foreign policy of John Foster Dulles which was responsible for the created of the SEATO treaty, which was, in fact, a direct reaction to this so-called Communist monolith. And I think we are reacting under cold-war precepts which are no longer applicable.

I say that because so long as we have the kind of strike force we have, and I am not party to the secret statistics which you gentlemen have here, but as long as we have the ones which we of the public know we have, I think we have a strike force of such capability and I think we have a strike force simply in our Polaris submarines, in the 62 or some Polaris submarines, which are constantly roaming around under the sea. And I know as a Navy man that underwater detection is the hardest kind in the world, and they have not perfected it, that we have the ability to destroy the human race. Why do we have to, therefore, consider and keep considering threats?

At any time that an actual threat is posed to this country or to the security and freedom I will be one of the first people to pick up a gun and defend it, but right now we are reacting with paranoia t this question of peace and the people taking over the world. I think if were are ever going to get down to the question of dropping those bombs most of us in my generation simply don't want to be alive afterwards because of the kind of world that it would be with mutations and the genetic probabilities of freaks and everything else.

Therefore, I think it is ridiculous to assume we have to play this power game based on total warfare. I think there will be guerrilla wars and I think we must have a capability to fight those. And we may have to fight them somewhere based on legitimate threats, but we must learn, in this country, how to define those threats and that is what I would say to the question of world peace. I think it is bogus, totally artificial. There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands. [Laughter.]...

*

Editorial Note: Kerry's exchange with the senators consumed two complete hours, ranging from earlier French experiences in Indochina to the status of the war in 1971. Kerry faulted the electronic press for failure to report a recent antiwar conference because of its lack of "visual" appeal and entertainment value. He also cited the "exorbitant" power of the Executive, faulting Congress.

In response to Senator Symington's inquiry about American men and women still in Vietnam and their attitude toward opposition to the war within Congress, Kerry offered the following comments.

*

...I don't want to get into the game of saying I represent everybody over there, but let me try to say as straightforwardly as I can, we had an advertisement, ran full page, to show you what the troops read. It ran in Playboy and the response to it within two and a half weeks from Vietnam was 1,200 members. We received initially about 50 to 80 letters a day from troops arriving at our New York office. Some of these letters -- and I wanted to bring some down, I didn't know we were going to be testifying here and I can make them available to you -- are very, very moving, some of them written by hospital corpsmen on things, on casualty report sheets which say, you know, "Get us out of here." "You are the only hope he have got." "You have got to get us back; it is crazy." We received recently 80 members of the 101st Airborne signed up in one letter. Forty members from a helicopter assault squadron, crash and rescue mission signed up in another one.

I think they are expressing, some of these troops, solidarity with us, right now by wearing black arm bands and Vietnam Veterans Against the War buttons. They want to come out and I think they are looking at the people who want to try to get them out as a help.

However, I do recognize there are some men who are in the military for life. The job in the military is to fight wars. When they have a war to fight, they are just as happy in a sense, and I am sure that these men feel they are being stabbed in the back. But, at the same time, I think to most of them the realization of the emptiness, the hollowness, the absurdity of Vietnam has finally hit home, and I feel is they did come home the recrimination would certainly not come from the right, from the military. I don't think there would be that problem....

*

Editorial Note: Kerry returned to the theme of the mood of troops in Vietnam and back home as he concluded his testimony.

*

...You see the mind is changing over there and a search and destroy mission is a search and avoid mission, and troops don't -- you know, like that revolt that took place that was mentioned in the New York Times when they refused to go in after a piece of dead machinery, because it doesn't have any value. They are making their own judgments.

There is a GI movement in this country now as well as over there, and soon these people, these men, who are prescribing wars for these young men to fight are going to find out they are going to have to find some other men to fight them because we are going to change prescriptions. They are going to have to change doctors, because we are not going to fight for them. that is what they are going to realize. There is now a more militant attitude even within the military itself....

*

Editorial Note: Later as Democratic senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry joined 61 others in favor of a nonbinding resolution to lift the U.S. trade embargo against Vietnam. The original embargo began against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1964 and extended to the united Socialist Republic of Vietnam in April 1975. Following the nonbinding senate resolution, President Clinton repealed the embargo 4 February 1994.

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

 

[Bonnie]

*YAWN* as i expected from the old LIAR.

: : : LOL LOL LOL

 

[Avatar4321]

where did he say that? a little proof, please?

Um are you living in a vacuum? its a matter of public record that John Kerry testified before congress that the soldiers in Vietnam were commiting war crimes. I would amend what the previous person is saying by pointing out that Kerry is claiming that he is a vietnam hero despite committing war crimes. Because he confessed them himself. They have been playing the sound bites for months. Heck one of the Swift Boat Veteran ads played the audio before telling their reaction.

Seriously, how can you not know about John kerry's accusations?

 

[Bern80]

go on and DENY he ever go a DUI. and DENY the fact that he did coke. just because the propaganda machine doesn't say it is so, doesn't make it true in a bushie's demented world. *you* are the only one who is fooled, my friend!

Innocent until proven guilty pal. that means the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

i implore you to post some PROOF that this is EXACTLY what he said. i know this is only bullsh!t PERCEPTION, and not the truth.

I've already posted it. The proof is John Kerry and his statements. We do agree on something: Your perception is BULLSHIT! It is because of that waste of skin that all the men who came home from Vietnam were shunned and literally spit on. While Kerry went home and put the silver spoon back in his mouth, not everyone had the luxery. Years later, he says that maybe he shouldn't have said some of those things and uses the excuse that he was "only" 27 years old.

He is a lowlife. The fact that you are going to these lengths to defend him doesn't say much for you either.

 

[KarlMarx]

oh yeah! you mean right AFTER 12 years of tax increases?
!

Partial Quote: "The stock market boom of the late 1990s resulted in investors paying capital gains taxes on increasingly large capital gains realizations. Accordingly, capital gains tax revenues increased from $27 billion in 1992 to $118 billion in 2000.9 Overall, the CBO estimates that higher capital gains created 30 percent of the increase in individual income tax revenues from 1995 through 1999"
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1599.cfm

what a load! post these figures! i'm not buying you blaming edwards for employers costs skyrocketing! more propaganda pushing! you won't because you can't back up these assertions! please!
!

I just did....

Partial Quote: "Litigation, responsible for 12 percent of premium increases. Medical malpractice lawsuits and awards are ongoing issues that contribute to increased costs.".....

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2002/07/30/20305.htm

go on and DENY he ever go a DUI. and DENY the fact that he did coke. just because the propaganda machine doesn't say it is so, doesn't make it true in a bushie's demented world. *you* are the only one who is fooled, my friend!

http://slate.msn.com/id/1003850

P.S. Spillmind, you haven't proved any of your points, so I will ask for the same courtesy that I've extended you. And just because "you think so" or "it seems to me" won't cut it.

P.P.S. You also act like an ass, if you want proof, I submit your recent posts as evidence.

 

[nakedemperor]

Um are you living in a vacuum? its a matter of public record that John Kerry testified before congress that the soldiers in Vietnam were commiting war crimes. I would amend what the previous person is saying by pointing out that Kerry is claiming that he is a vietnam hero despite committing war crimes. Because he confessed them himself. They have been playing the sound bites for months. Heck one of the Swift Boat Veteran ads played the audio before telling their reaction.

Seriously, how can you not know about John kerry's accusations?

I'm confused: do people have a problem with Kerry saying war crimes were commited by lots of soldiers in Vietnam? Isn't that verifiable due to the numerous non-fiction works of literature put out by vets? I don't think it's unpatriotic to point out that soldiers were doing this sort of thing, however, I think it's a black spot on his record for saying that HE commited war crimes. I feel that these circumstances in Vietnam were understandable, but not justifiable.

 

[Bern80]

I'm confused: do people have a problem with Kerry saying war crimes were commited by lots of soldiers in Vietnam? Isn't that verifiable due to the numerous non-fiction works of literature put out by vets? I don't think it's unpatriotic to point out that soldiers were doing this sort of thing, however, I think it's a black spot on his record for saying that HE commited war crimes. I feel that these circumstances in Vietnam were understandable, but not justifiable.

I beilieve they are arguing about what Kerry said not whate he did. One made the pt that Kerry is calling himself a war hero and at the same time saying he and others commited war crimes. Spilly is saying he didn't say that even though the evidence says he did.

It was about semantics not substance

 

[spillmind]

Um are you living in a vacuum? its a matter of public record that John Kerry testified before congress that the soldiers in Vietnam were commiting war crimes. I would amend what the previous person is saying by pointing out that Kerry is claiming that he is a vietnam hero despite committing war crimes. Because he confessed them himself. They have been playing the sound bites for months. Heck one of the Swift Boat Veteran ads played the audio before telling their reaction.

Seriously, how can you not know about John kerry's accusations?

where did i say i didn't? in fact, i posted the VERY REASON WHY I FELT HE WAS RIGHT IN DOING SO! if you people try to say he is accusing every last single one of our men, i want you to post some proof of that. is that really so tough?

 

[spillmind]

Innocent until proven guilty pal. that means the burden of proof is on you.

dammit, do i have to dig this stuff up AGAIN, just so you people will still vote bush? at least it will prove what stubborn irrationals you are.... but it still won't make a damn bit of difference. part of the love for USA is stepping back and putting partisan bias aside for the greater good. can you say you do that?


do a google search, with: bush DUI. and you will find many reputable sources.


i'm just going to have to resign myself to thinking i can't help my country by trying to convert brainwashed irrationals who live in constant fear of 'terror'. i just don't have the time in the day to beat my head against the wall anymore!

 

[Bern80]

dammit, do i have to dig this stuff up AGAIN, just so you people will still vote bush? at least it will prove what stubborn irrationals you are.... but it still won't make a damn bit of difference. part of the love for USA is stepping back and putting partisan bias aside for the greater good. can you say you do that?


do a google search, with: bush DUI. and you will find many reputable sources.

know what Spilly, I'll just take your word for it. Now explain to me what one DUI has to do with ones ability to run the country

i'm just going to have to resign myself to thinking i can't help my country by trying to convert brainwashed irrationals who live in constant fear of 'terror'. i just don't have the time in the day to beat my head against the wall anymore!

Sometime you'll have to explain to me your sarcasm in "fear of terror" phrase. Is it that you think we are actually afraid of terrorists or that we are perceiving some threat that isn't there. Please explain this. Only if Kerry is elected will i start to fear terrorists.

As being brainwashed. You seem to have some screwed up notion that everything us conservatives hear from Bush we take as gospel. Not so. One of the cornerstones of conservativism is being objecitve.

If you want to have a reasonable debate with someone i'm your guy, but i won't stand for the cop-outs that you keep pulling (all brainwashed, seduced by propaganda, etc.) If realy are right it shouldn't be to hard to convince me.

 

[KarlMarx]

From the parody site Sacred Cow Burgers (www.sacredcowburgers.com)