piisfish 140
Recommended Posts
Ron 10
Why are you trying to turn this into a Bush thread...you do that alot.
It is not about Bush...It is not about Religion in the government.
It is about Kerry and his questionable service record.
But I do love how when you guys can't defend a position, you try to deflect the entire thread.
Worked on this one
Try sticking to a topic
It is not about Bush...It is not about Religion in the government.
It is about Kerry and his questionable service record.
But I do love how when you guys can't defend a position, you try to deflect the entire thread.
Worked on this one
Try sticking to a topic
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
winsor 236
Why are you trying to turn this into a Bush thread...you do that alot.
It is not about Bush...It is not about Religion in the government.
It is about Kerry and his questionable service record.
But I do love how when you guys can't defend a position, you try to deflect the entire thread.
Worked on this one
Try sticking to a topic
I think Kerry's service record is a lot more credible that Lyndon Johnson's.
On the basis of the recommendation that you should not share a foxhole or cockpit with anyone braver than you, I don't think I would have wanted to be in his unit. God save us from junior officers with something to prove.
Blue skies,
Winsor
kallend 2,129
Why are you trying to turn this into a Bush thread...you do that alot.
It is not about Bush...It is not about Religion in the government.
It is about Kerry and his questionable service record.
But I do love how when you guys can't defend a position, you try to deflect the entire thread.
Worked on this one
Try sticking to a topic
What exactly is questionable?
Was he awarded a Silver Star under false pretenses? If so, where's the evidence and why hasn't the award been reversed?
Was he awarded a Bronze Star under false pretenses? If so, where's the evidence and why hasn't the award been reversed?
Was he awarded three Purple Heart under false pretenses? If so, where's the evidence and why haven't the awards been reversed?
All I've seen are some suggestions that in Vietnam medals were handed out like candy, which seems to be an unwarranted attack on all Vietnam Veterans, not just Kerry. A good friend of mine earned a PH and a Bronze Star in Vietnam - are his awards suspect too?
There has also been some second guessing by people that weren't actually there.
It's not like he spent his service time running someone's election campaign in Alabama, is it?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
I find it amusing in a strange way that you feel the need to lay hook line and sinker out there trying to ellict a response from me. For someone who has gotten a few positive remarks about your character IRL from people who claim to know you, your actions reflect differently. I know that if we were standing in front of one another your remarks would be different. So do us all a favor and leave the school yard taunting, no matter how obtuse you try to make it, for someplace other than here. If you have issue with me, take it up in PM or in person.
"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING
Ron 10
What exactly is questionable?
I don't think it is...I have said I think he is a war hero...I do think he might have been a little medal hungry to try and keep up with his idol JFK.
However all you have done so far is Bash Bush and bring up religion.
Try sticking to the topic Doc.
this is the first post where you defended Kerry...
Then you add this:
It's not like he spent his service time running someone's election campaign in Alabama, is it?
Bashing Bush is an addiction for you isn't it? Try just talking about THIS topic without trying to drag other issues into it to try and distract people.
Thats bad form Doc.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
riggerrob 643
Political mud-slinging.
winsor 236
I find it amusing in a strange way that you feel the need to lay hook line and sinker out there trying to ellict a response from me. For someone who has gotten a few positive remarks about your character IRL from people who claim to know you, your actions reflect differently. I know that if we were standing in front of one another your remarks would be different. So do us all a favor and leave the school yard taunting, no matter how obtuse you try to make it, for someplace other than here. If you have issue with me, take it up in PM or in person.
You are wrong (as usual) about my being different in person than on line. What you see is what you get.
I do not suffer fools gladly, and generally seek to use a killfile to filter out posts from spurious sources, but DZ.com does not appear to have that facility. Pity.
Even when I dislike someone, if what they say has merit it has merit. Just because I like someone doesn't mean that I agree with their logic.
You needn't worry about having dealings with me IRL. I try to spend my time with people I like and respect. I neither like nor respect you on the basis of what has been posted on these forums, and I suspect the feeling is mutual.
If you choose to post something that is opinion stated as fact, don't bitch if you're called on it.
Blue skies,
Winsor
kallend 2,129
What exactly is questionable?
I don't think it is...I have said I think he is a war hero...I do think he might have been a little medal hungry to try and keep up with his idol JFK.
However all you have done so far is Bash Bush and bring up religion.
Try sticking to the topic Doc.
this is the first post where you defended Kerry...
Then you add this:It's not like he spent his service time running someone's election campaign in Alabama, is it?
Bashing Bush is an addiction for you isn't it? Try just talking about THIS topic without trying to drag other issues into it to try and distract people.
Thats bad form Doc.
Has it occurred to you that no-one was Kerry bashing until he sewed up the nomination? This isn't happening in isolation.
Bush's record 33 years ago was miserable and now it is still miserable, and all Kerry bashing does is call attention to how much worse Bush is.
All the silly photoshopped pictures of Kerry simply emphasize how much more stupid Bush can be made to look.
All the references to Kerry's gaffes just call attention to how many more gaffes Bush makes, and to how inarticulate Bush is.
Bush's list of "untruths" (since you deny that he lies) is so long that any Kerry makes are insignificant in comparison.
People in glass houses....
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 10
Another Bush bashing post in a Kerry thread...
Doc, get a clue.
And some help...
Maybe a 12 step program for Adult Children of left-wing mudslingers?
I never said he didn't lie...I said you have not PROVEN IT. Big difference.
And Kerry lies as well. His vote goes the way of the wind...Well thats not true, I have never seen the wind blow both ways.
All I want is for you to defend Kerry without slamming Bush...I don't think you can.
Someone says Kerry did "X "and you come in running and waving shinny things praying that people will get off track.
This thread is a perfect example of this.
Your first post wasGood good.
And then your next
Helps fuel the religion fire...Which has NOTHING to do with this thread.
Good God man....Debate the TOPIC...You are a smart guy you should be able to defend a position with out distractions and lies...But for some reason you choose not to.
Doc, get a clue.
And some help...
Maybe a 12 step program for Adult Children of left-wing mudslingers?
Bush's list of "untruths" (since you deny that he lies) is so long that any Kerry makes are insignificant in comparison.
I never said he didn't lie...I said you have not PROVEN IT. Big difference.
And Kerry lies as well. His vote goes the way of the wind...Well thats not true, I have never seen the wind blow both ways.
All I want is for you to defend Kerry without slamming Bush...I don't think you can.
Someone says Kerry did "X "and you come in running and waving shinny things praying that people will get off track.
This thread is a perfect example of this.
Your first post wasGood good.
And then your next
Helps fuel the religion fire...Which has NOTHING to do with this thread.
Good God man....Debate the TOPIC...You are a smart guy you should be able to defend a position with out distractions and lies...But for some reason you choose not to.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
You are wrong (as usual)
I figured I would afford you the benefit of the doubt,regardless.
I neither like nor respect you on the basis of what has been posted on these forums, and I suspect the feeling is mutual.
Thats a shame since I think your opinion would be different if we had met. But at this juncture you would be correct in your suspicion, the feeling is mutual. I will leave the invitation to change that opinion open.
"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING
Shark 0
John Weisman: Letter to Kerry
Written by Military.com
March 12, 2004
Dear Senator Kerry:
I'm puzzled and I'm troubled by your actions, both as a senator and as a candidate, and I think we, as voters, need some clarifications, explanations, and just plain talk from you now that you seem to have the support necessary to formally win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. If you won't explain your actions clearly, you are not being honest with the voters. If you are not up-front, then you are displaying neither integrity nor character. And since President Bush's honesty, integrity, and character appear to be three of the main themes of your upcoming campaign, I think you should have to operate under the same rules of engagement as you want him to.
I'll deal with integrity and character in a moment. For now, the issue on which you need to make yourself most perfectly clear is - no pun intended - transparency.
For weeks now you have been pummeling the White House to be more transparent in its dealings with the 9/11 Commission; to hand over documents and memos and telephone logs and other materials that would clarify what the president knew, and when he knew it. You and your surrogates have similarly prodded other Executive departments, including OSD - the secretary of defense's office - to supply similar records.
You and your surrogates, especially Sen. Kennedy, have also demanded transparency from America's intelligence community (IC) about its pre-war analysis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. You and Sen. Kennedy want to know what the president and vice president and secretary of defense knew, and when they knew it. You want to know what the IC told them, and when.
But when it comes to transparency on your part, you draw the line. The matter of your military medical records, for example. You were wounded three times and received three purple hearts. What about showing us voters the medical records? Your three purple hearts allowed you to take advantage of the Navy system, return to the USA, and accelerate your departure from active duty so that you could run for congress by accusing the very men you served with of committing atrocities. What do your medical records say about the gravity of your wounds? Don't you think you owe transparency to prospective voters?
The answer, unfortunately, is that you do not. It's a pattern with you.
Neither are you are transparent in discussing your wife's charities, which appear to support some of the very groups that are protesting the Iraq war, and complain shrilly about President Bush's use of 9/11 footage in his campaign ads. You say you are transparent on the issue of outsourcing American jobs overseas. But your wife's company, Heinz, has many of its factories overseas. Isn't that outsourcing, Senator? You say you are against special interest money. But you have taken huge amounts of special interest money for your campaigns in the past. Why not just come clean.
But you don't come clean. And I have come to believe that the reason you don't is because you are lacking in two of the most vital traits individuals in public service should possess: character, and integrity.
My late foster brother Anthony, who was a New York City Police Officer, used to say, "Little brother Johnny, a perp is a perp is a perp." What he meant was that bad guys usually lived a pattern. He was right. Most perps repeat: repeat their crimes; repeat their MO's; repeat their mistakes. It's the flaw, the Achilles heel, in their character that allows them to be found out and arrested.
And in that way, senator, you resemble a perp.
You deal with threats and critics by maligning them and engaging in character assassination. Not face to face, but stealthily. Using surrogates, and by going behind their backs.
That's what you did to an American patriot named Felix Rodriguez. You accused my friend Felix, who was instrumental in capturing the notorious terrorist and Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara back in 1967, of taking millions of dollars in drug money to support the anti-Sandinista forces fighting communism in Nicaragua.
Not to Felix's face, of course. Somehow, on June 30, 1987, a story leaked out of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism and Narcotics, of which you were chairman, and made its way into Felix's hometown paper, the Miami Herald. Citing "congressional sources," the story accused Felix of soliciting a $10 million donation from the Colombian cocaine cartel.
And just by coincidence, you happened at the time, to be one of Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis's prime foreign-policy advisors. And Gov. Dukakis was running for the Democratic presidential nomination, and you knew Felix had participated in two photo sessions with then-Vice President (and presumptive Republican candidate) George H.W. Bush. Accusing Felix of taking $10 mil in drug money was a great way of tarring the vice president while appearing to be above the fray.
The only problem was that the story was false. It was a lie. And if Felix had been allowed to testify in open session before your committee, he would have told the world it was a lie. That way, his complete denials of your politically motivated charges would have found their way into print.
But you didn't let that happen. Felix wanted transparency. He wanted to testify in open session. You didn't want transparency. You insisted on having Felix testify behind closed doors. Issues of national security, your people said. And when Felix asked you in that closed session to release his testimony, you refused. You kept the rumors going for eleven months.
That particular episode, senator, demonstrated to me that you would always put the politics of personal gain - your personal gain - above issues of integrity.
Let's fast forward. Today, some of your critics decry your antiwar activities; they accuse you of giving aid and comfort to the Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese military, and the communists led by Ho Chi Minh. Others, former POWs, say that your words helped the very criminals who tortured them. Still other critics cite your conflicted Senate record. And still others criticize your votes to weaken our military and defense communities. Your instinctive reaction is to smear these people. Recently, wearing a microphone you probably forgot was on, you called those critics "crooks" and "liars." Of course you did. It's your pattern, senator, to act like that.
These days, your surrogates are busy leaking stories that President Bush lied about 9/11. They are busy spreading the word that he and his administration cooked the books about the Iraq war. There's no evidence presented, of course. Just the accusations. It's your pattern.
Oh, there's a definite pattern here, senator. A disturbing pattern. And sooner or later that pattern is going to become transparent to voters. It's going to become transparent when people examine your voting record in black and white. It's going to become transparent when the tapes of your congressional testimony are played on the network news-when people actually hear you accusing the very same people alongside whom you fought of unspeakable acts of atrocity. It's going to become transparent when patriots like Felix Rodriguez start speaking publicly about how shabbily they were treated at your hands.
And when that happens, the voters will come to understand the same simple truth about your character, or lack of it, that my foster brother Anthony knew so many years ago: "A perp is a perp is a perp."
Written by Military.com
March 12, 2004
Dear Senator Kerry:
I'm puzzled and I'm troubled by your actions, both as a senator and as a candidate, and I think we, as voters, need some clarifications, explanations, and just plain talk from you now that you seem to have the support necessary to formally win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. If you won't explain your actions clearly, you are not being honest with the voters. If you are not up-front, then you are displaying neither integrity nor character. And since President Bush's honesty, integrity, and character appear to be three of the main themes of your upcoming campaign, I think you should have to operate under the same rules of engagement as you want him to.
I'll deal with integrity and character in a moment. For now, the issue on which you need to make yourself most perfectly clear is - no pun intended - transparency.
For weeks now you have been pummeling the White House to be more transparent in its dealings with the 9/11 Commission; to hand over documents and memos and telephone logs and other materials that would clarify what the president knew, and when he knew it. You and your surrogates have similarly prodded other Executive departments, including OSD - the secretary of defense's office - to supply similar records.
You and your surrogates, especially Sen. Kennedy, have also demanded transparency from America's intelligence community (IC) about its pre-war analysis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. You and Sen. Kennedy want to know what the president and vice president and secretary of defense knew, and when they knew it. You want to know what the IC told them, and when.
But when it comes to transparency on your part, you draw the line. The matter of your military medical records, for example. You were wounded three times and received three purple hearts. What about showing us voters the medical records? Your three purple hearts allowed you to take advantage of the Navy system, return to the USA, and accelerate your departure from active duty so that you could run for congress by accusing the very men you served with of committing atrocities. What do your medical records say about the gravity of your wounds? Don't you think you owe transparency to prospective voters?
The answer, unfortunately, is that you do not. It's a pattern with you.
Neither are you are transparent in discussing your wife's charities, which appear to support some of the very groups that are protesting the Iraq war, and complain shrilly about President Bush's use of 9/11 footage in his campaign ads. You say you are transparent on the issue of outsourcing American jobs overseas. But your wife's company, Heinz, has many of its factories overseas. Isn't that outsourcing, Senator? You say you are against special interest money. But you have taken huge amounts of special interest money for your campaigns in the past. Why not just come clean.
But you don't come clean. And I have come to believe that the reason you don't is because you are lacking in two of the most vital traits individuals in public service should possess: character, and integrity.
My late foster brother Anthony, who was a New York City Police Officer, used to say, "Little brother Johnny, a perp is a perp is a perp." What he meant was that bad guys usually lived a pattern. He was right. Most perps repeat: repeat their crimes; repeat their MO's; repeat their mistakes. It's the flaw, the Achilles heel, in their character that allows them to be found out and arrested.
And in that way, senator, you resemble a perp.
You deal with threats and critics by maligning them and engaging in character assassination. Not face to face, but stealthily. Using surrogates, and by going behind their backs.
That's what you did to an American patriot named Felix Rodriguez. You accused my friend Felix, who was instrumental in capturing the notorious terrorist and Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara back in 1967, of taking millions of dollars in drug money to support the anti-Sandinista forces fighting communism in Nicaragua.
Not to Felix's face, of course. Somehow, on June 30, 1987, a story leaked out of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism and Narcotics, of which you were chairman, and made its way into Felix's hometown paper, the Miami Herald. Citing "congressional sources," the story accused Felix of soliciting a $10 million donation from the Colombian cocaine cartel.
And just by coincidence, you happened at the time, to be one of Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis's prime foreign-policy advisors. And Gov. Dukakis was running for the Democratic presidential nomination, and you knew Felix had participated in two photo sessions with then-Vice President (and presumptive Republican candidate) George H.W. Bush. Accusing Felix of taking $10 mil in drug money was a great way of tarring the vice president while appearing to be above the fray.
The only problem was that the story was false. It was a lie. And if Felix had been allowed to testify in open session before your committee, he would have told the world it was a lie. That way, his complete denials of your politically motivated charges would have found their way into print.
But you didn't let that happen. Felix wanted transparency. He wanted to testify in open session. You didn't want transparency. You insisted on having Felix testify behind closed doors. Issues of national security, your people said. And when Felix asked you in that closed session to release his testimony, you refused. You kept the rumors going for eleven months.
That particular episode, senator, demonstrated to me that you would always put the politics of personal gain - your personal gain - above issues of integrity.
Let's fast forward. Today, some of your critics decry your antiwar activities; they accuse you of giving aid and comfort to the Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese military, and the communists led by Ho Chi Minh. Others, former POWs, say that your words helped the very criminals who tortured them. Still other critics cite your conflicted Senate record. And still others criticize your votes to weaken our military and defense communities. Your instinctive reaction is to smear these people. Recently, wearing a microphone you probably forgot was on, you called those critics "crooks" and "liars." Of course you did. It's your pattern, senator, to act like that.
These days, your surrogates are busy leaking stories that President Bush lied about 9/11. They are busy spreading the word that he and his administration cooked the books about the Iraq war. There's no evidence presented, of course. Just the accusations. It's your pattern.
Oh, there's a definite pattern here, senator. A disturbing pattern. And sooner or later that pattern is going to become transparent to voters. It's going to become transparent when people examine your voting record in black and white. It's going to become transparent when the tapes of your congressional testimony are played on the network news-when people actually hear you accusing the very same people alongside whom you fought of unspeakable acts of atrocity. It's going to become transparent when patriots like Felix Rodriguez start speaking publicly about how shabbily they were treated at your hands.
And when that happens, the voters will come to understand the same simple truth about your character, or lack of it, that my foster brother Anthony knew so many years ago: "A perp is a perp is a perp."
slug 1
Come on guys/gals
This is politics
During a election campaign the opposing sides will make everything negative about each other.
There are no rules during a campaign. Remember nixon breaking into the Democrat headquarters, etc.
Clinton know what sex was etc.
Which politician do you want to believe?
R.I.P.
R.I.P.
This is politics
During a election campaign the opposing sides will make everything negative about each other.
There are no rules during a campaign. Remember nixon breaking into the Democrat headquarters, etc.
Clinton know what sex was etc.
Which politician do you want to believe?
R.I.P.
R.I.P.
kallend 2,129
Come on guys/gals
This is politics
There are no rules during a campaign. Remember nixon breaking into the Democrat headquarters, etc.
Clinton know what sex was etc.
Which politician do you want to believe?
R.I.P.
R.I.P.
Neither, but I expect some level of honesty.
In the above letter, for example, it is apparent that the writer either hasn't a clue about outsourcing or multinational corporations and who runs them, or he is being deliberately misleading. Heinz is a publically owned company whose stock is traded on the NYSE, and has had overseas operations since 1904. Kerry's wife is neither 100+ years old nor is she a director or officer of the company, nor is Heinz "her" company, it belongs to millions of stockholders like me.
Similarly expecting transparency about matters of public policy (the WMD "untruths") is quite different from expecting someone to reveal their medical records. A deliberately false analogy.
Maybe he should demand that all candidates reveal their conviction and drug treatment records, just in the interests of transparency!
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
turtlespeed 226
Maybe he should demand that all candidates reveal their conviction and drug treatment records, just in the interests of transparency!
Ok - I'm good with that.
Ok - I'm good with that.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
billvon 3,091
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Neither, but I expect some level of honesty.
I fear you will be disappointed by both the likely candidates in the next presidential election.
I fear you will be disappointed by both the likely candidates in the next presidential election.
Remster 30
>Neither, but I expect some level of honesty.
I fear you will be disappointed by both the likely candidates in the next presidential election.
You can extend that to politics in general.
Remster
slug 1
Exactly
Like looking for love in a whore house
R.I.P.
would he be the 1st candidate to lie ???
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites