galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:37 am

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

"On the campaign trail, Sen. John Forbes Kerry regularly mentions his Vietnam War combat experience, during which he received three Purple Hearts, the Silver Star and Bronze Star.
However, the Massachusetts Democrat doesn't like to talk much about how he received the awards or the time after he returned home when he was rubbing shoulders with Hanoi Jane Fonda as a much-celebrated organizer for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), one of America's most radical pro-communist groups."
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
JAL777
Posts: 2453
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 10:13 pm

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:53 am

Link is dead.  Sad

< F I L L E R >
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:55 am

Who cares? There are plenty of vets that are for him. Go look up Jim Rassman. Mr. Rassman is a registered Republican.

The guy is a lefty-- no doubt. But don't put him in same bucket with people like William J. Clinton et al who protested the war without ever going. Kerry came from wealth and privilege. Unlike Howard Dean and George Bush, Kerry signed up with the Navy after Yale and saw real combat. He could have taken the easy road but chose not to do so. Don't forget that Dick Cheney cowered during Vietnam. Kerry more than earned his right to protest against Vietnam or anything else.

If the Democrats nominate a clown like Dean, there is no chance I would consider voting Democratic. But if its Kerry, I may vote Democratic this time around simply because he bellied up the bar to defend our country unlike Bush or Cheney.

 
KYIPpilot
Posts: 1357
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 11:14 pm

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:58 am

Isn't Bush the one that cut some of the funding to Veterans groups and veterans hospitals?
"It starts when you're always afraid; You step out of line, the man come and take you away" -Buffalo Springfield
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:44 am

What??? Cheney cut and ran TOO??? This just keeps getting worse and worse..

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 12:51 pm

Don't forget how while protesting the war in Washington D.C., instead of sleeping outside with the other protesters, he stayed in a nice 5-Star hotel. He also claims to have thrown his medals over the White House fence. In reality they were medals he purchased. His own medals hang in his Senate office in D.C.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 12:56 pm

How did Dick Cheney cut and run during Vietnam.

Wasn't he an fiscal advisor for Nixon at the time?
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:01 pm

But don't put him in same bucket with people like William J. Clinton et al who protested the war without ever going.

3/4 of the country protested against, or were not in favor of the war. Why is that a big deal. And again, military service is not a requirment for being President of The United States.

But if military service for many is a measure of being a president, then Kerry has Bush beat hands down. It's not even a contest.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:16 pm

B757300,

What difference does that make where he stayed during the protests? Since he had the cash, he stayed at a nice place.

He could have very, very easily avoided military service altogether using his family wealth but instead dove in head first and served admirably.

Why don't you criticize Cheney ever if your complaint is based on principle of some kind?

L-188,

If Cheney were ever a fiscal advisor of any kind, that is very frightening. Based on his remarks that "deficits don't matter", the guy either is incompetent or a liar.

Deficit spending is a legitimate tool in a sensible fiscal policy. President Bush and VP-Cheney have embarked on an absolutely reckless fiscal policy.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:22 pm

Why don't you criticize Cheney ever if your complaint is based on principle of some kind?

It isn't based on principal, it's based purely on party affiliation, nothing more. If it were based on principle, he would critisize Bush as much as Clinton, since both found a way to avoid going to war. Both legally stayed out of the war, but in his mind, only Clinton is the devil in this one.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:34 pm

Just looked it up on the commanding heights website.

His first government position was as special assistant to Donald Rumsfeld, director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, in 1969 and 1970. He next served as a White House staff assistant in 1970 and 1971 and as assistant director of the Cost of Living Council from 1971 to 1973

So yes he was one of Nixons economic advisors.

Now I admit that Nixon wasn't the greatest handler of the economy, mainly because he tried to implement price controls, which drove up inflation, kind of what the democrats want to emulate in regards to the canadian health care and drug system.

Based on his remarks that "deficits don't matter", the guy either is incompetent or a liar.

You also need to read up on John Manard Keynes economic theories. He proported that government should increase spendind, even run up deficits in economic downturns to stimulate the economy. At the time he was giving that advice to Roosevelt.

But it still works today, GW does seem to be going a bit overboard with it, but he came into office with a mismanaged and failing economy to deal with, and like it or not, we would have had a lot worse fall then we did because GW did two things.

1. Keep money from comming out of the economy through tax cuts.

2. Kept Greenspan around to keep interest rates low.


Frankly though I think Hayak was more on the ball with his free market aproach, but Keynes is abosolutely correct that the governement should inject money into the economy during slowdowns.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:44 pm

GW does seem to be going a bit overboard with it, but he came into office with a mismanaged and failing economy to deal with.....

(snicker). Yes, it was so mismanaged that it was just starting to come down from a 7 1/2 year run like the modern economy has never seen. Sure, that's mismanagement.

Mismanagement is offering up huge increases in spending, as GW is doing now, while at the same time, offering up huge reductions in the revenue the government is receiving because of tax breaks. Moderate increases wouldn't be too bad, but we're talking a $500 billion deficit next year. A half trillion! That's going WAY overboard. That's mismanagement. That's almost a malfescence of duty.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:52 pm

L-188,

Did you not read this sentence I wrote?:

"Deficit spending is a legitimate tool in a sensible fiscal policy."

I am familiar with Keynes. The Bush/Cheney second tax cut was not part of any sensible economic policy. It will provide little or neglible stimuls effect. They fired their O'Neill and Lindsey when they pointed this out to them.

Bottom line is that Dick really didn't want to go Vietnam and found a way out just like Slick Willy.

[Edited 2004-02-01 05:57:38]
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:57 pm

Re:Cheney--His first government position was as special assistant to Donald Rumsfeld, director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, in 1969 and 1970. He next served as a White House staff assistant in 1970 and 1971 and as assistant director of the Cost of Living Council from 1971 to 1973

What was he foing before this? The War was full scale before this...

And jeez isn't that enuff time for the guys to be collecting taxpayer paychecks and keep hanging around..it's 2004 now! 'Pigs at the Trough' I gotta get this book!

BN747

"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 2:15 pm

What was he foing before this? The War was full scale before this...

WTF over?

Lets see here, the man was born in 1941, so I think he was a little young for WWII, That also would have made him what nine when Korea got nasty.

But that also means that he would have been 18 in 1959, which was before Vietnam became a household word. Shoot, the Cuban Missile Crisis was still three years away.

Jeeze I dunno, Maybe he was going to college in what was still considered to be peacetime? Somebody correct me if I am wrong but wasn't college an automatic deferment back then?

And correct me on this too but the army tended to draft 18 and 20 year olds out of high school, not guys in their mid to late 20's finishing up there masters and their doctorate.

He ended up with his BA in 65 and his masters in 66. Which means that he would have been what twenty five. He also spent the next three years doing additional schoolwork on a doctorate, which I do note, that I don't find any mention of him finishing.

Like it or not, his prime draft years where in the period before Vietnam. So he didn't dodge the draft, he just wasn't a prime canidate for it.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 2:34 pm

Cheney (a true chicken hawk) avoided service like many in his self-serving generation:

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/080900/gen_0809005340.shtml


The thing that bugs me about Galaxy 5's whole thread and B757300's silly attack is that they are just feeble attempts at some kind of character assasination because they disagree with Kerry's politics.

Frankly, I disagree with his politics. According to this weeks Economist, he has a 93% approval rating from Americans for Democratic Action (a very liberal organization). He is a higher rated lefty than Ted Kennedy who got 88%.

Whatever his politics may be, he put himself in harms way in service of his country and saved the lives of his men. There are plenty of politicians in the baby boomer generation that talk a good game about love for their country but only a few that can truly back up the words the way that Kerry can.

For that, John Kerry has my utmost respect. Whatever the outcome of this year's election cycle, he will always have my gratitude for his service in Vietnam. There are many things more than important political ideology.

If you disagree with him for being too liberal, just say so. But refrain from inane attacks on his character.



[Edited 2004-02-01 06:37:01]

[Edited 2004-02-01 06:39:23]
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 2:54 pm

Like it or not, his prime draft years where in the period before Vietnam. So he didn't dodge the draft, he just wasn't a prime canidate for it.

Bullsh*t! Your info below proves it!

Lets see here, the man was born in 1941, so I think he was a little young for WWII, was this an attempt at humor? That also would have made him what nine when Korea got nasty.

And correct me on this too but the army tended to draft 18 and 20 year olds out of high school, not guys in their mid to late 20's finishing up there masters and their doctorate.

He ended up with his BA in 65 and his masters in 66. Which means that he would have been what twenty five.


BAM! Right there...he had the perfect creditials and was at the perfect age to be a commision officer! As was -- don't sh*t your pants -- Al Gore and John Kerry. He could have as they did...continued further educational goals afterward. So if he was as patriotic as he likes to paint himself...he blew a massive opportunity to prove it!

Although I believe the Vietnam War should have never happened and was botched from the start. But for blow-hard Patriots and raving war-hawks..you should at least be able to walk the walk if you're gonna talk the talk...and your boy Chicky Dicky came up WAY short!

BN747

"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 3:02 pm

What difference could the remaining Viet Nam vets possibly make in the election out come? Not much.

But, harness them with the current active duty/reserve/retired community and you have done something.

 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 3:12 pm

Lets see here, the man was born in 1941..

Which means he was approaching 30 by 1970, which is far above the nominal age that the service were looking to nab new recruits, unless there was shortage of recruits, which there were not, or unless if it was a time of global war, which it was not.

BN747, even by my standards, as one who doesn't like Dick Cheney at all, you go way overboard in your attacks. The man didn't dodge anything. He certainly wasn't in his late teen or early 20's by the mid 60's, as Bush and Clinton were, and who would both have been prime candidates to get drafted for Vietnam. You're driven by pure hatred, nothing else.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 3:23 pm

Actually there was an overabundance of officers during Vietnam. ROTC And West Point where putting out plenty.

I knew more then a couple warrant Officers when I was in the Army that got their commissions and where full officers during Vietnam flying helos.

After the war, the army realized there where too many officers so a number of them agreed to become warrant officers or even go back to an enlisted rank rather then be Riffed out of the service. Which was also an option.

Why draft officers if you don't need them.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 3:27 pm

And it should be noted that by 73 nobody was being drafted anymore.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 4:28 pm

The Republicans by pointing the finger at Clinton for ostensibly avoiding the draft, have opened up a can of worms for themselves.

Case in point: Dick Cheney.

Cheney received his first deferment for being a student (much like Clinton would have when he was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. For the dimwitted and uneducated not in the know, thats a scholarship you get for having straight As. Dickie, by the way, flunked out of Yale after one year).

Cheney received two draft deferments --one for being a student in 1963, and one for being married in 1964. In 1965, the government announced a change of policy: Married men would now be drafted, unless they were also fathers. Nine months and two days after that announcement, the Cheneys had their first child. Surprise, surprise !

What is really galling about the Bushes and their cohorts is that while Clinton and the hippies were AGAINST the war in Vietnam, the Bushes were all for it as they and their compatriots stood to make a large profit from it, as well as ride out a big wave of patriotic hooplah. Its easy to send others to die, while waving the red,white, and blue and excoriating those who oppose the wretched hypocrisy fake patriots espouse.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 7:07 pm

Being involved in a WW2 living hiostory group in the Netherlands (we portray British and Canadian soldiers), I did some research on the ages of British soldiers during WW2. Even though they had the 19 year old youngsters, it was quite common to have 37 year old privates, even in elite forces like the Airborne. I´ve seen several grave markers at the cemetary at Arnhem. AFIK the average age of an enlisted man in the US Army during WW2 was 25-29. Most of them had a family.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 7:23 pm

Yeah, but WWII and Vietnam should not be compared when discussing the amount of manpower needed to fight the war.

You are correct though, WWII had older soldiers then a lot would expect. But again Vietnam was much smaller, so the army could be more "picky"

Even today it is amazing how much the enlistment standards can change depended on what the armies needs are.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 8:10 pm

Getting off topic, but in my opinion recruits should be quite a bit oolder than today, I think they should have a civilian profession and maybe a family. It makes them think more, but on the other hand I think this would lead to disciplinary problems as well.
Ok, for myself, I´ve never served, I´ve been born and grown up in West Berlin in the American sector under Allied law, this means the German military were not allowed to draft from Berlin and when the wall came down I was already too old for conscription, they were just not interested in me. I lived for many years right next door to an US Army barracks ( Andrews Barracks in Finkensteinallee for those who´ve been there) and I had some friends in the Berlin Brigade. I understand that the American soldiers serving in Berlin were handpicked due to the close contact with Soviet forces, they didn´t want to have some immature triggerhappy idiot to start WW3. Also due to the higher average age of the American and British soldiers many of them got married to German wives and stayed on after their time in the forces. The French soldiers were usualy 18-19 year old conscript, who, often not being able to speak German, stuck together and didn´t mix with the local population. Even today I still have a funny feeling seeing Bundeswehr soldiers in Berlin, Americans, British, French and Russians belong there, but for me Bundeswehr doesn´t belong there. I think I´m still more familar with the US and British Army than the Bundeswehr.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 8:21 pm

Interesting.

BTW, your comments about how the French limitations on ther laguages, unfortunately somewhat mirror my experiences there.

The US Army did give everybody a two week crash corse in German taught by the locals, but still I really was never comfertable going to places where that limited language skills would be needed.

Really wish now ten years too late that I had made more of an effort to get around.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 8:36 pm

Back in 1989, about 6 months before the wall came down, I had a friend who was a sergeant with the US Berlin brigade. We often went to East Berlin, because he wanted to see the other side of the Iron Curtain. Unfortunately he had to go in his class A´s, so everybody could recognize him as a US soldier.
The thing is, the were German language classes offered to GIs, many took them but some just stuck to the American facilities.
On another occasion there was an American-Filipino family, the husband was an infantry sergeant. When the Berlin Brigade was posted to Macedonia in 1993, just before they were disolved due to German unification in 1994, they asked if I could drop by once or twice a week to drive the wives of several families to the commisary, which was about 10 km´s away from the housing area, and the wives didn´t have a valid Army driving licence for Europe. It was quite an experience to be driving through my hometown using an American forces registered van. This way I was in several barracks and other US military installations.

If drafted I would have prefered to do my service in the US Army compared to the Bundeswehr, due to greater familarity.

Concerning the French soldiers, I think they were just shy teenagers, I know of a few older professionals who gotstuck in Berlin as well.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 8:45 pm

think they were just shy teenagers

That was probably me over there, except being a frog  Laugh out loud

Actually the sad part is that my grandmother came over on the boat when she was six. Never really got a chance to go up where the family started from.

I was nervous enought that when I got to the point where I could order food and read road signs, well that was about it.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:19 pm

L-188

Have you been based in Berlin? At Tempelhof Airbase?

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:33 pm

No never made it to Berlin.

Was based in Stuttgart and Illisheim near Ansbach.

Got as far north as Geissen and Frankfurt, as far south as Munich, Garmich and Bertchesgarten.

Boy I hope I got those spellings right Big grin

Like I said, looking back on it I wish I had gotten around a lot more then I did, but my lack of language skills really made me nervous about doing so.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:38 pm

Link works fine for me.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:21 am

"BN747, even by my standards, as one who doesn't like Dick Cheney at all, you go way overboard in your attacks. The man didn't dodge anything. He certainly wasn't in his late teen or early 20's by the mid 60's, as Bush and Clinton were, and who would both have been prime candidates to get drafted for Vietnam. You're driven by pure hatred, nothing else."

Well alpha 1 (note small 'a') it just goes to show amazing enough...we have different standards. It actually quite creepy that you keep following my threads and make these anemic attempts to psychoanalyze my comments re: Bush and his crew.

If my reply...

L-188: He ended up with his BA in 65 and his masters in 66. Which means that he would have been what twenty five.

BN747:BAM! Right there...he had the perfect creditials and was at the perfect age to be a commision officer! As was -- don't sh*t your pants -- Al Gore and John Kerry. He could have as they did...continued further educational goals afterward. So if he was as patriotic as he likes to paint himself...he blew a massive opportunity to prove it!

Although I believe the Vietnam War should have never happened and was botched from the start. But for blow-hard Patriots and raving war-hawks..you should at least be able to walk the walk if you're gonna talk the talk...and your boy Chicky Dicky came up WAY short!"

....if the above is hatred against Cheney...

Then what's this?

He's sneaky conniving furtive lying scum-sucking money-grubbing jizzbag!!!

There is indeed a clear difference between dislike, disdain and hatred. If you don't like my comments..don't read them. Independents and the democratics should certainly..NO...NEED to borrow a page from the republican's playbook and pull out all the stops when it comes to serving up to the republicans what they give everyone else.

We even had a US Senator, I believe Dan Burton, R-Indiana, who publicly called Clinton a scumbag..so privately, he probably said...

He's sneaky conniving furtive lying scum-sucking money-grubbing jizzbag!!!

And I'm sure he really doesn't hate Clinton..but was probably seeking headlines. So if you find what I said above re:Cheney, and that pierces your skin...you need to either toughen it up a little bit, or lighten up and just avoid my post because the campaign season is just getting into full swing! And more infomation will make itself know over the coming months. If you wanna beleive I'm a 'hater' ..that's fine too..I got it. No need to repeated it over and over again..if you want to continue saying that. I have no problem turning the heat a few 100 degrees more to help substantiate your case!


No boy scout here...
BN747


"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3738
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:19 pm

I'm against Bush as well, and for all the anti-democrats threads that come up, a quick search on Yahoo will provide sites supporting exactly the opposite view. That's why earlier today when I saw the thread "Democrats for Bush" I was quick to put up a thread of "Republicans against Bush" just to prove a point.

You found some vets against Kerry. Great. I bet you there's alot of vets that support him too, all this does is prove that there's alot of differing views and opinions and that's what makes it interesting.

For what its worth, I dont even know who Jane Fonda is, less do I care that he hung out with her in the early 70s. Again this can be compared to Arnold. Group sex in the 70s. Okay, so what? How does that affect the politics today? So he hung out with Jane Fonda in the 70s, I dont think that has one iota of significance in regards to his political platform today, nor should it damage his credibility.

He opposed the vietnam war? Join the club. Gee I wonder who else was opposing the war during that time, maybe millions more americans, and alot of them returned vets? So this makes no difference either, in fact I'd credit him for actually having served in the war, and done many brave things, and still having a difference of opinion and be bold enough to take it all the way to Washington along with other protesters. Good for him for speaking up.

Botox? This hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet, but now people are bashing kerry for a rumour that he allegedly had botox. Who cares? And if they do care, why do they care? Does Botox somehow genetically alter a politician's mind so that they enact policies dangerous to the people of this country? IF that were the case maybe Botox would be a cause for concern, but that's not the case. So all this botox bitching amounts to about as much as someone moaning that Martha Stewart wore pearls to her court date: Get over it. The only reason people mention either of these things is because they simply don't like kerry and need some reason to bitch about him. So, lets attack kerry over Botox!  Yeah sure

The only legitimate argument against Kerry that I have seen is his voting record. And that's it. And some of the stuff that they bring up in regards to his voting record is ridiculous and shallow as well. For example, they say in 1992 Kerry made a comment against affirmative action. What they dont tell you is that they took that comment out of context and that if you hear both sides of the story, kerry said at the beginning, AND at the end of that speech, that he was FOR affirmative action. It's just that middle bit, the part where he says that he had concerns about some implications of it, that they focus on. Convenient. Oh but we musn't forget that alot of what they love to attack kerry about was over 10 years ago and since then some of his opinions have changed.


Lemme ask something. Have you changed your mind on an important issue in the last 10 years? Of course. So why isn't a politician afforded that same right? And why does it even matter, what happened or what was said in 1992 or what was done in 1970 is of little relevance to us today. Are you gonna say the guy can't make a good president, because in 1970 he protested the war, AFTER having served in it? IF you say yes to that, I wonder what your opinion on GWB is, after all right around that time he was getting high off of doobies, but somehow the media tends to forget that fact. And why? Because its not important in the least. I wish they'd afford the same respect to these candidates for president.

Kerry wasn't and still is not my favourite candidate, but if he's the one that can beat Bush, I'm all for him. Unless a credible reason comes up as to why I can't trust him as my president, I'll continue to support him. Note, I said a credible reason, if a legit reason can be found I'll change my mind. So far, I havent seen it.

That's my take.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:40 pm

For what its worth, I dont even know who Jane Fonda is, less do I care that he hung out with her in the early 70s. Again this can be compared to Arnold. Group sex in the 70s. Okay, so what? How does that affect the politics today? So he hung out with Jane Fonda in the 70s, I dont think that has one iota of significance in regards to his political platform today, nor should it damage his credibility.


Ok the basic Jane Fonda primer.

She is a 3rd rate actress that made a lot of money sell workout tapes to insecure women in the 1980's.

Anyway back in the 1960's she was so against the war, that she traveled to North Vietnam and basicly conducted a USO tour for the NVA army. There are also stories that she was shown POW's and lectured them about how they where going to loose the war.

She should have been tried and shot as a traitor when she got back.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:43 pm

Jane Fonda is another GOP prop any time they want to make anyone who ever talked to her look like they're UnAmerican.

Any questions?
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:44 pm

I don't think Jane's antics back then were supportive, or helpful. But her right to say what she feels is what we are all about, and what many of us spent our lives protecting. We don't get the right to judge what she did, even if we disagreed with it.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:16 pm

As Liberal as I am...I have to disagree Jeff. What Jane did (Total anti-Vietnam war guy here) was just a notch short of Taliban Johnny -- John Walker Lindh! When an american's protest goes as so far to antogonize or threaten/compremise the safety of fellow americans...that's treason. Pure and simple. If Hanoi Jane did what L-188 suggest (taunting US POWs..and I don't buy that for a second) then I'd have to say..she certainly needs to be called on it. When any celebrity uses their 'star power' in a public way regarding an adversary..it should be very calculated. And there is a line.

Kristofferson Going down to Nicaragua to see if things are as bad as ol' Ronnie Reagan tried to sell us ..that was a worthy cause. It provides us a second opinion versus official line of bull sold to us by 'the gov' via the US press! When Jesse Jackson flew off to Iraq, Libya and Kosovo to win release of US soldiers is perfectly fine when it works..although it eats at the State Department becuz it's seen as unsolicited interference...I say the burden that it removes from worried familes trumps the feelings of the Dept. of State. But in Taliban Johnny's case....he f*cked up! Plain and simple..and before that he was a nobody..well still is. If Jane took up a rifle or lectured US POWs..then she is very much subject to flaming by americans. Absent of war or war-like conditions...then great, knock yourself out. Protest in foreign garb all you want!

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:04 pm


Aloha717200

Your right, but sides take cheap shots, but, Kerry has been blasting the President for many months. He even used profanity when describing the president, Sharpton called the President a gang leader, even Clark chimed by saying that Bush was not his commander in Chief. My point is that everybody takes shots at each other.
NO URLS in signature
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:35 pm

You wanna see how they take shots at each other.. click below see reply #67!

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/492174/


BN747

"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3738
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

RE: Vets Against Kerry

Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:42 pm

The media hyped that one up too. The profanity use. What Kerry actually said was the following:


When asked in the interview about the success of rival candidate Howard Dean, whose anti-war message has resounded with supporters, Kerry responded: "When I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, `I'm against everything?' Sure. Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did."


He wasn't using profanity at Bush, but rather was using it in normal conversation to express his distaste for the handling of postwar Iraq. Any of us use that same word in the same general context every day. It stresses an emotion rather than being an attack when used as such.




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LittleFokker, vikkyvik and 14 guests