Media coverage of Trump's McCain war-service Neutron Bomb

[rightwinger]

As a 17-year-old high school senior in 1988, she had arranged an interview with Greene for a school project. Her parents had driven her downtown and waited while she completed her assignment. A few months later, after she had graduated from high school, Greene and she saw each other several times over dinner and at least once they went to a hotel, where they had a sexual liaison.

Graduated from high school. Is it safe to assume that she was 18 yo? So Greene lied in his book to lay the 18 yo? Is that what you are saying? Your attempt to "discredit" the author with that sexual escapade thing has nothing to do with his credibility as an author of a well researched book. His career was over because he told the truth.

Yup, he's calling a Medal of Honor recipient a liar, and taking the word of a man he doesn't know, because he wrote a book claiming it didn't happen.

No, i'm callling him a liar because everyone who has researched this claim has not produced ONE CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNT of returning soldiers being spat upon.

Not one.

Now you think this would have made news if it happened. Right next to "Hippies still in critical condition after spitting on battle-hardened Marine Vet".

Spitting is one of a thugs favorite sport. You should see all of the ER visits for Hep C and HIV screenings the hospitals get due to employees, hospital workers, correction officers, police etc... Getting spit on.

Yet we are supposed to believe not one anti war loon spit on anyone during the 60's and 70's

. Riiiight.

Especially when Medal of Honor recipients are on video saying they were.

Try again.

Why wouldn't a Medal of Honor recipient put the Hippie in the hospital after being spat on?

Why were all Vietnam vets so meek?

The issue was addressed in previous postings. If your attention span doesn't extend that far, whose fault is that?

It was not addressed. It makes no sense that the hundreds of vets who claimed they were spat on NEVER retaliated

 

[Auld Phart]

Locate those persons and verify. They made their statements with their names on them. Call them, the burden is on you. If you actually bothered to read, the spittings were aimed mostly at individual solders with no cameras around.

Without independent corroboration all you have is hearsay.

There are names there to identify the persons who testified that they were spat on. It is more than hearsay no matter how you try to spin it.

Hearsay Define Hearsay at Dictionary.com

View attachment 44966

According to those accounts there were no other witnesses ergo it falls within the definition of hearsay without any independent corroboration.

You don't get to change the law to suit your own partisan agenda.

It applies equally to both sides.

There is video evidence of a Congressional Democrats being spat upon by a Tea Partier (ref 1:20 mark).



Without that evidence it would just have been hearsay.

"To report another person's words by a witness.." What it means that I heard somebody saying such and such and I am witnessing in court that I heard from such and such a person saying such and such. This is not the case here. There are names given and you just need to issue a summon for them to appear in your court to bear witness on their own. How about that? Is it fair?

Uncorroborated testimony is hearsay.

Unless you can produce the alleged person who did the spitting and have them picked out of a line up by other witnesses all you have is hearsay.

Spitting on someone is considered to be assault under the law.

Yes spitting in the face is crime court rules Reuters

Why are there no assault charges from that era of hippies spitting on returning vets?

"Spitting on someone is considered to be assault under the law."


That law was on the books in the mid 70s, and earlier?

A soldier, coming home on leave, or returning home for good, wants to waste time calling cops on some jerk that has the manners of a dog?

Here's an idea. You don't like the current wars going on.

Why dont' you slide down to the local bus station, airport, etc, and spit on one of the soldiers returning from the Mid East, and see what happens.

Give us a full report.

 

[JoeB131]

And you and Joe spat on all Vietnam vets and a Medal of Honor recipient.

NO, we just questioned the veracity of a vague, unsubstantiated story he repeated 15 years after the fact. No Saliva was involved.

So do you have any facts to argue, or are you just going to play emotional card like you did yesterday about the fetus debate? Because this is going to get to be very tiresome.

 

[Auld Phart]

The vets are more believable than the man with a book deal.

I agree. The vets who all said no one ever spit on them are more credible than Bob Greene, who made up sources and quotes and was eventually fired for them.

Poor attempt at deflection, joe.

 

[rightwinger]

Without independent corroboration all you have is hearsay.

There are names there to identify the persons who testified that they were spat on. It is more than hearsay no matter how you try to spin it.

Hearsay Define Hearsay at Dictionary.com

View attachment 44966

According to those accounts there were no other witnesses ergo it falls within the definition of hearsay without any independent corroboration.

You don't get to change the law to suit your own partisan agenda.

It applies equally to both sides.

There is video evidence of a Congressional Democrats being spat upon by a Tea Partier (ref 1:20 mark).



Without that evidence it would just have been hearsay.

"To report another person's words by a witness.." What it means that I heard somebody saying such and such and I am witnessing in court that I heard from such and such a person saying such and such. This is not the case here. There are names given and you just need to issue a summon for them to appear in your court to bear witness on their own. How about that? Is it fair?

Uncorroborated testimony is hearsay.

Unless you can produce the alleged person who did the spitting and have them picked out of a line up by other witnesses all you have is hearsay.

Spitting on someone is considered to be assault under the law.

Yes spitting in the face is crime court rules Reuters

Why are there no assault charges from that era of hippies spitting on returning vets?

"Spitting on someone is considered to be assault under the law."


That law was on the books in the mid 70s, and earlier?

A soldier, coming home on leave, or returning home for good, wants to waste time calling cops on some jerk that has the manners of a dog?

Here's an idea. You don't like the current wars going on.

Why dont' you slide down to the local bus station, airport, etc, and spit on one of the soldiers returning from the Mid East, and see what happens.

Give us a full report.

Spitting is an assault on your dignity

I know of few who would just let it slide or would stand by watching a soldier be spat on.

 

[defcon4]

But the spitting stories are lies, repeated by a right wing that wanted to deflect attention from the fact they advocated an immoral war they were happy to let others fight.

.. wasn't it LBJ? then Nixon pulled out? Something doesn't add up..
If it was LBJ, then "The Great Society" was a right wing program??? LBJ is a right winger… I learn something new every day. Thanks.. Come on Job, are you still sitting around in the whale's belly unaware of what's going on in the outside world?

 

[defcon4]

Uncorroborated testimony is hearsay.

Summon them… the names are there.

 

[JoeB131]

"Spitting on someone is considered to be assault under the law."


That law was on the books in the mid 70s, and earlier?

A soldier, coming home on leave, or returning home for good, wants to waste time calling cops on some jerk that has the manners of a dog?

Here's an idea. You don't like the current wars going on.

Why dont' you slide down to the local bus station, airport, etc, and spit on one of the soldiers returning from the Mid East, and see what happens.

Give us a full report.

But aren't you just making his point? The same thing would have happened then that would happen now, the offending hippy would get his ass kicked.

The fact is, "Spitting on Soldiers" was a myth concocted in the 1980's because "I came back and there were no jobs and no one wanted to hire me" wasn't as sexy as a story. Get a few charlatans like Bob "Fifteen will get you Twenty" Greene to repeat the stories and you are set.

 

[Auld Phart]

As a 17-year-old high school senior in 1988, she had arranged an interview with Greene for a school project. Her parents had driven her downtown and waited while she completed her assignment. A few months later, after she had graduated from high school, Greene and she saw each other several times over dinner and at least once they went to a hotel, where they had a sexual liaison.

Graduated from high school. Is it safe to assume that she was 18 yo? So Greene lied in his book to lay the 18 yo? Is that what you are saying? Your attempt to "discredit" the author with that sexual escapade thing has nothing to do with his credibility as an author of a well researched book. His career was over because he told the truth.

Yup, he's calling a Medal of Honor recipient a liar, and taking the word of a man he doesn't know, because he wrote a book claiming it didn't happen.

No, i'm callling him a liar because everyone who has researched this claim has not produced ONE CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNT of returning soldiers being spat upon.

Not one.

Now you think this would have made news if it happened. Right next to "Hippies still in critical condition after spitting on battle-hardened Marine Vet".

Spitting is one of a thugs favorite sport. You should see all of the ER visits for Hep C and HIV screenings the hospitals get due to employees, hospital workers, correction officers, police etc... Getting spit on.

Yet we are supposed to believe not one anti war loon spit on anyone during the 60's and 70's

. Riiiight.

Especially when Medal of Honor recipients are on video saying they were.

Try again.

Why wouldn't a Medal of Honor recipient put the Hippie in the hospital after being spat on?

Why were all Vietnam vets so meek?

The issue was addressed in previous postings. If your attention span doesn't extend that far, whose fault is that?

It was not addressed. It makes no sense that the hundreds of vets who claimed they were spat on NEVER retaliated

Very possibly they have more self control than you give them credit.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Without independent corroboration all you have is hearsay.

There are names there to identify the persons who testified that they were spat on. It is more than hearsay no matter how you try to spin it.

Hearsay Define Hearsay at Dictionary.com

View attachment 44966

According to those accounts there were no other witnesses ergo it falls within the definition of hearsay without any independent corroboration.

You don't get to change the law to suit your own partisan agenda.

It applies equally to both sides.

There is video evidence of a Congressional Democrats being spat upon by a Tea Partier (ref 1:20 mark).



Without that evidence it would just have been hearsay.

"To report another person's words by a witness.." What it means that I heard somebody saying such and such and I am witnessing in court that I heard from such and such a person saying such and such. This is not the case here. There are names given and you just need to issue a summon for them to appear in your court to bear witness on their own. How about that? Is it fair?

Uncorroborated testimony is hearsay.

Unless you can produce the alleged person who did the spitting and have them picked out of a line up by other witnesses all you have is hearsay.

Spitting on someone is considered to be assault under the law.

Yes spitting in the face is crime court rules Reuters

Why are there no assault charges from that era of hippies spitting on returning vets?

"Spitting on someone is considered to be assault under the law."


That law was on the books in the mid 70s, and earlier?

A soldier, coming home on leave, or returning home for good, wants to waste time calling cops on some jerk that has the manners of a dog?

Here's an idea. You don't like the current wars going on.

Why dont' you slide down to the local bus station, airport, etc, and spit on one of the soldiers returning from the Mid East, and see what happens.

Give us a full report.

Why would I spit on my fellow vets just because I don't like your wars?

I know that they don't have a choice now just as I didn't back then.

Epic fail on your part.

 

[JoeB131]

.. wasn't it LBJ? then Nixon pulled out? Something doesn't add up..
If it was LBJ, then "The Great Society" was a right wing program??? LBJ is a right winger… I learn something new every day. Thanks.. Come on Job, are you still sitting around in the whale's belly unaware of what's going on in the outside world?

Again- are you SOME KIND OF FUCKING RETARD.

Yeah, Nixon had a plan to get us out of Vietnam that was so secret even he didn't know what it was.

More men died in Vietnam on Nixon's watch than LBJ's.

LBJ got us into Vietnam because he didn't want a second set of McCarthy's to scream, "Who Lost Vietnam?" the way they had screamed "Who Lost China".

 

[Derideo_Te]

Uncorroborated testimony is hearsay.

Summon them… the names are there.

There are no names of witnesses, only alleged victims.

 

[defcon4]

None of those accounts are CONTEMPORARY accounts.

The history of the Roman Empire is not contemporary account therefore it never happened. We know about it by hearsaying and there are no corroborating witnesses nor video footages. Tacitus pulled the story out of his rear end. But wait, there was Josephus also writing something… well, since we have no corroborating witnesses let's dismiss the whole thing.
Can you see now what you are saying?

 

[Auld Phart]

"Spitting on someone is considered to be assault under the law."


That law was on the books in the mid 70s, and earlier?

A soldier, coming home on leave, or returning home for good, wants to waste time calling cops on some jerk that has the manners of a dog?

Here's an idea. You don't like the current wars going on.

Why dont' you slide down to the local bus station, airport, etc, and spit on one of the soldiers returning from the Mid East, and see what happens.

Give us a full report.

But aren't you just making his point? The same thing would have happened then that would happen now, the offending hippy would get his ass kicked.

The fact is, "Spitting on Soldiers" was a myth concocted in the 1980's because "I came back and there were no jobs and no one wanted to hire me" wasn't as sexy as a story. Get a few charlatans like Bob "Fifteen will get you Twenty" Greene to repeat the stories and you are set.

"But aren't you just making his point?"

Nope

"The same thing would have happened then that would happen now, the offending hippy would get his ass kicked."

"Lets wait for his report. see if the offended soldier pounds his ass into the ground, calls a cop to report the offense, or passes on, to get home to his loved ones.

Not a myth.

 

[Auld Phart]

Uncorroborated testimony is hearsay.

Summon them… the names are there.

There are no names of witnesses, only alleged victims.

"alleged"

So, you're calling those vets, including the MoH recipient, liars as well?

 

[defcon4]

Again- are you SOME KIND OF FUCKING RETARD.

Now, why would you say that? Is it because I pointed out that LBJ went in.. or because your usual blame the conservatives scheme did not work well in this instance? Calm down.. so far, you and I kept it civil… take deep breath

 

[Auld Phart]

There are names there to identify the persons who testified that they were spat on. It is more than hearsay no matter how you try to spin it.

Hearsay Define Hearsay at Dictionary.com

View attachment 44966

According to those accounts there were no other witnesses ergo it falls within the definition of hearsay without any independent corroboration.

You don't get to change the law to suit your own partisan agenda.

It applies equally to both sides.

There is video evidence of a Congressional Democrats being spat upon by a Tea Partier (ref 1:20 mark).



Without that evidence it would just have been hearsay.

"To report another person's words by a witness.." What it means that I heard somebody saying such and such and I am witnessing in court that I heard from such and such a person saying such and such. This is not the case here. There are names given and you just need to issue a summon for them to appear in your court to bear witness on their own. How about that? Is it fair?

Uncorroborated testimony is hearsay.

Unless you can produce the alleged person who did the spitting and have them picked out of a line up by other witnesses all you have is hearsay.

Spitting on someone is considered to be assault under the law.

Yes spitting in the face is crime court rules Reuters

Why are there no assault charges from that era of hippies spitting on returning vets?

"Spitting on someone is considered to be assault under the law."


That law was on the books in the mid 70s, and earlier?

A soldier, coming home on leave, or returning home for good, wants to waste time calling cops on some jerk that has the manners of a dog?

Here's an idea. You don't like the current wars going on.

Why dont' you slide down to the local bus station, airport, etc, and spit on one of the soldiers returning from the Mid East, and see what happens.

Give us a full report.

Why would I spit on my fellow vets just because I don't like your wars?

I know that they don't have a choice now just as I didn't back then.

Epic fail on your part.

No fail on my part.

You just arent' as upset as the hippies of the 70s.

that, or you're more of a coward than they were.

 

[Derideo_Te]

None of those accounts are CONTEMPORARY accounts.

The history of the Roman Empire is not contemporary account therefore it never happened. We know about it by hearsaying and there are no corroborating witnesses nor video footages. Tacitus pulled the story out of his rear end. But wait, there was Josephus also writing something… well, since we have no corroborating witnesses let's dismiss the whole thing.
Can you see now what you are saying?

BZZZT Wrong!

We have hard physical evidence to support those accounts. Actual roads and buildings made by the Romans. We have their weapons and statues and urns and mosiacs and arenas. We have an entire city frozen in time with bodies where they fell.

All of that is corroborating evidence.

 

[JoeB131]

"But the spitting stories are lies, repeated..."

by vets, who WERE there.

Are you saying vets are incapable of exaggerating, misremembering and making things up?

There were vets who insisted up and down they were there that time some officer took Viet Cong prisoners and threw them out of a helicopter. In fact, you'd think it was "Raining Men" the way they claimed this happened.

All exagerated from a single incident where a helicopter dropped a dead body into a firebase.

If you accept that anything a Vietnam Vet must be true, then all the reports that John Kerry testified to in front of Congress must have really happened.

 

[defcon4]

Uncorroborated testimony is hearsay.

Summon them… the names are there.

There are no names of witnesses, only alleged victims.

When a victim testifies is it not bearing witness of the incident?