Former Lt. Gov. of Texas helped Bush avoid Vietnam combat (aka Leave Kerry Alone) - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-02-2004, 01:22 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:03 AM
Quote:
not backing millitary spending,

voting against the Gulf War etc.

What is the context?

Is McCain soft on terror?

Would you be surprised if Kerry's defense votes were closer to McCains than Zell Miller or some nut job who votes FOR EVERY DEFENCE BILL.

If every defense bill passed we would be BANKRUPT like the USSR.

Most times there are more than one version of a bill. People with no backbone and are afraid of being called unpatriotic of anti-military will vote for every bill.

McCain has the guts to challenge wasteful spending and vote against wasteful bills.

Bottom line McCain has said more than once that Kerry is qualified to be Commander -in - Chief.

I trust his judgment more than the partisan attack dogs.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 03:23 PM   #17
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 05:03 AM
If Kerry was light years ahead on intellect compared to Bush, then he would be running away with this election. However, Kerry's own gaffes in terms his public statements and campaign methodology make me think he can be just as dense as Bush.
__________________

__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 07:17 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu
If Kerry was light years ahead on intellect compared to Bush, then he would be running away with this election.
Since when are elections decided on the basis of intellect?

If that were the case, the presidency, the Senate, the Congress would be a job characteristic of PhDs, academics and professors. Clearly, that is not the case.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 08:14 PM   #19
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 05:03 AM
I don't anyone would suggest that elections are usually won by the most intellegent or astute candidate, but it reflects the character of the candidate.

If a candidate fights for his country and runs the risk of dying for his country, then realizes how one person's decision (the president's) can affect so many lives, he'll be more likely to use war as a final resort. Families are torn apart...it's the stuff of "Sunday Bloody Sunday", and "Please". It wasn't necessary in Iraq, and I doubt it was absolutely necessary in Afganistan; but that's another debate.

I don't see Bush having the ability to make an intellegent, moral decision when dealing with the price of war. Nor do I see Cheney having that ability. Nor do I see Karl Rove having the history of sacrifice to make that decision. Kerry fought in a war...perhaps the grizzliest war of last 50 years, and he didn't like what he saw. He knew the policies and the agenda of that war, and spoke out against it...AFTER GETTING A UPCLOSE LOOK.

Bush did what anyone else would do. He let his father's friends give him a free-pass out of war. If I had that option, I might take it as well. That's not the issue here. The issue is, Kerry had powerful friends as well, but STILL WENT AND SACRIFICED FOR HIS COUNTRY.

It's an issue of character. Plain and simple.

That being said, I support Ralph Nader.
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 10:40 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Danospano
Yes, yes...we all know that character SHOULDN'T determine who's president, but it DOES! That's the main reason Bush got election in the first place (albeit by screwing methods in the Supreme Court and the Florida Election Board).

The history of Kerry in Vietnam and the gut he had to stand up for what was right, while Bush was playing in the southern parts of Dixie, means that Kerry is lightyears ahead of Bush in intellect, experience, and wisdom. Remember all those Oliver Stone movies about Vietnam; Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, Heaven and Earth; and The Deer Hunter, COming Home, Full Metal Jacket..etc...remember how popular those movies are and how hated the Vietnam War was and IS? Why is Kerry being attacked for supporting the views that are synonimous with those films?

Why are we beginning to change history, by stating that Vietnam was a noble fight?

Yes, character shouldn't determine the president, but it does and always will. And Ralph Nader has the best character...that's why I'd vote for him...if I could...because I live in a backward state (Oklahoma)...where I can't vote for anyone but Bush/Kerry/or the Libertarian. Yeah...this sucks.
Kerry attacked this country and its troops when he returned from Vietnam. Oliver Stone doesn't have a clue when it comes to Vietnam. My father and his friends served in Vietnam and saw those movies and in their opinion, Oliver Stone got it wrong.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 10:48 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



What is the context?

Is McCain soft on terror?

Would you be surprised if Kerry's defense votes were closer to McCains than Zell Miller or some nut job who votes FOR EVERY DEFENCE BILL.

If every defense bill passed we would be BANKRUPT like the USSR.

Most times there are more than one version of a bill. People with no backbone and are afraid of being called unpatriotic of anti-military will vote for every bill.

McCain has the guts to challenge wasteful spending and vote against wasteful bills.

Bottom line McCain has said more than once that Kerry is qualified to be Commander -in - Chief.

I trust his judgment more than the partisan attack dogs.
McCain has a very different record from Kerry in terms of proposals for or aganist military spending as well as votes.

I'm sorry, but a person who has voted for every defense bill is NOT a nut job. Its frustrating when people fail to realize how important those defense bills are to military personal and their families. If every defense bill were passed, the United States military would have more money for training, development of new weapons, pay, and other money for helping military families.

Bankrupt like the USSR? Not even close and I could go into detail on that one if you'd like!

Bottom line, McCain has said more than once that George Bush is the person that should be president for the next four years. If you have an ounce of respect for McCain, at least take not of that fact, his speech, and his support for most of George Bush's policies.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 11:10 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Danospano
I don't anyone would suggest that elections are usually won by the most intellegent or astute candidate, but it reflects the character of the candidate.

If a candidate fights for his country and runs the risk of dying for his country, then realizes how one person's decision (the president's) can affect so many lives, he'll be more likely to use war as a final resort. Families are torn apart...it's the stuff of "Sunday Bloody Sunday", and "Please". It wasn't necessary in Iraq, and I doubt it was absolutely necessary in Afganistan; but that's another debate.

I don't see Bush having the ability to make an intellegent, moral decision when dealing with the price of war. Nor do I see Cheney having that ability. Nor do I see Karl Rove having the history of sacrifice to make that decision. Kerry fought in a war...perhaps the grizzliest war of last 50 years, and he didn't like what he saw. He knew the policies and the agenda of that war, and spoke out against it...AFTER GETTING A UPCLOSE LOOK.

Bush did what anyone else would do. He let his father's friends give him a free-pass out of war. If I had that option, I might take it as well. That's not the issue here. The issue is, Kerry had powerful friends as well, but STILL WENT AND SACRIFICED FOR HIS COUNTRY.

It's an issue of character. Plain and simple.

That being said, I support Ralph Nader.
Colin Powell, John McCain, Zel Miller and other who have all either served or fought in war strongly support the Presidents policies. I remind you that over 75% of the United States congress supported the war in Iraq. More than 50% of democratic Senators voted for the war in IRAQ.

Have you ever thought about what the cost would be for the world and the Iraqi people if Saddam had remained in power?

Have you ever though about what the cost would be for the world if the Taliban had remained in power in Afghanistan?

I have friends on the ground in Iraq right now, and I can tell you that their daily efforts there are NOT "unnecessary"!

Even BONO supported the war in Afghanistan and thought Bush was doing a great job. Don't believe me, just pick up the 2001 year end issue of HOT PRESS!

I also disagree with the application of songs like Sunday Bloody Sunday and Please to political things they were never written for. These songs are about the conflict of Northern Ireland which I'm sure people there do not want lumped in with just any conflict.



Yes, Kerry served in Vietnam and everyone respects that fact. But I don't respect him calling my father and others "war criminals" and accusing them of other crimes.

Kerry served in Vietnam and then attacked this country and its veterans. He then led a Senate career in which in proposed and tried to take away vital weapon systems from our military which they are currently using in Iraq to help win the peace. He voted against removing Saddam from Kuwait. He voted against funding the development of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the troops working to secure those countries futures.

Kerry is shining example that just because one has served in war does not mean they necessarily have better judgement on such issues than one that did not.

Here are some other great presidents who never served in a war but successfully won wars during their presidency.

Abraham Lincoln : Civil War
Woodrow Wilson : World War I
Franklin Roosevelt : World War II
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 11:55 PM   #23
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Since when are elections decided on the basis of intellect?

If that were the case, the presidency, the Senate, the Congress would be a job characteristic of PhDs, academics and professors. Clearly, that is not the case.
I'm not necessarily making the point that elections are decided on the basis of intellect, although there are many who continue to harp on Bush's intellect. I believe I was responding to someone comparing Kerry's intellect to Bush's intellect (obviously Bush was being made out ot be a dummy). I mentioned how poorly Kerry has been going about his campaign, talking about verbal gaffes that involve intellect as well as strategy/ methodology.

I'm making the point that Kerry has been a moron on how he's been running his campaign and one may think, "Gosh, darn it, there goes that idiot Bush making another Bushism. What an idiot!" But Kerry isn't endearing himself with his goofy statements to the media.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 03:42 AM   #24
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 05:03 AM
I'm watching the rerun of Bush's "acceptance speech"....he just said he's for activist judges. Isn't that in complete contraction of U.S. Constitution? Bullshit! That's all I can say.

God, he's pissing me off.

I can't believe he's getting away with this bullshit. That's all it is. Let's be honest: It's BULLSHIT.

I just had a conversation with fellow voters this evening....you know. If the majority of the nation wants this idiot to be our LEADER...then we deserve whatever we get.

That's all I'm going to say.
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 07:39 AM   #25
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 06:03 AM
But wouldn't his new stance on activist judges be a flip-flop?
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 11:23 PM   #26
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Kerry attacked this country and its troops when he returned from Vietnam. Oliver Stone doesn't have a clue when it comes to Vietnam. My father and his friends served in Vietnam and saw those movies and in their opinion, Oliver Stone got it wrong.
I have to say that is just BS in my sphere of knowledge. I have many older cousins and their friends that I'm close with and they talk quite openly of civiilan killoffs because the VC was always (supposedly) hiding in villages. It is the same since time eternal. Soldiers must armor their humanitarian feelings against the enemy by all means possible in order to do their duty. After a period of time (just like they say video games do to children) a lack of care for life develops and atrocities happen.

It is just that by the time the Vietnam war occurred the cause for civilian life became stronger than just he Quakers in the US.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-04-2004, 03:19 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine


I have to say that is just BS in my sphere of knowledge. I have many older cousins and their friends that I'm close with and they talk quite openly of civiilan killoffs because the VC was always (supposedly) hiding in villages. It is the same since time eternal. Soldiers must armor their humanitarian feelings against the enemy by all means possible in order to do their duty. After a period of time (just like they say video games do to children) a lack of care for life develops and atrocities happen.

It is just that by the time the Vietnam war occurred the cause for civilian life became stronger than just he Quakers in the US.
Well, I think that is complete BS. If you want to attack the US Vietnam veterans as being war criminals then present some tangible evidence to prove your or your cousins claims. The burden of proof in this case is on those that make the accusation. There is no other military in the world that has more respect for civilian life than the United States military. The United States military if it had wanted to could have killed virtually every single human being in Vietnam, so these accusations are just absurd. Israel also has to constantly deal with this nonsense.

Do civilians accidently get killed in the process of combat, yes. But Vietnam is no different in this respect than any other and the United States military goes to extremes to protect civilian life. I can name you countless battles in Vietnam where it would have been far easier and safer for the US military to simply use a B-52 airstrike, but they didn't.

By your logic, US military personal who are now serving their second tours in duty in Iraq, have "developed a lack of care for life". That is total BS and my friends in Iraq would throw up if they heard that!

It is a fact that Kerry attacked US veterans with his testimony as well as the United States. Oliver Stones movies are just that, movies, with little if any factual representation of what actually happened.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-04-2004, 03:59 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Public opinion in 1971 was turning against the Vietnam war, and some people wanted us out. They claimed that the government was screwing up, which basically was true. This feeling had reached fever pitch in some quarters. Keep in mind that the 1968 presidential election had been pretty damned heated, what with the candidates taking positions on the war, and the infamous confrontation in Chicago at the DNC happened that year. Three years later this had escalated, people were pissed off all over, massive demonstrations were taking place, and the government was under a ton of heat. This was the political environment of 1971. Context is important. Kerry has admitted that some of his remarks were over the top. It's easy to forget the emotions of 1971 in the middle of another tense moment in the history of our country.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-04-2004, 04:46 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Well, I think that is complete BS. If you want to attack the US Vietnam veterans as being war criminals then present some tangible evidence to prove your or your cousins claims.
So you're allowed to cite the experiences of your friends in Iraq and your father in Vietnam as evidence, but the minute someone else mentions their relatives experience you criticise them for not providing tangible evidence?
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 09-05-2004, 02:35 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


So you're allowed to cite the experiences of your friends in Iraq and your father in Vietnam as evidence, but the minute someone else mentions their relatives experience you criticise them for not providing tangible evidence?
The difference here is, I'm not accusing someone of gross human rights abuses. I have mentioned friends and familly members experiences, but not as evidence to accuse someone of being a genocidal murderer.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com