Watching Kerry speak right now...

the journal scored those as "liberal," but they might just as well have been scored as fiscally conservative.
Click to expand...
5 despite giving you the definition of fiscally conservative 4 times you keep trying link it to john Kerry. He is the farthest thing from fiscally conservative. Nothing about him fits the definition yet you continually try to charge the meaning of fiscally conservative.
as i said before, the journal just looked at one year of Kerry's voting record during which he missed most of the votes because he was out campaigning. the votes he didn't miss were mostly anti-tax cuts because he wanted a balanced budget.
Click to expand...
That's not entirely true. This is the 4th time he has been the most liberal senator not the first. The votes he did miss he announced his position on which were all of coarse liberal. It was also found that he voted the same as Ted close to 90 % of the time which would also put him to the far left. Kerry was also the most liberal senator on social issues 10 years in a row. This comes from the national journal and CQ which are both non partisan publications.
Kerry's record is of course left of center because he was representing a liberal state, but the number one rule of presidential politics is to govern from the center when elected in order to win a second term and kerry knows this so it is logical to expect him to move to the center if elected.
Click to expand...
Kerry and Ted can be senators as long as they want. Neither of them have ever been threatened to loose their office in a long time. Kerry is an elitist which means he believes he knows better than his constituency. So if he was a moderate he would have voted that way.It's not like he would have been voted out of office for it.
i see little point in debating this further because those who want to see Kerry as the most liberal senator ever, unfit to command and so forth will do so and nothing will change their mind, but the truth is a lot more complicated.
Click to expand...
There is nothing complicated about it. Despite over whelming evidence to the contrary you want to believe that Kerry is a moderate democrat. He isn't and never will be.
i'm curious to see what happens with that ad Deoudes posted. it's one of those things that is hard to defend whether the accusations are true or not. i think the success of the ad will depend mainly on the response to it from the mainstream press. i think it marks a new low though i terms of attack attack ads.
just remember that even Max Cleland, the democrat who lost 3 limbs in vietnam, was critized for for his service record. there was some suggestion last time he ran that he himself was somehow responsible for his wounds, so i do not put much weight on these smear campaigns. 35 years ago the navy decided to give kerry those medals - of course he took them, who wouldn't have. it's now easy to go back and say that he didn't really deserve them - maybe he didn't, but those guys should have spoken out about it back then and the navy should then not have awarded them - we'll see if these accusations stick.
Click to expand...
If my memory serves me correctly Cleland didn't get injured in battle but in an accident were he picked up a grenade that went off. I think the problem was they democrats were using language that would imply that he was injured in a battle and were using him as an attack dog against Bush over the controversy over his national guard service. I am really not for questioning any ones service in the military service.That being said I find it disturbing that these solders that served with Kerry would find it necessary to apparently use their own money to put together this ad. To me it says they saw something in Kerry when they were in Viet Nam that was pretty bad. Usually people in military don't speak out against fellow solders like this. Could this all be a smear campaign? Yes... but if it is I think it will come out and get allot of press. If it's true you will probably see the press ignore it and try to sweep it under the carpet.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
5 despite giving you the definition of fiscally conservative 4 times you keep trying link it to john Kerry. He is the farthest thing from fiscally conservative. Nothing about him fits the definition yet you continually try to charge the meaning of fiscally conservative.
Click to expand...

VG, The Economist called Kerry's votes "fiscally conservative" and they certainly know what the term means. many others have characterized Kerry as a fiscal conservative because they believe that he will cut the deficit. others disagree and there is a lot of debate about what the term even means. i did not attempt to define it myself because it's complicated. in general i agree with you that the definition encompasses cutting taxes and spending (if they are too high), keeping the budget balaced, free market policies, etc.

however, cutting taxes while increasing spending and thus increasing the budget deficit is not considered fiscally conservative. i stand by my assessment that Kerry is more fiscally conservative than Bush, or at least he is more likely to cut the budget deficit in half than Bush. in fact, i do not even consider Bush a fiscal conservative. i don't really think he gets it, he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

-5
 
VanillaGorilla said:
That's not entirely true. This is the 4th time he has been the most liberal senator not the first. The votes he did miss he announced his position on which were all of coarse liberal. It was also found that he voted the same as Ted close to 90 % of the time which would also put him to the far left. Kerry was also the most liberal senator on social issues 10 years in a row. This comes from the national journal and CQ which are both non partisan publications.
Click to expand...

The other times were about 20 years ago. As I said, Kerry record is left of center, but hardly the most liberal, and it would be natural for him to move to the center if elected.

I'm not sure about what is included in social issues, but if it's pro-civil rights, pro-choice and stuff things like that then I'm all for it.

-5
 
VanillaGorilla said:
Kerry and Ted can be senators as long as they want. Neither of them have ever been threatened to loose their office in a long time. Kerry is an elitist which means he believes he knows better than his constituency. So if he was a moderate he would have voted that way.It's not like he would have been voted out of office for it.
Click to expand...

You are wrong again here. Kerry narrowly won his senate seat not so long ago (can't remember the exact date right now).

The elitest stuff is just another label that Club for Growth type organizations try to attach to democrats. If anyone is elitest it's Bush and Cheney because they decided to go to iraq for their own reasons and mislead America about what those reasons were and what evidence they really had. They also faught the 9/11 commision tooth and nail. They did not want to Rice to testify and negotiated a limited time arrangement for her. Bush also used executive privilege to avoid testifying under oath and demanded that Cheney be there to hold his hand. In effect he put himself ahead of American security. If you don't consider that elitest then I don't know what to say.

-5
 
Deoudes59 said:
for all to see.......
Click to expand...


I can't understand why Republicans are making stuff up and smearing Kerry on Vietnam when Bush was MIA over the pleasantly dangerous skies of Alabama with service documents mysteriously missing and or blacked out to protect the guilty.

Apparently the former soldier who served on the same boat as Kerry neglected to mention that he served at a different time/year and never served with Kerry but just happen to use Kerry's gunboat.
And apparently the former soldiers' law firm partners are also solicitors for Enron.

Kerry volunteered for hazardous duty and won his ribbons and medals fair and square, something that Bush wouldn't dare dream of doing.
 
How are you so sure about that?
 
They are opinions as well. How do you know which one is truth?
 
A deficit is not as bad as many assume it is. Admittedly, the volume of the deficit is important is, but if the funds are spent in the appropriate manner then a deficit can be beneficial.
In addition, there seems to be a total failure to address that the economy is more than fiscal policy. In fact, many economist's will argue that monetary policy is more important and more influential on growth as monetary policy addresses demand.
Kerry's approach to the economy appears to be directed at the short term. Putting more money immediately in the hands of mid to low income individuals could yield a quick boost in an economy. However, long term growth from such actions is doubtful as growth comes from investment and saving, not a trait of low to mid income individuals.
Of course, it is not this simple but this is an honest look at the situation.
 
Bobo said:
They are opinions as well. How do you know which one is truth?
Click to expand...


Bush was MIA over Texas/Alabama and Kerry has real medals and the White House has just released a statement distancing itself from the smearing gunboat ads.

Nitpicking over Kerry's medals is akin to ignoring the overweight 600lb gorilla on the sofa when there a $1.9billion Iraqi fund Halliburton scandal. A new Bushism also came out today.
 
Bush was MIA over Texas/Alabama and Kerry has real medals and the White House has just released a statement distancing itself from the smearing gunboat ads.
Click to expand...
That's because they had nothing to do with it, the men who served with him don't want him to be the commander in chief....wonder why.

I await to see how the left will spin this into making kerry look like a God lol.
 
This is troubling on both fronts, really.

I can't imagine our armed services are in the business of awarding phony medals of valor. Although I hope he loses the general election, I also recognize my debt to John Kerry and all who have served in the armed forces.

But I also can't imagine WHY a group of veterans would risk their own personal honor in falsely condemning Kerry like this? If they're lying about their allegations against him, WHY? Is ONE presidential campaign worth throwing away one's personal honor, their distinguished record of service only to smear another veteran in his bid for election ?!?! Maybe I'm being naive here but I can't imagine a group of decorated veterans would do this to another veteran ?!?!?!

I give Kerry the benefit of the doubt on this issue for now (but never my vote). But I hope the press will really dig into this group to get to the bottom of the allegations and if false, expose them and their motivations. If false, I'd even like to see criminal repurcussions.

If true, we should know that as well.
 
Bobo said:
They are opinions as well. How do you know which one is truth?
Click to expand...

That's the problem with smear campaigns, you can never know the truth. Throw enough mud and some of it will stick.

-5
 
PC1 said:
But I also can't imagine WHY a group of veterans would risk their own personal honor in falsely condemning Kerry like this? If they're lying about their allegations against him, WHY? Is ONE presidential campaign worth throwing away one's personal honor, their distinguished record of service only to smear another veteran in his bid for election ?!?! Maybe I'm being naive here but I can't imagine a group of decorated veterans would do this to another veteran ?!?!?!
Click to expand...

Kerry protested the war and in his testimony to the congress he mentioned war crimes in vietnam. many vets took this very personally. they felt Kerry had accused them of committing war crimes and given vietnam vets a bad name. i'm sure they genuinely do consider him unfit for duty.

i think he just said it to stop a war he had lost faith in though, but he has later apologized for some of his wording.

all the same, these guys should not say they served with Kerry if they did not serve on the same boat as he did. it's misleading.

-5
 
MarcusG said:
Bush was MIA over Texas/Alabama and Kerry has real medals and the White House has just released a statement distancing itself from the smearing gunboat ads.

Nitpicking over Kerry's medals is akin to ignoring the overweight 600lb gorilla on the sofa when there a $1.9billion Iraqi fund Halliburton scandal. A new Bushism also came out today.
Click to expand...

I ask again, how do you know which one is truth? You don't so it comes down to which side you WANT to believe. Do you beleive a career politician or a group of veterans. Its obvious who your choice is.
 
Number 5 said:
That's the problem with smear campaigns, you can never know the truth. Throw enough mud and some of it will stick.

-5
Click to expand...

Thats the point. Defeding one against the other is pointless. They both lie and always will. But in this case its a group of veterans who are speaking out. So you have veterans on both sides that IMO both believe they are right. In all their minds they are telling the truth but I have never seen a group a veterans go after someone such as this and it does make you tihnk what really happened.
 
Just seems to me instead of having the Republicans vs. Democrats you have Republicans vs. Anti-Bush people. THis is coming from someone who doesn't follow politics that closely anymore and is just seeing things from the peripheal.
 
PC1 said:
But I also can't imagine WHY a group of veterans would risk their own personal honor in falsely condemning Kerry like this? If they're lying about their allegations against him, WHY? Is ONE presidential campaign worth throwing away one's personal honor, their distinguished record of service only to smear another veteran in his bid for election ?!?! Maybe I'm being naive here but I can't imagine a group of decorated veterans would do this to another veteran ?!?!?!
Click to expand...

That is exactly how I feel. I just don't see it happening and I do remember seeing something from this group a long time ago. I tihnk they have been after him for a while and its just getting worse the closer he gets to the Presidency. I can't imagine all those veterans lying for someone elses agenda.
 
Well, there may be something to this because it's very unusual for anyone to receive 3 purple hearts, a bronze star and a silver star in 4.5 months, especially without also receiving any permenant injuries. I think Kerry knew how to work the system and he did, but in the end the navy did decide to give him those ribbons and medals so it's a little too late for second thoughts now.

The trouble with the anti-Kerry vets started when Kerry testified that he had personally witnessed and been told of by other vets of war crimes and that they were commonplace in vietnam. he talked about rapes and cutting off ears and such. A lot of it has been documented and I think Kerry wanted to bring home the horror of the war to the American people rather than denigrate the vets. It was also just a small part of his testimony.

Some vets of course got pissed because they felt Kerry had betrayed them - these guys used to get spit when coming home from serving their country so I don't balme them for being angry at Kerry, even though I think their anger was misplaced. The swift boat guys were especially pissed because by saying that he had personally witnessed war crimes, Kerry was implicitly implying that swift boat skippers were committing them.

Later Kerry said he had not seen any war crimes other than soldiers (himself included) firing in fire free zones which he claimed they had orders to do (and which apparently was commonplace). this is technically a war crime and i think even O'Neil admitted it happened. O'Neil, one of the swift boat skippers, was the most outspoken critic of Kerry during the Nixon presidency and the two had a televised debate at the time. O'Neil was visible angry while Kerry calmly handed the guy his ass in the debate. O'Neil dissapeared for a while just to resurface recently. A lot of the guys still genuinely hate Kerry but the accusations are unfair because these guys did not serve on the same boat as Kerry did and apparently all the guys who did serve on his boat do support and praise him.

-5
 
Invalid Link Removed

Kerry killed fleeing teen for medal
Wow guys this is getting ugly.
If this stuff is all true, Kerry should be in jail.....
 
Kerry brought Vietnam into this election - on his own.
His 55 minute speech talked about his 4 month vietnam service rather than his 12 year senate record.

Like No.5 said, the Vets are more angry with Kerry about what he did AFTER the war, not during.
 
Invalid Link Removed

Kerry killed fleeing teen for medal
Wow guys this is getting ugly.
If this stuff is all true, Kerry should be in jail.....
Click to expand...

**** me....that some heavy ****. Running around with a zippo :blink:
 
VG, The Economist called Kerry's votes "fiscally conservative" and they certainly know what the term means. many others have characterized Kerry as a fiscal conservative because they believe that he will cut the deficit. others disagree and there is a lot of debate about what the term even means. i did not attempt to define it myself because it's complicated. in general i agree with you that the definition encompasses cutting taxes and spending (if they are too high), keeping the budget balaced, free market policies, etc.

however, cutting taxes while increasing spending and thus increasing the budget deficit is not considered fiscally conservative. i stand by my assessment that Kerry is more fiscally conservative than Bush, or at least he is more likely to cut the budget deficit in half than Bush. in fact, i do not even consider Bush a fiscal conservative. i don't really think he gets it, he wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...
You are labeling Kerry Fiscally conservative based one part of the definition..... Balancing the budget. To balance the budget Kerry goes against the other 2 parts of the definition raising taxes and not cutting spending. Bush has cut taxes and says he will cut government programs his next term, so by that same rationale you are using we can say bush is fiscally conservative as well. The fact is neither of them are. Republicans frequently pay lip service to the idea but most of the time they cut taxes and don't have the balls to take on the democratic leadership to cut government spending and programs.
 
The other times were about 20 years ago. As I said, Kerry record is left of center, but hardly the most liberal, and it would be natural for him to move to the center if elected.

I'm not sure about what is included in social issues, but if it's pro-civil rights, pro-choice and stuff things like that then I'm all for it.
Click to expand...
No number 5 .........over his 20 years in the senate Kerry was the most liberal senator 4 times. As for your missing votes argument the CQ took into account that he announced what his positions were and also noted that he votes the same as Ted Kennedy 90% of the time. Again he was also the most liberal senator on social issues ten year in a row. This makes him more than left of center. It makes him far left. Again you want Kerry to be something he is not and you are ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
 
Kerry killed fleeing teen for medal
Wow guys this is getting ugly.
If this stuff is all true, Kerry should be in jail.....
Click to expand...
The kid had a rocket lancher though. I guess the kid was aiming at them and got shot up. Kerry killed him after he was shot up but I can't fault him on that one.
 
Kerry protested the war and in his testimony to the congress he mentioned war crimes in vietnam. many vets took this very personally. they felt Kerry had accused them of committing war crimes and given vietnam vets a bad name. i'm sure they genuinely do consider him unfit for duty.

i think he just said it to stop a war he had lost faith in though, but he has later apologized for some of his wording.
Click to expand...
One thing is clear Kerry was using the war as a spring board for his political career. Which is really sleazy but not a crime. The vets that are against him for what he said when he got back but also several other reasons. The have accused him of distorting facts and flat out lying. For example Kerry said he was two of three different places on Christmas eve in 1968. He said he was in Cambodia and disgusted at Nixon for saying that we weren't in Cambodia. The problem is Nixon wasn't in the Whitehouse yet on Christmas 1968. Then he said he was some where else. The medic who treated his first wound stated it was the equivalent of having a small thorn in his arm and wasn't even bleeding. He refused to process Kerry's purple heart form. He has stated that Kerry some how maneuvered around him to get it processed. On another purple heart the vets said came from being to close to some rice when they blew something up and Kerry got some rice in his back side. The basically accusing him of fabricating how he got his purple hearts and using the three purple heart rule to get out of the war when they said most of his wounds were superficial.
 
"Kerry and the other wounded men received medical attention aboard a Coast Guard cutter, which was the closest ship capable of treating them. Along with a third Purple Heart for the injury to his right arm, Kerry was also awarded a Bronze Star for his bravery, as was Larry Thurlow."
Click to expand...
Again the vets despute how this happened and have said Kerry's wound wasn't even bleeding.
 
My problem with this is that all but one of the Vets are speaking out against Kerry. If it was one or two than it would be easier to believe this was just a smear campaign.Another thing that bothers me is that they have said that not one reported has ever really talked to them. The author of Kerry's biography didn't talk to them. That is some shoddy journalism. Then you have apparently all the vets that do support Kerry are on his pay roll.
 
You are wrong again here. Kerry narrowly won his senate seat not so long ago (can't remember the exact date right now).
Click to expand...
I live in Massachusetts do you? You might be confusing Kerry with Ted who actually had to debate mit Romney when he ran for the senate. This was in 1994 I think and Ted won it pretty easily. Other than that they might have well as run on apposed. Kerry ran against Bill weld in 96 I think but again won by close to ten points. After that they may as well have run up opposed over the past ten years.
The elitest stuff is just another label that Club for Growth type organizations try to attach to democrats. If anyone is elitest it's Bush and Cheney because they decided to go to iraq for their own reasons and mislead America about what those reasons were and what evidence they really had. They also faught the 9/11 commision tooth and nail. They did not want to Rice to testify and negotiated a limited time arrangement for her. Bush also used executive privilege to avoid testifying under oath and demanded that Cheney be there to hold his hand. In effect he put himself ahead of American security. If you don't consider that elitest then I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...
Did you know Kerry has a butler follow him around and caters to him where ever he goes? I bet you didn't.
As far as the other stuff you are parroting Michael Moore who's movie has some major misleading things and lies in it. They lied to go into Iraq for the oil right? The problem with this is that there is no evidence to support that claim and we haven't taken any oil. 3000 people died on 9-11 the Clinton administration said Iraq had WMDs, and Iraqi general who defected in 96 said they had WMDs, Jordan's King Abdullah told us they had WMDs, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak told us they had Wmds, England said they did, I believe Russia did as well, and then you have Czech intelligence saying that there was at least one meeting between Mohamed Atta and Iraq. The UN hasn't inspected for WMDs for years and is getting paid off by Sadam? After the biggest terrorist attack in the history of America what would you do?
 
VanillaGorilla said:
Did you know Kerry has a butler follow him around and caters to him where ever he goes? I bet you didn't.
Click to expand...

I sure did. The Butler carries around Peanut Butter and Jelly and Fresh French Bread for the "blue collar" Senator. Also, Kerry speaks French when he doesn't want people to understand what he is saying - like a Parent avoiding a child. Shady guy.

In fact, Kerry and Edwards went into Wendys and Armed Forces eatting there refused to talk to him and refused to shake his hand.
Soldiers publicly "diss" Kerry at Wendys
Invalid Link Removed

Kerry went into Wendys a second time a day later in Wisconsin(?). He and Edwards took photos with people but didn't sit down to eat. They quickly put their lunches in the trash after the photo shoot and walked out. 20 minutes later the Kerry and Edwards families dined at a 5 star hotel.
:cheers:
 
VG and others

Have you guys checked out this soldiers blog
Invalid Link Removed

Some scary ****.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
You are labeling Kerry Fiscally conservative based one part of the definition..... Balancing the budget. To balance the budget Kerry goes against the other 2 parts of the definition raising taxes and not cutting spending. Bush has cut taxes and says he will cut government programs his next term, so by that same rationale you are using we can say bush is fiscally conservative as well. The fact is neither of them are. Republicans frequently pay lip service to the idea but most of the time they cut taxes and don't have the balls to take on the democratic leadership to cut government spending and programs.
Click to expand...

VG, Kerry has adopted Clinton economic policies and I considered Clinton more fiscally conservative than Bush. I know you disagree, but i'm sick of arguing the semantics of fiscal conservatism at this point. Bottom line is I think Kerry is more likely to cut the deficit in half than Bush, and I think he will do a better job with the economy in general. That's just my opinion.

And I do agree with what size said. There's a lot of factors that affect the economy and I certainly do not hold the president alone responsible for a country's economic success, but all the same good fiscal and trade policies are a crucial part of the big picture.

-5
 
VanillaGorilla said:
My problem with this is that all but one of the Vets are speaking out against Kerry. If it was one or two than it would be easier to believe this was just a smear campaign.Another thing that bothers me is that they have said that not one reported has ever really talked to them. The author of Kerry's biography didn't talk to them. That is some shoddy journalism. Then you have apparently all the vets that do support Kerry are on his pay roll.
Click to expand...

More bullshit. 13 of the guys that did serve with him were at the DNC to show their support for him. (here you can see what they have to say: Invalid Link Removed )

None of the guys in the ad served on Kerry's boat and one of them just retracted his anti-Kerry statements. (source: Invalid Link Removed )
[edit: The veteran in the above story apparantly just retracted his retraction, so this is developing story.]

Also John McCain denounced the ad right away. He faced similar attacks in his primary against Bush.

-5
 
Last edited:
VanillaGorilla said:
I live in Massachusetts do you? You might be confusing Kerry with Ted who actually had to debate mit Romney when he ran for the senate. This was in 1994 I think and Ted won it pretty easily. Other than that they might have well as run on apposed. Kerry ran against Bill weld in 96 I think but again won by close to ten points. After that they may as well have run up opposed over the past ten years.

Did you know Kerry has a butler follow him around and caters to him where ever he goes? I bet you didn't.
As far as the other stuff you are parroting Michael Moore who's movie has some major misleading things and lies in it. They lied to go into Iraq for the oil right? The problem with this is that there is no evidence to support that claim and we haven't taken any oil. 3000 people died on 9-11 the Clinton administration said Iraq had WMDs, and Iraqi general who defected in 96 said they had WMDs, Jordan's King Abdullah told us they had WMDs, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak told us they had Wmds, England said they did, I believe Russia did as well, and then you have Czech intelligence saying that there was at least one meeting between Mohamed Atta and Iraq. The UN hasn't inspected for WMDs for years and is getting paid off by Sadam? After the biggest terrorist attack in the history of America what would you do?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Kerry v. Weld was a close race in 96.

I think Moore's movie is brilliant for what it is meant to be but I do not put much weight on his theories. That aside, I do believe oil was part of the reason for why Bush went to Iraq, but not the only reason.

When I say he lied I mean that he made false statements when he was selling the war. People have gone back to check some of his pre-war speeches and checked the sources he has sited. It's turned out that these sources did not always say what Bush said they said. John Dean (from Nixon's staff) does goes over this in his recent book, Worse than Watergate.

Woodward also established that Bush wanted the war from day 1 and that Bush knew the case for WMD's was weak, yet he still took Tenet's word for it. Now if he had just sold the war by refering to Tenet's word and laid out the evidence he did have then I would not call him a lier, but he clearly went way beyond that. He should be held accountable.

Also what really bugs me is that Cheney is still talking about the al queda links to Iraq with his 'if you only knew what i know' bullshit despite the fact that all the commisions have said that Iraq had no links to al-queda.

As to your last question, after 9/11 I agree going to Afganistan was the right thing to do, but Bush should have consolidated that occupation first and put more pressure on Pakistan and the Saudis to help with the fight against terrorism. Richard Clarke has made a convincing case that the war against Iraq only weakened the war on terror.

-5
 
VanillaGorilla said:
My problem with this is that all but one of the Vets are speaking out against Kerry. If it was one or two than it would be easier to believe this was just a smear campaign.Another thing that bothers me is that they have said that not one reported has ever really talked to them. The author of Kerry's biography didn't talk to them. That is some shoddy journalism. Then you have apparently all the vets that do support Kerry are on his pay roll.
Click to expand...


VG, all but one? Where did you get it from? Another false smear tactic?

If Kerry is keeping his supporters on a payroll then Bush has some hundreds of smear hoodlums on his tab as well. Halliburton and other 'approved' contractors have squandered billions of US and Iraqi money without proper accounting, I wouldn't be surprised if a vicious smear campaign is beneath them.
 
OMG....talk about spin.


Everyone is an armchair general nowadays and expert in foreign policy.

Sounds like some of you are just anti-government, not just anti-Bush.
 
Number 5 said:
Seriously, who gives a ****?

-5
Click to expand...

I'm sure some people do. Of course you wouldn't because it goes against your "candidate".
 
MarcusG said:
VG, all but one? Where did you get it from? Another false smear tactic?
Click to expand...

I know plenty of veterans (particulary in my family) that do not like him at all and they are Democrats. I have one cousin over in Iraq (his 2nd tour Sea Bees!) that can't stand the way the news is reported here becauset its so selective and filters out anything good that happens. He also can't stand Kerry. It seems many of the veteran groups that are politically involved do not like him because of what he did. I don't see many standing up for him at all.

If a group is willing to make a commercial that attacks him so blantantly and vicously, then there must be something to it. I refuse to believe its ALL made up and funded directly by the Republican party. Not everything is a conspiracy.
 
Number 5 said:
I'd like to have a butler follow me around with my protein shakes.

-5
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be great !! :D

Sir, time for your protein drink......

Sir, time for your creatine drink.......

Sir, your cypionate injection is ready.........

Sir, your L3 IGF injection awaits you...........

Sir, your lady friends are here for the boat cruise, they want to know if you prefer thongs or entirely nude today .......

:D
 
Number 5 said:
I'd like to have a butler follow me around with my protein shakes.

-5
Click to expand...

LOL....Well everyone might have different political views but I'm sure everyone here will agree with that one!!!

Nice one ;)
 
VG, Kerry has adopted Clinton economic policies and I considered Clinton more fiscally conservative than Bush. I know you disagree, but i'm sick of arguing the semantics of fiscal conservatism at this point. Bottom line is I think Kerry is more likely to cut the deficit in half than Bush, and I think he will do a better job with the economy in general. That's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Kerry will raise taxes threw the roof to cut the deficit in half. He will have to because he will not cut government spending. Words have set definitions. Word A means X. If the definition of word A means X it doesn't mean Y or Z. You are basing your opinion on a false definition and continually trying to change what it means.
Fiscally Conservative- some one who believes in small government, low taxes, and a balanced budget.
John Kerry- Believes in high taxes, big government, and a balanced Budget *. * To balance the budget Kerry has only one option and that is to raise taxes. This is because he will not cut government spending.
Therefore you can not say that he is a fiscally conservative. Nothing about him is fiscally conservative. You can say he is for a balanced budget but please refrain from calling him fiscally conservative which it is quite clear that he is not. So if you want to end this say he is for balancing the budget not F.C.
And I do agree with what size said. There's a lot of factors that affect the economy and I certainly do not hold the president alone responsible for a country's economic success, but all the same good fiscal and trade policies are a crucial part of the big picture.
Click to expand...
It goes with the territory I guess. If the economies good and the president in office had nothing to do with it they get credit for it and if it's bad they get credit for it. It's not really fair but that's how it is.
 
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
Did you know Kerry has a butler follow him around and caters to him where ever he goes? I bet you didn't.


Seriously, who gives a ****?
Click to expand...
You said that Bush was more of an Elitist than Kerry. Do you think a butler following you around would qualify that person as an elitist?
 
Yeah, Kerry v. Weld was a close race in 96.
Click to expand...
Ten points isn't that close of a race 5 points woulkd be something that he would really need to worry about. My point is after that both Kerry and Ted have basically been un opposed in the elections.Therefore they do not have to worry about the electorate which puts a hole in your theory that Kerry has a liberal voting record because the states liberal. If he doesn't have to worry about the electorate that much it gives him leeway to vote how he wants to.
I think Moore's movie is brilliant for what it is meant to be but I do not put much weight on his theories. That aside, I do believe oil was part of the reason for why Bush went to Iraq, but not the only reason.
Click to expand...
It's a brilliant piece of propaganda. There are major inaccuracies and lies in it. Richard Clark told him that the president had nothing to do with Flying the Saudis out of the country. Clark said that was his decision. Yet more left that out of the movie. He also left out a part were congressmen Kennedy told him both his sons were in the military. He is currently being sued for doctoring the front page of a paper saying that Gore won Florida. It never appeared on the front page of the paper. That's just a few things. Then you can throw in his quotes of he thinks more Americans need to dies so the UN and the rest of the world will forgive us. He compared Iraqi terrorist to the minute men. Then he expressed his opinion that Americans were the stupidest people on the planet when he was in France of coarse. Maybe he right judging from the success of his movie.
When I say he lied I mean that he made false statements when he was selling the war. People have gone back to check some of his pre-war speeches and checked the sources he has sited. It's turned out that these sources did not always say what Bush said they said. John Dean (from Nixon's staff) does goes over this in his recent book, Worse than Watergate.
Click to expand...
Number 5 if definitions of words do not mean what you want them to you don't get to change them. Definitions of words are not subject to interpretation. If you say Bush lied that means the president Bush knew that X wasn't true and stood up and said that it was true. That is the definition of lying. Are you saying he did this? If Bush made a decision based on information that turned out to be false that's not lying or misleading. You so not get to change the definition when words do not mean what you want them to.
Also what really bugs me is that Cheney is still talking about the al queda links to Iraq with his 'if you only knew what i know' bullshit despite the fact that all the commisions have said that Iraq had no links to al-queda.
Click to expand...
Newsweek ran a story about the Iraq/ Al queada link in 1999. ABC news ran a story about it in 1999. Czech intelligence stand by their report that Atta met with Iraqis. Now because the information they covered in 1999 helped Bush they are pretending that they never covered it. The 9-11 which has some credibility problems also said that there were some circumstantial evidence of a link but chose to discount it.
 
If Kerry is keeping his supporters on a payroll then Bush has some hundreds of smear hoodlums on his tab as well. Halliburton and other 'approved' contractors have squandered billions of US and Iraqi money without proper accounting, I wouldn't be surprised if a vicious smear campaign is beneath them.
Click to expand...
Nice dodge and you can try to change the subject but the fact is all of Kerry's "band of brothers" are all on his pay roll. That puts up a red flag in my mind any ways. You might not realize this but you inadvertently called the vets who served with Kerry "smear hoodlums". Do you think the constant references to Halliburton and oil coming from the left might be a smear campaign as well? What does that have to do with the vets who support Kerry being on his pay roll?
 
More bullshit. 13 of the guys that did serve with him were at the DNC to show their support for him. (here you can see what they have to say: Invalid Link Removed )
Click to expand...
The 13 guys are all on his payroll.
None of the guys in the ad served on Kerry's boat and one of them just retracted his anti-Kerry statements. (source: Invalid Link Removed )
[edit: The veteran in the above story apparantly just retracted his retraction, so this is developing story.]

Also John McCain denounced the ad right away. He faced similar attacks in his primary against Bush.
Click to expand...
As you said the guy retracted his retraction or never said it to begin with. This is a prefect example of media bias. The headline and first paragraph says he recanted then buried at the end of the story is that he recanted again or never said it.
 
VG, all but one? Where did you get it from? Another false smear tactic?
Click to expand...
Only one of the swift boat commanders support Kerry.Two are dead so out of 22 or 23 guys only one supports Kerry. Kerry used the picture of them all and made it look like they all supported him which they don't. I should have been more clear.This puts a major read flag for me. As I said before if it were one or two it would make me think this was a smear but 23 former commanders don't support him and are making an effort to make this an issue says allot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top