I had a swim coach when I was in middle and high school (the best and most influential of many coaches I had from 8 to 18 ), who had a Purple Heart for a kneefull of shrapnel from enlisted duty in Vietnam. He absolutely never talked about it, except for once, with a friend's older brother who was doing a high school paper on the war. I read the paper, and saw stories of seeing all but one other guy in his unit get blown to pieces.... hiding in the grass from a VC patrol and using every fiber of being to keep silent while covered from head to toe with ANTS.... losing his knee just before climbing into the extraction copter... shit, it was like a really good movie script, but years before even Deer Hunter or any other Vietnam movie.
None of my relatives in the war, but I think I know where you're coming from, buckeye.
Thanks. My father is the same way. Never talks about it. Except occasionally when he mentions how thankful he is to be alive. Interestingly, he is a republican and not a big fan of John Kerry. But none of the vietnam issues ever play a role in his criticism. He just addresses Kerry's current stance on the issues.
The past is the past and I think a lot of vets who were in Vietnam appreciate what an unbelieveably f'd up situation it was. I don't think anyone should hold a vet to comments he made after the war one way or another unless you walked in their shoes. I don't hold the John Kerry today to every little word he said in the short time after vietnam. It takes years of perspective to really get to terms with what happened over there and consequently what was happening domestically in response to the war.
Wrong again. I read it and responded. (Scroll up the page) Nowhere in the link from the Winter Soldiers testimony did he ever use those words.
I am still waiting for you to answer my question regarding your service in the military. Did you serve? Does that give you the right to criticize soldiers?
The way you constantly attack veterans who survived against incredible odds, disgusts me. As the son of a Vietnam Vet who earned a purple heart, your comments offend me.
Judge not lest you be judged Troll.
Listen here dense boy. Just because you ask for him to show you the quote, he does, and then you claim it "doesn't answer the question." Doesn't mean you haven't been addressed. Go throw your tantrum on the floor of Toy's R Us. He showed you the actual words.
Quote:
2. Can you provide any quotes where he (not you) called soldiers in Vietnam "baby-killers, murderers, rapists, or war criminals"? I would love to be educated further on this portion of his political career.
quote:Kerry Said...
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
As for serving in the military, I tried to enlist but they wouldn't take me once they discovered I have asthma. I told them I had controlled while playing all my sports in high school (football, track, etc.) But they said being able to control it with medication wasn't good enough, and that I couldn't go in.
As for attacking veterans, I suggest you have a serious comprehension problem because you seem to think John Kerry is multiple people. Finally in case you didn't get it, attacking him about the fact that he ATTACKED veterans is supporting veterans, not attacking them.
So get off your high horse because your glass house is sitting there, and I've got plenty of rocks.
Backpedal and blame it all on someone else - congratulations, you are learning from your heros.
Now this link is not nearly so impressive. Bravo, welcome back to form. This is a REACTIONARY, politically-motivated, semi-fringe Clinton-bashing site and publication from way back. I enjoyed reading their current "insights" - their preconceived notions and contorted logic are almost as apparent as yours.
As in the last link, I find the conclusion of this article especially telling... Ah, the final proof of Kerry's traitorous ways. At least the message is consistant... how DARE he follow his conscience instead of keeping his mouth shut!!
You are classic..what a joke.
If asking for a link is now evil, then I guess you enjoy arguing in an uninformed manner.
Quote:
This is not general knowledge; therefore, you should cite it. <---I know it hasn't been that long since you wrote your last college paper!
I have multiple sources for the information but intentionally choose one that closed-minded people like you will read since anything that might be conservative gets the nice blinder-type reading/reaction you typed yourself above. "It's Clinton-bashing, politically-motivated,etc."
You then complain that since I posted the link, I surely must agree with it's conclusion. You also then complain about the non-supportive Kerry link and it's conclusion.
Whick basically means you are blustering because you don't like the information presented about Kerry in either article.
The reality is, whether it is a pro-Kerry or anti-Kerry link by your reasoning, that his purple heart was not awarded. It was repeatedly requested. It was clear he went to Vietnam for political reasons, got three slight wounds, cited an obscure clause which no else seems to remember others using and took himself home to use his medals and "serving" for four months for nothing but political gain.
I have multiple sources for the information but intentionally choose one that closed-minded people like you will read since anything that might be conservative gets the nice blinder-type reading/reaction you typed yourself above. "It's Clinton-bashing, politically-motivated,etc."
Because if it is 'conservative' then by definition it is politically motivated and one-sided. That's kind of the point.
Because if it is 'conservative' then by definition it is politically motivated and one-sided. That's kind of the point.
But of course something citing everything Kerry did wrong, but still supporting him and dismissing it wouldn't be liberal, one-sided or politically motivated right?
Of course not.
At least I found both viewpoints for him, which at a minimum should cause a whole second to pass before he discredits the post.
But of course something citing everything Kerry did wrong, but still supporting him and dismissing it wouldn't be liberal, one-sided or politically motivated right?
When a publication's identity relies on supporting a particular ideology, there is no question that the information is not reliable or complete. It's why the nation is for the most part a bad source.
The problem today is that the spreading of the 'liberal media' conspiracy theory has spawned all sorts of Reactionary publications that bend and twist information in order to promote certain ideas misguided readers believe are misrepresented in other media.
Does it mean that Reactionary news sources are always wrong? No. But it means that if you are going to venture there you have to be very weary. In the end, there really is little or no reason to go to Reactionary sources since by their nature they report interpretations of information that can be obtained elsewhere. Reactionary sources are essentially just big editorials, and the only reason people read them is to attempt to find confirmation of their belief systems.
Anybody else here get a purple heart?? More then one? How about a bronze star?? (I think he got one of those I'd research it more if this thread deserved it). Anybody else go to vietnamn? You say Bush didn't.....oh......
Thanks. My father is the same way. Never talks about it. Except occasionally when he mentions how thankful he is to be alive. Interestingly, he is a republican and not a big fan of John Kerry. But none of the vietnam issues ever play a role in his criticism. He just addresses Kerry's current stance on the issues.
The past is the past and I think a lot of vets who were in Vietnam appreciate what an unbelieveably f'd up situation it was. I don't think anyone should hold a vet to comments he made after the war one way or another unless you walked in their shoes. I don't hold the John Kerry today to every little word he said in the short time after vietnam. It takes years of perspective to really get to terms with what happened over there and consequently what was happening domestically in response to the war.
Exactly - very well put. And those with shallow political motivations who relentlessly attack Kerry's post-Vietnam statements? They don't really give a damn about Vietnam or Purple Hearts, they just latch on to anything that lets them bash the guy who's not-a-Republican.
Listen here dense boy. Just because you ask for him to show you the quote, he does, and then you claim it "doesn't answer the question." Doesn't mean you haven't been addressed. Go throw your tantrum on the floor of Toy's R Us. He showed you the actual words.
A. I have continually addressed the Winter Soldier's testimony and the fact that he does not call his fellow soldiers "baby-killers, murderers, rapists and war criminals". He describes the horrors of war as THE SPOKESPERSON for a group of veterans. Your attempts to twist the context of his words is as lame as the right wing propoganda you try to site as back up.
B. Boo hoo.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman As for serving in the military, I tried to enlist but they wouldn't take me once they discovered I have asthma. I told them I had controlled while playing all my sports in high school (football, track, etc.) But they said being able to control it with medication wasn't good enough, and that I couldn't go in.
So get off your high horse because your glass house is sitting there, and I've got plenty of rocks.
Hope you enjoy your false indignation,
Nick
"Asthma" right. I get it. I guess that's what they are calling it these days. I really wish they would have "let you in" so that your ass would be in Fallujah right now.
You are so misguided I don't even know where to begin. The fact that you list yourself as an "educator" is scary.
When a publication's identity relies on supporting a particular ideology, there is no question that the information is not reliable or complete. It's why the nation is for the most part a bad source.
The problem today is that the spreading of the 'liberal media' conspiracy theory has spawned all sorts of Reactionary publications that bend and twist information in order to promote certain ideas misguided readers believe are misrepresented in other media.
Does it mean that Reactionary news sources are always wrong? No. But it means that if you are going to venture there you have to be very weary. In the end, there really is little or no reason to go to Reactionary sources since by their nature they report interpretations of information that can be obtained elsewhere. Reactionary sources are essentially just big editorials, and the only reason people read them is to attempt to find confirmation of their belief systems.
First of all the "conspiracy" has plenty of incidences to back it up. If you go to the Media Research Council for example they have the direct quotes that show Democratic talking points being emphasized, clear bias, etc.
However even given that, you have clearly liberal sources and media as well. I suppose you will always discount information received from AirAmerica Radio? How about ABCNews since This Week is hosted by George Stephinapolis. (sp?)
I see nothing less true about your paragraph if I did a find and replace with "Reactionary" being changed to "Liberal." Yet I know you don't discount the sources when the reverse is true.
Yet I know you don't discount the sources when the reverse is true.
Nick
He clearly said "that's why the nation is for the most part a bad source." I would imagine that the "for the most part" is necessary simply because The Nation is one of the oldest publications in the country.
Comments
Originally posted by FormerLurker
I had a swim coach when I was in middle and high school (the best and most influential of many coaches I had from 8 to 18 ), who had a Purple Heart for a kneefull of shrapnel from enlisted duty in Vietnam. He absolutely never talked about it, except for once, with a friend's older brother who was doing a high school paper on the war. I read the paper, and saw stories of seeing all but one other guy in his unit get blown to pieces.... hiding in the grass from a VC patrol and using every fiber of being to keep silent while covered from head to toe with ANTS.... losing his knee just before climbing into the extraction copter... shit, it was like a really good movie script, but years before even Deer Hunter or any other Vietnam movie.
None of my relatives in the war, but I think I know where you're coming from, buckeye.
Thanks. My father is the same way. Never talks about it. Except occasionally when he mentions how thankful he is to be alive. Interestingly, he is a republican and not a big fan of John Kerry. But none of the vietnam issues ever play a role in his criticism. He just addresses Kerry's current stance on the issues.
The past is the past and I think a lot of vets who were in Vietnam appreciate what an unbelieveably f'd up situation it was. I don't think anyone should hold a vet to comments he made after the war one way or another unless you walked in their shoes. I don't hold the John Kerry today to every little word he said in the short time after vietnam. It takes years of perspective to really get to terms with what happened over there and consequently what was happening domestically in response to the war.
Originally posted by buckeye
Wrong again. I read it and responded. (Scroll up the page) Nowhere in the link from the Winter Soldiers testimony did he ever use those words.
I am still waiting for you to answer my question regarding your service in the military. Did you serve? Does that give you the right to criticize soldiers?
The way you constantly attack veterans who survived against incredible odds, disgusts me. As the son of a Vietnam Vet who earned a purple heart, your comments offend me.
Judge not lest you be judged Troll.
Listen here dense boy. Just because you ask for him to show you the quote, he does, and then you claim it "doesn't answer the question." Doesn't mean you haven't been addressed. Go throw your tantrum on the floor of Toy's R Us. He showed you the actual words.
2. Can you provide any quotes where he (not you) called soldiers in Vietnam "baby-killers, murderers, rapists, or war criminals"? I would love to be educated further on this portion of his political career.
quote:Kerry Said...
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
As for serving in the military, I tried to enlist but they wouldn't take me once they discovered I have asthma. I told them I had controlled while playing all my sports in high school (football, track, etc.) But they said being able to control it with medication wasn't good enough, and that I couldn't go in.
As for attacking veterans, I suggest you have a serious comprehension problem because you seem to think John Kerry is multiple people. Finally in case you didn't get it, attacking him about the fact that he ATTACKED veterans is supporting veterans, not attacking them.
So get off your high horse because your glass house is sitting there, and I've got plenty of rocks.
Hope you enjoy your false indignation,
Nick
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Backpedal and blame it all on someone else - congratulations, you are learning from your heros.
Now this link is not nearly so impressive. Bravo, welcome back to form. This is a REACTIONARY, politically-motivated, semi-fringe Clinton-bashing site and publication from way back. I enjoyed reading their current "insights" - their preconceived notions and contorted logic are almost as apparent as yours.
As in the last link, I find the conclusion of this article especially telling... Ah, the final proof of Kerry's traitorous ways. At least the message is consistant... how DARE he follow his conscience instead of keeping his mouth shut!!
You are classic..what a joke.
If asking for a link is now evil, then I guess you enjoy arguing in an uninformed manner.
This is not general knowledge; therefore, you should cite it. <---I know it hasn't been that long since you wrote your last college paper!
I have multiple sources for the information but intentionally choose one that closed-minded people like you will read since anything that might be conservative gets the nice blinder-type reading/reaction you typed yourself above. "It's Clinton-bashing, politically-motivated,etc."
You then complain that since I posted the link, I surely must agree with it's conclusion. You also then complain about the non-supportive Kerry link and it's conclusion.
Whick basically means you are blustering because you don't like the information presented about Kerry in either article.
The reality is, whether it is a pro-Kerry or anti-Kerry link by your reasoning, that his purple heart was not awarded. It was repeatedly requested. It was clear he went to Vietnam for political reasons, got three slight wounds, cited an obscure clause which no else seems to remember others using and took himself home to use his medals and "serving" for four months for nothing but political gain.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I have multiple sources for the information but intentionally choose one that closed-minded people like you will read since anything that might be conservative gets the nice blinder-type reading/reaction you typed yourself above. "It's Clinton-bashing, politically-motivated,etc."
Because if it is 'conservative' then by definition it is politically motivated and one-sided. That's kind of the point.
Originally posted by giant
Because if it is 'conservative' then by definition it is politically motivated and one-sided. That's kind of the point.
But of course something citing everything Kerry did wrong, but still supporting him and dismissing it wouldn't be liberal, one-sided or politically motivated right?
Of course not.
At least I found both viewpoints for him, which at a minimum should cause a whole second to pass before he discredits the post.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
But of course something citing everything Kerry did wrong, but still supporting him and dismissing it wouldn't be liberal, one-sided or politically motivated right?
When a publication's identity relies on supporting a particular ideology, there is no question that the information is not reliable or complete. It's why the nation is for the most part a bad source.
The problem today is that the spreading of the 'liberal media' conspiracy theory has spawned all sorts of Reactionary publications that bend and twist information in order to promote certain ideas misguided readers believe are misrepresented in other media.
Does it mean that Reactionary news sources are always wrong? No. But it means that if you are going to venture there you have to be very weary. In the end, there really is little or no reason to go to Reactionary sources since by their nature they report interpretations of information that can be obtained elsewhere. Reactionary sources are essentially just big editorials, and the only reason people read them is to attempt to find confirmation of their belief systems.
Originally posted by alcimedes
The ravenous troll!!!
Originally posted by alcimedes
Originally posted by buckeye
Thanks. My father is the same way. Never talks about it. Except occasionally when he mentions how thankful he is to be alive. Interestingly, he is a republican and not a big fan of John Kerry. But none of the vietnam issues ever play a role in his criticism. He just addresses Kerry's current stance on the issues.
The past is the past and I think a lot of vets who were in Vietnam appreciate what an unbelieveably f'd up situation it was. I don't think anyone should hold a vet to comments he made after the war one way or another unless you walked in their shoes. I don't hold the John Kerry today to every little word he said in the short time after vietnam. It takes years of perspective to really get to terms with what happened over there and consequently what was happening domestically in response to the war.
Exactly - very well put. And those with shallow political motivations who relentlessly attack Kerry's post-Vietnam statements? They don't really give a damn about Vietnam or Purple Hearts, they just latch on to anything that lets them bash the guy who's not-a-Republican.
Originally posted by trumptman
Listen here dense boy. Just because you ask for him to show you the quote, he does, and then you claim it "doesn't answer the question." Doesn't mean you haven't been addressed. Go throw your tantrum on the floor of Toy's R Us. He showed you the actual words.
A. I have continually addressed the Winter Soldier's testimony and the fact that he does not call his fellow soldiers "baby-killers, murderers, rapists and war criminals". He describes the horrors of war as THE SPOKESPERSON for a group of veterans. Your attempts to twist the context of his words is as lame as the right wing propoganda you try to site as back up.
B. Boo hoo.
Originally posted by trumptman As for serving in the military, I tried to enlist but they wouldn't take me once they discovered I have asthma. I told them I had controlled while playing all my sports in high school (football, track, etc.) But they said being able to control it with medication wasn't good enough, and that I couldn't go in.
So get off your high horse because your glass house is sitting there, and I've got plenty of rocks.
Hope you enjoy your false indignation,
Nick
"Asthma" right. I get it. I guess that's what they are calling it these days. I really wish they would have "let you in" so that your ass would be in Fallujah right now.
You are so misguided I don't even know where to begin. The fact that you list yourself as an "educator" is scary.
Originally posted by giant
When a publication's identity relies on supporting a particular ideology, there is no question that the information is not reliable or complete. It's why the nation is for the most part a bad source.
The problem today is that the spreading of the 'liberal media' conspiracy theory has spawned all sorts of Reactionary publications that bend and twist information in order to promote certain ideas misguided readers believe are misrepresented in other media.
Does it mean that Reactionary news sources are always wrong? No. But it means that if you are going to venture there you have to be very weary. In the end, there really is little or no reason to go to Reactionary sources since by their nature they report interpretations of information that can be obtained elsewhere. Reactionary sources are essentially just big editorials, and the only reason people read them is to attempt to find confirmation of their belief systems.
First of all the "conspiracy" has plenty of incidences to back it up. If you go to the Media Research Council for example they have the direct quotes that show Democratic talking points being emphasized, clear bias, etc.
However even given that, you have clearly liberal sources and media as well. I suppose you will always discount information received from AirAmerica Radio? How about ABCNews since This Week is hosted by George Stephinapolis. (sp?)
I see nothing less true about your paragraph if I did a find and replace with "Reactionary" being changed to "Liberal." Yet I know you don't discount the sources when the reverse is true.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Yet I know you don't discount the sources when the reverse is true.
Nick
He clearly said "that's why the nation is for the most part a bad source." I would imagine that the "for the most part" is necessary simply because The Nation is one of the oldest publications in the country.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Trumpt, you still have yet to show that under the guidelines of the military that Kerry didn't deserved his purple heart. So shut up or put up.
Trumptman, show how under military guidelines Kerry didn't deserve his purple heart.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Trumpt, you still have yet to show that under the guidelines of the military that Kerry didn't deserved his purple heart. So shut up or put up.
Well put! Editorials don't make it true.
Given the crap that's going on in the Whitehouse these days why is this even an issue?