there is a video link on the bottom of the article that has the original story I saw.
It is fox news, but no-one else covered the story. At least look at it before you blast me.
I found this very vague and opinionated. Hardly damning at all.
And of course there's the fact that it came from FOX......
If you had been alive or grownup enough to care you'd know that during those times the news was full of reports of bad things coming out of Vietnam.
One of the worst and most inexcusable pages in American history.
Once again I might add not the fault of the good men sent there but the politicians who sent them.
Also the excuse for the war was pretty thread bare ( the domino effect ) a little like Iraq. South Vietnam fell to the North and communism didn't over run the world ( or even southeast asia ). So much for thread bare excuses.
First, that's REALLY something you need to cite, SDW. It's not clear if just you think he's "most liberal," whether liberal groups rate his record the highest among current senators, or what. But even if he's the "most liberal" senator by any criteria, that's really not saying much for the state of progressives in the senate. In other words, if John Kerry is the "most liberal" senator we have, then the Senate is certainly conservative by my standards!
Second, I think we can come up with a lot more genuine Bush flip-flops.
Oh come on, Shawn. It's common knowledge. Stop with the blatant intellectual dishonesty and get real.
Quote:
Judging by National Journal's congressional vote ratings, however, Kerry and Edwards aren't all that different, at least not when it comes to how they voted on key issues before the Senate last year. The results of the vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5.
From the first link, a description of the National Journal and how it rates Congressmen:
Quote:
National Journal's vote ratings rank members of Congress on how they vote relative to each other on a conservative-to-liberal scale in each chamber. The scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. The scores are determined by a computer-assisted calculation that ranks members from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other, based on key votes -- 62 in the Senate in 2003 -- selected by National Journal reporters and editors.
Wow. ok. If you're gonna set the bar that low there's no way Bush could fail you.
Well actually... anybody in office could pull that off,
Setting the bar is different issue. We're talking about factually incorrect statement here. Of course I don't think 1,000 jobs would be good...not at all. That's besides the point...because the statment we keep hearing is "2,000,000" lost jobs. It's totally false.
But I'll humor you by saying that in my opinion, 2,000,000 MORE jobs (which is the irrefutable truth) is a decent number. Is that bar too low? \
I found this very vague and opinionated. Hardly damning at all.
And of course there's the fact that it came from FOX......
If you had been alive or grownup enough to care you'd know that during those times the news was full of reports of bad things coming out of Vietnam.
One of the worst and most inexcusable pages in American history.
Once again I might add not the fault of the good men sent there but the politicians who sent them.
Also the excuse for the war was pretty thread bare ( the domino effect ) a little like Iraq. South Vietnam fell to the North and communism didn't over run the world ( or even southeast asia ). So much for thread bare excuses.
Well as usual jimmac, you're playing the age card. "I've been around long enough to....." is getting a bit tired coming from you. It's rhetorical crap.
Kerry testified about atrocities he saw and COMMITTED. Where's the outrage there? He was also giving testimony about the supposedly widespread atrocities while soldiers were dying in battle That's the problem. We had brave men fighting and dying for the country, while Kerry was talking about what subhuman killers they were. He then joined a radical anti-war group....at one point pretending to throw his medals away in a demonstration. Funny, he seems to have found them just in for the election.
He does something terrible for whatever reasons (and truthfully speaking, when you're at war, you don't really have a choice -- do you?) and then he feels terrible about it and speaks up against it.
Whereas certain people do things of questionable integrity and then ignore it until it comes up in the media and then when it does either refuse to talk about it (cocaine) or deny it outright (failure to report).
Hmm... I know which one I respect more.
WOW. I don't think you understand, with all due respect. We are talking about being guilty of WAR CRIMES here. We're talking about bashing soldiers in testimony...while the boots are on the ground. It's unacceptable.
Quote:
So now you're saying that if they're killing children and mothers by tying them up and shoving grenades in their mouths then he should shut up until the war is over before speaking out?
Who is "they"? The magntude of such incidents is in dispute, and it is very possible it was horribly exaggerated. Kerry made it sound as if it was every member of the armed forces or official policy. I don't buy it.
Quote:
How... TERRIBLE! Oh MY GOD! He is such a worse patriot than Bush. The OUTRAGE!
Funny...you don't see the problem here? He pretends to throw away his medals, and now he has them so he can put them on his resume? Gee. That must be nice.
Quote:
Sorry, SDW, but this was one of the weakest posts you've ever made. You didn't say anything that makes anyone look at Kerry any worse that didn't already have something against him. In fact the points that you made actually made him appear more genuine and admirable to those of us with any real integrity and empathy for the suffering of non-Americans.
John Kerry IS radical. I take particular notice of how you can't refute that. I could perhaps respect him if he was at least consistent at the same time...but he wasn't. He TRULY has flopped on almost every major issue. I don't say that lightly...I wouldn't say it about a Mondale or a Carter or even a Dukakis. But Kerry? Are you kidding? The man is totally without principle. He's now running middle class tax cuts! Riiiiiight. I seem to remember hearing that back in 1992.
I don't fault you for not liking Bush. I do fault you for supporting Kerry.
There are plenty of Democrats who are not radical and not anti-war. Unfortunately, they've lost all control of the party.
I'm a little unsure of your stance on 'war', with all of the 'anti' prefixes that you add.
Are you more likely to vote for a pro-war candidate or for a pragmatic candidate who advocates war in time of need? I'll assume (read: hope) the latter.
I have a hard time reconciling your opinion that if someone is anti-war then they aren't a suitable candidate, though. Anti-war isn't a bad thing. Impractical, but not wrong.
John Kerry IS radical. I take particular notice of how you can't refute that. I could perhaps respect him if he was at least consistent at the same time...but he wasn't. He TRULY has flopped on almost every major issue. I don't say that lightly...I wouldn't say it about a Mondale or a Carter or even a Dukakis. But Kerry? Are you kidding? The man is totally without principle. He's now running middle class tax cuts! Riiiiiight. I seem to remember hearing that back in 1992.
If Kerry were truly radical, he might have a good solid radical set of values and ideals. He doesn't. As you note, he has flip-flopped on the issues, which doesn't seem very radical to me.
I'd call him a poor devil's advocate, but not radical.
Well as usual jimmac, you're playing the age card. "I've been around long enough to....." is getting a bit tired coming from you. It's rhetorical crap.
Kerry testified about atrocities he saw and COMMITTED. Where's the outrage there? He was also giving testimony about the supposedly widespread atrocities while soldiers were dying in battle That's the problem. We had brave men fighting and dying for the country, while Kerry was talking about what subhuman killers they were. He then joined a radical anti-war group....at one point pretending to throw his medals away in a demonstration. Funny, he seems to have found them just in for the election.
John Kerry is a radical anti-war liberal. Period.
GOOD FOR HIM!
How terrible.
So I guess that makes you a prowar, radical, right winger period.
The sad thing is those good men in Vietnam weren't so much dying for our country as much as they were dying for military contracts and furthering Nixon's political goals.
Hey! The age card's a good one to play as you'll find out some day.
You've got to get something back for all those wrinkles, aches and pains, and fat that just doesn't go away no matter how much you diet.
PS. Not to mention the first time a pretty young girl says : " You remind me of my dad ".
There's something to be said about actually being alive at the time and seeing events as they happen instead of reading Ann Coulter's rewritten version of history.
Just like I give more credence to people who were actually alive during WWII ( something before my time ) than what I read about it.
WOW. I don't think you understand, with all due respect. We are talking about being guilty of WAR CRIMES here. We're talking about bashing soldiers in testimony...while the boots are on the ground. It's unacceptable.
unless of course they actually were guilty.
If they were doing the things that he stated they were then it would be unacceptable to NOT testify.
We are a country that values the Law . . . the Law of the Land overrides all concerns: it is that to which we are all patriotic, and that to which we swear our allegiance, and it binds us to our great nation.
If he felt that he saw soldiers breaking the implied law of our nation and doing things in contrast to what our nation should do then it would be his duty to testify
But . . I am discussing it in hypothetical . . . what he saw and what he said, I don't know . . why he is stepping somewhat away from that time? I don't know
Is George Stepping away from taking Cocaine? and what is his excuse?
I'm sure that Kerry was a very mature but still young man who was wounded in bdy and somewhat in spirit when he witnessed the things that he saw . . .
and when he got back and scrutinized the 'reasons' for the war he found them all lacking . . .so he testified about what he saw.
(if what he saw is remotly like the video of that hellicopter pilot killing the wounded man then he was a claim to legitimacy)
and I know many vets who have outrageous stories: for instance, the famous open door hellicopter interogations . . .
I'm a little unsure of your stance on 'war', with all of the 'anti' prefixes that you add.
Are you more likely to vote for a pro-war candidate or for a pragmatic candidate who advocates war in time of need? I'll assume (read: hope) the latter.
I have a hard time reconciling your opinion that if someone is anti-war then they aren't a suitable candidate, though. Anti-war isn't a bad thing. Impractical, but not wrong.
It's not wrong, but it's not an attitude I want in the POTUS. I'd agree it's impractical. I'm not really sure what "pro-war" means, but I do tend to think force is needed at times and I want someone who is willing to use it.
I didn't know Kucinich was in power. He's a vegan he must be the radical you're talking about.
AND he's NOT a flip flopper. He's pragmatic and intelligent.
You can support NCLB and then be appalled when Bush doesn't fully fund it.
You can support NAFTA and then scold the government for not holding our partners to it... or not consider ways to improve it.
You can support the threat of force as a last resort on Iraq and then be pissed when the reasons given for force do not hold to be true.
I assume you're talking about Kerry....it wasn't clear. OK.
1. A lie. Lie, lie, lie. The Federal Edu. Budget is up almost 50% since Bush took office. Title 1 Reading program funding has exploded under Bush. You don't have the facts here.
2. Please elaborate on your NAFTA point.
3. Kerry voted for war. Give me a break. He fully believed Saddam had WMD and said so publicly as late as March 2003. He voted to authorize the President to use force. He did not vote for the "Disarm Iraq by Force Only If It's The Last Option You Have Left" act. Whatever.
Kerry is a flopper. You don't have to support Bush, or even like him, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that.
So I guess that makes you a prowar, radical, right winger period.
The sad thing is those good men in Vietnam weren't so much dying for our country as much as they were dying for military contracts and furthering Nixon's political goals.
Hey! The age card's a good one to play as you'll find out some day.
You've got to get something back for all those wrinkles, aches and pains, and fat that just doesn't go away no matter how much you diet.
PS. Not to mention the first time a pretty young girl says : " You remind me of my dad ".
There's something to be said about actually being alive at the time and seeing events as they happen instead of reading Ann Coulter's rewritten version of history.
Just like I give more credence to people who were actually alive during WWII ( something before my time ) than what I read about it.
So wait...you want a radical and at the same time flip-fliopping anti-war President? Oh, OK.
And what's this? Coulter rewritng history? Examples. Please..I'm listening.
If they were doing the things that he stated they were then it would be unacceptable to NOT testify.
We are a country that values the Law . . . the Law of the Land overrides all concerns: it is that to which we are all patriotic, and that to which we swear our allegiance, and it binds us to our great nation.
If he felt that he saw soldiers breaking the implied law of our nation and doing things in contrast to what our nation should do then it would be his duty to testify
But . . I am discussing it in hypothetical . . . what he saw and what he said, I don't know . . why he is stepping somewhat away from that time? I don't know
Is George Stepping away from taking Cocaine? and what is his excuse?
I'm sure that Kerry was a very mature but still young man who was wounded in bdy and somewhat in spirit when he witnessed the things that he saw . . .
and when he got back and scrutinized the 'reasons' for the war he found them all lacking . . .so he testified about what he saw.
(if what he saw is remotly like the video of that hellicopter pilot killing the wounded man then he was a claim to legitimacy)
and I know many vets who have outrageous stories: for instance, the famous open door hellicopter interogations . . .
Excellent job avoiding the point. First, it's not clear Kerry's statements WERE entirely accurate. Second, what if he participated? Maybe he was just following orders?
NYTimes Krugman (current op-ed) It's true that there are two employment surveys, which have been diverging lately. The establishment survey, which asks businesses how many workers they employ, says that 2.4 million jobs have vanished in the last three years. The household survey, which asks individuals whether they have jobs, says that employment has actually risen by 450,000. The administration's supporters, understandably, prefer the second number.
So, businesses are claiming that they have cut 2.4 million jobs. People at home are claiming that 450000 more people are employed. Krugman goes on to clearly state that even Alan Greenspan believes the payroll numbers (that 2.4 million jobs were lost). Not that it is relevant to the current discussion, but here is where those numbers contradict....
Comments
http://www.bavf.org/carlton_sherwood_award.htm
look how many times reporters from the Moonie Washington Times have won his award.
I can't stop laughing!
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113632,00.html
there is a video link on the bottom of the article that has the original story I saw.
It is fox news, but no-one else covered the story. At least look at it before you blast me.
I found this very vague and opinionated. Hardly damning at all.
And of course there's the fact that it came from FOX......
If you had been alive or grownup enough to care you'd know that during those times the news was full of reports of bad things coming out of Vietnam.
One of the worst and most inexcusable pages in American history.
Once again I might add not the fault of the good men sent there but the politicians who sent them.
Also the excuse for the war was pretty thread bare ( the domino effect ) a little like Iraq. South Vietnam fell to the North and communism didn't over run the world ( or even southeast asia ). So much for thread bare excuses.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Hmm
First, that's REALLY something you need to cite, SDW. It's not clear if just you think he's "most liberal," whether liberal groups rate his record the highest among current senators, or what. But even if he's the "most liberal" senator by any criteria, that's really not saying much for the state of progressives in the senate. In other words, if John Kerry is the "most liberal" senator we have, then the Senate is certainly conservative by my standards!
Second, I think we can come up with a lot more genuine Bush flip-flops.
Oh come on, Shawn. It's common knowledge. Stop with the blatant intellectual dishonesty and get real.
Judging by National Journal's congressional vote ratings, however, Kerry and Edwards aren't all that different, at least not when it comes to how they voted on key issues before the Senate last year. The results of the vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5.
Source: Here
Source of most liberal claim: Here
From the first link, a description of the National Journal and how it rates Congressmen:
National Journal's vote ratings rank members of Congress on how they vote relative to each other on a conservative-to-liberal scale in each chamber. The scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. The scores are determined by a computer-assisted calculation that ranks members from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other, based on key votes -- 62 in the Senate in 2003 -- selected by National Journal reporters and editors.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Wow. ok. If you're gonna set the bar that low there's no way Bush could fail you.
Well actually... anybody in office could pull that off,
Setting the bar is different issue. We're talking about factually incorrect statement here. Of course I don't think 1,000 jobs would be good...not at all. That's besides the point...because the statment we keep hearing is "2,000,000" lost jobs. It's totally false.
But I'll humor you by saying that in my opinion, 2,000,000 MORE jobs (which is the irrefutable truth) is a decent number. Is that bar too low?
Originally posted by jimmac
I found this very vague and opinionated. Hardly damning at all.
And of course there's the fact that it came from FOX......
If you had been alive or grownup enough to care you'd know that during those times the news was full of reports of bad things coming out of Vietnam.
One of the worst and most inexcusable pages in American history.
Once again I might add not the fault of the good men sent there but the politicians who sent them.
Also the excuse for the war was pretty thread bare ( the domino effect ) a little like Iraq. South Vietnam fell to the North and communism didn't over run the world ( or even southeast asia ). So much for thread bare excuses.
Well as usual jimmac, you're playing the age card. "I've been around long enough to....." is getting a bit tired coming from you. It's rhetorical crap.
Kerry testified about atrocities he saw and COMMITTED. Where's the outrage there? He was also giving testimony about the supposedly widespread atrocities while soldiers were dying in battle That's the problem. We had brave men fighting and dying for the country, while Kerry was talking about what subhuman killers they were. He then joined a radical anti-war group....at one point pretending to throw his medals away in a demonstration. Funny, he seems to have found them just in for the election.
John Kerry is a radical anti-war liberal. Period.
Even if you've fought in one!
Originally posted by tonton
You say that as if it's a bad thing. If that's what he is then he's got my vote!
I can respect that, actually. We just disagree. That's fine.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Apparently if you're not a republican you're a radical anitwar liberal!
Even if you've fought in one!
There are plenty of Democrats who are not radical and not anti-war. Unfortunately, they've lost all control of the party.
He does something terrible for whatever reasons (and truthfully speaking, when you're at war, you don't really have a choice -- do you?) and then he feels terrible about it and speaks up against it.
Whereas certain people do things of questionable integrity and then ignore it until it comes up in the media and then when it does either refuse to talk about it (cocaine) or deny it outright (failure to report).
Hmm... I know which one I respect more.
WOW. I don't think you understand, with all due respect. We are talking about being guilty of WAR CRIMES here. We're talking about bashing soldiers in testimony...while the boots are on the ground. It's unacceptable.
So now you're saying that if they're killing children and mothers by tying them up and shoving grenades in their mouths then he should shut up until the war is over before speaking out?
Who is "they"? The magntude of such incidents is in dispute, and it is very possible it was horribly exaggerated. Kerry made it sound as if it was every member of the armed forces or official policy. I don't buy it.
How... TERRIBLE! Oh MY GOD! He is such a worse patriot than Bush. The OUTRAGE!
Funny...you don't see the problem here? He pretends to throw away his medals, and now he has them so he can put them on his resume? Gee. That must be nice.
Sorry, SDW, but this was one of the weakest posts you've ever made. You didn't say anything that makes anyone look at Kerry any worse that didn't already have something against him. In fact the points that you made actually made him appear more genuine and admirable to those of us with any real integrity and empathy for the suffering of non-Americans.
John Kerry IS radical. I take particular notice of how you can't refute that. I could perhaps respect him if he was at least consistent at the same time...but he wasn't. He TRULY has flopped on almost every major issue. I don't say that lightly...I wouldn't say it about a Mondale or a Carter or even a Dukakis. But Kerry? Are you kidding? The man is totally without principle. He's now running middle class tax cuts! Riiiiiight. I seem to remember hearing that back in 1992.
I don't fault you for not liking Bush. I do fault you for supporting Kerry.
Originally posted by SDW2001
There are plenty of Democrats who are not radical and not anti-war. Unfortunately, they've lost all control of the party.
I'm a little unsure of your stance on 'war', with all of the 'anti' prefixes that you add.
Are you more likely to vote for a pro-war candidate or for a pragmatic candidate who advocates war in time of need? I'll assume (read: hope) the latter.
I have a hard time reconciling your opinion that if someone is anti-war then they aren't a suitable candidate, though. Anti-war isn't a bad thing. Impractical, but not wrong.
Originally posted by SDW2001
John Kerry IS radical. I take particular notice of how you can't refute that. I could perhaps respect him if he was at least consistent at the same time...but he wasn't. He TRULY has flopped on almost every major issue. I don't say that lightly...I wouldn't say it about a Mondale or a Carter or even a Dukakis. But Kerry? Are you kidding? The man is totally without principle. He's now running middle class tax cuts! Riiiiiight. I seem to remember hearing that back in 1992.
If Kerry were truly radical, he might have a good solid radical set of values and ideals. He doesn't. As you note, he has flip-flopped on the issues, which doesn't seem very radical to me.
I'd call him a poor devil's advocate, but not radical.
I didn't know Kucinich was in power. He's a vegan he must be the radical you're talking about.
AND he's NOT a flip flopper. He's pragmatic and intelligent.
You can support NCLB and then be appalled when Bush doesn't fully fund it.
You can support NAFTA and then scold the government for not holding our partners to it... or not consider ways to improve it.
You can support the threat of force as a last resort on Iraq and then be pissed when the reasons given for force do not hold to be true.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well as usual jimmac, you're playing the age card. "I've been around long enough to....." is getting a bit tired coming from you. It's rhetorical crap.
Kerry testified about atrocities he saw and COMMITTED. Where's the outrage there? He was also giving testimony about the supposedly widespread atrocities while soldiers were dying in battle That's the problem. We had brave men fighting and dying for the country, while Kerry was talking about what subhuman killers they were. He then joined a radical anti-war group....at one point pretending to throw his medals away in a demonstration. Funny, he seems to have found them just in for the election.
John Kerry is a radical anti-war liberal. Period.
GOOD FOR HIM!
How terrible.
So I guess that makes you a prowar, radical, right winger period.
The sad thing is those good men in Vietnam weren't so much dying for our country as much as they were dying for military contracts and furthering Nixon's political goals.
Hey! The age card's a good one to play as you'll find out some day.
You've got to get something back for all those wrinkles, aches and pains, and fat that just doesn't go away no matter how much you diet.
PS. Not to mention the first time a pretty young girl says : " You remind me of my dad ".
There's something to be said about actually being alive at the time and seeing events as they happen instead of reading Ann Coulter's rewritten version of history.
Just like I give more credence to people who were actually alive during WWII ( something before my time ) than what I read about it.
Originally posted by SDW2001
tonton:
WOW. I don't think you understand, with all due respect. We are talking about being guilty of WAR CRIMES here. We're talking about bashing soldiers in testimony...while the boots are on the ground. It's unacceptable.
unless of course they actually were guilty.
If they were doing the things that he stated they were then it would be unacceptable to NOT testify.
We are a country that values the Law . . . the Law of the Land overrides all concerns: it is that to which we are all patriotic, and that to which we swear our allegiance, and it binds us to our great nation.
If he felt that he saw soldiers breaking the implied law of our nation and doing things in contrast to what our nation should do then it would be his duty to testify
But . . I am discussing it in hypothetical . . . what he saw and what he said, I don't know . . why he is stepping somewhat away from that time? I don't know
Is George Stepping away from taking Cocaine? and what is his excuse?
I'm sure that Kerry was a very mature but still young man who was wounded in bdy and somewhat in spirit when he witnessed the things that he saw . . .
and when he got back and scrutinized the 'reasons' for the war he found them all lacking . . .so he testified about what he saw.
(if what he saw is remotly like the video of that hellicopter pilot killing the wounded man then he was a claim to legitimacy)
and I know many vets who have outrageous stories: for instance, the famous open door hellicopter interogations . . .
Originally posted by audiopollution
I'm a little unsure of your stance on 'war', with all of the 'anti' prefixes that you add.
Are you more likely to vote for a pro-war candidate or for a pragmatic candidate who advocates war in time of need? I'll assume (read: hope) the latter.
I have a hard time reconciling your opinion that if someone is anti-war then they aren't a suitable candidate, though. Anti-war isn't a bad thing. Impractical, but not wrong.
It's not wrong, but it's not an attitude I want in the POTUS. I'd agree it's impractical. I'm not really sure what "pro-war" means, but I do tend to think force is needed at times and I want someone who is willing to use it.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
The radicals have taken over!!!!
I didn't know Kucinich was in power. He's a vegan he must be the radical you're talking about.
AND he's NOT a flip flopper. He's pragmatic and intelligent.
You can support NCLB and then be appalled when Bush doesn't fully fund it.
You can support NAFTA and then scold the government for not holding our partners to it... or not consider ways to improve it.
You can support the threat of force as a last resort on Iraq and then be pissed when the reasons given for force do not hold to be true.
I assume you're talking about Kerry....it wasn't clear. OK.
1. A lie. Lie, lie, lie. The Federal Edu. Budget is up almost 50% since Bush took office. Title 1 Reading program funding has exploded under Bush. You don't have the facts here.
2. Please elaborate on your NAFTA point.
3. Kerry voted for war. Give me a break. He fully believed Saddam had WMD and said so publicly as late as March 2003. He voted to authorize the President to use force. He did not vote for the "Disarm Iraq by Force Only If It's The Last Option You Have Left" act. Whatever.
Kerry is a flopper. You don't have to support Bush, or even like him, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that.
Originally posted by jimmac
GOOD FOR HIM!
How terrible.
So I guess that makes you a prowar, radical, right winger period.
The sad thing is those good men in Vietnam weren't so much dying for our country as much as they were dying for military contracts and furthering Nixon's political goals.
Hey! The age card's a good one to play as you'll find out some day.
You've got to get something back for all those wrinkles, aches and pains, and fat that just doesn't go away no matter how much you diet.
PS. Not to mention the first time a pretty young girl says : " You remind me of my dad ".
There's something to be said about actually being alive at the time and seeing events as they happen instead of reading Ann Coulter's rewritten version of history.
Just like I give more credence to people who were actually alive during WWII ( something before my time ) than what I read about it.
So wait...you want a radical and at the same time flip-fliopping anti-war President? Oh, OK.
And what's this? Coulter rewritng history? Examples. Please..I'm listening.
Originally posted by pfflam
unless of course they actually were guilty.
If they were doing the things that he stated they were then it would be unacceptable to NOT testify.
We are a country that values the Law . . . the Law of the Land overrides all concerns: it is that to which we are all patriotic, and that to which we swear our allegiance, and it binds us to our great nation.
If he felt that he saw soldiers breaking the implied law of our nation and doing things in contrast to what our nation should do then it would be his duty to testify
But . . I am discussing it in hypothetical . . . what he saw and what he said, I don't know . . why he is stepping somewhat away from that time? I don't know
Is George Stepping away from taking Cocaine? and what is his excuse?
I'm sure that Kerry was a very mature but still young man who was wounded in bdy and somewhat in spirit when he witnessed the things that he saw . . .
and when he got back and scrutinized the 'reasons' for the war he found them all lacking . . .so he testified about what he saw.
(if what he saw is remotly like the video of that hellicopter pilot killing the wounded man then he was a claim to legitimacy)
and I know many vets who have outrageous stories: for instance, the famous open door hellicopter interogations . . .
Excellent job avoiding the point. First, it's not clear Kerry's statements WERE entirely accurate. Second, what if he participated? Maybe he was just following orders?
NYTimes Krugman (current op-ed) It's true that there are two employment surveys, which have been diverging lately. The establishment survey, which asks businesses how many workers they employ, says that 2.4 million jobs have vanished in the last three years. The household survey, which asks individuals whether they have jobs, says that employment has actually risen by 450,000. The administration's supporters, understandably, prefer the second number.
So, businesses are claiming that they have cut 2.4 million jobs. People at home are claiming that 450000 more people are employed. Krugman goes on to clearly state that even Alan Greenspan believes the payroll numbers (that 2.4 million jobs were lost). Not that it is relevant to the current discussion, but here is where those numbers contradict....