SwiftVets.com

[wrbutler]

Hello All,

I'm a newbie here so look over me if i ramble... but I was thinking today while reading some excerpts from "Unfit to Command". As I read, I thought of our President walking down his drive with his advisors and asking for the 527 groups to just stop saying negative things. Well I maybe a newbie but I was told that he isn't in charge of those groups nor is his advisors, nor should any of those politicians. This is the truth as I feel and as I think. So if this is true, then why isn't some of you guys who was there, standing up or coming out and saying something to ANYONE who tells you that you should be quite about what went on over there?

Hell I wouldnt know nor anyone else who wasn't there. So you should tell us OUT LOUD who ever might be slighting the truth in there own favor to get some kind of gain from it, whatever that gain maybe. If its politicial then dammit all aint that what the 527 groups are for, and if so should it be ALL the politicians who are quite not the ones who paid for the aids. If my commander and chief tells me to do something then I'll do it, but I'll say this NO BODY will tell me not to tell the TRUTH by God not matter the cost...

Thanks for the site guys.... Bill Butler

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

The President has said that he wants all the 527's to go away - that they're harmful to our system.

Republicans took the issue to court and got no backing from the Democratic side of Congress.

So now we have something like $62 million devoted to defeating the President or electing Kerry and $13 million devoted to defeating Kerry or re-electing the President and NOW the Democrats cry "foul?"

The President can't tell any of the 527's what to do, but he has done well to speak his opinion evenhandedly. He didn't lose his right to speak his mind when he was elected and he's not telling anyone to stop supporting these 527's.

He's saying that the McCain/Feingold law is not working as it was intended to work and asking that Congress close the loopholes that allow such groups to "buy" an election.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[wrbutler]

Hello All,

Well tyvm for the information Navy. You are very knowledgable in this area of politics. Althought my point isn't that I or he or they are for or against 527 groups or ads, its that the President would rather the members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to stop putting into question Kerrys service or metals. He also said that if you remember. Its not about some mumboo jumboo politicial mess-up. Its about people of my great country saying out loud whatever they want to say in an attempt to inform the public of the lying ways of someone who has no business commanding anything especially our great country. 527 or no let them say it so I can go see if its the truth or just some more politicis as usual. In the end it all really is anyway...
I really like and would vote for Mr McCain. Even if he was Mr Bushs Vice. But he is a politician and a Republician, so go figure that he would sponsor a Bill that would mess up his very own party... O and buy the way all the money in this politicial season wouldnt change my tune of "tell the truth" the truth was important to some members of this org about Kerry in 1971, and I'm sure it still is. So why should they hush about it now?

[Marino]

I am writing this reply in response to your views on the 527 issue. I do believe that when a party candidate is running for office he should be involved in the endorsement of any and all advertisement on the TV or other means of paid advertisement. TV unfortunately can impact way too much on the decision of the voter. We are proud of our democracy, yet we find many of us choose our candidate for sometimes what the advertisement provides in the most part and in a small part really knowing the issues and the candiate. We lose something in the process when voters make their choices within very narrowed limits of knowledge.
If the 527 sources were allowed to say or do whatever pleases them then it would be a matter of who is willing and able to spend the most would most likely impact on the election. Who receives the money for the advertising are the real winners.
If there were special interest groups supporting a particular candidate then they can advertise their support of a candidate but specifics on the opposing candidate should not be bashed. I am not impressed with Kerry and his running mate Edwards I see as having less value, comprabable to gum I might get stuck on the bottom of my shoe.
Where a special interest group might be better to provide their message is in a forum where the opposing side has a chance to respond face to face.

[HOV1]

The flip side to this argument is that this type of speech (political) is exactly what the 1st amendment was written for. Not web porn or Janet Jackson flashing her boob on the tube. I was never comfortable with the McCain/Fiengold bill on that issue, and was disappointed in W when he signed it into law. You know, I hate what John Kerry said to Congress when he came home in 1971, but I will defend to the death his right to say it. (Doesn't mean I don't think he's a ***hole for doing it )
_________________
USN 78-84 STS1(SS) USS George C. Marshall SSBN 654(G)



HOV1