Schoeler

Good lord, could you imagine if Kerry couldn't do that? Unlike Bush, who seems to be able to get away with it, if Kerry brought his religion into policy discussions, all those bigoted fundamentalist christians would be barking, stark-raving rabidly mad that he was taking orders from the Pope. It would rekindle all those old prejudice-driven fears the ignorant masses had of a Catholic President when John Kennedy first took office. Of course, if you are born again and use religion in policy decisions, well then, by all means, go right ahead. Â That's perfectly acceptable.

That is an extremely poor analogy. Your example of slavery involves a decision made by a third party and sanctioned by the government that gives that third party absolute control over an individual's freedom. Abortion Law on the other hand is a government decision that legally sanctions a governmental intrusion on an individual's choice over what to do with their body. Â Unless the pregnancy is viable, there is no third party involved and Roe v. Wade only legalized abortions in cases where the pregnancy is in a stage where the fetus cannot have developed enough to sustain a viable birth (the only exception is for extreme emergencys). Your slavery argument actually supports pro-choice better than it denigrates it. Â Your argument basically says the government shouldn't intrude upon an individual's freedom and control over their own destiny. Â But outlawing abortion as it is currently legal would do just that.

Hey do you guys need a nice high res photo of the M-14? I got one off a guns classified ads site online. It's a nice big, super clear file of an M-14.

LOL!! That's fucking funny.

What does Kerry support? He wants the states to decide... sounds like slavery and that kind of crap. Also, it sounds like Kerry supports murder because he believes that life starts at conception and he supports abortion ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....printer ). That is like saying I do not believe in slavery but I'm going to allow it because another said that blacks are sub-human or not human. Kerry favors pro-choice, not abortion. There is a huge difference. He, like many Catholics feel it isn't up to the State to legislate morality, but that the choice should be made on an individual moral basis. The law should not have its nose in every woman's womb. Making abortion illegal isn't going to end it, and every non-fundamentalist with half a brain in their heads knows that. Abortion should remain legal so that women don't engage in unsafe medical practices while the public should be educated to see abortion as a solution only when it is absolutely necessary and not as a means of birth control. Making abortion a part of the legal system isn't going to change people's minds about it, just like outlawing drugs didn't do away with their use. People will happily disobey the law if the act they commit fits within their moral framework, it is the moral framework of the average individual that must be changed before social change can truly occur.

The Republican Party has been hijacked by hardcore extreme right-wing religious fundamentalists. For those of you who do not see the need to be "born again", you should vote Kerry just to send a message to the Party to get back on track and shift towards moderation once again. I was a moderate Republican until Bush took office, but I'll be damned as a Catholic if I'm going to allow some religious extemist whackos to dictate morality to me or to try and push their religion down my throat, and force it into goverment or State sponsored activities. Nor will I accept that I have to be bigoted or tolerate bigotry because everyone that falls outside the narrow-minded world view of conservative christianity is going to hell. I love the fact that these nut jobs think they know what God's will is and how God will judge those whom they don't see as "saved". I love that they intepret the bible literally. I want to know if they actually do have a direct line to God because I can't see how they came by the information they base their claims off of with absolute certaintity any other way. It'd be nice if I could get one of them to ask God why my brother is dead, or why the war in Iraq was morally justified. These are the people in charge of your party Republicans. They don't like gays, they don't like Catholics, they don't like blacks, jews, or hispanics. They want to tell you whom and how you can marry, when you can have sex, what to do with your children and how to raise them and when, where and how you may pray. They favor censorship over free speech, prayer over artistic expression, safety and comfort over liberty. These are the type of people our founding fathers were afraid of. it is why they insured a system of checks and balances so that the minority would not suffer from the tyranny of the majority and many of you would trade that away out of fear after 9-11. Man the fuck up and quit thinking George Bush is going to protect you like he's your daddy or some other fucking thing. Learn the difference between tough talk and tough action and for God's sake don't just swallow the shit being spewed out by the media.

You can get your F-4 right here from the airplane boneyard in Tucson Arizona. Some dude recently bought one for 2 million and is getting it ready to fly. He had to get special permission from Congress though because the plane is mach 2 capable. But hey, I figure if you can drop 2 million on a plane and another 2 to fix it, you probably know more than a few congressman.

I'm 32 I grew up in Seattle, but now live in Tucson Arizona where I am a senior in Political Science/Pre-Law at the University of Arizona. I plan on attending law school in the fall. I also work for the Home Depot as an undercover security officer conducting internal theft investigations and arresting the occasional shoplifter. I don't really even play OFP anymore, just mod for it and participate in the interesting discussions here on this board. I get more out of the forum now than I do out of the game itself.

I am an extremely patriotic American. I served for 6 years in the military, always put my hand over my heart during the playing of the national anthem and believe deeply in the founding concepts and philosophies of this great nation. My definition of patriotism however does not extend to supporting the government no matter what it does over that of the welfare of the American people. I think criticizing the government when it is wrong, speaking out when speaking out is unpopular and seeing to it that the spirit and the ideas that founded this nation are not crushed or forgotten is the highest form of patriotism. I support the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence because those documents embody the ideas that are America, that are the freedom we know today and that have advanced that freedom past many challenges for centuries. They are the building blocks that laid the foundation for what can be, and what has been at times, the greatest nation on earth. When those foundations are assaulted and ignored, as they are today by our current government, they give America the potential to be one of the most dangerous nations on earth as well. With awesome power comes awesome responsibility and we as Americans can never afford to forget that fact and do our duty as concerned and patriotic citizens to ensure our power is not misused. We have failed in the responsibility as of late and we have erroneously criticized and labeleled those who have not as un-patriotic or anti-American, when nothing could be further from the truth. Those pointing out the error of our ways whether here at home or abroad are among the greatest of our friends and allies. They are like a friend who see you taking the wrong course in your life and dramatically intervenes to prevent you from self-destructing, whether that intervention is welcomed or not. Perhaps like people rescued from their own self-destructive tendencies, we will come to see and appreciate that one day, or perhaps our friends will simply lack the strength to save us and we will eventually slip into the abyss. I hope that we can restore this nation as a beacon of hope throughout the world. I hope that we can reassure our friends that we are always there to support them, but never there to impose upon them. I hope that our nation will see this horror and the mockery that has been made out of the American system and open its eyes to the way things can and should be in this country. I hope they take an active interest in this nation's history, philosophies and especially its policies. I hope that we will remain ever vigilant and involved so that we never again see the sort of abuse of power or corruption that currently infects every corner of our form of self government. I sincerely hope we can change before it gets to be too late.

LoL, Kerry even "believed" that he was in Cambodia. Â Of course he wasn't, but he likes to believe that story so much that he used it in his review of Apocalypse Now. Â And later on the floor of the Senate. http://www.freeupload.net/uploads/5303.jpg http://www.freeupload.net/uploads/5304.jpg http://www.freeupload.net/uploads/5307.jpg Notice in the movie review he mentions that they were drunk South Vietnamese, but when he's a Senator, they were Vietnamese, Khmer Rouge and Cambodians. Â Should of added the Grinch while he's at it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....s12.xml And to cover up his lie, in Tour of Duty, Kerry's recent biography, he says he was in a mortar attack near the Cambodia border on that Christmas eve. What a douche. Have you ever been in a mortar attack? Besides the fake ass one's in a military sim game? I doubt it. In fact have you even served? Who's the douche here, the guy judging a guy who fought in combat from his oh so safe cushy, pussy-assed civilian existence, or the guy who fought in combat and 30 years later, might have mixed up the day he was in Cambodia when re-telling the story? I'd say the douche is the person talking right out of his ass, with no combat experience whatsoever, but all the willingness and the balls in the world to judge someone who's actually been to see the elephant. Edit: Ralph or Placebo, you can give me my warning now, it was worth it.

I swear to God Akira, people are going to start thinking you and I are the same person trying to play two roles on this forum. We share the exact same politics. We have the same favorite war movie. And, aren't you an attorney? I'm just getting ready to start law school. Scary! My Top 5: 1. The Thin Red Line It really communicates the emotions of war and the cinematography was superb. A little deep for your average thinker, but almost poetic for those who enjoy venturing a little deepr into their entertainment. 2. Band of Brothers Almost as good and factually correct as the book, which was excellent. 3. Platoon This movie changed the attitude of an entire nation on its Vietnam Veterans. Very powerful for its time, and extremely well acted. 4.Gettysburg What can I say, I'm a Civil War nut. 5. Saving Private Ryan Despite the flowery emotion tugging and overt patriotism, this film opened a lot of people's eyes about the realities of armed conflict.

Then explain his comment he made in 1986... First, that site is praising Kerry's service (which I respect). Second, that is what he said in 1986. Lastly, I believe he should not be bringing up his service in his campaign like he has done (or anybody for that matter) because, in 1992, Kerry was saddened that Vietnam was used against Clinton. You mean the comment you pulled from the Boston Globe? That's the paper that has been running an unabashed smear campaign against Kerry since he first took office. It's the paper that started that little tiff with Teresa Heinz-Kerry to get her to look bad in front of the cameras. It's the paper that the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News and MSNBC have said has gone way beyond the bounds of non-partisan respectable journalism. I'll believe that quote when I hear it come out of Kerry's mouth or he acknowledges it himself, or it appears in a real paper.

Their mission changed after Kerry arrived. He signed up before they were doing inland patrols. Really? Read the transfer order again. Â Kerry knew the mission was switching. Â His second choice was for PBR's. Â Do you know what PBR stands for? I'll make it easy for you: Â Patrol Boat River. Kerry was volunteering to leave a destroyer on downed pilot pickup duties in the Tonkin Gulf for the Navy's riverine units. Â Try and say what you want, but that is a step towards a hell of lot of danger and a step away from a hell of a lot of relative comfort and safety. Of course I couldn't possible know anything about this being a Navy veteran. Â How many years did either of you two serve in the Navy again?

Kerry got out 6 months early because he asked for a early transfer to get out..... Â Anyway, http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml ...... Funny that you brought that up becuase Kerry did try to get a deferment but was denied. WRONG again!! Kerry had three purple hearts. That is an automatic ticket home, no need to ask, you go home, period.

I'm just beating up Walker's words. He (walker) said that Kerry volunteered for millitary service on the the front line in vietnam but, in reality, Kerry thought that being on a "swift boat" would avoid deadly fights. You're fucking kidding me right? I served for 6 years in the United States Navy. EVERY fucking swabbie and squid in the world can tell you that small boat riverine duty in a combat zone is the most dangerous duty in the Navy, even more dangerous than being a SEAL. Â Why? Because small boats have the mission objective of trolling up and down enemy waterways trying to draw fire and also of delivering SEALS and other assorted specops deep into indian country. Â You can't duck for cover in an aluminum skinned boat, and no matter how "swift" they are, they aren't going to outrun any rpg's. My Dad went to 'Nam twice and told me the small boat guys either had to have rocks in their head or balls of solid steel. Â He had a friend who had two boats sunk out from under him in just a six month period of time. Â Numerous crewmembers killed in action, and three purple hearts earning him a trip out of hell. Want to know why guys like Kerry only served six month combat tours? Because small boat duty was so hazardous that most of them got a ticket out of country in a body bag or on a hospital flight. Kerry knew exactly what he was signing up for. Please stop talking out of your ass, the Navy guys here like me resent the bullshit you spout and resent guys who never served, but seem to know it all. Â Do your time, earn the right to have an opinion on the matter and then contribute your criticism or else shut up about things you know nothing about.

Wait, when did that become a problem? Clinton (draft dodger) ran against Bush Sr. (combat pilot in WWII), and Clinton is now a fondly-remembered (By most everyone left of the center) president. Bush Sr. flew 58 missions and earned four medals, including the Distinguished Flying Cross. That became a problem when our nation went to war. A wartime Commander In Chief with combat experience makes a big difference.

I used to shoot competitively too. In high school, my team took 2nd place in the nation. The top guy on my team and myself were offered a shot at Olympic coaching but my family didn't have the money. I can still hit anything with a rifle though.

Excellent article Denoir. Thanks for posting that, i sent it out via e-mail to friends and family. It's particularly damning coming from a Reagan don't you think?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/politics/campaign/10kerry.html I guess Kerry is an idiot... Edit: spelling nazis Billybob, I took you for a more educated person than this statement of your's would indicate. Let me point out a few basic facts for you: 1. Â The President can make war for 90 days without Congressional authorization. 2. Â Congress authorized the president to use force only after all diplomatic and other means had been exhausted first. 3. Â John Kerry did not vote to go to war, he voted to give the President the authority to go to war if circumstances called for it. Â A vote that as indicated by my first point, was largely symbolic. Text of John Kerry's speech given on the Senate floor just before he voted to authorize the war: Independents for Kerry Site with speech text I'm surprised at you Billybob, a simple google search would have turned this up from any number of reliable sources including the federal record of Senate actions, but it seems you would be much happier gleefully spouting out the decieving anti-Kerry propaganda you have been spoonfed and all to happy to swallow by the Republican attack dogs.

Bush: Kerry: Bush 0 out of 10 Kerry 10 out of 10. - This actually surprised me a little bit. I like Kerry, but not as much as I dislike Bush.

I think you meant "mark my words", but Amen Brother! Nothing a little education can't fix. I think now about my mindset four years ago compared to what it is today and I know I'm not even the same person. The critical thinking skills developed at University have been a blessing and make me support education for the masses all the more. Maybe John Kerry will deliver this nation from ignorance.

Albert, the introductory speech is not the proper venue to get into platofrm details. It's supposed to cover the basics and basically say it all without giving too much detail. It's why he invited those interested in voting for him to visit his website and to get involved in the grassroots effort. The details will be fleshed out over the next 3 months.

It was easy enough, there were several "gates" or crossing points between the two sides of the city. The Brandenburg gate comes to mind. As a kid, he probably could have ridden his bicycle across and gotten nothing but surprised and bemused reactions from the guards on either side. Maybe, I thought the same thing, but Kerry has a reasonable enough explanation for this despite Republican attack dog efforts to block the average American from hearing it. All you have to do is read the text of his speeches given when he voted yes for the war and no for the approriations to get confirmation on why he did both. It's a matter of public record the Bush campaign can't erase. This sort of thing is more suitable to address in the debates anyway, and not an acceptance speech. I don't think you heard that right. He didn't say God was on his side. In fact, he said quite the opposite. Quoting Lincoln, he humbly hoped that he was on the side of God. Not at all the same arrogant claim the right has insisted on making all along.

I wonder if it is still on the President's nightstand. 30 minutes simply wasn't enough time for him to finish a story that big.

Getting the nuclear football into the air on Air force One when the nation comes under attack is entirely one man's responsibility, the President's. Bush failed to do that in the proper amount of time. I am amazed nobody else has brought this up. There is a doctrine and a protocol that must be followed when the nation is attacked, not should be followed, but must be followed. Bush was trained to follow it when he took office. He has regular drills that update his training on how to follow the doctrine. He failed to follow it and endangered our national security. Nobody is allowed to make distinctions over what type of attack is taking place and then elect to follow or not follow the doctrine. That simply isn't an option. No one knew for sure who was attacking the United States on September 11th. No one knew what the scale or extent of the attacks would be, or who was backing them, whether it was a terrorist group or a another nation. For all Bush knew, ICBMs were streaking across the icecaps as he sat there looking at an upside-down copy of "My Pet Goat". He froze, plain and simple. He didn't react to the situation and his training was useless. This is the commander in chief, this is the guy with the nuclear launch codes. Is this the guy you want at the helm if we are attacked by a nuclear capable power?