Swiftboat veterans for truth

Some people have the ability to learn from mistakes they have made in the past, Kerry renounced his efforts in Vietnam. But he still had some pride in the fact that he was able to learn that lesson... that may be hard for you to understand, but its part of the human experience, buddy.

Yeah, I'm sure a man from an affluent background, who could have used his connections to avoid the war, but instead decided to take it like a man, and be in a scenario where he was in constant peril, to do what he thought at the time was for the best, is admirable. I'm sure when he dragged that man out of the delta with snipers firing on him, he was thinking about how well that would look when he was running for senate. Of course he overplayed his service during the convention, Americans have short attention spans, and conventions aren't about the issues, conventions are about leaving a ten second impression on people, and since he had been shown for months by the media to be a weak liberal, it didn't hurt to brag a little about his war record.

Learn to show just a tiny amount of personality rather then arbitrarily pointing out grammatical errors. Do you think that makes you look witty? I'd be much more impressed if you'd actually make a legitamite point rather then copying my post into word to see what errors you can point out to make you feel superior. You're not impressing anyone, try saying something mildly relevant.

 

Are you serious? Did you pay any attention to the Democratic National Convention? Kerry's valiant service in Vietnam was mentioned in almost every other sentence!

I'll readily admit my anti-Kerry bias, but I can't help being somewhat skeptical about him being awarded 3 purple hearts in just the 4 short months he was there, yet none of these "serious" wounds had any lasting effect. (By contrast, John McCain was in a prison camp for years, and he still can't raise his arms above his head.)

 

Yea, what a pussy kerry is, going over to fight in Vietnam when he could have gone AWOL from the massachusetts national guard like asshole jr did.

 

Well President Bush just denounced the generality of 3rd party attack ads, and asked for Kerry to do the same. I gotta agree with him there. A canadite has to be held responsible for the content of their attack ads, while these 3rd party groups can't be held libel.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/23/bush.kerry/index.html

 

Swift Boat Veterans for the truth is obviously being funded and supported by the Bush Administration and His Rich Oil Friends. There is obviously no truth to what they say, but people are hesitant to counter them because they fought in Vietnam and are war Veterans, which is respectable, but shouldn't stop people from condemning them for making these ads. What Kerry did in Vietnam 30 years ago does not matter, he went to Vietnam and fought, and now in his presidency, does not want to start more wars for no reason. Bush CAN be critiqued about his record 30 years ago because he used his father's power and money to avoid going to Vietnam, and dodged by way the of the Texas National guard. I am NOT judging him on the fact that he dodged the Vietnam war, because the majority of the people here would do the same thing. What I am Juding him on is the fact that HE dodged a war in which his own government wanted to send him too, and then he became president and waged an unjust war and sent other kids to war for his benefit, and expected them not to dodge...

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

I think that the reason Bush is denouncing the 3rd party ads is because he has unlimited funds and Kerry doesn’t. Kerry needs these third parties like moveon.org to compete with Bush’s war chest. Dubbia knows that Kerry can’t afford to denounce these ads.

What Bush didn’t do is condemn the swift boat ads. They’re lying, Bush knows that they’re lying, and he won’t stop them.

 

I know how politics work. Politics are a smoke screen. It's as simple as that. But you wouldn't know because you've been BRAINWASHED by the media. You believe everything you hear on the news.

Skull & Bones doesn't just matter to ME. It matters to all the INTELLIGENT people who actually question things. Of course the sheep don't care. They can just keep going along with whatever the media feeds to them.

But people can be sheep and vote Democrat or Republican. I don't care because they're both the same.

Whatever. Again, I could care less what Kerry did 30+ years ago. It says NOTHING about how he will run the country (not that presidents run countries anyway). All this arguing between parties is part of the agenda that all you sheep buy into like idiots. It's meaningless garbage that is blinding people from the real issues.

You have such an inside-the-box way of thinking.

 

Bringing up bad grammar is usually only used when you don't have any real argument. It's low, and only serves to prove that you have no argument so you take to insulting someone's writing skills instead. you're a clever one.

Anyway, I think it's odd that the news is ALL over this shit....like they WANT it to be true. I've heard from unreliable corporate media sources that kerry's slipping in the polls because of this. I don't like him anymore than I like bu$h, but I'd rather see Kerry win the election. It won't stop anything, but maybe at least it'll at least slow the countdown to doomsday

 

I am with Rat on this one. The Skull and Bones issue should be more exposed, and they should be interrogated about this. It seems more than coincidental that both of these canidates are skull and bones...

I am glad that there are people out there like you and me, who ignore the stupid "Controversies" like the swift boat ad, and look past the things that blind us to the REAL Conspiracies within our government.

And Besides, Don't Listen to her, we got Tim Russert on our side about the skull and bones thing...

Russert: You were both in Skull and Bones, the secret society.

President Bush: It's so secret we can't talk about it.

Russert: What does that mean for America? The conspiracy theorists are going to go wild.

President Bush: I'm sure they are. I don’t know. I haven't seen Web pages yet. (Laughs)

Russert: Number 322.

President Bush: First of all, he's not the nominee, and — but look, I look forward —

*Number 322 is something involved in the Skull and Bones...after mentioning it...Bush moves on to another subject....

MR. RUSSERT: Before we go, you and George Bush were both members of Skull & Bones, the secret society at Yale. The rule is, if someone mentions Skull & Bones, you walk out of the room. If you're both in a...

SEN. KERRY: You trying to get rid of me here?

MR. RUSSERT: You're both in a presidential debate and the moderator says "Skull & Bones," you both leave the podiums?

SEN. KERRY: I doubt it.

MR. RUSSERT: You'll hang in there.

SEN. KERRY: I think you'll see both of us have our two--you know I'd love to have a debate with the president right now. There's so much to talk about for our country. Why not say to our nation, every month, let's have one debate on health care. Let's have a debate on foreign policy. Let's have a debate on education. Let's really talk to the country the way Lincoln and Douglass and others have historically. Barry Goldwater, as you mentioned, was going to fly around with Jack Kennedy. We can do better for Americans. I'd love to see that happen.

Once again...after the canidate is asked to explain the Skull and Bones connection, they completely change the subject.

Hopefully one day, the truth will come out, not only about the Skull and Bones, but also about 9-11, JFK, The Oklahoma City Bombing and others...

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Nice copout. If Kerry isn't claiming responsibility for the ads of his "527" support groups, then it is utterly hypocritical for him to blame Bush for the swift boat ads.

I see. Bush is only supposed to condemn ads attacking Kerry, but not those attacking him. Of course.

Actually, I think both candidates should stop whining. They want to eliminate these third-party ads so that their campaigns can control the content of the debate. I'm glad to see groups like moveon.org enter the fray, as long as their funding sources are disclosed.

 

Not to pick on the RNC, but back in 2000, McCain tried to propose serious changes to the soft money rules, but the RNC shut him up and put Bush in. The DNC doesn't want to change those rules either. They both have a good thing going.

 

He must of done somethin' brave,cause how else do you get 3 purple hearts or any other medal?I think those "swift boat vets" are bullshitting.

I don't know...I don't really care for both of em'.Kerry will be just like bush...Skull & bones anyone?

Heres what might happen...bush wins by cheating(again), most of America is pissed off,protest,riots all that shit breaks out,then leading the U.S into a Civil War.

Or Kerry wins and everything goes smooth for a few months/years?,then we get attacked by terrorist,the draft starts up,we send some more troops to iraq/afganhistan or some other shit hole country kiil them BLAH BLAH BLAH.Another world super power notice that are military is weak and they invade/Bomb the U.S,WW3 breaks out,billions die,the world becomes sick of war,Peace finally!...Years later war starts up again

 

The Bush ads have outright lies in them. That’s the difference.

Yes the rules have to change but that’s not the way to do it. It would favor the Republicans.

I think that we need a law that bans all advocate ads and does not allow one party to spend more than the other.

 

You have no proof of this. Investigations by various major newspapers have found roughly a 50-50 split among veterans they interviewed, half supporting Kerry's accounts and half supporting the swift boat ads.

You want to ration free speech between the political parties? You'll have to repeal the 1st Amendment. I won't wish you good luck in this effort.

 

No proof eh? you obviously ignored the lengthy expose of the liars which i posted earlier in this thread.

Once again just for you Huck...

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

Note the supporting official US Navy documentation duly provided. George Elliot proves to be the biggest liar of the lot by his own historic and officially signed record.

 

"How politics works?" Are we debating who understand this, Rat, when YOU don't understand that ONE OF THESE TWO MEN is going to be the leader of this country whether YOU like it or not????

"Inside the box?" Yeah, I could waste my time during this election on silly X Files type conspiracy theories about Fraternity Boy Antics, OR I could concentrate on things that will effect you and me in the next four years! YOU DON'T GET IT. Either Bush or Kerry will be President. That IS inside the box, because THAT is the way politics works. ONE of them is going to win. You can't change that.

You don't care about what happened in Viet Nam, yet you care about what happened in a Fraternity years BEFORE Viet Nam? What sense does that make?

REALITY CHECK: EITHER BUSH OR KERRY WILL BE PRESIDENT. You can be on one bus or off the bus completely. Waste your vote, or at least use it for some good and the least harm. THAT, my dear, is understanding politics.

 

The proof can be anecdotal. We know for a fact that the Republicans have attacked Viet Nam vets in the past. They falsely questioning Max Cleland’s, and John McCain’s patriotism.

There is a definite connection to the Bush Administration.

In war they say that the last guy to use the same match gets shot. Kerry is the third. I’m glad he’s fighting back.

This type of evidence could hold up in a court of law.

Look at what LickHERish posted:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231The Facts

Shouting down your opponent is NOT free speech. If money to buy ads is free speech than both candidates should have an equal voice. That’s fair.

 

This seems to be a very selective review of the evidence. NPR ran a much more balanced story last night, indicating that the evidence was inconclusive.

Regardless, Kerry has brought this unfavorable scrutiny on himself, by making his service in a war he once denounced into the centerpiece of his campaign:

http://www.slate.com/id/2105509/

Why should candidates have a monopoly on political ads? Moreover, why should they be guaranteed equal funding? If the size of individual or corporate contributions is limited, then their ability to raise funds is a reflection of their public appeal. Should Lyndon LaRouche get equal funding? Who decides who qualifies?

 

ya...and if they get equal funding than what about parties like libertarian, green, etc...?

Not that I don't mind the idea...It would actually give us the chance to have more political parties than just 2 main ones.

 

I'm tempted to side w/pressed matt on this one.



to both sides: i wish i had thought to wear a pair of boots into this thread cause it's coming up to my waist.



i'm more interested in how how the last 4 years have gone and how i think the next 4 will affect my country.