OT: The Swiftees
Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33887
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
This whole debate is a f*cking joke. The U.S. has huge problems -- domestically and internationally -- and the biggest issue in this campaign is a "He said, I said" from a Vietnam patrol boat 36 years ago.
This country is a f*cking mess. Our political system is a sham. This will be the ugliest, most substance-free election season in American history, hands down.
Europe and the rest of the world must be laughing at the U.S. If it's not, it should be.
Take care,
PK
This country is a f*cking mess. Our political system is a sham. This will be the ugliest, most substance-free election season in American history, hands down.
Europe and the rest of the world must be laughing at the U.S. If it's not, it should be.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
-
FatPitcher
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 3:00 am
It's a big deal for some people, namely Vietnam vets and POWs who were slandered by Mr. Kerry. You're not in a position to understand that. And you think if it's not a big deal for you, other people are stupid for bringing it up. Well, guess what? I think it matters, not just because I have a grudge against someone who destroyed the reputations of millions of honorable men, but because I think his conduct shows that he is willing to lie and exaggerate to advance his own goals and political standing. That's something I think is relevant for a few people when they decide who to vote for. (And no, taking the word of the CIA and making decisions with the goal of protecting the nation are not the same thing as making up crazy stories to impress people and to look more politically appealing.)
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33887
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
>>>but because I think his conduct shows that he is willing to lie and exaggerate to advance his own goals and political standing.<<<
And that's exactly what Bush has done in his "War on Terror" in Iraq, too. Does going to war to find "weapons of mass destruction" ring a bell, especially when those weapons were supposedly in a country that Daddy didn't crush 12 years before? That premise was a sham, so then the war became an operation to remove a dictator. Then it morphed into a war to spread freedom. Whatever.
This whole argument is relevant to you, FatP, because you're a Bush partisan. If Bush was the accusee of these Swift Boat vets, you'd be ducking for cover and trying to change the subject just like every other Democrat.
This is just another horsesh*t partisan mud-slinging match that has ZERO relevance to the true issues and problems facing this country. Presidential elections have become FOX reality shows in the U.S., complete with irrelevant trash that's entertaining and interesting to either those inside the Beltway or those who really don't give two sh*ts about issues but are titillated and riled by partisan rhetoric and accusations.
Trust me, the Dems will find some sh*t to sling against Bush before November instead of discussing relevant issues, just like the Reps are trying to do now. Terry McAuliffe is just as big of a scumbag as Ed Gillespie, probably more.
It's all bullsh*t, and it's the kind of crap that drove me to the Libertarian Party eight years ago.
Disfunctional politics that do nothing to help the average American, which has become the norm in the U.S. of A.
Remember when presidents and their challengers only discussed issues in campaigns? The last time that happened probably was 1980. Then we had Gary Hart in 1984, and the Willie Horton ads the Reps threw at Dukakis in 1988 blew the door open for slime politics to become the norm.
Shameful. A f*cking joke, just like this whole Swift Boat controversy.
Find me a presidential candidate who hasn't twisted the truth or outright lied to gain power, and I'll find you a guy who never ran for the office.
Take care,
PK
And that's exactly what Bush has done in his "War on Terror" in Iraq, too. Does going to war to find "weapons of mass destruction" ring a bell, especially when those weapons were supposedly in a country that Daddy didn't crush 12 years before? That premise was a sham, so then the war became an operation to remove a dictator. Then it morphed into a war to spread freedom. Whatever.
This whole argument is relevant to you, FatP, because you're a Bush partisan. If Bush was the accusee of these Swift Boat vets, you'd be ducking for cover and trying to change the subject just like every other Democrat.
This is just another horsesh*t partisan mud-slinging match that has ZERO relevance to the true issues and problems facing this country. Presidential elections have become FOX reality shows in the U.S., complete with irrelevant trash that's entertaining and interesting to either those inside the Beltway or those who really don't give two sh*ts about issues but are titillated and riled by partisan rhetoric and accusations.
Trust me, the Dems will find some sh*t to sling against Bush before November instead of discussing relevant issues, just like the Reps are trying to do now. Terry McAuliffe is just as big of a scumbag as Ed Gillespie, probably more.
It's all bullsh*t, and it's the kind of crap that drove me to the Libertarian Party eight years ago.
Disfunctional politics that do nothing to help the average American, which has become the norm in the U.S. of A.
Remember when presidents and their challengers only discussed issues in campaigns? The last time that happened probably was 1980. Then we had Gary Hart in 1984, and the Willie Horton ads the Reps threw at Dukakis in 1988 blew the door open for slime politics to become the norm.
Shameful. A f*cking joke, just like this whole Swift Boat controversy.
Find me a presidential candidate who hasn't twisted the truth or outright lied to gain power, and I'll find you a guy who never ran for the office.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
Did you serve in Vietnam? If not, then I dont think you know half of what your talking about.FatPitcher wrote:It's a big deal for some people, namely Vietnam vets and POWs who were slandered by Mr. Kerry. You're not in a position to understand that. And you think if it's not a big deal for you, other people are stupid for bringing it up. Well, guess what? I think it matters, not just because I have a grudge against someone who destroyed the reputations of millions of honorable men, but because I think his conduct shows that he is willing to lie and exaggerate to advance his own goals and political standing. That's something I think is relevant for a few people when they decide who to vote for. (And no, taking the word of the CIA and making decisions with the goal of protecting the nation are not the same thing as making up crazy stories to impress people and to look more politically appealing.)
Then why vote? Are you so naive to think no politician does this? You don't think Bush has ever lied and exaggerated to get ahead? I think it's been concretely proven this last week that the 'Swiftees' are just a well paid off propaganda group and have basically lost all their credibility.and about "I think his conduct shows that he is willing to lie and exaggerate to advance his own goals and political standing. That's something I think is relevant for a few people when they decide who to vote for. "
Also, just because someone served or serves in the military (as I have for over 20 years) does not make them 'more patriotic' than someone who does not. I admittedly use to think that way as well, but there are millions of Americans out there that serve their country one way or another who never put on a military uniform.
BUSH HAS LIED LONG BEFORE IRAQ
Convicted of Drunk Driving, and Lied to Cover It Up
George Bush now admits that he was convicted of drunk driving. On September 4, 1976, a state trooper saw Bush's car swerve onto the shoulder, then back onto the road. [The Bush camp spin that he was driving too slowly is simply a lie.] Bush failed a road sobriety test and blew a .10 blood alcohol, plead guilty, and was fined and had his driver's license suspended. His spokesman says that he had drunk "several beers" at a local bar before the arrest. Bush was 30 at the time. He now says that he stopped drinking when he turned 40 because it was a problem.
More troubling, Bush lied in denying such an arrest, and still won't take responsibility for his actions. His first reaction was to blame Democrats and Fox News -- the only openly conservative TV network -- for reporting the story. "Why [was this reported] now, four days before the election? I've got my suspicions." He refused to say what his suspicions are, though. Bush admits covering up the story, but seems to think he has no responsibility for the failure of his cover up.
In fact, just like Clinton with Monica Lewinsky, Bush has brazenly and repeatedly lied to cover up and minimize this arrest.
Bush Lied at his Press Conference, 11/3/2000
Bush said he paid a fine on the spot and never went to court. That is clearly a lie, as you can see on this court document showing his court hearing a month later. In fact, it was a man also in court for DUI the same day who revealed Bush' arrest. Here is exactly what Bush said in his press conference:
Bush: "I told the guy I had been drinking and what do I need to do? And he said, "Here's the fine." I paid the fine and did my duty...."
Reporter: "Governor, was there any legal proceeding of any kind? Or did you just -- "
Bush: "No. I pled -- you know, I said I was wrong and I ..." Reporter: "In court? "
Bush: No, there was no court. I went to the police station. I said, "I'm wrong."
Bush Lied in Court, 1978
Bush got a court hearing to get his driving suspension lifted early, even though he had not completed a required driver rehabilitation course. He told the hearings officer that he drank only once a month, and just had "an occasional beer." The officer granted his request. But Bush continued drinking for 8 years after that date and has said publicly that he drank too much and had a drinking problem during that time. Presumably Bush was under oath during the hearing, though we haven't been able to pin down that detail. The Bush campaign refuses to comment on this contradiction.
Convicted of Drunk Driving, and Lied to Cover It Up
George Bush now admits that he was convicted of drunk driving. On September 4, 1976, a state trooper saw Bush's car swerve onto the shoulder, then back onto the road. [The Bush camp spin that he was driving too slowly is simply a lie.] Bush failed a road sobriety test and blew a .10 blood alcohol, plead guilty, and was fined and had his driver's license suspended. His spokesman says that he had drunk "several beers" at a local bar before the arrest. Bush was 30 at the time. He now says that he stopped drinking when he turned 40 because it was a problem.
More troubling, Bush lied in denying such an arrest, and still won't take responsibility for his actions. His first reaction was to blame Democrats and Fox News -- the only openly conservative TV network -- for reporting the story. "Why [was this reported] now, four days before the election? I've got my suspicions." He refused to say what his suspicions are, though. Bush admits covering up the story, but seems to think he has no responsibility for the failure of his cover up.
In fact, just like Clinton with Monica Lewinsky, Bush has brazenly and repeatedly lied to cover up and minimize this arrest.
Bush Lied at his Press Conference, 11/3/2000
Bush said he paid a fine on the spot and never went to court. That is clearly a lie, as you can see on this court document showing his court hearing a month later. In fact, it was a man also in court for DUI the same day who revealed Bush' arrest. Here is exactly what Bush said in his press conference:
Bush: "I told the guy I had been drinking and what do I need to do? And he said, "Here's the fine." I paid the fine and did my duty...."
Reporter: "Governor, was there any legal proceeding of any kind? Or did you just -- "
Bush: "No. I pled -- you know, I said I was wrong and I ..." Reporter: "In court? "
Bush: No, there was no court. I went to the police station. I said, "I'm wrong."
Bush Lied in Court, 1978
Bush got a court hearing to get his driving suspension lifted early, even though he had not completed a required driver rehabilitation course. He told the hearings officer that he drank only once a month, and just had "an occasional beer." The officer granted his request. But Bush continued drinking for 8 years after that date and has said publicly that he drank too much and had a drinking problem during that time. Presumably Bush was under oath during the hearing, though we haven't been able to pin down that detail. The Bush campaign refuses to comment on this contradiction.
"This whole debate is a f*cking joke."
...and yet you're putting your two cents in...aw, hell, what should I expect- go on PK, throw down!
cdastros:
See PK's reply above as to the proper response to your shovel full...
...and yet you're putting your two cents in...aw, hell, what should I expect- go on PK, throw down!
cdastros:
See PK's reply above as to the proper response to your shovel full...
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
-
FatPitcher
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 3:00 am
I'm not Bush partisan. Didn't vote for him last time, not voting for him this time. Iraq war was a mistake, but anyone who understands the definition of "lie" knows he wasn't lying about WMD (or is an irrational Bush-hater).
In any case, the SBVT haven't been proven wrong on anything, but they've proven Kerry wrong beyond doubt on several events and forced him to change his story. He still won't release his full military records, and individual records keep disappearing off his site. He's contradicted himself many times in Senate testimony, his journals, Tour of Duty, interviews, and campaign statements. The SBVT "ties" to the Bush campaign are not nearly enough to show coordination, are not nearly as close as Dem 527s are to Kerry, and are too obvious and inconsequential to be the result of strategic planning. They'd be much better financed and organized if they were really tied to Republican strategists, don't you think?
These are 260+ guys with successful military and civilian careers, opening themselves up for a barrage of slime attacks from the Kerry campaign and putting their credibility on the line with no possible motive except the one they state: to keep Kerry out of office. They don't need money (unlike Mr. Rassman et al.); many are lawyers, doctors, etc., and they are putting a lot of their own cash into this project because they feel it's a worthwhile cause. Many of them don't even care for Bush (O'Neill called him an "empty suit" and voted for Gore). You need to put away the New York Times and use your common sense.
If you don't care, that's fine. Just do yourself and me a favor and don't open the thread.
In any case, the SBVT haven't been proven wrong on anything, but they've proven Kerry wrong beyond doubt on several events and forced him to change his story. He still won't release his full military records, and individual records keep disappearing off his site. He's contradicted himself many times in Senate testimony, his journals, Tour of Duty, interviews, and campaign statements. The SBVT "ties" to the Bush campaign are not nearly enough to show coordination, are not nearly as close as Dem 527s are to Kerry, and are too obvious and inconsequential to be the result of strategic planning. They'd be much better financed and organized if they were really tied to Republican strategists, don't you think?
These are 260+ guys with successful military and civilian careers, opening themselves up for a barrage of slime attacks from the Kerry campaign and putting their credibility on the line with no possible motive except the one they state: to keep Kerry out of office. They don't need money (unlike Mr. Rassman et al.); many are lawyers, doctors, etc., and they are putting a lot of their own cash into this project because they feel it's a worthwhile cause. Many of them don't even care for Bush (O'Neill called him an "empty suit" and voted for Gore). You need to put away the New York Times and use your common sense.
If you don't care, that's fine. Just do yourself and me a favor and don't open the thread.
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33887
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
>>>Just do yourself and me a favor and don't open the thread.<<<
How very democratic of you. Trying to muzzle dissent.
I'm glad that a "He said, I said" debate that amounts to nothing seems more relevant to you than both candidate's positions on the economy, the war in Iraq, abortion, the environment, etc., etc.
>>>You need to put away the New York Times and use your common sense.<<<
Right, and common sense dictates that this debate has nothing to do with any of the substantive issues facing our country. Zero. It's mud-slinging politics, plain and simple.
And by the way, when did you serve in 'Nam? Because you said accurately that I don't have a true sense of this issue since I didn't serve, in Vietnam or in the Armed Forces at any time. When and where did you serve to give you all of this perspective?
Take care,
PK
How very democratic of you. Trying to muzzle dissent.
I'm glad that a "He said, I said" debate that amounts to nothing seems more relevant to you than both candidate's positions on the economy, the war in Iraq, abortion, the environment, etc., etc.
>>>You need to put away the New York Times and use your common sense.<<<
Right, and common sense dictates that this debate has nothing to do with any of the substantive issues facing our country. Zero. It's mud-slinging politics, plain and simple.
And by the way, when did you serve in 'Nam? Because you said accurately that I don't have a true sense of this issue since I didn't serve, in Vietnam or in the Armed Forces at any time. When and where did you serve to give you all of this perspective?
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
Damn skippy but I want to play.Right, and common sense dictates that this debate has nothing to do with any of the substantive issues facing our country. Zero. It's mud-slinging politics, plain and simple.
George Washington chopped down a cherry tree. Won't anyone think of those poor cherry trees?
Whew that was fun.
Now for an intermission on this thread. Take a break from finding links to support your parties cause and click mine.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~yel/Fire.html
-
FatPitcher
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 3:00 am
If you think it's a stupid debate, then DON'T PARTICIPATE. It's not that difficult to understand. Muzzle dissent...please. You're the one saying that this shouldn't be debated, not me--I'm just pointing out the uselessness of participating in a debate you think should not take place. And Kerry's the one threatening to ban books, get TV ads taken off the air, and otherwise suppress free speech. Does that concern you at all?pk500 wrote:>>>Just do yourself and me a favor and don't open the thread.<<<
How very democratic of you. Trying to muzzle dissent.
...
And by the way, when did you serve in 'Nam? Because you said accurately that I don't have a true sense of this issue since I didn't serve, in Vietnam or in the Armed Forces at any time. When and where did you serve to give you all of this perspective?
Take care,
PK
I served in the Navy from 1996-2001. Many of my relatives from my immediate family and beyond served in Vietnam. I did a paper in college on the the Vietnam POW/MIA issue, for which I interviewed 7 U.S. vets and 2 South Vietnamese.
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33887
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
OK, I understand. The question of John Kerry's valor on a Swift Boat 36 years ago is more important than present, pressing issues like the economy, the Iraq War, abortion, the environment, jobs, education, etc.
All this "debate" shows is that the Republicans are more scared of Kerry than I thought. If they need to dredge up this kind of substance-less sh*t to attack Kerry, than Bush's ability to debate and defend his policies on substantive issues must be pretty shaky.
Different priorities for some, I guess. I call it pure deflection from what really matters.
Take care,
PK
All this "debate" shows is that the Republicans are more scared of Kerry than I thought. If they need to dredge up this kind of substance-less sh*t to attack Kerry, than Bush's ability to debate and defend his policies on substantive issues must be pretty shaky.
Different priorities for some, I guess. I call it pure deflection from what really matters.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
I really don't know how you can say that when I've provided several instances of Swift Vet flip flops on things such as Cambodia and Kerry's service, how the Swift Vet stories don't fit with the official records, etc. etc. You keep making these claims, yet won't respond to them. And you're not obligated to respond to them...but you keep making these claims about Kerry as if they were incontrovertible fact, when they are nowhere close.FatPitcher wrote: In any case, the SBVT haven't been proven wrong on anything, but they've proven Kerry wrong beyond doubt on several events and forced him to change his story.
I agree with PK that this is a pretty stupid topic to be focusing on, especially considering the real issues that we should be focusing on. It's probably dumb for me to respond to the Swift Vet claims...but I just have problems letting people say these things when an examination of the claims really tears them apart.
Oh, and I've now read Chapters 3, 5, and 6 of Unfit for Command (they're online). There's no new information in those chapters that seems to have countered any of the arguments that I've presented...and nothing new that makes me think the Swift Vets are more credible.
-
FatPitcher
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 3:00 am
Kerry admits writing "many" spot reports on which official documentation is based. He also admits that these were often exaggerated. See his 1971 Senate testimony.
O'Neill said in 1971 talking to Nixon "I was in Cambodia--I was on the border." If you listen to the tape, he misspoke and corrected it a second later. How long did it take Kerry to "clear up" his Cambodia tales?
The two people that supported Kerry against charges of war crimes (NOT the validity of his medals) did so before Tour of Duty came out and made them realize that Kerry was stringing everyone along. When everyone got together and discussed it, they put all the pieces of the puzzle together, whereas before they as individuals did not have the full picture.
Kerry's diary says he had not been shot at yet, 8 days after he wanted a purple heart for being "wounded" by a sliver of grenade fragmentation from his own grenade. The Unfit for Command version of the story is supported by a flag officer who is not part of SBVT and who gave a very credible interview. Kerry was denied this Purple Heart by both the OinC, the medical officer, and his CO. He eventually got it months later; no one knows how and he won't release the relevant documents. It's easy to call people liars when you have the the absolute proof locked away. He has a lot of documents up on his web site; if they supported his version of the story, he would release them. Common sense. Also, the fact that no after-action report on the incident was filed means that there was no enemy contact.
Cambodia - I've already discussed this. There is absolutely no evidence supporting Kerry at all. There is a ton of evidence refuting it. It can't be proved, of course, in the same way that you can't prove I am not a space alien masquerading as a human.
Third Purple Heart/Bronze Star - Kerry's diary says his butt wound was from blowing up a rice cache with no enemy around. His other "wound" was a bruise on his arm. Neither of those qualify for a Purple Heart. Kerry used to claim (Senate testimony '98, Tour of Duty, No Man Left Behind) that all the other boats fled and he stayed. Now we know from all other crew members' testimony, including all those left from Kerry's boat, that Kerry fled, the other boats stayed and rescued #3 and its crew, and that damage control and setting up for tow took about an hour. Did the enemy fire suddenly stop (outgoing fire was between 40sec and 2 min, depending on who you believe, and there was definitely no enemy fire when they stopped) when they realized that the boats were sitting ducks? Doesn't make sense. Was the enemy fire so inaccurate that there were no bullet holes in any of the ships except 3 in Thurlow's from action earlier in the mission? Not likely...but then again, they were all shooting at Rassman, who was a perfect witness to the incident as he dove as deep in the river as he could...right? Did Kerry run away, go 5000 meters, come back and get Rassman within 40sec-2 min? Not physically possible.
Anyway, there is a possibility you are right, Jared. However, if I'm going to call someone a liar, it's going to be the guy hiding his records, who's already changed his story, who's got a ton of evidence and eyewitnesses against him. If he wants to show he's not a liar, he can release his records and he's chosen not to do that except in cases where they support him, which is all the more telling about the records he ISN'T releasing.
O'Neill said in 1971 talking to Nixon "I was in Cambodia--I was on the border." If you listen to the tape, he misspoke and corrected it a second later. How long did it take Kerry to "clear up" his Cambodia tales?
The two people that supported Kerry against charges of war crimes (NOT the validity of his medals) did so before Tour of Duty came out and made them realize that Kerry was stringing everyone along. When everyone got together and discussed it, they put all the pieces of the puzzle together, whereas before they as individuals did not have the full picture.
Kerry's diary says he had not been shot at yet, 8 days after he wanted a purple heart for being "wounded" by a sliver of grenade fragmentation from his own grenade. The Unfit for Command version of the story is supported by a flag officer who is not part of SBVT and who gave a very credible interview. Kerry was denied this Purple Heart by both the OinC, the medical officer, and his CO. He eventually got it months later; no one knows how and he won't release the relevant documents. It's easy to call people liars when you have the the absolute proof locked away. He has a lot of documents up on his web site; if they supported his version of the story, he would release them. Common sense. Also, the fact that no after-action report on the incident was filed means that there was no enemy contact.
Cambodia - I've already discussed this. There is absolutely no evidence supporting Kerry at all. There is a ton of evidence refuting it. It can't be proved, of course, in the same way that you can't prove I am not a space alien masquerading as a human.
Third Purple Heart/Bronze Star - Kerry's diary says his butt wound was from blowing up a rice cache with no enemy around. His other "wound" was a bruise on his arm. Neither of those qualify for a Purple Heart. Kerry used to claim (Senate testimony '98, Tour of Duty, No Man Left Behind) that all the other boats fled and he stayed. Now we know from all other crew members' testimony, including all those left from Kerry's boat, that Kerry fled, the other boats stayed and rescued #3 and its crew, and that damage control and setting up for tow took about an hour. Did the enemy fire suddenly stop (outgoing fire was between 40sec and 2 min, depending on who you believe, and there was definitely no enemy fire when they stopped) when they realized that the boats were sitting ducks? Doesn't make sense. Was the enemy fire so inaccurate that there were no bullet holes in any of the ships except 3 in Thurlow's from action earlier in the mission? Not likely...but then again, they were all shooting at Rassman, who was a perfect witness to the incident as he dove as deep in the river as he could...right? Did Kerry run away, go 5000 meters, come back and get Rassman within 40sec-2 min? Not physically possible.
Anyway, there is a possibility you are right, Jared. However, if I'm going to call someone a liar, it's going to be the guy hiding his records, who's already changed his story, who's got a ton of evidence and eyewitnesses against him. If he wants to show he's not a liar, he can release his records and he's chosen not to do that except in cases where they support him, which is all the more telling about the records he ISN'T releasing.
Last edited by FatPitcher on Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33887
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
So I guess it's safe to say you're voting for Bush -- even though you didn't in 2000 and really haven't stated any substantive reason why you would vote for Bush this time -- because of a "he said, I said" pissing match between Kerry and veterans over events on a boat 36 years ago?
Ah, a microcosm of the informed American electorate ... ranks right up there with voting for Jack Kennedy because he had nice hair.
FatP, can I ask you a question: Did you vote for Clinton in 1992 or 1996?
Take care,
PK
Ah, a microcosm of the informed American electorate ... ranks right up there with voting for Jack Kennedy because he had nice hair.
FatP, can I ask you a question: Did you vote for Clinton in 1992 or 1996?
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
-
FatPitcher
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 3:00 am
Did I not just say that I was not voting for Bush?
Even without the SBVT thing I think Kerry's a loser. He's promised more than a trillion dollars in new spending, along with a $400 billion tax increase. How is that going to cut the deficit in half? He promises 10 million new jobs without explaining where they will come from. He preys on fears of outsourcing, which is responsible for only a tiny fraction of job loss, and his own plan will do nothing to slow or stop outsourcing. He has no clue on Iraq other than vague promises about getting more countries involved. His response to temporarily high oil prices is to talk about alternative energy sources that won't help for 15-20 years. He criticizes everyting Bush does, even if it's exactly what he would be doing. That kind of partisan crap may get votes, but it's not how I think a president should act.
I was 14 in '92, voted Browne in 1996 and 2000, and am voting Badnarik this year.
Even without the SBVT thing I think Kerry's a loser. He's promised more than a trillion dollars in new spending, along with a $400 billion tax increase. How is that going to cut the deficit in half? He promises 10 million new jobs without explaining where they will come from. He preys on fears of outsourcing, which is responsible for only a tiny fraction of job loss, and his own plan will do nothing to slow or stop outsourcing. He has no clue on Iraq other than vague promises about getting more countries involved. His response to temporarily high oil prices is to talk about alternative energy sources that won't help for 15-20 years. He criticizes everyting Bush does, even if it's exactly what he would be doing. That kind of partisan crap may get votes, but it's not how I think a president should act.
I was 14 in '92, voted Browne in 1996 and 2000, and am voting Badnarik this year.
PK,
This comic strip brought your comments to mind.
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war39.html
Best wishes,
Doug
This comic strip brought your comments to mind.
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war39.html
Best wishes,
Doug
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33887
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
>>>I was 14 in '92, voted Browne in 1996 and 2000, and am voting Badnarik this year.<<<
Well, then you're an OK guy.
But I still don't understand the fixation on the Swift Boat debate ... to each their own.
Take care,
PK
Well, then you're an OK guy.
But I still don't understand the fixation on the Swift Boat debate ... to each their own.Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
Badnarick, Nader and all those write in nominations. All the Democrats will be crying that you are still helping the republicans. So in a round about way you are voting for Bush. I only hope Bill Maher and Michael Moore don't see this thread. The last thing I need is to see Moore on his knees again.and am voting Badnarik this year.
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33887
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
Brent:bdoughty wrote:Badnarick, Nader and all those write in nominations. All the Democrats will be crying that you are still helping the republicans. So in a round about way you are voting for Bush. I only hope Bill Maher and Michael Moore don't see this thread. The last thing I need is to see Moore on his knees again.and am voting Badnarik this year.
That's bullsh*t, with all due respect. Guys like FatP and I are voting for Badnarik because we honestly believe he's the best man to run the country.
I could care less who my vote for Badnarik helps or hurts as long as it helps Michael Badnarik. My vote for Badnarik isn't a protest vote; it's a vote for the candidate I believe is best-suited to be the President of the United States.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
-
FatPitcher
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 3:00 am
Amen to that PK! I've voted Libertarian in the last 5 elections, and I'm more confident in my vote for Badnarik than I have been at any time in the past. I'm sick of getting my face washed with "why are you throwing your vote away on someone who can't possibly win!?" by my fiends. That dog just will not hunt in my book. My guy can't win if I don't vote for him, that's for sure. Badnarik and the Libertarians understand and respect the Constitution, and that's something I honestly can't say for Bush, Kerry, or Nader. Being a Libertarian requires some responsibility on the part of the citizen; something that the Republicans and Democrats are trying to convince you that you can't handle.pk500 wrote:That's bullsh*t, with all due respect. Guys like FatP and I are voting for Badnarik because we honestly believe he's the best man to run the country.
I could care less who my vote for Badnarik helps or hurts as long as it helps Michael Badnarik. My vote for Badnarik isn't a protest vote; it's a vote for the candidate I believe is best-suited to be the President of the United States.
"The question of John Kerry's valor on a Swift Boat 36 years ago is more important than present, pressing issues like the economy, the Iraq War, abortion, the environment, jobs, education, etc."
If he lied about important events then to get medals, what makes anyone think he won't lie to get the presidency now? 10 million jobs?! I'd like to see how. Empty promises, but I'm sure many of his constituency are fine with just the rhetoric- evidently they don't need to see the hard copy of how he intends to do some of these things he says that he "will do". If the man lied about all of this Vietnam stuff (for political gain) then this is far more of a valid questioning than some of you want to believe. And I say ad nauseum that none of this would have been an issue if not for Kerry insisting that this be the front and center issue of his campaign- go blame him...
If he lied about important events then to get medals, what makes anyone think he won't lie to get the presidency now? 10 million jobs?! I'd like to see how. Empty promises, but I'm sure many of his constituency are fine with just the rhetoric- evidently they don't need to see the hard copy of how he intends to do some of these things he says that he "will do". If the man lied about all of this Vietnam stuff (for political gain) then this is far more of a valid questioning than some of you want to believe. And I say ad nauseum that none of this would have been an issue if not for Kerry insisting that this be the front and center issue of his campaign- go blame him...
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood