More mudslinging

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Ok, sowe have to candidates, one is a proven war criminal (under oath before congress), who despised his own service, and now wants to fuel his campain from his war record, and the other one who has had his fault in his past, recognized he was wrong,l moved on and be pretty consistent about his life...

Yet we should investigate the former? most of us question everything, even the things we like, just like skydiving, we take the time, train, observe, learn, check our gear, winds, etc. Don't you?

You appear to have a hard time with the concept of "proof".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Erroll 80]

Quote

I’m continually astounded by the level of emotion in US politics. No one seems to be saying “I support X because of his polices on Y”. No one actually appears to care what the policies are.

I am equally astounded.
However, the following is from CNN on Bush's 2% bounce

Despite the perception among some observers that this is an election driven by issues, more of those interviewed said that the leadership qualities and personal characteristics of the two candidates were more important than their stands on the issues.

[Botellines 0]

What faults has Bush recognized?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

It's funny. You can tell Bush is winning in the electoral college without even looking at the polls.

This is desperation by the Kerry camp. It's the fourth quarter...Kerry's team is down...Bush's team just increased the lead...time to start airing it out and pray for a miracle.

Yep - just wait - they'll probably try to slander Bush even "Moore" by putting Michael Moore's "Joke-u-mentary" on TV.

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

[juanesky 0]

And you definitely appear sometimes like having a hard time to answer a direct question with anything but BUSH is a liar.

Yet you defend a guy who under oath, is either lying, or confessing to war crimes. Now tell me what should we investigate, the validity of Skerry's comments under oath (as investigating if his crimes were commited), or just accept his speech as anything but Bush?

Or just Bush because you just don't like him? Could you answer a fairly direct, simple question for once?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[mr2mk1g 10]

Why not both? They're both gunning for the same very important role. Why not investigate the hell outa both of them?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Ok, sowe have to candidates, one is a proven war criminal (under oath before congress), who despised his own service, and now wants to fuel his campain from his war record, and the other one who has had his fault in his past, recognized he was wrong,l moved on and be pretty consistent about his life...

Yet we should investigate the former? most of us question everything, even the things we like, just like skydiving, we take the time, train, observe, learn, check our gear, winds, etc. Don't you?

You appear to have a hard time with the concept of "proof".

So - LOL - by your own logic here - even though you say that you skydive - publicly admit to it, there is no proof. Not even if you went in front of congress and admitted to it - that is not enough proof for you to consider that you skydive.

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

[juanesky 0]

Yes LOL, indeed I do not know what else doe he need. I am curious to know if he is able to give a straight simple answer, without the BUSH IS A LIAR thing. You know.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[juanesky 0]

They have. One OK'd the release of his mil. records, not it seems they are incomplete. The fact with that one is that he served his terms. Page DD214 show an honorable discharge. He also has confessed to have had problems with alcohol and drugs. He pulled through, he is a better man for it it seems a family man.

The other one, has not even apologized nor investigated for war crimes, and he should be. Hence for that reason and only that reason, he should not be fit to be CIC.

He did serve, yet came home and dispised his service, now he is running on his record as a premise to get in office? That is pretty surreal, as a contender to such a high office at least he should prove he has integrity. But well, that is just me, and so many others.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[mr2mk1g 10]

I know there has been digging on both sides - good.
My point was that some of the Bush camp are openly saying that he should not be investigated nor should his character or judgement be questioned in any way simply because he is the current C in C. I just don't get that logic. It's completely counter to the concept of democratic process.

[juanesky 0]

Not really. Bush camp is more open than Kerry's. If he find something innapropiate, he would say so. He has proven it with the 527 org. He even asked the SBVFT to stop, as a matter of fact he asked for ALL to stop. He is questioned, he releases the info, well in the mil records it seems that there is some paperwork missing, but I assure you that is not really strange, only for someone who never had served.

Kerry, only accuses an opponent such as SBVFT when they attack him, why would he not make the same type of statment like Bush, when Moveon.org and Al Gore likened him to a "brown shirt".

Everytime I see him he changes his mind his decisions, voting record, at least he should have the decency to step down the senate. He is no longer working as a senator, yet he tries to sell his image he is one of us.....

Can you get this logic?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[mr2mk1g 10]

Yep - I'm not denying any of the arguments you raise. I'm simply not getting into them. Remember I'm entirely impartial here; I don't even get a vote in your elections.

I'm just voicing my surprise and indeed concern that some may actually be taken in by the arguments that some Bush supporters raise. I'm not attacking Bush - just some of his supporters who appear to have gone a bit wonkey in the old noggin.

I’m sure there are elements of the Kerry campaign I would find odd if I’d heard them… it’s just this one point struck me as excessively strange, even for a US election campaign.

[juanesky 0]

Check for yourself. Clicky

and this one too

See, the Democrats are more in tone what Europeans think of Bush, and his policies, that is maybe you have not seen much on the democrats, but is far more in terms of amounts in comparison to GOP.


Hence my statement I think it was great that one of them took the higher ground and requested a stop on the attacks on his opponent by one of the 527's.

Things that I still have yet to see Kerry do. He has not apologized, after all in his own words he is a war criminal. I definitely do not want someone like him as CIC.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[mr2mk1g 10]

Calm down dude, you can stop trying to sell your candidate to me - remember I don't get to vote. I'm neither pro Bush nor Kerry, just surprised.

All I was doing was questionning ONE particular argument being run. Pointing to other arguments regardless of who is running them does not adress that concern in the slightest.

[juanesky 0]

Mat, I do not need to calm down. I am relaxed. Now to answer your questions:

Quote

"No, they're apparently not allowed to question Bush as he's their C-in-C and thus to do so would be sedition."

Quote

"Why not both? They're both gunning for the same very important role. Why not investigate the hell outa both of them?"

Quote

"My point was that some of the Bush camp are openly saying that he should not be investigated nor should his character or judgement be questioned in any way simply because he is the current C in C. I just don't get that logic. It's completely counter to the concept of democratic process. "

I take no offense on your apparent one sided issue with just the Bush campaign. Bush campaign has not threatened a lawsuit to those opposed to him, neither prosecute them THe only faults you are seeing is only on the Republican side. Why don't you include also the Democrats?

I have no say in this election either, but rather be informed than disinformed, IMO.

Bush is allowing public manifestation against his government, but don't confuse with radical violence anarchism, with civil protest.

I am discussed at all levels of muslinging, but the Liberals are just way out there, not only the compare the Prez to BROWN SHIRTS, but when some group try to get some FACTS out there, they get pissy and threaten the truth from coming out. So tell me who is being democratic and who is not?


I have to confess your shot at this was rather smooth but stills sounds fishy. IMO. If you are trying to be impartial, use both bad sides.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

So - LOL - by your own logic here - even though you say that you skydive - publicly admit to it, there is no proof. Not even if you went in front of congress and admitted to it - that is not enough proof for you to consider that you skydive.

Until skydiving is illegal, that argument holds no water and further indicates that you both seem to have some issues with understanding some pretty basic concepts.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

So - LOL - by your own logic here - even though you say that you skydive - publicly admit to it, there is no proof. Not even if you went in front of congress and admitted to it - that is not enough proof for you to consider that you skydive.

Until skydiving is illegal, that argument holds no water and further indicates that you both seem to have some issues with understanding some pretty basic concepts.

Why is it that it is so hard for you to accept that what has happened, happened?
Why is it so hard for you to fathom that John Kerry admitted to something in front of the U.S. Congress, and does not, just in case you missed the fiorst one, DOES NOT dispute what he said then.

If it was true then, and he admitted it - and does not dispute that, then it must be true now. Seems pretty logical, right?

Or-
If it was a lie then and he doesn't dispute that he said it - it must still be a lie today -

What does an deternination wether or not something is illegal or not have anything to do with reality? The fact is, it happened, by his own admission. What can't you grasp there?

And the most important question of this reply: Are you stating that legality or illegality of an act determnies wether it happened or not?

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

[juanesky 0]

Pretty much, I must have missed the memo where war crimes are not longer crimes

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[turtlespeed 226]

Wow - they are on top of this one!

Have you seen all the snappy answers they have?

Oh - wait - I must be right or they would have.

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

[wmw999 2,586]

I guess no one else is as all-knowing and all-seeing as you guys, with the added advantage of the witty repartee and rapier wit.

That said, there are things in my life that I've done and, in looking back, realized that weren't as I thought at the time. Maybe my performance was even less than perfect. I know you probably don't have any experiences like that.

Sometimes that was due to my own lack of preparation, sometimes it was due to others' trying to color my actions, and sometimes it was due to the fact that not everything that seemed important at the time of the really was, and not everything that was important seemed to be.

I'll just bet that both GWB and John Kerry, being human beings, have similar cases in their lives. They might even have different perspectives on things now than they would have 20 or 30 years ago.

Wendy W.

reason for edit? read it.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

They might even have different perspectives on things now than they would have 20 or 30 years ago.

Wendy W.

Not the point of this argument - and - I'm not trying to lump you in with the likes of PK, Kallend and SkyD. That said -

and I am assuming that you are replying to my last post -

This argument isn't about what kerry did - it is about wether or not he actually did them. See, Kallend claims that there is no proof that he did. He claims that there is NO PROOF that Kerry stood up in frot of congress, told them that there were things that he did. Still, with video proof, audio proof, signed confessions, and public admissions, there are those that STILL deny that he did any of these things. My reply to the one previous was in reply to SkyD, who seems to think that wether or not something actually happened, depends on the legality of was done.

It ios truely a shame that the three of them are so jaded as to be completely immune to reality.

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

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

They might even have different perspectives on things now than they would have 20 or 30 years ago.

Wendy W.

Not the point of this argument - and - I'm not trying to lump you in with the likes of PK, Kallend and SkyD. That said -

and I am assuming that you are replying to my last post -

This argument isn't about what kerry did - it is about wether or not he actually did them. See, Kallend claims that there is no proof that he did. He claims that there is NO PROOF that Kerry stood up in frot of congress, told them that there were things that he did. Still, with video proof, audio proof, signed confessions, and public admissions, there are those that STILL deny that he did any of these things. My reply to the one previous was in reply to SkyD, who seems to think that wether or not something actually happened, depends on the legality of was done.

It ios truely a shame that the three of them are so jaded as to be completely immune to reality.

Isn't it remarkable how all the claims about Kerry's medals, etc., seem to have died down now that O'Niell, Thurlow and their SBVFT ilk have been revealed as liars and/or flip-floppers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,586]

Yes, I was replying to your post.

Kallend was not saying that Kerry did not testify before Congress.

He was saying that there's not proof, in a legal sense, of Kerry being a war criminal.

Kerry's opinion is that some of the things he did in wartime would, in retrospect, be considered war crimes. However, without a court martial, that does not constitute proof. And it's only his opinion that they were war crimes.

I'm sure there are soldiers doing what they think is the best they can do in Iraq now, who, in retrospect, will not look back on what they did as having been as good as it looked at the time. Some will probably say that they were wrong.

If you look at some of the posts showing videos, you can see discussion about whether something is appropriate or not. Not every question and a black-and-white right/wrong answer, and when you're dealing with realtime situations, you have to take into account the person doing the action. That doesn't make them necessarily wrong or right, but it does mean that the person who disagrees with that action, or who took a different action in a similar situation, is also not necessarily wrong or right.

To me, it's all a matter of perspective.

And yes, I'm a liberal. When people call all liberals liars, stupid, dupes, or anything else, they're talking about me.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

O'Niell, Thurlow and their SBVFT ilk have been revealed as liars and/or flip-floppers.

That's an interesting liberal opinon. Too bad the only people who feel the same are other liberals who think anything negative against their party is wrong and untruthful.

Forty-two

[tunaplanet 0]

So Kerry admitting he committed war crimes doesn't bother you?

Wow.

Forty-two