 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ejs
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 3
|
 Posted: Sat May 08, 2004 12:35 pm Post subject: Re: Kerry/Bush 'Nam |
 |
|
| JasonBinPNW wrote: | And the point is what? What does it have to do with this organization? I've heard nothing in the way of support for the president from this group. But they step forward to shed a little light on Mr. Kerry and all of you roaches scurry about and try to divert that spotlight away. I'm relly sorry that your candidate is full of Cr@p about his war hero status, really I am.
What I'd like to hear from you guys is an explanation of Mr. Kerrys conduct after the war (while still an officer in the Naval Reserve btw) and the statements he made about these men in the 1970's his recent attempts to mitigate those statements.
You can't. Neither can he. |
Although I would rather Kerry was president than Bush, he is not "my candidate", I am a former republican who is now a registered NPA who despises Bush. My candidate in 2000 was McCain and I'd like to see him run but know he won't. And why not discuss that Bush is a draft-dodger? In 1992 1996 and thru-out Bubba's eight years it never was left alone his deferments. Cheney got five deferments. Bush was given time off while in the TANG to go on Senate campaigns. No matter how much you try to make Kerry's service look shallow (which in most points your correct in my mind), Kerry beats Bush as far as service goes. period. And that's the point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lost1112
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Sat May 08, 2004 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hum sparky just out of curiosity i bet you supported clinton too didn't you well its ok we all make mistakes but i learn from mine when will you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stumpy
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Sat May 08, 2004 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As a vet, I find it amazing that this organization, in their vocal and coreographed opposition to Kerry, is supporting a man who has demonstrated such disdain for the service men and women of this country as to send them unprepared into an unneeded conflict. Such behavior should be seen by all of those who have served as a national disgrace. Give all the lip service you want to "supporting the troops", but the true measure is how those lives were thrown, literally thrown, into combat while ignoring all of the planning and advice of the generals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Eaton
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Sat May 08, 2004 11:01 pm Post subject: RE: |
|
|
Did one poster actually advocate censorship of this board?! Somebody finds the constitution annoying?
Jason,
You were interested in John Kerry's conduct after the war?
Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where he notably said, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
One of the most heartfelt, powerful speeches I've ever heard. Unless, I'm mistaken, the war ended shortly after that committee ajourned.
[url]http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/28/1623208
[/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Sat May 08, 2004 11:47 pm Post subject: Re: RE: |
|
|
| Jeremy Eaton wrote: | | Did one poster actually advocate censorship of this board?! Somebody finds the constitution annoying? |
Proposing "censorship" would be proposing that the federal government shut down opposing viewpoints on this board, something I'm certain that the federal government would not be interested in doing on this or any other bulletin board.
Moderating or banning disruptive posters on a privately-owned bulletin board has nothing to do with the governmental suppression of freedom of speech.
Leftists never seem to "get" that - that "censorship" is a function of government, not bulletin board operators.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonBinPNW
Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 58
Location: Vancouver (not BC), Washington (Not DC)
|
| Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 1:34 am Post subject: Re: Kerry/Bush 'Nam |
|
|
| ejs wrote: | | JasonBinPNW wrote: | And the point is what? What does it have to do with this organization? I've heard nothing in the way of support for the president from this group. But they step forward to shed a little light on Mr. Kerry and all of you roaches scurry about and try to divert that spotlight away. I'm relly sorry that your candidate is full of Cr@p about his war hero status, really I am.
What I'd like to hear from you guys is an explanation of Mr. Kerrys conduct after the war (while still an officer in the Naval Reserve btw) and the statements he made about these men in the 1970's his recent attempts to mitigate those statements.
You can't. Neither can he. |
Although I would rather Kerry was president than Bush, he is not "my candidate", I am a former republican who is now a registered NPA who despises Bush. My candidate in 2000 was McCain and I'd like to see him run but know he won't. And why not discuss that Bush is a draft-dodger? In 1992 1996 and thru-out Bubba's eight years it never was left alone his deferments. Cheney got five deferments. Bush was given time off while in the TANG to go on Senate campaigns. No matter how much you try to make Kerry's service look shallow (which in most points your correct in my mind), Kerry beats Bush as far as service goes. period. And that's the point. |
You can discuss the president at great length, it still does nothing at all to explain Kerrys conduct after he returned home. When I hear him say "Band of Brothers" after what he said about these men... itmakes my stomach turn. He has too many inconsistancies in his explanations, and I can't see voting him until those are cleared up.
I was a McCain supporter as well, and did not vote for President in 2000. I voted for everything else on the ballot, but not president.
_________________
Semper Fi!
Jason
Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's not true. It's still censorship even when a private entity suppresses a viewpoint. While they certainly have that right, by definition it's still censorship.
So yes, there have been a few frustrated conservatives here demonstrating their commitment to free and open dialogue by asking that viewpoints they disagree with be removed.
This cuts to the core of the struggle between western notions of democracy and authoritarian conservatism. People like Stalin, Bin Ladin, and Pol Pot consider their truth absolute, whereas our founding fathers believed in the spirit of the enlightenment, that truth would be arrived at through debate or competition in the marketplace of ideas.
Whomever owns this conference has the absolute right to censor and I wouldn't want it any other way. If they do, however, they're showing their true colors. Which reminds me of this quote from one conservative here:
| Quote: | | I'm new, but I see nothing wrong with censoring these traitors. Hopefully, it won't be too long before we're jailing them. We would't be worrying about whether we'll be able to continue what's been acomplished economically and militarily if it wasn't for them. |
This is one of the reasons I support anyone but Bush. It's silly to think "it can't happen here." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonBinPNW
Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 58
Location: Vancouver (not BC), Washington (Not DC)
|
| Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 1:43 am Post subject: Re: RE: |
|
|
| Jeremy Eaton wrote: |
Jason,
You were interested in John Kerry's conduct after the war?
Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where he notably said, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
One of the most heartfelt, powerful speeches I've ever heard. Unless, I'm mistaken, the war ended shortly after that committee ajourned.
[url]http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/28/1623208
[/url] |
Yes, very emotional indeed. He didn't write those words, but they were very nice.
I'm not concerned about his opposition to the war. He served, he has the right to be for or against whatever he wants. What I DO take issue with are his statements implicating people in war crimes that he has now said were false... as if that will suddenly make it all better for those who had to suffer for his allegations.
Let me qualify one previous statement. I am not concerned about his opposition to the war, I am concerned about his action in support of that opposition. An officer serving in the US military is forbidden from doing certain things, many of which he has claimed at one time or another to have in fact, engaged in, which would be in violation of his oath. That means that his word is no good.
I take my oath to "Support and Defend" very seriously. I would never, on my worst day, willingly betray my fellow service members by making up false claims accusing them of atrocities. Because unlike him, I AM a member of a band of brothers, and I am someone who that means something to.
_________________
Semper Fi!
Jason
Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonBinPNW
Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 58
Location: Vancouver (not BC), Washington (Not DC)
|
| Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | That's not true. It's still censorship even when a private entity suppresses a viewpoint. While they certainly have that right, by definition it's still censorship.
So yes, there have been a few frustrated conservatives here demonstrating their commitment to free and open dialogue by asking that viewpoints they disagree with be removed.
This cuts to the core of the struggle between western notions of democracy and authoritarian conservatism. People like Stalin, Bin Ladin, and Pol Pot consider their truth absolute, whereas our founding fathers believed in the spirit of the enlightenment, that truth would be arrived at through debate or competition in the marketplace of ideas.
Whomever owns this conference has the absolute right to censor and I wouldn't want it any other way. If they do, however, they're showing their true colors. Which reminds me of this quote from one conservative here:
| Quote: | | I'm new, but I see nothing wrong with censoring these traitors. Hopefully, it won't be too long before we're jailing them. We would't be worrying about whether we'll be able to continue what's been acomplished economically and militarily if it wasn't for them. |
This is one of the reasons I support anyone but Bush. It's silly to think "it can't happen here." |
This is pure garbage Sparky.
You folks on the left are all about free speech as long as you agree with it. I have attempted to participate on more than one forum and been banned for the simple fact that my opinions were not in keeping with those on the board. Don't blame it on "Conservatives" (whatever that means), at least not until you've moved out of that glass house.
_________________
Semper Fi!
Jason
Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonBinPNW
Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 58
Location: Vancouver (not BC), Washington (Not DC)
|
| Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, look at the timing on THAT! WOW! You guys are GOOD! Only took them 30 odd years to come up with that... right as... wow!
_________________
Semper Fi!
Jason
Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Regardless...it's still censorship. And I've never called for banning anyone because of their opinions or because I believe I own the definition of truth.
As for your having been banned, I suspect it wasn't because of content. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eecee
Ensign
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
sparky wrote:
So that is what those links mean? Kerry was openly agreeing to go to Vietnam, even though he personally didn't want to, when his country needed him to...
...and Bush was making it clear he wasn't going to go even if needed?
Man, ejs, you've really thrown a wrench in the works here! I can't believe anyone truly patriotic who loves America would support someone who did his damnest to avoid a war he wanted others to die for!
(btw, I admire Kerry's candor and modesty in that quote)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And compare that to GWB's candid quote:
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." GW Bush, to the Houston Chronicle, 1994 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Eaton
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cheers Sparky, your counter-point about censorship still stands I believe.
Navy squared, you are going after a minor point I was making anyways... One I'm not particularilly interested in discussing. If you care to address my other points, rather than changing the topic.
Or didn't you "get" that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 2:00 pm Post subject: Re: Are you "non-partisans" investigating Bush's d |
|
|
| Real_Patriot wrote: | He chickened out of combat, got Daddy to pull strings to get him into a nice safe National Guard slot, then deserted after his number came up for a random drug test. 9 months of his "service" is still not accounted for with any evidence he even showed up.
Since you "believe it is incumbent on ALL presidential candidates to be totally honest and forthcoming regarding personal background and policy information that would help the voting public make an informed decision when choosing the next president of the United States", you're also trying to holler for media attention on your investigation of Bush's "military" records, right? Guys?
Just be honest guys, you love Bush and hate Kerry. That's all. No need to make up all this "concerned citizens" Bullcrap. |
The New York Times already investigated that. And concluded that G.W. Bush completed his commitment in a manner not different from many others in any significant way. No story.
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| 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
