Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 200
  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    108

    Default Re: Re: sad for them, good for us

    Originally posted by scfire86


    Actually I was doing nothing of the sort. I was responding to a remark about Al Gore being on crack which isn't true, with a statement of Rush Limbaugh being addicted to Oxycontnin, which is true.

    But if you want to look up to Limbaugh it's none of my business. Personally I think he is hysterically funny. What is even funnier is how many conservative wackos look up to a person who is a great role model for:

    Dodging the draft.
    Premarital sex.
    Getting divorced.
    Drug addiction.
    Buying prescription drugs illegally.
    Refusing personal responsibility.


    Maybe those are conservative values and I just don't know about it. If so, maybe I'll change party affiliation.
    Ya Know, SC, when PFD said you need reading comprehension courses he was on the mark. The comment was not that Al Gore was on crack. The comment was that his "HE BETRAYED US" rant was an imitiation of a pentecostal on crack.

    Is Vietnam era service a priority? I guess it is if your guy claims to be a hero, to the exclusion of his senate track record. When Clinton was president, you libs said service didn't matter. Kerry himself made the point during both of clinton's campaigns. Any arguments you are making are in the hypocritical shoe on the other foot catagory.

    Here is your chance to come clean. If these issues really matter, denounce Clinton for:
    a. being a draft dodger
    b. lying under oath-and yes SC, he got disbarred for it.
    c. adultery on numerous occasions
    d. addmitted drug use (but he didn't inhale, so that's ok)


  2. #62
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    ThNozzleman .... I agree with your statement about unfair comparison's with extremeist's viewpoints. I disagreed with scfire's post and his comparison of my viewpoints. I intended my post as an example only.
    Understood. However, there are several here who routinely lump anyone who opposes Bush into the "pinko commie anti/un-American pro-terrorist" category. It's hogwash, and they know it. I do not mind spirited debate, but I'll be damned if I'll sit here and be called these stupid names when I can simply turn the hysterics off with a click of a button. The mob mentality of some of them makes me wonder if they are even capable of thinking for themselves. It's not much different from the seething responses I get from the same bunch when I post differing views on other subjects, such as the Pledge and the involvement of religion in government. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of them even showed up on my doorstep with torches and pitchforks! Of course, they now deem it some sort of twisted honor to be included on my ignore list. Oh, well; more power to them. They have the freedom to rant, and I have the freedom to turn them off.

  3. #63
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    c. adultery on numerous occasions
    Come on, man; he was married to HILLARY!

    Seriously, the Republicans made a stupid witch-hunt out of this whole ordeal. Are we to expect that no other U.S. president ever had a mistress/affair? I do fault Clinton with this; if I had been in his position, I would of said, "Hell, yes...I bonked her. So what?" But, that's just me. The Republicans were stupid for pursuing it in the first place, and Clinton was stupid for denying it.

  4. #64
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default Re: sad for them, good for us

    Originally posted by Farley


    Here is your chance to come clean. If these issues really matter, denounce Clinton for:
    a. being a draft dodger

    Same as 3 of Cheney's 5 (count 'em 5) deferments. Or the same as Phil Gramm's deferment, or the same Newt Gingrich's deferment. I could go on with conservatives who received educational deferments. But the list is too long.


    b. lying under oath-and yes SC, he got disbarred for it.

    Give you that one. But he was acquitted.


    c. adultery on numerous occasions

    Why is that my or your business? I thought conservatives believe that govt has no right to looking into your private life. I guess I'm wrong again.


    d. addmitted drug use (but he didn't inhale, so that's ok)

    And Bush admitted to USING cocaine. Big deal. Apparently conservatives only get their thongs in a twist when a liberal runs for office who has used illegal drugs. Better yet they slobber all over a conservative radio host who uses drugs illegally.
    Last edited by scfire86; 09-16-2004 at 02:37 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #65
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,575

    Default

    However, there are several here who routinely lump anyone who opposes Bush into the "pinko commie anti/un-American pro-terrorist" category.
    On the other hand, there are several here who lump anyone who supports Bush into the "right wing nazi/fascist/racist pro- war" category.

    Enuff said!
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  6. #66
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by ThNozzleman

    Understood. However, there are several here who routinely lump anyone who opposes Bush into the "pinko commie anti/un-American pro-terrorist" category. It's hogwash, and they know it. I do not mind spirited debate, but I'll be damned if I'll sit here and be called these stupid names when I can simply turn the hysterics off with a click of a button. The mob mentality of some of them makes me wonder if they are even capable of thinking for themselves. It's not much different from the seething responses I get from the same bunch when I post differing views on other subjects, such as the Pledge and the involvement of religion in government. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of them even showed up on my doorstep with torches and pitchforks! Of course, they now deem it some sort of twisted honor to be included on my ignore list. Oh, well; more power to them. They have the freedom to rant, and I have the freedom to turn them off.
    And I have the freedom to say that you are a coward. You cannot hold your own in a debate when you are overwhelmed with facts, so you take your ball and go home. You then are free to launch into personal attacks on everybody you disagree with. That is cowardice.

    I really don't believe that you don't read these.

  7. #67
    Forum Member xploded's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    88

    Default

    He reads them, how else would he ever so often pop in and grace us with his wisdom. Again here we go, nothing positive that Hanoi John brings to the table, only negative scavenger hunts against the Pres. Point that out and it is a personal attack, they say the same or worse and it is "honest and caring debate" Bull crap.

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Conshohocken, PA
    Posts
    391

    Default Lets use your logic against you.

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by scfire86


    He got caught once. Do you believe that was the only time he got behind the wheel while DUI? Dream on.

    Maybe yes maybe no, but using your logic, if charges weren't brought against him then he did do it.

    And if you so readily accept Bush's honorable discharge based upon documentation from military records, then why all the claims of inaccuracies of Kerry's military records as it relates to his decorations?

    I haven't used that arguement at all. In fact I have stayed away from that whole arguement like the President. The President not only said that Kerry should be proud of his service, he has stated that his service was more heroic than his. Now I'll type this slowly so you can understand. The President has not attacked John Kerrys service and he has not made his service the center of his campaign. See, I didn't call you any names either.

    And. If Kerry had committed treason, why was he given an honorable discharge?

    Don't know but I don't know why OJ Simpson got off either. And it wasn't the fact that the gloves didn't fit

    Both sets of records are from the same organization (DoD). Yet we are told Bush's records are above reproach, but Kerry's are inaccurate.
    [/QUOTE ]

    Check what I have said all along. It isn't the fact that I question Kerrys service. Only the hippocracy that the Dems use to justify their personal attacks on a sitting President during a time of war. In addition the President has signed his form #180, and Kerry hasn't despite what he says.

    Now if that isn't enough, lets read what a real American hero has to say to John Kerry:

    "Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry

    Dear John,

    As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

    I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

    This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

    Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

    But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

    When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served --and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

    On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped 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." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

    And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

    Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

    Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

    Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

    Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

    John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

    One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

    Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?

    Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist, host of the Fox News Channel's War Stories and founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.

    If it isn't about his service then why does he keep bringing it up? Terry McCaulif has been making noise about Bushs ANG service since March and he hasn't yet made it stick. Why? Because there is nothing there, it's all "bull scatology".

    Kerry has yet to give specifics about what he plans on doing. But ya know even if he did, I couldn't trust what he says because he takes so many positions on the same issue that who knows what he'd do. But then again maybe thats a hypothetical question and he doesn't answer hypothetical questions. (I know how much you like that smilie.)

    See scfire86 and nozz I didn't call anybody any names.

  9. #69
    the 4-1-4 Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,783

    Default Glowpop ....

    Very well put, too often people forget what their actions here do to our servicemen and women over there.

  10. #70
    Forum Member FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    For the past year, and most recently by CBS News, we have been deluged with reports that George W. Bush did not complete his agreed duty in the Texas Air National Guard. He was AWOL!

    But even the records show that George Bush exceeded his obligations in the number of flight hours required from 1968-1973, and only came into question during the last 18 months of his agreed obligation when he requested and received official permission to transfer to an Alabama unit and then enroll in an MBA program at Harvard. His obligation was for six years from May, 1968, to May, 1974. Beginning in 1972 the Air National Guard and the Air Force was beginning to have a glut of pilots while bringing people back from Viet Nam. many pilots were allowed to leave early because of this glut. The F-102 Delta Dagger was going to be taken out of service because of a poor safety record (over 875 produced, 265 crashes over an approximate 16 year run)and replaced with the F101B by early 1975. He received an educational release from his obligation eight months early and received an Honorable Discharge in October, 1973.

    While leftists question where George Bush was during the final year of his obligation, they and the press ignore completely the similar obligations of John Kerry. John Kerry enlisted in the Navy and signed an Officer Candidate Agreement on February 18, 1966. This agreement called for the candidate to meet the following requirements.

    Par 3 - to serve a total period of 6 years in the Naval Reserve of the United States, including active and inactive duty.

    Par 4 - agrees that on completion of active duty, he will remain for Service in the Ready Reserve for a period which when added to his active duty will total 5 years. Upon completion of 5 years of satisfactory service on active duty and in the Ready Reserve he will be eligible to transfer to the Standby Reserve for the remaining portion of his service obligation.

    Par 5 - the candidate understands that the provisions of law require satisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve, unless relieved of such participation by competent authority or as provided by law. Such participation may be satisfied annually by not less 48 drills and not more than 17days active duty for training.

    Lt. John Forbes Kerry was released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve on January 3, 1970. He wasn’t transferred to inactive standby status until July 1, 1972, then Honorably Discharged on February 16, 1978. Where was Lt. Kerry during the 18 months from 1970 to 1972? Did he attend the required drills and active duty that he agreed to? Was he AWOL or did he violate his agreed commitment on accepting a commission as an officer in the service of the United States.

    We do know that he made an unauthorized trip to Paris in June,1970 to meet with Madam Win Thi Binh, the foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG), which is the political wing of the Vietcong, and with representatives of Hanoi who were in Paris for the peace talks while still an officer in the Naval Reserves--in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953.

    That meeting while still an officer in the Naval Reserves and Kerry's subsequent coddling of communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article three, Section three, which defines treason as ''giving aid and comfort'' to the enemy in time of warfare. In April, 1971, he went before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs while still an officer in the Naval Reserves claiming all kinds of atrocities on the part of his fellow comrades in arms in further violation of Article 3.

    While John Kerry’s hero status is in question in the United States he is still considered a hero in Vietnam where his picture is in a place of honor in the Vietnam War Museum in Ho Chi Minh City. He is honored for leading the Vietnam Veterans against the war and helping the communists bring the war to conclusion.

    It is time we ask where was John Kerry during his reserve commitment. Was he AWOL as his supporters want to say is the case with George Bush? And did he violate the Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions. and the United States Constitution.
    Last edited by FireLt1951; 09-16-2004 at 07:52 PM.

  11. #71
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Originally posted by FireLt1951
    Par 3 - to serve a total period of 6 years in the Naval Reserve of the United States, including active and inactive duty.

    I was inactive reserve for almost two years. The only requirement I had (as explained at seperation from active duty) was to notify the DoD of any change of addresses. Which I did. Unless things were different a mere six years earlier, I would wager those were the only training requirements of Kerry also.

    Since the author of this tome (since you have no attribution) may not be aware of the details of what is involved in being classified inactive reserve it pretty much blows it out of the water. Or in Bush's case, shoots it out of the sky.

    We've pretty much worn out the treason charge. Neither the civil or UCMJ justice system saw it that way. Yet somehow all these so called legal beagles see it the opposite. The Supreme Court in numerous rulings have been pretty explicit as to what constitutes treason and Kerry's actions do not.

    The rest of it is debatable since neither I or the author knows the obligations of the ANG. I do know my cousin (Ca NG 1966 -1972) was told that if he failed to meet requirements as it related to training and attendance he would be activated and possibly sent to Vietnam. Not being the son of influential billionaires he didn't miss his requirements.
    Last edited by scfire86; 09-16-2004 at 08:01 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #72
    Forum Member FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    scfire86,

    I'm unaware of your age but what must realized are the times we found ourselves in. It was not popular to go after anti-war personnel and/or draft dodgers after 1970. This is no doubt the reason that Hanoi Johnny never faced charges. It would have been an uphill battle. Unless you lived during those dark days, I doubt you'll understand.

    Kerry didn't go on inactive reserve status until July "72". Before that he was active reserve status. I understand inactive reserve status as I spent 3 years 5 months in that status after coming home from Viet Nam and given a 120 day early out for staying 16 months in the Nam. So don't sit there and tell me I don't understand. I also understand active reserve status as I spent 3 years 1981-1984 in the Coast Guard Reserve. So it looks as though your water leaking.

    I could care less what Kerry did or did not do in Viet Nam or his medals. I care about what he and his VVAW friends did upon his return. Unless you went through the distain and hatred that was heaped upon us when we returned, you'll never really understand the deep feelings that the majority of us feel. Had Hanoi Johnnoy not made Viet Nam a centerpiece of his campaign, this probably wouldn't be as big a deal. Personally, I will never forgive Kerry for his actions. Kerry is not one of my Band Of Brothers and never will be. I won't go any deeper now as I'm probably going t say something that I really shouldn't.
    Last edited by FireLt1951; 09-16-2004 at 08:22 PM.

  13. #73
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Originally posted by FireLt1951
    It was not popular to go after anti-war personnel and/or draft dodgers after 1970. This is no doubt the reason that Hanoi Johnny never faced charges. It would have been an uphill battle. Unless you lived during those dark days, I doubt you'll understand.
    I did live during those days. And the reason Kerry, like others didn't face charges is there were no charges to bring.

    Treason has a very narrow description as defined by the Constitution and Supreme Court. Kerry's actions did not fit the criteria.

    With all that has gone on, someone in opposition to Kerry would have come forward and reinforced your case. Yet no one has. Other than these rambling missives.

    Here's one for you Lt.

    "Bush spoke to members of the National Guard at a convention in Las Vegas. A lot of those guys were really excited to see him. A lot of them have been waiting since the early 70s to see him, for him to show up."
    --Jay Leno
    Last edited by scfire86; 09-16-2004 at 08:32 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #74
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    On the other hand, there are several here who lump anyone who supports Bush into the "right wing nazi/fascist/racist pro- war" category.
    I'd sure like to see those posts.

  15. #75
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    See scfire86 and nozz I didn't call anybody any names.
    Now, how are you gonna make my ignore list if you don't start acting like a two year old child and hurl baseless names and insults at me?

  16. #76
    Forum Member xploded's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    88

    Default

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by scfire86
    [B]

    I did live during those days. And the reason Kerry, like others didn't face charges is there were no charges to bring.

    Treason has a very narrow description as defined by the Constitution and Supreme Court. Kerry's actions did not fit the criteria.

    With all that has gone on, someone in opposition to Kerry would have come forward and reinforced your case. Yet no one has. Other than these rambling missives.

    Here's one for you Lt.

    "Bush spoke to members of the National Guard at a convention in Las Vegas. A lot of those guys were really excited to see him. A lot of them have been waiting since the early 70s to see him, for him to show up."



    You seem to be stuck on the notion that he wasn't a traitor because he wasn't legally charged with it. He was a traitor in the moral sense. He is not liked or disliked on the basis of whether legal charges were brought. It is a much deeper issue that strikes to the heart of the vets who did serve honorably and those that feel a high pride for their service. Put yourself in the place of these other guys. Your sitting for years in the prison camps and then here comes a speech used against you by one of your own. The returning vets spit on and called baby killers, he may not have been the sole reason that vets were treated this way but he sure contributed to it. My friend this hits a lot deeper then legal issues. This is one of the reasons that people on this forum and many others not on this forum have such strong feelings about this issue. Myself included.

  17. #77
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Originally posted by xploded
    Originally posted by scfire86


    You seem to be stuck on the notion that he wasn't a traitor because he wasn't legally charged with it. He was a traitor in the moral sense. He is not liked or disliked on the basis of whether legal charges were brought.
    Using that as a standard. I believe Bush should be charged with cowardice in the face of the enemy.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #78
    Forum Member FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    The POW/MIA issue is another one where Kerry s@rewed the pooch so to speak.


    Pulitzer-prize winning author Sydney H. Schanberg (who states that he is anti-Bush) presents compelling evidence, including witness testimony to the Senate documenting paper shredding and witness/evidence supression,that Kerry handled the POW/MIA senate inquiry in such a way so as to end the controversy quickly and normalize relations with Vietnam. His series of three Village Voice articles on the subject is at

    http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/schanberg.php
    http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/schanberg2.php
    http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0431/schanberg.php

    It is the first article that has this amazing illustration of Kerry the gravedigger. Check it out! And in the Village Voice no less!

    Less than a year after that slate was cleaned, as trade was being established, Colliers, a global real estate management and consulting firm, was granted a multi-billion dollar long term exclusive contract to rebuild Vietnam's infrastructure. Colliers is owned by the Kerry family. At the time of the contract being granted, Colliers was headed up by Kerry's first cousin, Stuart Forbes, who was also in charge of Kerry's "blind" trust. At the time this created ethics questions (hey, it's not exactly rocket science!). A few weeks after the Senate panel’s hearings had concluded, according to Center for Public Integrity, Kerry’s participation in the committee became “controversial” when Hanoi announced the awarding of the contract to the Kerry family firm, Colliers International.

    Here's the 'background' page documenting that Kerry worked for Colliers:

    http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...nformation.pdf

    Here's further discussion and analysis.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...7/164944.shtml



    In his last article detailing Cheney's close working relationship with Kerry on the POW/MIA committee, Schanberg wonders about Kerry's motives in effectively burying our MIAs and POWs in the hell of Communist Vietnam's slave labor camps. Schanberg actually wonders if Kerry was doing this out of some altruistic desire to help America move on. Oh brother, how naive! He must not have known about Colliers and the Cash and Kerry money trail; HE DOES NOW.

  19. #79
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    The returning vets spit on and called baby killers, he may not have been the sole reason that vets were treated this way but he sure contributed to it.
    While there may have been isolated incidents of this sort of thing happening, it really has reached proportions of urban myth.
    ThomasPaine.com
    http://northcoastcafe.typepad.com/no...t_spat_on.html
    Many (including members of this forum) attempt to group anyone who disagrees with the current war in Iraq in with the types of people who allegedly did these terrible things to returning Vietnam veterans. To be against a war which we feel was stupid and needless is propped up as figuratively spitting on the soldiers who are fighting it. We are labeled as "un-American" and "commies." We are accused of not supporting the troops, and even of treason, being traitiors, and providing aid and comfort to the enemy. It is all bunk. The actions of a few extremists (then and now) do NOT reflect the actual feelings of someone who disagrees with the war. In truth, we care about the soldiers who are forced to be there very much. We didn't want them there in the first place, and we now want them out of there as soon as possible. Just as in the Vietnam era, the vast majority of people who are labeled "anti-war" or "anti-troops" are against the government's choice to start the war; not against the troops, themselves. I know that some of the knee-jerk right wing radio dittohead Ollie listeners on these forums just can't grasp this concept, but it's the truth. We're sick of being labeled "anti-American" and of being "un-patriotic." It's an outright lie, and to continually bring up unsubstantiated stories of soldiers being spit on, as well as to claim that we are figuratively "spitting" on the soldiers is outrageous. You cannot shame us into submission, so you might as well give up.

  20. #80
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,098

    Default

    I know that some of the knee-jerk right wing radio dittohead Ollie listeners on these forums
    Baseless personal attack. Stop being a Hypocrite.
    Proud Right-Wing Extremist since 1992

    "Extreme Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"- Michael Savage

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts