NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 I read in the papers where over 200 personnel who served with and commanded John Kerry during the war, from Admiral on down, signed a letter which describes the Presidential hopeful as a "traitor" and "unfit to be Commander in Chief" This is not a rub against his service during the war, but at his anti-war activities after he came back which include fabricating stories about atrocities he "witnessed or heard about" and denigrating his fellow servicemembers as "bloodthirsty killers" all in front of the U.S. Senate and on television. Pair that up with throwing his medals away he may as well have posed on that anti-aircraft battery with "Hanoi Jane" Fonda. And now this hypocrite has the balls to go out and thump his chest about his war record...........all 3 months of it. Spare me! :fyou Kerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 I read in the papers where over 200 personnel who served with and commanded John Kerry during the war, from Admiral on down, signed a letter which describes the Presidential hopeful as a "traitor" and "unfit to be Commander in Chief" This is not a rub against his service during the war, but at his anti-war activities after he came back which include fabricating stories about atrocities he "witnessed or heard about" and denigrating his fellow servicemembers as "bloodthirsty killers" all in front of the U.S. Senate and on television. Pair that up with throwing his medals away he may as well have posed on that anti-aircraft battery with "Hanoi Jane" Fonda. And now this hypocrite has the balls to go out and thump his chest about his war record...........all 3 months of it. Spare me! :fyou Kerry Agreed. People can say what they want about Bush and his military records, but when you look at Kerry they arent much different. If you wanna use it against one, there's no way you can use it to try and support the other. I'll join in a :fyou to Kerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POTUSChris Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 I agree with both of you. The media doesn't help by focusing on Bush's military record and ignoring Kerry's. I don't want to go off on a tangent saying I think there's a media bias cause I don't think there is one. The media just chooses to focus on certain stories and will screw either side at some point. Anyway, I'm going to join in and say :fyou Kerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 I agree with both of you. The media doesn't help by focusing on Bush's military record and ignoring Kerry's. I don't want to go off on a tangent saying I think there's a media bias cause I don't think there is one. The media just chooses to focus on certain stories and will screw either side at some point. Anyway, I'm going to join in and say :fyou Kerry This might not be the place to bring this up so, /hijack but anyway, I'll tell you what gripes my ass about this whole "troop mistreatment" thing and maybe this has already been said here, I don't know. Why is it that there is more of an outcry about mistreatment of Iraqis, etc. then there is about our contractors being drug through the streets and burned and hanged in public? There's a ton more outrage about the mistreatment of prisoners then "ordinary" Americans. Don't get me wrong. I am not condoning what those bastards did over there, I think it's sick, wrong, and extremely distasteful. But where is the outcry for OUR people? The US military should be held to a higher standard, I agree... but again, why can't there be this kind of outcry when the insurgents do this kind of crap? Instead, it's used to say OMG we need to GET OUT!!! One other note. I wish I had a transcript of this. I happened to turn on the radio to the local station that does traffic on the way home because I was stuck in traffic. They had a contractor on from Iraq and he had many many many many things to say that COMPLETLY contradicts what our messed up media says... he said that from being over there, more, WAY more people want us there then not, but they want us there in a support role and not in charge. They DO NOT want the UN in there, they think that they will totally screw it up. They respect us, but the biggest concern to the everyday folk is they want to have the ability to roam as they want to and not be told to stay home at night, for example. This is a completely different picture then what our media paints as to what is going on over there. This STRAIGHT from a guy that IS over there now working... I take a lot more from a first hand account then our media bias. /resume Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFanForever Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 This might not be the place to bring this up so, /hijack but anyway, I'll tell you what gripes my ass about this whole "troop mistreatment" thing and maybe this has already been said here, I don't know. Why is it that there is more of an outcry about mistreatment of Iraqis, etc. then there is about our contractors being drug through the streets and burned and hanged in public? There's a ton more outrage about the mistreatment of prisoners then "ordinary" Americans. Don't get me wrong. I am not condoning what those bastards did over there, I think it's sick, wrong, and extremely distasteful. But where is the outcry for OUR people? The US military should be held to a higher standard, I agree... but again, why can't there be this kind of outcry when the insurgents do this kind of crap? Instead, it's used to say OMG we need to GET OUT!!! One other note. I wish I had a transcript of this. I happened to turn on the radio to the local station that does traffic on the way home because I was stuck in traffic. They had a contractor on from Iraq and he had many many many many things to say that COMPLETLY contradicts what our messed up media says... he said that from being over there, more, WAY more people want us there then not, but they want us there in a support role and not in charge. They DO NOT want the UN in there, they think that they will totally screw it up. They respect us, but the biggest concern to the everyday folk is they want to have the ability to roam as they want to and not be told to stay home at night, for example. This is a completely different picture then what our media paints as to what is going on over there. This STRAIGHT from a guy that IS over there now working... I take a lot more from a first hand account then our media bias. /resume If you want to know what it is like over there then ask some of the troops that have been over there recently. I had a few guys in one of my classes that had recently come back from Iraq and what they said was much different than other people say. There is always a certain degree of bias in anything you read or hear. You have to read from both sides of the bias and take the middle ground of those two to be as close to truth as it is going to get. None of us here at home who haven't been to Iraq know what the people there think or feel, we merely have to listen and dissect what we hear as best we can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Kerry is a boring lying dick, Bush is worse, blah blah blah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 I read in the papers where over 200 personnel who served with and commanded John Kerry during the war, from Admiral on down, signed a letter which describes the Presidential hopeful as a "traitor" and "unfit to be Commander in Chief" This is not a rub against his service during the war, but at his anti-war activities after he came back which include fabricating stories about atrocities he "witnessed or heard about" and denigrating his fellow servicemembers as "bloodthirsty killers" all in front of the U.S. Senate and on television. Pair that up with throwing his medals away he may as well have posed on that anti-aircraft battery with "Hanoi Jane" Fonda. And now this hypocrite has the balls to go out and thump his chest about his war record...........all 3 months of it. Spare me! :fyou Kerry They're only saying it because they're afraid of Bush and Haliburton and did you know Bush had friends in Enron and he didn't show up for duty and... Just trying to beat them to the punch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Which is better? To have a WAR record, or not? Hmmm, avoid it all together -- Clinton National Guard, questionable attendance -- Bush Actually serving -- Kerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Which is better? To have a WAR record, or not? Hmmm, avoid it all together -- Clinton National Guard, questionable attendance -- Bush Actually serving -- Kerry Right on, Tex!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Kerry VOLUNTARILY went to Nam, and voiced his opinions about that war AFTER HE SERVED! Bush VOLUNTARILY avoided Viet Nam , and voiced his opinions after DODGING THE WAR! Who has more credibility to speak about Viet Nam? BTW...what the f**k does Viet Nam have to do with who is the better presidential candidate??? BTW (again) Nuke, isn't 3 months service better than ZERO service? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 BTW...what the f**k does Viet Nam have to do with who is the better presidential candidate??? The SERVICE doesn't, but for someone to come back and redicule the soldiers in the theatre of battle and then 30 years later want to be commander-in-chief makes me just a little suspicious. Thousands of Americans "dodged" Vietnam. But not all stood there and ripped the guys that were over there. That's where the real issue is IMO. You did it then, how can you respect today's soldier then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 The SERVICE doesn't, but for someone to come back and redicule the soldiers in the theatre of battle and then 30 years later want to be commander-in-chief makes me just a little suspicious. Thousands of Americans "dodged" Vietnam. But not all stood there and ripped the guys that were over there. That's where the real issue is IMO. You did it then, how can you respect today's soldier then? Maturity, years of public service, etc. I know I have changed many of my views from when I was 22 years old and a GOP campaigner, election judge, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 I don't disagree with that, Tex. I change my mind all the time based on learning more about the subjects at hand. However, what I have a problem with is this guy made it a point to redicule soldiers in the field of battle. Yes, that was 30 years ago. And his platform NOW is to (basically) get us out of Iraq. So, here we have a guy who has in the past rediculed our soldiers (I DO NOT discount the fact that he was one too) but where the distinction lies is none of this matters until you step up to the plate to want to be president of the United States. THEN it has all sorts of implications. I didn't give a rats ass what John Kerry did 30 years ago UNTIL HE WANTED TO BE PRESIDENT. It didn't matter, now it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Shouldn't it matter as well what Bush has done in the last 30 years? Personally, I think all politicians (except the Late Paul Simon) are lying crooks out for themselves, but the idea of another 4 years of Bush is horrifying (to me) to say the least. Even greenspan is worried about the deficit now (or so says an article on yahoo). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Shouldn't it matter as well what Bush has done in the last 30 years? Personally, I think all politicians (except the Late Paul Simon) are lying crooks out for themselves, but the idea of another 4 years of Bush is horrifying (to me) to say the least. Even greenspan is worried about the deficit now (or so says an article on yahoo). Absolutely what Bush did 30 years ago matters. I guess the difference is - we have a president who has (depending on your take) proven or not proven his worth. It's a known vs. an unknown issue. All this crap was hashed out 4 years ago with GW, and now, we go through it again. Bush did some "dodging" or whatever you want to call it (as I said, many others did too) but you don't hear about GW standing up and politicizing against it back then. This issue sucks. 30 years ago really shouldn't matter in terms of what you chose to do in every day life, but Kerry used this for political gain back then, so IMO it takes an issue that shouldn't matter and forces it to the forefront because HE CHOSE to politicize it then and now politics is all that matters when selecting a president. Hopefully that makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Shouldn't it matter as well what Bush has done in the last 30 years? Personally, I think all politicians (except the Late Paul Simon) are lying crooks out for themselves, but the idea of another 4 years of Bush is horrifying (to me) to say the least. Even greenspan is worried about the deficit now (or so says an article on yahoo). Sure... BK'ing a few companies.... DUI's... that should all be relevant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.