Kerry claims that money corrupts political speech and voted for McCain-Feingold. He then skips public financing, campaign limits, mortgages a house his rich wife's money purchased and "loans" his campaign the millions of dollars from it.
This is just a terrible lie from you. Money doesn't corrupt, money from political interests corrupts. So, Kerry loaning himself money is, I guess, giving Kerry more access to Kerry in the even that he gets elected. Wow. How terrible. Bush should really overplay this angle so Kerry looks evil.
Just voting for Nader and saying "at least I'm trying to change things" seems a little... well, lazy. If you really want to try to help change things, there are places to volunteer, organize, contribute, network.... but spending 5 minutes every 4 years casting a ballot for someone that's going to get 5% if he's lucky, isn't going to change anything.
OK, you absolutely have a point, but in case you hadn't noticed, I live in Belgium so rallying for, let alone voting for Nader or an alternative 3rd party is not an option for me
You are very selectively reading his testimony . . .IF you read it at all?!
He clearly is saying some atrocities had been committed . . .and they had . .. and, not only that, he is reading a statement put together by many vets, some of whom are saying that they themselves committed acts that they felt were terrible and unjust . . .
This is truth, clearly this happened and was happening . . and yet you call it treason . . . your a prick
So what's wrong with this? Did he throw out his ribbons or not?
Well get ol'John to give us a straight answer and we can discuss the actions. However he must be confused about the correctness of the actions himself or else he wouldn't be changing his own answer about it.
Worse still, Kerry claims the actual version of the events that came from his own lips was a right-wing smear. So not only did he lie about it. He claimed the "right-wing" was smearing him by lying about the same issue.
Twice he stood for what he believed in . . . once in the war then when he realized what he thought, again when he got back.
AHA - so you are admitting that he IS a known and proven flip-flopper! I guess this also makes it clear that standing up for what you believe in is indeed patriotic - unless of course it is critical of the government during wartime, which is nothing more than collusion with the enemy.
Well get ol'John to give us a straight answer and we can discuss the actions. However he must be confused about the correctness of the actions himself or else he wouldn't be changing his own answer about it.
Worse still, Kerry claims the actual version of the events that came from his own lips was a right-wing smear. So not only did he lie about it. He claimed the "right-wing" was smearing him by lying about the same issue.
You are such a bloated windbag buffoon its amazing . . . give it a rest
This is nothing . . .
nearly 700 AMerican soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have been KILLED because of LIES told by a **** ***** ********* sh**hole and you smear this guy for saying, 30 years ago, that he 'returned his ribbons' . . . you are so full of shit it amazes me.
You think this is some kind of revelation of import?
Wow, you are totally out of control and just personally attacking that which you can't defend.
Hey pfflam, let's pretend we are cops together. Let me leave the force, toss my badge at the mayor in protest of how the police behave, and then claim you were still torturing, raping, murdering, etc. others since you are still on the job.
Oh and btw, remember, I haven't declared you bad or the enemy while claiming all those actions for you. I'm just against crime. I'm not claiming the police are the enemy.
This is just a terrible lie from you. Money doesn't corrupt, money from political interests corrupts. So, Kerry loaning himself money is, I guess, giving Kerry more access to Kerry in the even that he gets elected. Wow. How terrible. Bush should really overplay this angle so Kerry looks evil.
Parse it all you want. The limits are because they believe there is to much money in the process. There are individual limits, and primary and general election campaign limits. Kerry loaned himself millions while forgoing all the limits.
As for the loan itself. It really is a disguised large contribution. He didn't own the house. He wife bought it and put it in both of their names. He then borrowed the full value of it and loaned his campaign the money to beat other Democratic candidates. If any corporation did this, you know like Enron creating a puppet corporation, transferring all the losses to it, while keeping all the gains for themselves, you would call it what it is, a means of circumventing the law and wrong.
As I said, you have to ask him. He is the one giving two different version of the same story. How am I supposed to sort it out when John Kerry himself appears not to know?
In 1971, it appears he tossed the ribbons and his own medals. However apparently this caused some political concern among those even on the left. Kerry later said that he hadn't thrown his own medals. Rather he threw his ribbons and that the medals were from two other people who could not attend the rally at which it occured.
However it appears we have both statements on tape, and he is caught changing his story.
Wow, you are totally out of control and just personally attacking that which you can't defend.
Hey pfflam, let's pretend we are cops together. Let me leave the force, toss my badge at the mayor in protest of how the police behave, and then claim you were still torturing, raping, murdering, etc. others since you are still on the job.
Oh and btw, remember, I haven't declared you bad or the enemy while claiming all those actions for you. I'm just against crime. I'm not claiming the police are the enemy.
Nick
Once again . . . try reading the damn testimony you bufoon
As I said, you have to ask him. He is the one giving two different version of the same story. How am I supposed to sort it out when John Kerry himself appears not to know?
You seem to be making a lot of comments on a subject you're completely ignorant about.
Originally posted by Trumptman Parse it all you want. The limits are because they believe there is to much money in the process. There are individual limits, and primary and general election campaign limits. Kerry loaned himself millions while forgoing all the limits.
As long as it will take several hundreds of millions of dollars to stand a chance as a presidential candidate, you'll only get to vote for people who are in the pockets of corporate America
Taking the statements out of context while not knowing the veracity of any of it and then basing your opinion on information you know you don't know is ignorant.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
However it is you who wishes to remain ignorant of the truth of the matter.
Is that why I keep trying to clarify his actions before I formulate an opinion?
I'm sorry Trumptman, I may be misinterpreting what you've written (i've been writing papers all day) but it kind of sounds like you don't think atrocities were committed in Vietnam. My Lai was only one of who knows how many recorded instances of American soldiers committing atrocities, such as killing old men, women and children, bayonetting babies, and destroying an entire village. In fact, the atrocities there didn't stop until a chopper pilot landed and turned his guns on his fellow soldiers, telling them that if they didn't stop he would open fire. And of all those who participated in this, only Lt. Calley was convicted and he ended up only serving a year of his life sentance. So regardless of whether or not Kerry returned his medal, he was right to come back and fight against the atrocities he witnessed and committed, if he did commit them. Vietnam was a tragic chapter in our history, and it is very hard to have a clear-cut view of what to do. I find it admirable that Kerry went and served, put his life on the line, and then had the courage to return and protest that it was wrong. I think it adds credibility that he was there.
Wow, you are totally out of control and just personally attacking that which you can't defend.
Hey pfflam, let's pretend we are cops together. Let me leave the force, toss my badge at the mayor in protest of how the police behave, and then claim you were still torturing, raping, murdering, etc. others since you are still on the job.
Oh and btw, remember, I haven't declared you bad or the enemy while claiming all those actions for you. I'm just against crime. I'm not claiming the police are the enemy.
Nick
Well, let's see. If I worked for a police department that didn't know exactly what laws it was defending, and didn't know exactly who was a perpetrator and who was a victim, and which actually did torture rape and murder, this being substantiated by other former and current cops, and after I quit my actions suggested that I was angry and confused and conflicted because an institution I though I believed in had proved itself capable of evil, but I wasn't even sure who to blame because the mandate was all top down...
OK, I'll play that game.
The trouble with you indignation is that it requires you to pretend Vietnam was a straight forward war of valor with patriots and patsies neatly dividing themselves up..
The very fact that Kerry served and came to hate it speaks to the ambiguities of that conflict, but you would have it be emblematic of some character failing on his part.
I say it is just the opposite, that it shows a man willing to fight for his country but capable of being horrified of a war without clear goals or enemies.
And for the love of God please don't come on these boards and and spew your "outrage" that a candidate "lied" about a charged act 30 years ago, and how it lays bare his character. We all know exactly what kind of man you support as a model of integrity.
I'm sorry Trumptman, I may be misinterpreting what you've written (i've been writing papers all day) but it kind of sounds like you don't think atrocities were committed in Vietnam. My Lai was only one of who knows how many recorded instances of American soldiers committing atrocities, such as killing old men, women and children, bayonetting babies, and destroying an entire village. In fact, the atrocities there didn't stop until a chopper pilot landed and turned his guns on his fellow soldiers, telling them that if they didn't stop he would open fire. And of all those who participated in this, only Lt. Calley was convicted and he ended up only serving a year of his life sentance. So regardless of whether or not Kerry returned his medal, he was right to come back and fight against the atrocities he witnessed and committed, if he did commit them. Vietnam was a tragic chapter in our history, and it is very hard to have a clear-cut view of what to do. I find it admirable that Kerry went and served, put his life on the line, and then had the courage to return and protest that it was wrong. I think it adds credibility that he was there.
I'm not suggesting that no one ever did anything wrong. In fact I cannot think of any level of human endeavor or public service where someone, somewhere isn't doing something wrong.
However Kerry appears to have generalized all the actions to the point to where the general soldier is commiting atrocities. He even goes so far as to suggest, but not really implicate himself.
That is why I gave pfflam the police example. Certainly there are examples where the police mishandled something or even instances where the officer him or herself is corrupt. However implicating all police or claiming that the general state of policing is in its nature corrupt, violent, and harming all involved, is wrong.
Well, let's see. If I worked for a police department that didn't know exactly what laws it was defending, and didn't know exactly who was a perpetrator and who was a victim, and which actually did torture rape and murder, this being substantiated by other former and current cops, and after I quit my actions suggested that I was angry and confused and conflicted because an institution I though I believed in had proved itself capable of evil, but I wasn't even sure who to blame because the mandate was all top down...
OK, I'll play that game.
The trouble with you indignation is that it requires you to pretend Vietnam was a straight forward war of valor with patriots and patsies neatly dividing themselves up..
The very fact that Kerry served and came to hate it speaks to the ambiguities of that conflict, but you would have it be emblematic of some character failing on his part.
I say it is just the opposite, that it shows a man willing to fight for his country but capable of being horrified of a war without clear goals or enemies.
And for the love of God please don't come on these boards and and spew your "outrage" that a candidate "lied" about a charged act 30 years ago, and how it lays bare his character. We all know exactly what kind of man you support as a model of integrity.
Nice try, but Kerry's statements made it firmly clear. It wasn't that the enemy was unclear. It is that the enemy was us.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Kerry claims that money corrupts political speech and voted for McCain-Feingold. He then skips public financing, campaign limits, mortgages a house his rich wife's money purchased and "loans" his campaign the millions of dollars from it.
This is just a terrible lie from you. Money doesn't corrupt, money from political interests corrupts. So, Kerry loaning himself money is, I guess, giving Kerry more access to Kerry in the even that he gets elected. Wow. How terrible. Bush should really overplay this angle so Kerry looks evil.
Just voting for Nader and saying "at least I'm trying to change things" seems a little... well, lazy. If you really want to try to help change things, there are places to volunteer, organize, contribute, network.... but spending 5 minutes every 4 years casting a ballot for someone that's going to get 5% if he's lucky, isn't going to change anything.
OK, you absolutely have a point, but in case you hadn't noticed, I live in Belgium so rallying for, let alone voting for Nader or an alternative 3rd party is not an option for me
Posting on AO is the closest I'll get
You are very selectively reading his testimony . . .IF you read it at all?!
He clearly is saying some atrocities had been committed . . .and they had . .. and, not only that, he is reading a statement put together by many vets, some of whom are saying that they themselves committed acts that they felt were terrible and unjust . . .
This is truth, clearly this happened and was happening . . and yet you call it treason . . . your a prick
Originally posted by bunge
So what's wrong with this? Did he throw out his ribbons or not?
Well get ol'John to give us a straight answer and we can discuss the actions. However he must be confused about the correctness of the actions himself or else he wouldn't be changing his own answer about it.
Worse still, Kerry claims the actual version of the events that came from his own lips was a right-wing smear. So not only did he lie about it. He claimed the "right-wing" was smearing him by lying about the same issue.
Turns out the only person lying is Kerry.
Nick
Originally posted by pfflam
Twice he stood for what he believed in . . . once in the war then when he realized what he thought, again when he got back.
AHA - so you are admitting that he IS a known and proven flip-flopper! I guess this also makes it clear that standing up for what you believe in is indeed patriotic - unless of course it is critical of the government during wartime, which is nothing more than collusion with the enemy.
</Repub cheerleader mode>
Originally posted by trumptman
Well get ol'John to give us a straight answer and we can discuss the actions. However he must be confused about the correctness of the actions himself or else he wouldn't be changing his own answer about it.
Worse still, Kerry claims the actual version of the events that came from his own lips was a right-wing smear. So not only did he lie about it. He claimed the "right-wing" was smearing him by lying about the same issue.
Turns out the only person lying is Kerry.
Nick
Did he throw out his ribbons or not?
Originally posted by pfflam
Trumptman:
You are such a bloated windbag buffoon its amazing . . . give it a rest
This is nothing . . .
nearly 700 AMerican soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have been KILLED because of LIES told by a **** ***** ********* sh**hole and you smear this guy for saying, 30 years ago, that he 'returned his ribbons' . . . you are so full of shit it amazes me.
You think this is some kind of revelation of import?
Wow, you are totally out of control and just personally attacking that which you can't defend.
Hey pfflam, let's pretend we are cops together. Let me leave the force, toss my badge at the mayor in protest of how the police behave, and then claim you were still torturing, raping, murdering, etc. others since you are still on the job.
Oh and btw, remember, I haven't declared you bad or the enemy while claiming all those actions for you. I'm just against crime. I'm not claiming the police are the enemy.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]Well get ol'John to give us a straight answer and we can discuss the actions.
Well, we may see what he has to say about it, as early as tomorrow morning. From the article you linked to in your initial post:
A spokesperson for Kerry's campaign said he didn't make a distinction between medals and ribbons, but Kerry plans to respond on Good Morning America.
Originally posted by bunge
This is just a terrible lie from you. Money doesn't corrupt, money from political interests corrupts. So, Kerry loaning himself money is, I guess, giving Kerry more access to Kerry in the even that he gets elected. Wow. How terrible. Bush should really overplay this angle so Kerry looks evil.
Parse it all you want. The limits are because they believe there is to much money in the process. There are individual limits, and primary and general election campaign limits. Kerry loaned himself millions while forgoing all the limits.
As for the loan itself. It really is a disguised large contribution. He didn't own the house. He wife bought it and put it in both of their names. He then borrowed the full value of it and loaned his campaign the money to beat other Democratic candidates. If any corporation did this, you know like Enron creating a puppet corporation, transferring all the losses to it, while keeping all the gains for themselves, you would call it what it is, a means of circumventing the law and wrong.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Did he throw out his ribbons or not?
As I said, you have to ask him. He is the one giving two different version of the same story. How am I supposed to sort it out when John Kerry himself appears not to know?
In 1971, it appears he tossed the ribbons and his own medals. However apparently this caused some political concern among those even on the left. Kerry later said that he hadn't thrown his own medals. Rather he threw his ribbons and that the medals were from two other people who could not attend the rally at which it occured.
However it appears we have both statements on tape, and he is caught changing his story.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Wow, you are totally out of control and just personally attacking that which you can't defend.
Hey pfflam, let's pretend we are cops together. Let me leave the force, toss my badge at the mayor in protest of how the police behave, and then claim you were still torturing, raping, murdering, etc. others since you are still on the job.
Oh and btw, remember, I haven't declared you bad or the enemy while claiming all those actions for you. I'm just against crime. I'm not claiming the police are the enemy.
Nick
Once again . . . try reading the damn testimony you bufoon
Originally posted by pfflam
Once again . . . try reading the damn testimony you bufoon
I did read it. In fact some if it is quoted in my sig.
Lern to spel.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
As I said, you have to ask him. He is the one giving two different version of the same story. How am I supposed to sort it out when John Kerry himself appears not to know?
You seem to be making a lot of comments on a subject you're completely ignorant about.
Originally posted by bunge
You seem to be making a lot of comments on a subject you're completely ignorant about.
So knowing both versions = ignorant.
Not knowing which version is the Kerry lie must be...
Actually I know that the 1971 version spewed forth from Kerry's own mouth is the truth. The latter version of his political coverage of his own butt.
But you can claim knowing that someone is a liar makes them ignorant. However it is you who wishes to remain ignorant of the truth of the matter.
Nick
Originally posted by Trumptman Parse it all you want. The limits are because they believe there is to much money in the process. There are individual limits, and primary and general election campaign limits. Kerry loaned himself millions while forgoing all the limits.
As long as it will take several hundreds of millions of dollars to stand a chance as a presidential candidate, you'll only get to vote for people who are in the pockets of corporate America
Originally posted by trumptman
So knowing both versions = ignorant.
Taking the statements out of context while not knowing the veracity of any of it and then basing your opinion on information you know you don't know is ignorant.
Originally posted by trumptman
However it is you who wishes to remain ignorant of the truth of the matter.
Is that why I keep trying to clarify his actions before I formulate an opinion?
Originally posted by trumptman
Wow, you are totally out of control and just personally attacking that which you can't defend.
Hey pfflam, let's pretend we are cops together. Let me leave the force, toss my badge at the mayor in protest of how the police behave, and then claim you were still torturing, raping, murdering, etc. others since you are still on the job.
Oh and btw, remember, I haven't declared you bad or the enemy while claiming all those actions for you. I'm just against crime. I'm not claiming the police are the enemy.
Nick
Well, let's see. If I worked for a police department that didn't know exactly what laws it was defending, and didn't know exactly who was a perpetrator and who was a victim, and which actually did torture rape and murder, this being substantiated by other former and current cops, and after I quit my actions suggested that I was angry and confused and conflicted because an institution I though I believed in had proved itself capable of evil, but I wasn't even sure who to blame because the mandate was all top down...
OK, I'll play that game.
The trouble with you indignation is that it requires you to pretend Vietnam was a straight forward war of valor with patriots and patsies neatly dividing themselves up..
The very fact that Kerry served and came to hate it speaks to the ambiguities of that conflict, but you would have it be emblematic of some character failing on his part.
I say it is just the opposite, that it shows a man willing to fight for his country but capable of being horrified of a war without clear goals or enemies.
And for the love of God please don't come on these boards and and spew your "outrage" that a candidate "lied" about a charged act 30 years ago, and how it lays bare his character. We all know exactly what kind of man you support as a model of integrity.
Originally posted by Naderfan
I'm sorry Trumptman, I may be misinterpreting what you've written (i've been writing papers all day) but it kind of sounds like you don't think atrocities were committed in Vietnam. My Lai was only one of who knows how many recorded instances of American soldiers committing atrocities, such as killing old men, women and children, bayonetting babies, and destroying an entire village. In fact, the atrocities there didn't stop until a chopper pilot landed and turned his guns on his fellow soldiers, telling them that if they didn't stop he would open fire. And of all those who participated in this, only Lt. Calley was convicted and he ended up only serving a year of his life sentance. So regardless of whether or not Kerry returned his medal, he was right to come back and fight against the atrocities he witnessed and committed, if he did commit them. Vietnam was a tragic chapter in our history, and it is very hard to have a clear-cut view of what to do. I find it admirable that Kerry went and served, put his life on the line, and then had the courage to return and protest that it was wrong. I think it adds credibility that he was there.
I'm not suggesting that no one ever did anything wrong. In fact I cannot think of any level of human endeavor or public service where someone, somewhere isn't doing something wrong.
However Kerry appears to have generalized all the actions to the point to where the general soldier is commiting atrocities. He even goes so far as to suggest, but not really implicate himself.
That is why I gave pfflam the police example. Certainly there are examples where the police mishandled something or even instances where the officer him or herself is corrupt. However implicating all police or claiming that the general state of policing is in its nature corrupt, violent, and harming all involved, is wrong.
Nick
Originally posted by addabox
Well, let's see. If I worked for a police department that didn't know exactly what laws it was defending, and didn't know exactly who was a perpetrator and who was a victim, and which actually did torture rape and murder, this being substantiated by other former and current cops, and after I quit my actions suggested that I was angry and confused and conflicted because an institution I though I believed in had proved itself capable of evil, but I wasn't even sure who to blame because the mandate was all top down...
OK, I'll play that game.
The trouble with you indignation is that it requires you to pretend Vietnam was a straight forward war of valor with patriots and patsies neatly dividing themselves up..
The very fact that Kerry served and came to hate it speaks to the ambiguities of that conflict, but you would have it be emblematic of some character failing on his part.
I say it is just the opposite, that it shows a man willing to fight for his country but capable of being horrified of a war without clear goals or enemies.
And for the love of God please don't come on these boards and and spew your "outrage" that a candidate "lied" about a charged act 30 years ago, and how it lays bare his character. We all know exactly what kind of man you support as a model of integrity.
Nice try, but Kerry's statements made it firmly clear. It wasn't that the enemy was unclear. It is that the enemy was us.
Nick