 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
 Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 8:28 pm Post subject: Psychologist Report on Kerry |
 |
|
TWO PSYCHOLOGISTS ON KERRY: “DANGEROUS ON NATIONAL SECURITY”
By Leonard Magruder
May 1, 2004
“Mr. Kerry’s service in Vietnam is a credit to him as a man. But it cannot be used as a shield to protect him from a fair assessment of his judgment and wisdom as a statesman. It is sad to see him attempt to so use it.” --Washington Times.
Dr. C. Alan Hopewell, a Vietnam era vet and fellow psychologist, was Chief of Psychology for Landstuhl Regional Army Medical Center in Germany and Director of the Neuropsychological Lab, 7th U.S. Army, European Theatre during the middle of the time of the Iranian revolution and the increase in terror attacks against U.S. forces in Europe. He has held a number of offices in his state psychological association. Here is his view of Kerry:
1. “Here is a commissioned Naval officer who takes a formal oath of service to his country as well as an equally strong oath, albeit simply understood among a Band of Brothers, to keep the faith with his fellow officers and troops. He betrayed both on several levels, first by being a ‘medal hound,’ next by abandoning his command after only four months, and finally by testifying under oath to blatant lies which exposed his comrades in arms who were still in country to mortal danger and those in the United States to psychological abuse and distortion. It is pretty much unheard of for military doctors to know of an officer leaving his command after only four months for anything less than substantially disabling injuries, and all the line commanders I ever recall treating were extremely anxious to return as soon as possible to their duty assignments unless we doctors prohibited it by sending them to Walter Reed or Brooke.
2. “Here is a commissioned Naval officer who was entrusted with the lives and future of the people of Viet Nam and their children. Instead, the officer entrusted with their safety and future helped to insure their enslavement and often their brutalization or death. This is the same as if the police officer commissioned to protect your family decides that ‘you are not worth the risk any more,’ quits patrolling your neighborhood and shuts down the police station, effectively turning you and your family over to the criminals. His most stunning failure of judgement was probably in convincing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that ‘only about 3000 South Vietnamese’ would suffer reprisals if we abandoned the Republic of Vietnam to the Communists, an assertion which even the Committee found hard to believe.
3. “Here is a Yale graduate who obviously did not want to investigate the truth of a variety of issues, a guy on a boat for only four months who then under sworn testimony before the United States Congress offered himself as an expert on the atrocities of land warfare and the entire theater of war, governmental policy, and command and control issues.
4. “He then used these distortions and betrayals for his own benefit as an opportunist to advance his own political career, continuing his traits of opportunism and political expediency.
5. “And finally, a number of sources indicate that he was party in some form to clearly illegal proposals, to include at the minimum discussions of assassinations and the knowledge that some members of the VVAW were avowed Communists bent on taking over the organization as the VVAW became increasingly radical. Although an intelligent Yale graduate who presumably knew the law and also a Naval Officer with continuing reserve duty obligations to his country, he declined to recognize criminal activity and report it.”
Dr. Hopewell says he is concerned because, “John Kerry’s actions after returning to the United States did not simply constitute a ‘courageous dissenting opinion,’ as he and others would have us believe, but was a distortion of facts and failure of judgement so severe that it set into motion a cascade of events which assisted not only in the conquest of the Republic of Vietnam but also demoralized and stigmatized an entire generation of military personnel, the effects of which are still felt to this day. This type of failure of judgement would be catastrophic in dealing with our current crises.”
The Kerry statement to Congress in 1971, shown recently on C-Span, was more than what he now claims, just an anguished cry from those who had seen the horror of war and wanted it ended. There was an agenda involved, an ideology, the same as the one argued by people like Jane Fonda, Jerry Rubin, and Ramsey Clark. Dr. Hopewell made a very important point when he said that Kerry’s actions after returning to the United States “did not simply constitute a ‘courageous dissenting opinion,’ as Kerry and others would have us believe, but was a distortion of facts.”
Kerry is trying to transform his ‘71 protest into something it was not.
Kerry was probably more moderate than the above three, but still, he did emphasize “atrocities,” “immorality,” and “out now” with no regard for the fate of the South Vietnamese, major themes of the protestors. Kerry told Congress the whole war rested on “atrocities,” that South Vietnam was a “nothing,” that the idea of Communist involvement was “mystical,” that it was a “civil war” between “freedom fighters” (the Viet Cong) and an oppressive government being helped by America.” Linda Chavez, national columnist, notes the implications of this:
“In his testimony, Kerry described the Vietnam War as a ‘civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever.’ That view—which depicted Ho Chi Minh as a nationalist hero and totally ignored the Soviet Union’s involvement in training and funding the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong— was embraced by naïve romantics as well as Communist propagandists and apologists in the anti-war movement. The young Kerry seems to have fallen in the latter category, Communist apologist.”
Said scholar Stephen J. Morris of Johns Hopkins University this week, Kerry “sympathized with the Communist cause… John Kerry deserves to make atonement to the Vietnamese people—not for what he did as a young soldier but for what he has done ever since to justify Communist tyranny in Vietnam and elsewhere.”
Earlier, on Sept. 17, 1970, Kerry and his group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, had also slandered the National Guard, protesting at its convention in New York that year that:
“The National Guard Uses Your Tax Dollar:
To support the military-industrial complex
To honor war criminals- Westmoreland, Laird, Nixon
To applaud campus murders by National Guard units
To encourage armed attacks on minority communities.”
All standard Leftist rhetoric.
Today on the campaign trail Kerry tries to tell people his group was dedicated to advancing the interests of American servicemen—protecting them, bringing them home, helping them. We know that is not true. Said John Podhortz of The New York Post, “Kerry was a key midwife in the birthing of one of the worst myths ever fostered in this country, the myth of the crazed, violent, dangerous Vietnam vet who had come back to America to wreak the same kind of devastation here he had wreaked in Southest Asia.”
What is going on here? This looks like the biggest shill game since Watergate. Kerry was a leader in the “peace” movement, sharing platforms and ideology with the likes of Jane Fonda. In a sense, a vote for Kerry is a vote for Fonda, a vote for the 60’s radicals. There is a reason vets refer to Kerry as “Hanoi John.”
For thirty years Vietnam vets have been trying to get the truth out about that war as against the 60’s version, and have an unprecedented opportunity to do so now. We know of a number of national symposiums being planned to reverse the campus version of the Vietnam War. A Kerry win would leave the current tissue of lies about Vietnam in place forever.
By not mentioning his background, the media has helped Kerry to project himself as an idealist, a friend of the Vietnam vet, when in actual fact he played a significant role in the betrayal of their sacrifices to help the people of South Vietnam, played a significant role in the triumph of tyranny and genocide in Southeast Asia. His pal Ted Kennedy played a role in this triumph by cutting off all ammunition to the South Vietnamese, plunging them into the dark night of Communist horror. It was not the first time Kennedy had plunged someone into the dark. Kerry’s pal Kennedy could not run for President because his two aides that fateful night could have blackmailed the nation, knowing what they did about the cover-up.
Kerry should also not be running for President. He helped betray a national sacrifice for freedom for the people of South Vietnam. How did these two old partners in crimes against freedom manage to hijack the Democratic party? There is much to be said for forgiving the past. But it is best to keep an eye on second chances. They might do it again. In Kerry’s subsequent history there is not much to indicate he has changed. Let’s look at that.
In The Harvard Crimson of 1970, Kerry said “I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.” Later, in 1971, at West Virginia’s Bethany College, Kerry told students “Democracy is a farce,” and that Communism “did not pose any kind of threat to the United States and the war was not moral. We can’t sit around and support this kind of society.”
Nor had Kerry much changed his views sixteen years later. Speaking at Yale in 1987, he said U.S. policy in Vietnam was “tantamount to genocide” and on Meet the Press he again said our soldiers were guilty of “all kinds of atrocities” and branded America’s leaders as “war criminals.” Asked why there were so many Communists in his movement, he said that was not “relevant.”
Kerry championed a nuclear freeze in the 1980’s in opposition to Ronald Reagan’s peace-through-strength stance, which won the Cold War. Kerry was also one of the strongest critics of Ronald Reagan’s policies of military resistance to Communist inroads in this hemisphere. He lent his name to aid Communist guerrillas in El Salvador and was a vigorous opponent of the anti-Communist Contras in Nicaragua, undercutting U.S. policy.
His voting record on defense is appalling. He voted against the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot missile, the F-15, the F-14, the Harrier jet, and the Aegis air defense cruiser. He advocated cuts in other systems, including the Bradley vehicle, the Abrams tank, and Tomahawk missile programs, all critical to U.S. military success.
In a foreign policy address last December Kerry pledged that if elected he will abandon the president’s war on terror and begin a dialogue with the terrorists. Begin a dialogue with the terrorists! Does he think we’re playing tennis?
An e-mail sent overseas by Kerry ended up on the front page of the anti-American Tehran Times, Iran. This murderous regime was ecstatic over this statement of support. The president of the student pro-democracy movement in Iran immediately wrote Kerry, “You have given them credibility and comfort and encouraged them into declaring open season on the freedom fighters in Iran.” Both Iran and North Korea have announced their support for Kerry. No wonder.
If Kerry is elected President the new First Lady will have a track record of support for the causes of radical, anti-American groups, including Islamists and terrorist-defense lawyer firms. One of her favorite charities is the Tides Foundations, which supports the War Resisters League, Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, A.N.S.W.E.R, and United for Peace and Justice, all of which have been involved with long time Communist revolutionaries, and it also supports the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has links to the terrorist group Hamas. Isn’t that cozy? A whole nest of Leftists and terrorists in the White House.
There are simply too many signs of sympathy for the Left in this history. The Left has already destroyed education. It is prominent in the media, and it is promoting anti-Semitism on campuses across the country. We don’t need even a hint of it in the White House.
The Center for Security Policy, a Washington-based think tank, has rated Kerry among the worst on Capitol Hill when it comes to national security. In 1995 the Center gave Kerry a score of five out of a possible 100 points. Two years later Kerry earned a mind-blowing score of exactly zero. That’s just great. Here we are facing probably the greatest crisis in our history, and we’ve got a man who says he can handle it running for President who is a total zero when it comes to national security.
Go to www.JohnKerry.com. Look up “foreign policy” and “homeland security.” It says Kerry “rejects the Administration’s erratic unilateralism.” He wants the U.S. to work with the United Nations to secure a lasting peace so that “the conditions that gave rise to the terrorist threat can never recur.” This statement reveals Kerry’s ignorance on terrorism. He apparently agrees with the academics that these “conditions” are economy and social injustice. The “conditions” are the violent verses in the Koran.”Never recur” is not possible, jihad is forever. The only way to insure that terrorism “never recurs” is to eliminate Islam. He refers to an “unseen” enemy, but has no views on them, has no plan to defeat them. He doesn’t just lack credibility on national defense policy. He has no national defense policy.
Said Peter Brown of the Orlando Sentinel, “McGovern, who flew bombers in World War ll, was, like Kerry, a war hero, yet voters rejected his foreign policy as hopelessly naïve. So is Kerry’s and he can’t hide his record on national defense behind an honorable discharge and medals.”
Conclusions: Said Mr. Magruder, a psychologist, “The biggest issue in choosing between Bush and Kerry is how they characteristically handle conflict. Bush and the people around him have clearly shown themselves to be tough-minded. They will deal with the problem of terrorism no matter how difficult. Senator Kerry, trusting to negotiation, dialogue, compromise, and even appeasement to work in the new world of terrorists, deadly religious fanatics and suicide bombers, plus his history of weakness in dealing with totalitarian movements, would certainly fail in the face of such challenges. The main question for everyone regarding Kerry would seem to be whether he is capable of handling the terrorists. Does he even understand what that is all about. Has he studied Islam, the root of the problem.We have never even heard him mention the word. Looking back over his record, and looking at recent statements, I believe, with Dr. Hopewell, that he would be extremely dangerous on the issue of national security.”
Negotiation, dialogue, compromise, and even appeasement, the typical tools of a liberal, 20th-century diplomat in dealing with reasonably civilized nations, would prove utterly useless in light of 9/11 and an enemy that has repeatedly said:
“We will offer no chance for America to come to an agreement with the righteous warriors, no possibility for compromise, no hope for a treaty, no attempt for solution. The war will be waged until the United States remains a memory.”
This article may be reproduced in any form.
http://www.i-served.com/v-v-a-r.org/050104_PsychologistsOnKerry.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mikest
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | So George, how do you feel about your mom and dad?
Psychologist Oliver James analyses the behaviour of the American president
Tuesday September 2, 2003
The Guardian
As the alcoholic George Bush approached his 40th birthday in 1986, he had achieved nothing he could call his own. He was all too aware that none of his educational and professional accomplishments would have occured without his father. He felt so low that he did not care if he lived or died. Taking a friend out for a flight in a Cessna aeroplane, it only became apparent he had not flown one before when they nearly crashed on take-off. Narrowly avoiding stalling a few times, they crash-landed and the friend breathed a sigh of relief - only for Bush to rev up the engine and take off again.
Not long afterwards, staring at his vomit-spattered face in the mirror, this dangerously self-destructive man fell to his knees and implored God to help him and became a teetotalling, fundamentalist Christian. David Frum, his speechwriter, described the change: "Sigmund Freud imported the Latin pronoun id to describe the impulsive, carnal, unruly elements of the human personality. [In his youth] Bush's id seems to have been every bit as powerful and destructive as Clinton's id. But sometime in Bush's middle years, his id was captured, shackled and manacled, and locked away."
One of the jailers was his father. His grandfather, uncles and many cousins attended both his secondary school, Andover, and his university, Yale, but the longest shadow was cast by his father's exceptional careers there.
On the wall of his school house at Andover, there was a large black-and-white photograph of his father in full sporting regalia. He had been one of the most successful student athletes in the school's 100-year history and was similarly remembered at Yale, where his grandfather was a trustee. His younger brother, Jeb, summed the problem up when he said, "A lot of people who have fathers like this feel a sense that they have failed." Such a titanic figure created mixed feelings. On the one hand, Bush worshipped and aspired to emulate him. Peter Neumann, an Andover roommate, recalls that, "He idolised his father, he was going to be just like his dad." At Yale, a friend remembered a "deep respect" for his father and when he later set up in the oil business, another friend said, "He was focused to prove himself to his dad."
On the other hand, deep down, Bush had a profound loathing for this perfect model of American citizenship whose very success made the son feel a failure. Rebelliousness was an unconscious attack on him and a desperate attempt to carve out something of his own. Far from paternal emulation, Bush described his goal at school as "to instil a sense of frivolity". Contemporaries at Yale say he was like the John Belushi character in the film Animal House, a drink-fuelled funseeker.
He was aggressively anti-intellectual and hostile to east-coast preppy types like his father, sometimes cruelly so. On one occasion he walked up to a matronly woman at a smart cocktail party and asked, "So, what's sex like after 50, anyway?"
A direct and loutish challenge to his father's posh sensibility came aged 25, after he had drunkenly crashed a car. "I hear you're looking for me," he sneered at his father, "do you want to go mano a mano, right here?"
As he grew older, the fury towards his father was increasingly directed against himself in depressive drinking. But it was not all his father's fault. There was also his insensitive and domineering mother.
Barbara Bush is described by her closest intimates as prone to "withering stares" and "sharply crystalline" retorts. She is also extremely tough. When he was seven, Bush's younger sister, Robin, died of leukaemia and several independent witnesses say he was very upset by this loss. Barbara claims its effect was exaggerated but nobody could accuse her of overreacting: the day after the funeral, she and her husband were on the golf course.
She was the main authority-figure in the home. Jeb describes it as having been, "A kind of matriarchy... when we were growing up, dad wasn't at home. Mom was the one to hand out the goodies and the discipline." A childhood friend recalls that,"She was the one who instilled fear", while Bush put it like this: "Every mother has her own style. Mine was a little like an army drill sergeant's... my mother's always been a very outspoken person who vents very well - she'll just let rip if she's got something on her mind." According to his uncle, the "letting rip" often included slaps and hits. Countless studies show that boys with such mothers are at much higher risk of becoming wild, alcoholic or antisocial.
On top of that, Barbara added substantially to the pressure from his father to be a high achiever by creating a highly competitive family culture. All the children's games, be they tiddlywinks or baseball, were intensely competitive - an actual "family league table" was kept of performance in various pursuits. At least this prepared him for life at Andover, where emotional literacy was definitely not part of the curriculum. Soon after arriving, he was asked to write an essay on a soul-stirring experience in his life to date and he chose the death of his sister. His mother had drilled it into him that it was wrong when writing to repeat words already used. Having employed "tears" once in the essay, he sought a substitute from a thesaurus she had given him and wrote "the lacerates ran down my cheeks". The essay received a fail grade, accompanied by derogatory comments such as "disgraceful".
This incident may be an insight into Bush's strange tendency to find the wrong words in making public pronouncements. "Is our children learning?" he once famously asked. On responding to critics of his intellect he claimed that they had "misunderestimated" him. Perhaps these verbal faux-pas are a barely unconscious way of winding up his bullying mother and waving two fingers at his cultured father's sensibility.
The outcome of this childhood was what psychologists call an authoritarian personality. Authoritarianism was identified shortly after the second world war as part of research to discover the causes of fascism. As the name suggests, authoritarians impose the strictest possible discipline on themselves and others - the sort of regime found in today's White House, where prayers precede daily business, appointments are scheduled in five-minute blocks, women's skirts must be below the knee and Bush rises at 5.45am, invariably fitting in a 21-minute, three-mile jog before lunch.
Authoritarian personalities are organised around rabid hostility to "legitimate" targets, often ones nominated by their parents' prejudices. Intensely moralistic, they direct it towards despised social groups. As people, they avoid introspection or loving displays, preferring toughness and cynicism. They regard others with suspicion, attributing ulterior motives to the most innocent behaviour. They are liable to be superstitious. All these traits have been described in Bush many times, by friends or colleagues.
His moralism is all-encompassing and as passionate as can be. He plans to replace state welfare provision with faith-based charitable organisations that would impose Christian family values.
The commonest targets of authoritarians have been Jews, blacks and homosexuals. Bush is anti-abortion and his fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible would mean that gay practices are evil. But perhaps the group he reserves his strongest contempt for are those who have adopted the values of the 60s. He says he loathes "people who felt guilty about their lot in life because others were suffering".
He has always rejected any kind of introspection. Everyone who knows him well says how hard he is to get to know, that he lives behind what one friend calls a "facile, personable" facade. Frum comments that, "He is relentlessly disciplined and very slow to trust. Even when his mouth seems to be smiling at you, you can feel his eyes watching you."
His deepest beliefs amount to superstition. "Life takes its own turns," he says, "writes its own story and along the way we start to realise that we are not the author." God's will, not his own, explains his life.
Most fundamentalist Christians have authoritarian personalities. Two core beliefs separate fundamentalists from mere evangelists ("happy-clappy" Christians) or the mainstream Presbyterians among whom Bush first learned religion every Sunday with his parents: fundamentalists take the Bible absolutely literally as the word of God and believe that human history will come to an end in the near future, preceded by a terrible, apocaplytic battle on Earth between the forces of good and evil, which only the righteous shall survive. According to Frum when Bush talks of an "axis of evil" he is identifying his enemies as literally satanic, possessed by the devil. Whether he specifically sees the battle with Iraq and other "evil" nations as being part of the end-time, the apocalypse preceding the day of judgment, is not known. Nor is it known whether Tony Blair shares these particular religious ideas.
However, it is certain that however much Bush may sometimes seem like a buffoon, he is also powered by massive, suppressed anger towards anyone who challenges the extreme, fanatical beliefs shared by him and a significant slice of his citizens - in surveys, half of them also agree with the statement "the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word".
Bush's deep hatred, as well as love, for both his parents explains how he became a reckless rebel with a death wish. He hated his father for putting his whole life in the shade and for emotionally blackmailing him. He hated his mother for physically and mentally badgering him to fulfil her wishes. But the hatred also explains his radical transformation into an authoritarian fundamentalist. By totally identifying with an extreme version of their strict, religion-fuelled beliefs, he jailed his rebellious self. From now on, his unconscious hatred for them was channelled into a fanatical moral crusade to rid the world of evil.
As Frum put it: "Id-control is the basis of Bush's presidency but Bush is a man of fierce anger." That anger now rules the world.
· |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lew, that is one comprehensive article!
Thanks for posting it - nearly all the reasons I hate John F'n Kerry all in the same place. Thanks, again.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | |
 Just ignore him, Lew. These little pinheads can't handle that there is this much opposition to their communist-sympathizer candidate.
They think that bringing Bush into every conversation will somehow dilute the despicable spinelessness of John F'n Kerry.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikest
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Navy_Navy_Navy wrote: | | LewWaters wrote: | |
Just ignore him, Lew. These little pinheads can't handle that there is this much opposition to their communist-sympathizer candidate.
They think that bringing Bush into every conversation will somehow dilute the despicable spinelessness of John F'n Kerry. |
And mental midgets like you can't accept that the world sees right through the ineptness of Bush. Come November you will see how much more opposition Bush has than Kerry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the article Lew - great read, deserves forwarding, and as NNN said, all the reasons I can not vote for JK
here is a link for a symposium "Examining the Myths Of Vietnam" that will be held in Boston in July
http://www.viet-myths.net/
mikest: appreciate the other vewpoint.
I read on one of the threads that you are a centrist, which I am also. It can be a difficult place to be, sorting out all the rhetoric & media from both sides. I think many on here may feel as I do, this is not about being anti-Dem, it is about Kerry. If the Dems would put forth a different candidate these discussions would go away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikest
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kate wrote: | Thanks for the article Lew - great read, deserves forwarding, and as NNN said, all the reasons I can not vote for JK
here is a link for a symposium "Examining the Myths Of Vietnam" that will be held in Boston in July
http://www.viet-myths.net/
mikest: appreciate the other vewpoint.
I read on one of the threads that you are a centrist, which I am also. It can be a difficult place to be, sorting out all the rhetoric & media from both sides. I think many on here may feel as I do, this is not about being anti-Dem, it is about Kerry. If the Dems would put forth a different candidate these discussions would go away. |
Unfortunately this is more of an anti dem site than they let on. Read the other threads and take a nice look at Navy3's posts.
Kerry wasn't my first choice, but he is a lot better than the current occupant. This argument may not be occuring if it was someone besides Kerry, but many of the people here would be posting the same crap elsewhere. That's why I respect some of the people here, but not others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If any of these Bush haters were really "centrists," or whatever they claim, you would think they would see that Vietnam Veteran support for Kerry is running at about 3/4s against, possibly higher. In their eagerness to defeat Bush, they are perpetuating the myth of the deranged Vietnam Veteran. They obviously believe Vietnam Veterans are stupid not to vote in one of their fellow elitists.
Not one is trying to find out why we don't support one is running as "one of us." All they do is try to let us know we are too dumb to vote for their boy.
A true "centrist" would be eager to know why we don't support Kerry, not denigrate us for not supporting him.
Liberals by any other name are still Liberals. In todays political climate, Liberal = Socialist in my book. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colmurph
Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 74
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If in November an overwelming number of Americans decide that they want Kerry as Commander in Chief, then I will assume that the majority of Americans want a socialist/communist government. I would then expect Kerry to "Nationalize" all the oil refining companies to set a limit on gas prices. I will expect Kerry to nationalize medical care and set limits on how much a doctor can make. I would also expect to see that he will outlaw medical malpractice suits to make medical care affordable for all. Later on down the road I will expect that Kerry will place our armed forces at the disposal of the United Nations for United Nations Commanders to Command. Next I will expect Kerry to assume ownership of all real estate, and dole it out those "in need" so my house will eventually be occupied by some crack head who has never held a paying job in his/her life but has been "disadvantaged" and who voted as a Democrat. Eventually I would expect that the Republican Party will be outlawed, which is not too great a stretch of the imagination, considering some of the Liberal rants that can be found on other venues. At this point, the us will be at the level of a 3d world nation and Communist China will take over as the Superpower in world affairs. We will be segmented and our territory will be taken back by Russia, France, Spain and Mexico. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikest
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | If any of these Bush haters were really "centrists," or whatever they claim, you would think they would see that Vietnam Veteran support for Kerry is running at about 3/4s against, possibly higher. In their eagerness to defeat Bush, they are perpetuating the myth of the deranged Vietnam Veteran. They obviously believe Vietnam Veterans are stupid not to vote in one of their fellow elitists.
Not one is trying to find out why we don't support one is running as "one of us." All they do is try to let us know we are too dumb to vote for their boy.
A true "centrist" would be eager to know why we don't support Kerry, not denigrate us for not supporting him.
Liberals by any other name are still Liberals. In todays political climate, Liberal = Socialist in my book. |
Here's a decent, but much less vitriolic example. I can't say as I have seen any posts that perpetuate the deranged vet idea, much less posted one. As a matter of fact I have said often that I can understand the point of view of the honest people on this site(in case you're wondering, I find you mostly honest). As for the elitest line, I guess you've fallen for the Bush=man of the people line. Sorry, that doesn't work when your whole life has been handed to you on a silver platter.
As to the centrist label. I believe that anyone should be appalled at the runaway defecit, the heavy rightward tilt toward religion and the fact that the Rep's in congress have completely shut out the other side. As McCain said the other day, the GOP used to be the party of fiscal diciplin.
Finally, if left is commie then right is totalitarian. The best times of this country were when we worked together, that time is past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikest
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colmurph wrote: | | If in November an overwelming number of Americans decide that they want Kerry as Commander in Chief, then I will assume that the majority of Americans want a socialist/communist government. I would then expect Kerry to "Nationalize" all the oil refining companies to set a limit on gas prices. I will expect Kerry to nationalize medical care and set limits on how much a doctor can make. I would also expect to see that he will outlaw medical malpractice suits to make medical care affordable for all. Later on down the road I will expect that Kerry will place our armed forces at the disposal of the United Nations for United Nations Commanders to Command. Next I will expect Kerry to assume ownership of all real estate, and dole it out those "in need" so my house will eventually be occupied by some crack head who has never held a paying job in his/her life but has been "disadvantaged" and who voted as a Democrat. Eventually I would expect that the Republican Party will be outlawed, which is not too great a stretch of the imagination, considering some of the Liberal rants that can be found on other venues. At this point, the us will be at the level of a 3d world nation and Communist China will take over as the Superpower in world affairs. We will be segmented and our territory will be taken back by Russia, France, Spain and Mexico. |
Then there are the morons like this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mikest, I too disagree with the increasing deficit. But the plan of raising taxes favored by the left never has worked for anything but putting more and more people out of work. I do not believe Bush to be perfect, just a damn sight better than Kerry.
Would you subjugate our sovereignty to as corrupt a group as the United nations? Kerry may say he wouldn't, but by not acting without their approval first is doing just that.
As for "common man," I trust Bush more there also. Yes, he too was born of privilege, not quite as much as Kerry was, though. Still, working a Ranch is hard work compared to sitting next to a Kennedy sailing the bay.
Both men have drawbacks. In my opinion, Bush has less than does Kerry. Do you really think a billionaire born into wealth and twice married to it wwill place the real common people over his fellow elitists?
Again, I ask. Instead of denigrating us all for not supporting Kerry, why not seek why we don't? The old wounds of Vietnam will not heal until the ones who placed them there atone for doing so. Kerry is one of the more prominent ones that inflicted those wounds. Truth from him, instead of more self-serving lies and pandering would go a long way towards healing those wounds and bringing the country together. He helped rip this country apart during the Vietnam era with his lies and he is doing it again today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
re : the deficit
Have to agree also, it is alarming. However I wonder how much is related to 911, Afganistan, etc
Has anyone seen any good studies as to how much of that was directly due to 911? It would be interesting to know. There is billions upon billions of costs related directly to that. I know my state received big $$. [ which we're just now hearing some NYC $$ went to questionable places]
http://www.iags.org/costof911.html
I only found that on a quick google. I'm curious as to Fed $$ that went to 911
I dont see how the deficit can be entirely laid at the feet of Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikest
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well put and fair questions.
Remember when the GOP said that Clinton raising taxes would cripple the economy? It didn't and allowed us to work through the best expansion in history. There were some drawbacks but I made a much bette living then than now. The dividend tax helps me but even my financial advisor thought that was one of the more worthless tax cuts given. And while tax cuts have helped some, it has hurt others in things like college tuition. Even though my wife and I will not have children, we ubderstand that the more educated our youth, the better off the whole country will be.
The complaint about th UN is over blown. It's a tactic of the ideologues to lay blame. The way that the war was talked about with this admin was antagonistic from the beginning. Less bravado and more real diplomacy was called for. The tactics of bullying were about as stupid as they come. Put the bugging of the ambasadors from the UN on top of it all and we just blew both feet off with one shot. Many of us disagreed with the danger posed by Iraq and it appears we were correct. Had we not alienated so many of our alies in the process, we may have been able move some in our direction. No matter what anyone says though, we on the left love this country as much as people on the right. In the event of a true threat, we agree that action must be taken. I know very few people who disagreed with Afghanistan.
As to your point about Kerry's wealth. I have watched Bush use every chance to push things that help corps while hurting the workers and environment. There is a ballance that can be found, but he doesn't look for it. Instead we have givaways like the tongas forrest, "clear skies" and the disintigration of our clean water laws. All of these have hurt more than help. When all available science says that something that will make things easier or cheaper to make will cause damage to people and the environment, they call it junk science and discount it. This hurts the common man.
The only people I denigrate are the ones who are so hostile and vitriolic. I have great respect for many of you here because you went through someting I will never understand. I have spoken to many vets, some like Kerry, some don't. I respect each and every honest and thoughtfull position.
But I will continue to defend Kerry and point out the flaws in Bush. Especially against the people like fortdixcoward and others who are not so much against Kerry as they are against anything other than their narrow opinion of what this country should be. I have a brother who is so far right it scares me. But I love him dearly and respect his opinions. The reason is because he understands that his are not the only correct opinions out there. He understands that to impose all of his beliefs on the rest of us is not what this country was founded on. Just as I understand that I cannot expect that everything I want is how it will or even should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
