Us presidential election 2004

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Health

They dare not discuss health because so many don't have any health insurance any longer; being unemployed or or too low paid and it reminds everyone the economy is going to hell in a hen basket.

One of the reason for the raising cost of health care is preventable diseases. You are going to force people to work-out and cut back on things that like to do?

Quote[/b] ]

Education

With college fees so high and rising that many middle class families cannot send their kids to college, the Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Junior and his cronies in TBA dont want you discussing the fact John F. Kerry has offered a fully refundable College Opportunity Tax credit on up to $4,000 of tuition for every year of college and offer aid to states that keep tuitions down. And he will launch a new effort to ensure that all of our workers can get the technical skills and advanced training they need.

I will be surprised if he keeps his Tax credit promise because he going to have to cut some of his promises for his healthcare package for all those people. People should only go to in-state colleges (credit hours are cheaper) and live at home (saves money). Anyway, I will not qualify for his "Tax Credit"...got to be poor...

Quote[/b] ]Iraq

They dare not discuss Iraq and National defense because the war is looking very bad and lots people have died and it was all a mistake anyway. There was no WMD. Iraq had nothinhg to do with 9/11 and Al Qaida. They don't want people to discussing that TBA and the Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Junior went out and found lawyers to say it was OK to torture people and rape little boys and that after it was done they got caught.

I guess you believed that he oked it.... Anyway, Kerry has hardly said a thing about Iraq. Vietnam is more important than Iraq.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bush has done more things in six years (two terms) has governor of Texas than Kerry has done in twenty years in the Senate.

Im waiting the list also.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]So where is Bush´s qualification billybob ?

Name me one thing that makes Bush qualified.

Even with the background of his presidency. Name me one.

Come on, stop bobbling ! Enlight us !

Bush has done more things in six years (two terms) has governor of Texas than Kerry has done in twenty years in the Senate. If post what I think he done has good during his presidency, I would get blasted. So, no soup for you!!!

Dude, I don't know about you, but I've lived in Texas for all of Bush's term, and even worked for the State for part of it.

Lemme tell you he didn't do shit, other than work with the Dem controled House.

[Kaliyuga 0]

hmm.. lets see.. accomplishments as governor of Texas:

Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in America.

Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

Set record for most executions by any governor in American history

All records of tenure as governor of Texas are now in father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

Sounds like quite a list of accomplishments...

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]Reuters story about what happened. This guys and Kerrys storys are backed up by official military records. What possible else would you need to believe that Kerry needs to defend himself against a bunch of liars?

That story is just one person saying that Kerry is telling the truth... on the other hand, you have dozens of people who have signed affidavits that say the Swifties are telling the truth. The military records were written by Kerry, so that doesn't hold any water either.

Quote[/b] ]With what do they cover the wounds usually if not with bandaid?

A bandaid is a little piece of padded tape that is like 7 cm long. It is what you cover your finger with when you get a paper cut. It is not what you cover a stump with when you lose an arm, like many Purple Heart recipients have done. The fact is, Kerry got a purple heart from a sliver... and he had to work hard to get the paperwork for that award pushed through (3 months after he got the "wound").

Quote[/b] ]So tell me; what records of Kerry still hasnt been published?

Kerry has only released a portion of his records. He has not disclosed the records leading to the award of the three purple hearts, the Silver Star and the Bronze Star. There are also missing performance evaluations for certain periods of his service as a Navy officer. All he has to do is fill out a 2-page form 180 to release all his records, but instead he has chosen to post a select portion of his records on his website.

Quote[/b] ]They are lying. Read the links I posted. Post a independent source for your counter-claims.

The link you posted doesn't prove anything, unless you are looking at this through a biased filter, like you are. And you haven't even touched these points yet:

-Kerry never was in Cambodia, like he said he was

-Kerry recieved a purple heart from a sliver sized wound

-The Kerry campaign has repeatedly changed their story, while the Swifties haven't budged at all

Then you try to say that there are no ties between Dems and their 527's. And this really shows that you are a mindless puppet of the Kerry campaign:

Quote[/b] ]Nothing [ties between the Dems and 527s] has been even questioned. Unlike reps.

THATS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WERE THE ONES WHO PULLED THIS PUBLICITY STUNT, not the Republicans! Good god, for one second try thinking for yourself, instead of buying all the BS fed to you by the Kerry folks! I already told you: the lawyer for the DNC is also advising Moveon.org. That is the equivalent of the republican lawyer who advised the Swifties. Kerry knows the FEC isn't going to shut down the swifties, but he knows this little stunt will influence people like you, which is why he did it.

-------------------------------------------------

You guys crack me up. I know it's hard, but try to be objective. You're being such hypocrites, and I guess you don't even see it:

You say that the Swifties are lying.

I ask you to specifically tell me what they are lying about. For clarification, I post their claims here.

You say that their website is 'illegitimate' because it is 'biased'.

You then post things from Kerry's own website to "prove" that the swift boat vets are lying!

You have got to be kidding me.... Don't you see anything hypocritical about that?

What's even better, when somebody asks you what Kerry has done in his 19 years in the senate, you people totally dodge the question:

Quote[/b] ]You didn´t seem to be that concerned about Bush´s record prior

and

during his presidency. What has he done ? Ruined some companies betrayed some investors, sniffed coke, been alcoholic, avoiding vietnam.......................................

That isn't answering the question, Balschoiw. You'd make a good politician. You are just proving that you have no effing idea what Kerry has done.

I present a challenge to all of you out there:

Make an argument why Jonh Kerry should be elected, without mentioning Bush, without mentioning Vietnam, and with mention of something that he has done while in office.

If you cannot do this, then instead you should admit that you are just puppets of the Democratic party, and that you are just blindly following whomever they put against Bush. If you truly think for yourselves, and are informed, then by all means, I'm waiting.

PS: I'll be if anyone actually manages to answer this challenge, they will have looked up their info on Kerry's website. So much for thinking for yourselves...

[Pathy 0]

General Barron: A challenge for you

Make an argument why George Bush should be elected, without mentioning Kerry, without mentioning the Swifties and with mention of something that he has done while in office.

If you cannot do this, then instead you should admit that you are just a puppet of the Republican party, and that you are blindly following whomever they put against Kerry. If you truly think for yourself, and are informed, then by all means, I'm also waiting.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]General Barron: A challenge for you

Make an argument why George Bush should be elected, without mentioning Kerry, without mentioning the Swifties and with mention of something that he has done while in office.

If you cannot do this, then instead you should admit that you are just a puppet of the Republican party, and that you are blindly following whomever they put against Kerry. If you truly think for yourself, and are informed, then by all means, I'm also waiting.

Quote[/b] ]That isn't answering the question, Balschoiw. You'd make a good politician. You are just proving that you have no effing idea what Kerry has done.

Sorry Pathy, but you're kinda obligated to answer the General's challenge instead of just firing it back at him.

[General Barron 0]

Bush has actively pursued Al Queida and, IMO, has made the US safer. He is pulling troops out of places where they don't need to be (Germany), and he is sending a message of strength and resolve to those who would push the US around. We will not allow our policy to be influenced by terrorist actions, and we will seek out and destroy those who would try to bring that terrorism upon us. He went into Afganistan after 9/11, despite cries of "Vietnam" from the critics. Iraq was a known supporter of Palestinian terrorism, and was known to have developed and used WMDs in the past. After 9/11, it would have been irresponsible to allow such a situation to continue, even if it turns out our intel was flawed.

I don't like many of Bush's domestic policies, but I think his foreign policy is required to keep America safe. Obviously many of the people in this forum have different opinions, but those are my reasons for supporting Bush.

Your turn.

[walker 0]

Hi General Baron

The Danger of George Bush Junior in power, one who is psychologically unfit for command

George Bush Junior is dangerous because he freezes in an emergency and is incapable of command thought. We all saw him do this on 9/11 after he was told 'America is under Attack!' he did not leap to command the nations defense; he sat there frozen in terror while the children read him story about a goat for 10 minutes even afterward an aid had to tell him to get off his butt and after this he wastes another 20 minutes in displacement activity taking a photo call. In fact for the 34 minutes from being told the USA was under attack until the plane hit the Pentagon the nations key defense site in the nations capitol Washington the commander in chief did not make a single order for an aircraft to defend the USA.

Accepted US Doctrine dictates that when the commander in chief is told the phrase 'America is under Attack' the commander in chief must make all command decisions and initial defense orders, and have the nuclear football and himself moved to a safe location off the commander in chiefs known itinerary in under 10 minutes. (10 minutes is the minimum warning time for Russian nukes from first detection to hitting US soil.) On 9/11 this was never done.

This can lead people in other governments to make calculations that could be catastrophic in result.

George Bush Junior is dangerous because he makes strategic errors:

Strategic Errors: Fighting Iraq the fantasy enemy

Iraq was a fantasy enemy when the real enemy was Al Qaida. George Bush Junior went after Iraq because the job of hunting down terrorists was too complex for him. He said he didn't like swatting flies, he wanted to look the big man so he decided to attack a nation he already new the army could beat. This strategic error has destabilized the middle east at a time when at least one player Iran seems to be on the verge of developing nukes. We already know Israel has them. With Iraq a basket case and the rest of the Arab world mad at us, more and more Arab governments are under threat if just one fell, it would almost certainly fall to Al Qaida sympathizers. Imagine another middle east nation who's  government is pro Al Qaida, worst of all imagine if the nation was Saudi Arabia and Osama Bin Laden had Mecca in his grasp. It would make the Sadr Najaf debacle look like a picnic.

Strategic Errors: Pakistan and Afghanistan ignored. A Taliban Super state if Musharef dies

The lack of strategic focus on Pakistan and its border country Afghanistan means that at a time when we should concentrating to stabilize those countries; one of which is already a nuclear state, we are instead distracted by Iraq. Consider if Musharef has a heart attack or one of the assassinations is successful; he has no successor. A Taliban Revolution there is just heartbeat away. Imagine a Taliban with nukes.

Strategic Errors: North Korea the mad nuclear leader given the wrong signals

The over stretch of the Iraq war has meant removal of troops from the Korean peninsular North Korea is a nuclear power capable of hitting the US, and it knows from the video and record of the time in the 9/11 emergency that in the 10 minutes he is suposed to make a command decision George Bush Junior will freeze in terror, not only that but he will then dither for at least 34 more minutes. If they time it right mix in some terrorism to confuse everyone, then land the nukes on his know itinerary, America would never have a chance to reply. It is called a decapitation raid after that they could continue at their leisure on a confused US without any leadership and if he survives he will probably attack the wrong enemy.

These are the kind of calculations that play on North Korean battle planning tables. They get submited to their leader who is a seriously mad man.

That is why George Bush Junior is so dangerous.

America must remember this fall that it is your families that are put at risk by George Bush Junior. Your Families.

John F. Kerry is a commander proven in battle

John F. Kerry has proven military record that shows he will act in under the 10 minutes. John F. Kerry is obvously the best man to be the USA's Commander in Chief.

Kind Regards Walker

[Akira 0]

I was preparing a long winded, supported essay why Kerry should be elected, but then I read your post about why Bush should be re-elected and my jaw dropped.

After reading what you wrote, I have absolutely nothing to say to you. I'm tired of going over the same old arguements over and over again for every troll that comes along.

For a response to everyone of your claims, I suggest you read this entire thread, as well as the various Iraq threads.

Your views are straight from the Fox News propoganda machine, and aren't even worthy of reply. Just another Republican under the guise of an independant.

Your own hypocrisy was actually very stunning, considering all your arguements were based on pro-Bush groups, while many others gave you sources from BBC, CNN, NBC, etc. etc.

And don't give me your "liberal media" excuse. Perhaps you should read the book "What Liberal Media" though I doubt anything in it would stick.

A)America is not safer. It's lost every ally that originally with it in the Afghanistan operations, every ally that might actually help protect us. Now America really is alone.

B)Bush did not actively pursue Al Queda, and the one place where we knew they were (Afghanistan), he pulled troops out for his personal vendetta against Iraq.

C)Iraq never sponsored terrorism against the US, or in any direct way threatened the US.

D)The obvious place we know WMDs are (N. Korea) he has done nothing about, and is even pulling troops out of S. Korea.

E)Iraq's WMDs came from the US, and were developed with our help.

F)Iraq has no WMDs, as testified by numerous weapons inspectors (denoir and bals can give links).

And finally (for now probably),

G)Bush has not made the US any safer, as all our troops are bogged down in Iraq, with no hope yet of extraction should something REALLY threatening actually happen.

Your "libertarianism" is an interesting one, since you spout only what the Republicans say, something quite contrary to normal libertarianism, including peace. You accused me of not knowing linertarianism, but I think perhaps it is you that needs to re-read whatever the hell it is you think you read.

Anyway, I'm done with this. Do your reading before you come in here with the same old tired bullshit that has been discussed a thousand times already.

[GoOB 0]

but I think his foreign policy is required to keep America safe.

Obviously that is not the same thing as keeping the world safe...

[denoir 0]

Bush has actively pursued Al Queida and, IMO, has made the US safer.

Homer: Ah, not a bear in sight.  The Bear Patrol must be working.

Lisa:  That's specious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, honey.

Lisa:  By your logic, this rock keeps tigers away.

Homer: Oh?  How does it work?

Lisa:  It doesn't work.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa:  It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa:  But I don't see any tigers around here, do you?

 [pause]

Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock!

 [A moment's hesitation; then, money changes hands.]

(From The SimpsonsMuch Apu About Nothing.)

[  logic definition ]

Equivalent:

General Barron: Wow, Bush's national security initiatives must really be working. Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since it was introduced

Denoir: That's specious reasoning

General Barron:Thank you

Denoir:By your logic, this rock keeps North Korean nuclear missiles away.

General Barron:Oh?  How does it work?

Denoir:It doesn't work.

General Barron:Uh-huh.

Denoir:It's just a stupid rock.

General Barron:Uh-huh.

Denoir: But I don't see any North Korean nuclear missiles around here, do you?

 [pause]

General Barron:Denoir, I want to buy your rock!

Quote[/b] ]We will not allow our policy to be influenced by terrorist actions, and we will seek out and destroy those who would try to bring that terrorism upon us.

Really? What do you call the whole Homeland Security thing, terror alerts etc? The Patriot Act? Two wars? It seems to me like the terrorists have very much influenced you. And you are are a perfect example. The things you are listing that you want in a president are all terror-related issues. And through that you are aiding AQ by making them more important than they are.

As for "seek out and destroy".. it would be nice if Bush had done some seeking and destroying, but it would seem that he had other priorities. Afghanistan was an half-assed effort. Osama bin Laden has not been captured. AQ is larger and more active than ever... in short whatever he has been doing has not been very successful.

Not to mention that he with the subsequent Iraq war managed to piss off America's friends and allies who also became much less willing to help out with the "War on terror". And since we're talking about international terrorism, having other countries helping you is a requirement.

Quote[/b] ]He went into Afganistan after 9/11, despite cries of "Vietnam" from the critics.

He went half-assed into Afghanistan. A tenth of the number of troops later deployed to Iraq were deployed in Afghanistan. First several months after the attack started did US special forces actually start operating in the Tora-Bora region where Osama was residing. Afghanistan is such a complete mess that the Doctors Without Borders are leaving after a 25 year presence. The UN is packing its bags as well. The only thing under NATO control is a part of Kabul and the airport. The rest of the country is run by warlords and the Taliban are making a great comeback in several provinces.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq was a known supporter of Palestinian terrorism, and was known to have developed and used WMDs in the past.

Iraq was giving money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers - just like the other Arab countries in the region - including Saudi Arabia (which was incidentally not invaded). As for WMD - the intel wasn't faulty, it was edited and ignored. You were told by most of the rest of the world to wait for the inspections etc, which Bush ignored. And this in turn resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands Iraqi civilians, 1,000+ Americans (and counting) and the best possible situation for islamic fundamentalist (you can guess how easy recruiting is these days).

Quote[/b] ]After 9/11, it would have been irresponsible to allow such a situation to continue, even if it turns out our intel was flawed.

Quote[/b] ]

I'm losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush!

Terry Jones

Sunday January 26, 2003

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I!

For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours.

They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.

That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.

Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.

Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out.

My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.

It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

Quote[/b] ]

I present a challenge to all of you out there:

Make an argument why Jonh Kerry should be elected, without mentioning Bush, without mentioning Vietnam, and with mention of something that he has done while in office.

If you cannot do this, then instead you should admit that you are just puppets of the Democratic party, and that you are just blindly following whomever they put against Bush. If you truly think for yourselves, and are informed, then by all means, I'm waiting.

Well since I'm not American and neither are a majority of the posters here, we can hardly be puppets of the Democratic party. The biggest argument for Kerry is that he isn't Bush. And that goes a very long way in an international perspective.

Bush has made a shitload of terrible decisions ranging from foreign policy that has made America an object of resentment among its closest allies to gross fiscal irresponsibility that has led to the current deficit. It's difficult imagine somebody doing a worse job than he has. And if Kerry happens to be that 'somebody', that's fine.

Having said that, as a European, I'm not entirely sure that I want Bush to lose. When Bush came to power the US GDP/Capita was higher than the average EU one. Not so anymore. The dollar can almost be used as toilet paper. Which is of course good for me. A lot of nice stuff is still produced in the US and America having the price levels of a third-world country relative my salary is perfectly fine with me. A second point is that Bush makes an excellent "bad guy" from a European perspective with his style, foreign policy, christian fundamentalism etc We're in the process of integration, so bad relations with America isn't bad in all aspects. The third point is that the US and EU competes in a number of areas ranging from industry to agriculture. A weak America is in many cases good for European industry.

So Bush isn't all that bad from my perspective - at least if I look after my own interests, which do not coincide with the interest of the average American. The reason I want Bush to lose is far more personal - I resent what he has done and what he stands for.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]That story is just one person saying that Kerry is telling the truth... on the other hand, you have dozens of people who have signed affidavits that say the Swifties are telling the truth. The military records were written by Kerry, so that doesn't hold any water either.

No. That thing is the official version of mekong delta happenings. It is backed up by several eyewitnesses unlike swiftliars The report of this event was not made by Kerry.

You dont write your own military records.

Quote[/b] ]A bandaid is a little piece of padded tape that is like 7 cm long. It is what you cover your finger with when you get a paper cut. It is not what you cover a stump with when you lose an arm, like many Purple  Heart recipients have done. The fact is, Kerry got a purple heart from a sliver... and he had to work hard to get the paperwork for that award pushed through (3 months after he got the "wound").

Who are you to decide what wound is good enough for a purple heart? As a fellow vietvet said:

"I am a retired U.S. Army officer and a volunteer two-and-a-half tour Vietnam veteran. I also wear the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star with a “V†device (for valor) and oak leaf clusters (MACV General Orders Number 154, January 10, 1969) for wounds received and performance in combat action on July 3, 1968. It happened in a now-forgotten place called Long Phu village, which is in Vietnam’s Long An province. So, as a Purple Heart bearer and a soldier who volunteered to serve his country in a brutal and violent war, I am stunned and disappointed and, yes, outraged when a fellow Purple Heart veteran, who also volunteered to serve his nation in a highly unpopular war, is unfairly and vehemently attacked and has his heroism challenged by falsehoods and innuendos."

The

whole article

I dont know about systems in USA but in here you dont apply the decorations, others apply them for you.

Quote[/b] ]Kerry has only released a portion of his records. He has not disclosed the records leading to the award of the three purple hearts, the Silver Star and the Bronze Star. There are also missing performance evaluations for certain periods of his service as a Navy officer. All he has to do is fill out a 2-page form 180 to release all his records, but instead he has chosen to post a select portion of his records on his website.

Quote[/b] ] He has not disclosed the records leading to the award of the three purple hearts, the Silver Star and the Bronze Star.

Those are battle reports, not personal records.

You can find them Here are some]here[/url] Not official i think.

Quote[/b] ]There are also missing performance evaluations for certain periods of his service as a Navy officer.

What periods exact?

Quote[/b] ]All he has to do is fill out a 2-page form 180 to release all his records, but instead he has chosen to post a select portion of his records on his website.

only record that is missing is the medical record. Its Kerrys personal matter.

Now you seem to be a broken record.

Quote[/b] ]The link you posted doesn't prove anything, unless you are looking at this through a biased filter, like you are.

Now let me quote Akira for the second time:

"All of the SBVfT claims about Kerry, including his false Purple Heart, and the account of events leading to his Bronze Star, have been backed up by Navy records, and people that were actually there.

Members of SBVfT that raise doubts about these events, turn out they weren't even there, including the doctor who claimed to work on Kerry's wound, in direct contradiction to Navy records."

Are you disagreeing with navy records? (no Kerry didnt write them) Do you still theres a huge conspiracy in the navy?

Tell me what part of that text you dont understand.

Tell me what part of that text is false in your opinion?

Quote[/b] ]-Kerry never was in Cambodia, like he said he was

Well boo-hoo. So what if he wasnt there? He was very near to the border anyway.

Quote[/b] ]Kerry recieved a purple heart from a sliver sized wound

Kerry was wounded in Vietnam 3 times. In the same time Bush was sniffing cocaine back home. Bush has a medical record from NG that clearly proove that he had his front teeths fixed.(there are official documentations about this, and eyewitness reports.)

Quote[/b] ]-The Kerry campaign has repeatedly changed their story, while the Swifties haven't budged at all

How has the story chanched? Any link outside swiftliars.com?

Quote[/b] ]Then you try to say that there are no ties between Dems and their 527's. And this really shows that you are a mindless puppet of the Kerry campaign:

Quote[/b] ]the lawyer for the DNC is also advising Moveon.org. That is the equivalent of the republican lawyer who advised the Swifties.

No they are not comparable in any way. let me quote Akira few pages back, you seem to need some repetition.

"Campaign workers can not have direct links or contacts (financial or otherwise) with "independant" groups."

While the Bush campaign is supporting these groups Kerrys campaign is not.

The democratic party however is supporting moveon.org.

See the difference? 1 is a campaign, 1 is a party.

Quote[/b] ]You guys crack me up. I know it's hard, but try to be objective. You're being such hypocrites, and I guess you don't even see it:

You however seem to miss the facts. Im thinking about facts, you are thinking about rumours, hearsays, opinions. Post some facts to us! (outside swiftliars.com)

Id suggest you should try to find out some facts before coming here saying your own opinions as facts

Quote[/b] ]You say that the Swifties are lying.

I ask you to specifically tell me what they are lying about.

For the third time in this post, im quoting Akira.

"All of the SBVfT claims about Kerry, including his false Purple Heart, and the account of events leading to his Bronze Star, have been backed up by Navy records, and people that were actually there.

Members of SBVfT that raise doubts about these events, turn out they weren't even there, including the doctor who claimed to work on Kerry's wound, in direct contradiction to Navy records.

Veterans are raising a stink about the fact that Kerry called them animals, when in fact he did no such thing. And for the veterans to make it sound like those things never happened in the first place is ridiculous. Not all veterans are paragons of virtue."

If you cant understand what this means, here let me do a translation for you.

1. Swiftliars are saying that Kerry has said that he thinks all vietvets are butcherers. -Proven wrong.

2. They have lied about the events that occured, I will paste a page from CNN here:

Quote[/b] ]THE CHARGE Kerry lied to get the first of three Purple Hearts. SBVT alleges that the wound was a minor, self-inflicted scratch. Kerry says on Dec. 2, 1968, he and his two crewmates that night fired on men on a riverbank. It's unclear if someone fired back, but shrapnel hit Kerry's arm. Louis Letson, a medical officer at the time, says that he treated Kerry's wound and that it was too small to justify a medal. William Schacte Jr. says he was on the boat that night and there was no enemy fire; he says Kerry was injured by a grenade Kerry himself launched.

THE EVIDENCE Kerry's medical record was signed not by Letson but by corpsman J.C. Carreon. Letson claims Carreon routinely signed forms for him. Letson told the Los Angeles Times he heard the wound was self-inflicted thirdhand ? from his subordinates, who heard it from Kerry's two crewmates. They deny saying that and insist Schacte wasn't on the boat that night. The military grants a Purple Heart for any wound requiring medical attention that was inflicted during action against the enemy.

THE CHARGE Kerry lied to win his Silver Star. SBVT charges that Kerry exaggerated his role in a battle on Feb. 28, 1969. In charge of a three-boat patrol that was ambushed, Kerry ordered the boats to beach in front of their attackers and engage them head on. Kerry's boat was providing cover when a rocket hit it. Kerry jumped ashore to chase a Viet Cong with a rocket launcher and killed him. SBVT says Kerry simply shot a wounded teenager in the back. Former Lieut. Commander George Elliott, Kerry's direct superior, said in a recent affidavit that he wouldn't have awarded Kerry a Silver Star if he had known the details.

THE EVIDENCE Kerry's crewmates say the boat was in clear danger. Besides, Kerry won the medal for leadership during the whole battle, and Elliott describes the entire episode in the citation he wrote. Elliott later told the Boston Globe he had made a terrible mistake in signing the affidavit. Then he signed a new affidavit standing behind the first. When newspapers questioned Kerry's account in 1996, Elliott went to Boston to uphold it. The commander of one of the other two boats, Chicago Tribune editor William Rood, corroborated Kerry's story last week.

THE CHARGE Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. On March 13, 1969, five swift boats were patrolling the Bay Hap River when a mine detonated under one of them. Kerry and Green Beret Jim Rassmann, aboard other boats, claim gunfire started coming from the riverbank. After another blast knocked Rassmann overboard, Kerry pulled him onto his boat. Three members of SBVT, including Larry Thurlow, insist that there was no gunfire and that Kerry initially fled the scene, returning to help Rassmann only when it was clear there was no danger.

THE EVIDENCE The Navy also awarded Thurlow a Bronze Star that day, and his citation, signed by Elliott and uncovered by the Washington Post, reads, "All the boats came under small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks." A separate damage report mentions three bullet holes in Thurlow's boat.

THE CHARGE Kerry lied about spending Christmas Eve 1968 in Cambodia. In 1979 and 1986, Kerry recounted a mission in which he and his crew boated into neutral Cambodia. The Pentagon said at the time that Vietnam's neighbor was off limits, and Kerry said his mission was proof of Richard Nixon's dishonesty. Steven Gardner, the sole member of Kerry's crew to join the SBVT, says their boat was 50 miles from the Cambodian border that day.

THE EVIDENCE Kerry has no proof he entered Cambodia, though other U.S. forces certainly did. Two crew members have said the boat was near the border. Records show that the boat was about 50 miles south of Cambodia that morning. Kerry and his crew headed upriver and could have been at the border in two hours. On Christmas Eve, Nixon was President-elect; he would not be in the White House for a month. A Kerry campaign spokesman now says that Kerry might not have been in Cambodia that night but that he definitely went there on a mission.

A trivial fact from the article :

"Of SBVT's 254 members, only one served on a boat Kerry commanded; Kerry's 10 other crewmates back him. Some group members say their real beef with Kerry is his antiwar activism, during which he testified to the Senate that "war crimes" by U.S. soldiers were common."

These are the lies this far. More will follow, im sure of it.

Quote[/b] ]You then post things from Kerry's own website to "prove" that the swift boat vets are lying!

Is CNN better for you? I have linked only 1 link to Kerrys pages, that was his war records. Are you saying that they are not real or that the documents are biased?

Get a grip.

Dude where is your country?

EDIT: quoatations

[shinRaiden 0]

Just curious, was it the silver star with or without the crossed V? Which of the three significantly different citiations on file for that silver star is the most accurate?

As Kerry claimed to be a war criminal, and I suppose the UCMJ has provisions for dealing with such, why did he not seek a pardon or some kind of legal closure? If he puts the US into the ICC, and Vietnam decides to send an indictment to The Hague, then what?

Finally, why did he write in his journal a week after his first purple heart that they had not yet been fired upon? I can understand lying to a country, we all pick and choose who we accuse of that. But when you can't be consistent and honest to yourself, how can he competently do anything?

[General Barron 0]

I knew it. I knew that nobody would be able to meet my challenge. I knew that if I answered Pathy's challenge, and said why I support Bush, you guys would completely ignore the subject:

Quote[/b] ]After reading what you wrote, I have absolutely nothing to say to you. I'm tired of going over the same old arguements over and over again for every troll that comes along.

Wow, thanks for resorting to namecalling. For a second there, I was starting to think that you actually thought about things from an objective standpoint, but now I see that you are truly just another person who just regurgitates the Democratic party line.

Quote[/b] ]Do your reading before you come in here with the same old tired bullshit that has been discussed a thousand times already.

I guess you missed this part of my post:

Quote[/b] ]Obviously many of the people in this forum have different opinions, but those are my reasons for supporting Bush.

You'll notice that I wasn't trying to convince anyone of my opinions, because I know that those things have been discussed already on this forum. Way to let your emotions do your thinking, Akira.

Quote[/b] ]Your "libertarianism" is an interesting one, since you spout only what the Republicans say, something quite contrary to normal libertarianism, including peace. You accused me of not knowing linertarianism, but I think perhaps it is you that needs to re-read whatever the hell it is you think you read.

Stop pretending you know what libertarianism is. And not all libertarians believe the same thing, just like Republicans and Democrats, so don't expect me to be a clone of Dr. Mary J. Ruwart. I have only been discussing one issue in this forum, so you have no way of knowing what my beliefs are. I haven't said anything about the fact that I think drugs, hookers and suicide should be legal, or that I think the draft is slavery, or that I think taxes are robbery, or that I think the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, or any of my other wacky libertarian ideas. You are an idiot to think that you can judge someone's entire political beliefs based on what they say in a post or two on a message board.

------------------------------------------------

I think the only one here who is able to actually hold an intelligent debate is Walker. The rest of you are like a bunch of 3rd graders.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think the only one here who is able to actually hold an intelligent debate is Walker. The rest of you are like a bunch of 3rd graders.

I supplied you with facts. Is calling me a 3rd grader your best argument to proove me wrong?

[General Barron 0]

@Turms

Quote[/b] ]Who are you to decide what wound is good enough for a purple heart?

If Kerry can get a purple heart for a sliver, than it dilutes the meaning of the award. Most people die or are maimed when they get it.

Quote[/b] ]only record that is missing is the medical record. Its Kerrys personal matter.

Now you seem to be a broken record.

What are you basing this statment on? I am basing my statement off of what the swifties say. I'm guessing you are basing yours off of what Kerry says, right? So I guess we both don't really know then, do we?

Quote[/b] ]Now let me quote Akira for the second time:

"All of the SBVfT claims about Kerry, including his false Purple Heart, and the account of events leading to his Bronze Star, have been backed up by Navy records, and people that were actually there.

Members of SBVfT that raise doubts about these events, turn out they weren't even there, including the doctor who claimed to work on Kerry's wound, in direct contradiction to Navy records."

What source is Akira basing those claims on? Again, I'm telling you what the Swifties are saying. What are those claims based on?

Quote[/b] ]Well boo-hoo. So what if he wasnt there? He was very near to the border anyway.

The point is: he said he was there. That is called a lie.

Quote[/b] ]How has the story chanched? Any link outside swiftliars.com?

If you followed US news like I did, you would know. But I get my info from sources other than the internet, so I can't give you a link. But I don't see what is wrong with the link from swiftvets.com, because what they claim is backed up by tapings from the TV broadcast.

Quote[/b] ]The democratic party however is supporting moveon.org.

I'm sorry, but if you think the Democratic Party is a separate entity from the Kerry campaign, then I'm afraid you don't know American politics correctly.

Quote[/b] ]Post some facts to us! (outside swiftliars.com)

There you go again. You refuse to respond to the issues. I have posted what the Swifties claims are. But you refuse to provide evidence disproving their claims. Go back to my post where I explained this logical fallicy.

Anyway, the only thing in your post of any merit is the article you found on CNN.com. I won't go thru it all right now, cause I'm short on time, but I will point out that on the first charge (about his first purple heart), the article provides no evidence that the wound was anything more than a sliver, like the swifties are claiming.

PS: Have you read "Unfit for Command"? Have you even heard O'Neil in any interviews? If not, then I assume you are looking at this from a biased viewpoint, and that you are only looking for evidence to support Kerry. Obviously you haven't sought out the evidence against him.

[turms 0]

Again; no facts. Just a broken record playing the song of swiftliars.

If the swiftliars accusing Kerry for something, they have to proove it, Not kerry.

If you are accusing Kerry of something you have to proove it. Not me.

Bring on the facts that you have.

Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry, but if you think the Democratic Party is a separate entity from the Kerry campaign, then I'm afraid you don't know American politics correctly.

Are you saying that Kerrys campaign is same as democratic party?

Or are you saying that democratic party is the same as Kerrys campaign?

EDIT: PS I havent studied that book, but is O´neill the famous 1 of the swiftliars? The one that actually served in the same boat?

""Of SBVT's 254 members, only one served on a boat Kerry commanded; Kerry's 10 other crewmates back him. Some group members say their real beef with Kerry is his antiwar activism, during which he testified to the Senate that "war crimes" by U.S. soldiers were common."

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Just curious, was it the silver star with or without the crossed V? Which of the three significantly different citiations on file for that silver star is the most accurate?

I really dont know but i found some guys answer from an another forum:

Quote[/b] ]Just checked the citation issued for the Silver Star (signed by Admiral Zumwalt). No mention of a Combat V device in the citation.

But, you are correct that on the DD214, it is so stated. It looks like a typo because it is in the middle column immediately below the award of the Bronze Star, With Combat V Device. It reads like this:

Bronze Star with V Device

Silver Star with V Device

So, one could understand that the DD214 was prepared in error.

There is also a correction to the DD214, a DD215, which awards ADDITIONAL medals to Kerry.

Quote[/b] ]Finally, why did he write in his journal a week after his first purple heart that they had not yet been fired upon? I can understand lying to a country, we all pick and choose who we accuse of that. But when you can't be consistent and honest to yourself, how can he competently do anything?

Never heard about that one. Where did you find it and why it hasnt been on media?

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]There you go again. You refuse to respond to the issues. I have posted what the Swifties claims are. But you refuse to provide evidence disproving their claims.

I have accused swiftvets from lying. You can rewiew the cnn article for closer details and prooves. How are Swiftliars providing the evidence? You or the swiftvets should try to proove that Kerry is lying, instead of asking Kerry to proove that he is not lying.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I knew it. I knew that nobody would be able to meet my challenge.

What exactly the hell are you talking about? At least three different people gave you reasons no less than the opinions and reasons you gave.

If you think your flawed position is fortifide by the fact Bush was mentioned you are wrong. You can not have a debate about candidates without comparing the two. It is Bush's burden to prove he deserves another four years, and he has failed.

Quote[/b] ]Wow, thanks for resorting to namecalling.

Indeed...

Quote[/b] ]. The rest of you are like a bunch of 3rd graders.

What was it you were saying again about hypocrisy?

Quote[/b] ]I was starting to think that you actually thought about things from an objective standpoint,

And what exactly in all your posts makes you the shining example of objectivity? What exactly, in all your posts, makes you the paragon of reason and logic? Your "objectivity" sure sounds alot like the Republican line. Yeah. Objective alright.

Quote[/b] ]You'll notice that I wasn't trying to convince anyone of my opinions, because I know that those things have been discussed already on this forum. Way to let your emotions do your thinking, Akira.

No? Then what is the purpose of you being here? What is the purpose of your challenge? What is the purpose of the long posts then? Shits and giggles?

And since you seemed to have choosen to ignore the rest of my post, I listed only a few reasons why Bush shouldn't be president. No more and no less valid then what you posted.

And you are right, I was indeed "emotional." So what. Its hard to stay objective when every three months some one plods along into the thread, and rehashes everything (and I do mean everything) that has been discussed at least three times before, as if suddenly they hold the Holy Grail of political discussion. It's boring, its old, and it is extremely frustrating when you think you have progressed past such bullshit.

Quote[/b] ]Stop pretending you know what libertarianism is.

I will if you will.

Quote[/b] ] I have only been discussing one issue in this forum, so you have no way of knowing what my beliefs are.

Indeed. And from what I hear you are on the Bush mailing list. You get one of his autographed pictures?

Quote[/b] ]You are an idiot to think that you can judge someone's entire political beliefs based on what they say in a post or two on a message board.

Weren't you saying something about namecalling? Oh thats right. Thats just us hypocritical third graders. I forgot.

But anyway, indeed, you are correct. And you have made the exact same mistake, but of course, you wouldn't admit to that, because you are the only person able to hold a logical debate right?

Right. Anyway, on the same token, you don't know jack about what I believe either. Do you even follow your own advice? Or do you just spout out dogma? I suggest you start reading from "The Iraq Thread 1" before you start calling me a Democratic parrot (but you are "objective" right?).

Quote[/b] ]I haven't said anything about the fact that I think drugs, hookers and suicide should be legal, or that I think the draft is slavery, or that I think taxes are robbery, or that I think the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, or any of my other wacky libertarian ideas.

I fail to see the wackiness.

The fact is we are all yelling at brick walls. Nothing any of us say will change the oppositions view point, as we all have decided long ago. We all think we are right. I tire of wasting my breath and so should you.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Finally, why did he write in his journal a week after his first purple heart that they had not yet been fired upon? I can understand lying to a country, we all pick and choose who we accuse of that. But when you can't be consistent and honest to yourself, how can he competently do anything?

Found some data about it. The diary didnt have any dates there.

Quote[/b] ]While the date of the four-day excursion on PCF-44 [Patrol Craft Fast] is not specified, Brinkley notes it commenced when Kerry "had just turned 25, on Dec. 11, 1968,"

Now how much is "just"?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]What source is Akira basing those claims on? Again, I'm telling you what the Swifties are saying.

I base it on a Hardline analysis of their claims (the same analysis that showed financial ties from SBVfT straight to Rove and Bush Sr.) and a variety of sources.

Quote[/b] ]VIETNAM SWIFT BOAT SKIPPER COMES TO KERRY'S DEFENSE

Published on August 22, 2004

Author(s): Bryan Bender and Michael Kranish, Globe Staff, Anne Kornblut and Glen Johnson of the Globe staff contributed to this

report.

WASHINGTON - The Naval officer who commanded a swift boat alongside John F. Kerry on the day for which Kerry won his Silver Star in the Vietnam War broke his 35-year silence yesterday to defend the Democratic presidential candidate's military record, saying that a group of veterans charging Kerry didn't deserve some of his battlefield awards are telling "untrue" stories about what happened.

Also since you use the Swift Boat site, I'll use Kerry's:

Swift Boat Vets

As for the Swifties lying:

Quote[/b] ] Records dispute Kerry critic's Swift boat story

By Michael Dobbs

The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — Newly obtained military records of one of John Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

In interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that his boat came under fire March 13, 1969, in Viet Cong-controlled territory. Kerry won a Bronze Star that day.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow also won a Bronze Star, and the citation praises him for providing aid to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He also is a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The public-advocacy group of Vietnam veterans, dismayed by Kerry's subsequent anti-war activities, has aired a controversial advertisement attacking his war record.

Kerry has described how his patrol boat came under fire after a mine explosion disabled another patrol boat. According to Kerry and members of his crew, the firing continued as an injured Kerry leaned over the bow of his ship to rescue a Special Forces officer who was blown overboard in a second explosion.

Thurlow last month swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he grabbed Lt. James Rassmann. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation as "totally fabricated."

A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star, however, noted all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units came under fire.

"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

He said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under fire was the basis for it.

Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans repeatedly have alleged that Kerry authored a report that described how his boat came under fire. The Kerry campaign disputes that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument.

Two other skippers, Jack Chenoweth and Richard Pees, have said they do not remember coming under "enemy fire." A fourth commander, Don Droz, who was one of Kerry's closest friends in Vietnam, was killed in action a month later.

The Bronze Star controversy also is a major focus of an anti-Kerry book by John O'Neill, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry." The book accuses Kerry of "fleeing the scene" and lying.

Rassmann and other members of Kerry's crew have come to his defense. Rassmann says he has vivid memories of being fired at from both banks.

The Bronze Star recommendations for Kerry and Thurlow were signed by Lt. Cmdr. George Elliott, a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth supporter who has questioned Kerry's actions. But he has refused to be interviewed after issuing conflicting statements to the Boston Globe over whether Kerry deserved a Silver Star. He could not be reached last night.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

And you think a book written by someone hired by Nixon in the 70s is going to be objective and unbiased? You realize the very same person is in SBVfT as well right? And this group is non-partisan?

Another Story of the "non-partisan" SBVfT

One other lie

You asked when SBVfT lied. THere you go.

[billybob2002 0]

I smell gang-rape....  

Remember kiddies to give Kerry a free pass or you will go to hell!!!! Dis only Bush!!!  That is the good hard fact. Elect Kerry because he fought in Vietnam! He talks about all these proposals if he is elected however he could of tried to get some of those passed on the floor of the Senate (but he did not). He talks about caring for the environment and does not want America to be depended on foreign oil but allows his family to drive SUVs and fly private jets. He cares so much for his Senate Intelligence Committee seat he misses a clear majority of public meetings including missing all four public hearings in 1994 (year after WTC bombing). Furthermore, he will not release his attendence record for the private meetings. Kerry likes to talk about his band of brothers in Vietnam but not the ones he had after he came back. People bitch about a certain 527 groups that attacks Kerry and call them liars. However, when another 527 group attacks Bush with thier lies, the room goes slient. When Kerry talks about Iraq, he talks about dream world. I could go on and on but I'm not.

Granted, he is not Bush.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Remember kiddies to give Kerry a free pass or you will go to hell!!!! Dis only Bush!!! That is the good hard fact. Elect Kerry because he fought in Vietnam! He talks about all these proposals if he is elected however he could of tried to get some of those passed on the floor of the Senate (but he did not). He talks about caring for the environment and does not want America to be depended on foreign oil but allows his family to drive SUVs and fly private jets. He cares so much for his Senate Intelligence Committee seat he misses a clear majority of public meetings including missing all four public hearings in 1994 (year after WTC bombing). Furthermore, he will not release his attendence record for the private meetings. Kerry likes to talk about his band of brothers in Vietnam but not the ones he had after he came back. People bitch about a certain 527 groups that attacks Kerry and call them liars. However, when another 527 group attacks Bush with thier lies, the room goes slient. When Kerry talks about Iraq, he talks about dream world. I could go on and on but I'm not.

Indeed. Everyone is an ass pretty much in American politics. As I've stated before, I don't think Kerry is Jesus Christ, nor do I think he is infallible.

As you stated...what I do know is he ain't Bush, and that's good enough for me. It's time to swing this country back toward the middle...