retail-worker.com        Productivity is in the eyes of the beholder.

Log in Register FAQ Forum Index

Who should be the Democratic candidate for President

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Forum Index -> Politics Schmolitics

View previous topic :: View next topic
Who should be the Democratic candidate for President Carol Mosley Braun  0%  [ 0 ] Howard Dean  18%  [ 3 ] John Edwards  6%  [ 1 ] Dick Gephardt  0%  [ 0 ] Bob Graham  0%  [ 0 ] John Kerry  18%  [ 3 ] Dennis Kucinich  0%  [ 0 ] Joe Lieberman  12%  [ 2 ] Al Sharpton  12%  [ 2 ] Other  31%  [ 5 ] Total Votes : 16
Author	Message
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:25 am    Post subject:   Oh and here is more "proof" disproving the lies about drug testing....and Ws physical......more Michael Moore left wing bullshit lies. link As you can see the policy was enacted AFTER W left the service!.. The Left is so desperate to get rid of him they are out of control.
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:33 am    Post subject:   Here is a great article regarding Kerry and his "heroism" in the war.http://frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12272 Here are a couple of the best parts! Quote: Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court martial for carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple people killed by running across the bow of a Japanese destroyer) who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months early and requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress. In that election, he finds out war heroes don't sell well in Massachsetts in 1970, so he reinvents himself as Jane Fonda, throws his ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his political career, gets Stillborn Pell to invite him to address Congress and has Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting. A few years later he winds up in the Senate himself, where he votes against every major defense bill and says the CIA is irrelevant after the Berlin Wall came down. He votes against the Gulf War (a big political mistake since that turned out well), then decides not to make the same mistake twice so votes for invading Iraq -- but that didn't fare as well with the Democrats, so he now says he really didn't mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow him to go to war. The following quote was from Frontpage magazine.com Read the whole article for the full effect. Last edited by Bodyguard on Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
sleK Administrator Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 1010 Location: over yonder	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:34 am    Post subject:   LOL... get the napkins folks, BG's getting foamy again. :D Quote: You dont have the "right" for shit in the US. I don't recall saying we did. We do, however, have the right to analyze and criticize anything we damn well feel like. You don't like it? Tough-titty said the kitty. :) Quote: You have no way of KNOWING for sure that the US is not under threat all the time.....ok smartass PROVE we are not under theat since you claim we are not. Hmm... I see that you still don't understand the onus of proof. YOU claimed that the US is under "constant threat of attack". Thus it is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate that. I've already offered some of my reasoning for suggesting that you are not under "constant threat of attack" and I don't see you addressing any of those points. So, it's clear that you can't support such a statement. Thus using a national security angle to detract Kerry's campaign is disingenuous. Strike one. Quote: If you dont know that some of the anti war movement was infiltrated with communist agents then you are indeed ignorant...(I Will be providing links and proof for this in the next few days) We're not talking about the anti-war movement. We're talking specifically about the protests that Kerry was involved in which you have claimed were "infiltrated with agents of North Vietnam". That's what I want a link for. If you can't provide anything to suggest just that, and I never expected that you could, once again, using the protests to detract from Kerry's campaign is disingenous. Strike two. Quote: It does MATTER if Kerry saw them or not..... at this point in his life he would have said anything to discredit the war. No it doesn't. All that matters is whether or not the events that he testified to actually happened. If they did, and what Kerry has testified to is true, then Kerry has proven himself a true patriot. Quote: Are you really going to show how little you know about the Vietnam Conflict by saying that the press was tightly controlled in it? It certainly wasn't a media free-for-all. Quote: My point was not for just any politician....it was about Kerry, so your point it stupid. (hey it is ok for me to do it because everybody else does it) I'm sure it was, but once again you display your double-standards by not applying the same to any politician. Only the ones you dislike. Which, once again, is disigenuous thus not a valid argument to detract from Kerry's campaign. Strike three. You're out. Quote: Changing his mind is one thing but flip flopping and not standing by your record of votes is another. How so? How are the two different? I posit that changing ones mind on an issue then voting the opposite is plainly stupid. Quote: North Korea is a danger to South Korea (ever heard of them, we have 30.000 troops there) we have a defense treaty with them. That's nice. This threatens your safety how? Quote: Just two days ago Iran admitted it has the means to produce weapons grade plutonium. So? So do many other countries. How is your safety threatnened? Quote: I notice you did not care to comment on the threat from China. Ya, that's cuz China isn't currently a threat to the US. Taiwan maybe. But not the US. *** So, in summary, all you've got to dispute my points are ad-homs. Correct? I never would have guessed. :D Quote: PS not going to answer about the rules regarding cross posting? Cross-posting? LOL!
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:54 am    Post subject:   Onus of proof....give me a break. You youself said because of the US's foreign policy we are a target more than Canada. If you cant see that in footage from the middle east with tapes of terroists threatening to destroy the "infidel" then you are ignorant of the world outside your basement. Strike one See below my links on the protests and Kerry. Strike two There is no proof that the things happened that Kerry talked about. Since he did not see them he has no way to know they happened.....see the link below describing Kerrys motives at the time. Strike three It WAS a media free for all later in the war.....many reportes roamed without escort all over South Vietnam. Look it up if you dont believe me.......Reporter Joe Galloway is a great source for such things. Any politician who flip flops is an idiot.....have I said differently? Have I talked about anybody else? Say what you want about Bush but do you see him flip flopping very much? Again....you lose this point....we are talking about KERRY and his character and motives....so quit bringing up others to validate your argument. If the PRK attacks the ROK then we are obliged by treaty to go to war....you dont consider it a threat? Are you really this stubborn that the US is not under threat? Iran is controlled by a radical Islamic regime......if you cant see that a country selling plutonium to those that might harm us is a threat to both us and the whole world then you need some weapons grade glasses. Again...China has ICBMS capable of reaching the US....I suppose if you did in fact know this then you dont consider THAT a threat. I have pointed out many countries and why they are a threat to us.....your response so far: " NUH HUH"
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:05 am    Post subject:   Take a look at this link...it talks about a show on Fox tonight....one that shows one of the biggest dangers to us.....terroists crossing our borders....most are from Mexico but many of the worst are crossing from our friends to the North.....nnnnnaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh no threats to us... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112038,00.html Quote: The immigration problems at our border with Mexico are well publicized, but there is another country that may pose an even greater threat to the national security of the United States. Why? Because it has become a safe haven for about 50 terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. But we aren’t talking about Syria (search), we are talking about Canada, our friend and trading partner to the north. And with over 4000 miles of border between us to protect, the possibilities are frightening The quote was from Foxnews.com
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:21 am    Post subject:   This is getting too easy! This is a quote from a new book.... Quote: ]President Bush¹s inaugual address followed the traditional script: paying homage to the outgoing president before mentioning the continuing national security threats and what he planned to do about them. "We will build our defenses beyond challenge, less weakness invite challenge," he said. "We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors" .... Waiting for the new president at the Pentgon was an extraordinary, massive and classified paper on future threats stretching to the year 2020, prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency. On the nuclear front, a page stamped secret says more countries will possess nuclear weapons in the next twenty years. A classifed chart predicts that Iran will have ten to twenty weapons. China¹s nuclear ICBM force will grow from forty missiles to as many as 220. Rivals Pakistan and India will more than double their nuclear stockile. Stalinist North Korea may have ten atomic weapons by 2020. Israel will maintain an arsenal of about eighty warheads. North Korea posseses not only two to four nuclear weapons - of limited nuclear yield - but it also has an offensive biological and chemical arsenal. Says the DIA report, "Despite limited intelligence on the status of its biological warfare capabilities, North Korea is thought to have developed agents including anthrax, plague, cholera and toxins." [/url] Here is the link to the PDF doucment obtained for the book witch I will link below......http://www.drudgereport.com/rs.pdf This is the book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260697/102-8961575-5972159
Back to top
sleK Administrator Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 1010 Location: over yonder	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:30 am    Post subject:   Quote: Onus of proof....give me a break. I've given you plenty of breaks BG. And you've bumbled each and every one of them. :D Quote: You youself said because of the US's foreign policy we are a target more than Canada. Right. Which runs contrary to your assertion that you are a target due to "who you are". You wouldn't be "flip-flopping" now would you? :) So which is it? If it's simply "who you are" that makes you a target I'd like to see some evidence. If it's foreign policy that makes you a target, perhaps it's time to examine and modify the policies. Either way, you still haven't demonstrated that you are under a "constant threat of attack". A country merely having weapons doesn't demonstrate that. Quote: There is no proof that the things happened that Kerry talked about. So then you deny that such atrocities took place? You're "flip-flopping" again. Earlier you stated "There were many violations of the rule of war in the Vietnam conflict on both sides.". Once again, which is it? Did it happen or did it not? Am I entitled to disregard your opinions because of "flip-flopping" much like you've done to Kerrys? Talk about two-faced heh BG? :D Quote: we are talking about KERRY and his character and motives....so quit bringing up others to validate your argument. Yes we are, but, as before, you're failing to apply your same standards to everyone in the running. You're simply applying them to only the candidates you dislike. Quote: If the PRK attacks the ROK then we are obliged by treaty to go to war....you dont consider it a threat? Not particularly. Your nation, aside from troops stationed there, will be quite safe if that should happen. Unless, of course, NK has the means to deliver ordinance to US shores which, to my knowledge, they don't. Quote: Iran is controlled by a radical Islamic regime That's nice. The US is controlled by radical religious zealots as well. They also have the means to develop, have developed, and plan to develop, nuclear devices. What's the difference? Quote: Again...China has ICBMS capable of reaching the US....I suppose if you did in fact know this then you dont consider THAT a threat. Sure, but relations with China are good. Are they not? If they are good, then China is not a threat. However, if relations with China are good, and China is still a threat, then you're saying that every single sovereign nation that produces defensive weapons is a threat to US national security? Am I correct?
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:46 am    Post subject:   I guess you cant read....the US is a target because of who and what we are....good or bad (in your opinion bad) who we are seen as in the world is because of our foreign policy.....how obtuse are you going to be? There is no flip flopping....I will admitt to all of the atrocities that are DOCUMENTED. I will not admitt to rumors and lies that have not been proven....get it now? Hello is this thing on??????? I AM appling the same standards! I will attack anybody who flip flops to the extreme like Kerry! Lib or conservative! If you want to name a few then go ahead. I consider 30 THOUSAND of our troops to be our nation.....if we had to go to war because of the PRK it just might start something far larger......and in case you havent noticed you live right next to us..... Quote: That's nice. The US is controlled by radical religious zealots as well. They also have the means to develop, have developed, and plan to develop, nuclear devices Another leftist talking point with no basis in fact. You are losing credibility with every post. Nice try to distort the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. No honest person can believe that statement at face value. You must slander when faced with facts huh?
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:09 am    Post subject:   Here is a great article showing the differences in the Dems and the Republicans http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004723 Quote: Multilateralism, as it is currently used by leading Democrats, means only one thing: action that is officially approved by the United Nations. But the moment this is grasped, the multilateral mirage vanishes. No Democratic candidate can tell the American people that he will only defend their national interests when the U.N. says it's OK for him to do it. That, like the pacifist option, is the path of political suicide From the Wall Street Journal
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:12 am    Post subject:   Flip flop a we bop! here is more from the wall stree journal Quote: These days Kerry talks a lot more about his "band of brothers" than about his antiwar activities, but yesterday CNN's Judy Woodruff asked him about the latter: Woodruff: it's been reported that, well you're aware of this, Vietnam veterans [are] upset with the fact that when you came back from the war, you went to Capitol Hill, and you testified in so many words against the kinds of things that U.S. soldiers were doing over there-- Kerry: Yes, I did. Woodruff: To the Vietnamese. Kerry: Yes, I did. Woodruff: They are saying, in effect, you were accusing American troops of war crimes. Kerry: No, I was accusing American leaders of abandoning the troops. And if you read what I said, it is very clearly an indictment of leadership. I said to the Senate, where is the leadership of our country? And it's the leaders who are responsible, not the soldiers. I never said that. I've always fought for the soldiers. Here's what Kerry said in his April 22, 1971, testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (link in PDF format; the excerpt begins on page 180, the second page of the file): Several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. . . . They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told the stories [that] at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned on 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 countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. here is the whole article http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004721
Back to top
sleK Administrator Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 1010 Location: over yonder	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:17 am    Post subject:   Watch the ad-homs BG. Quote: the US is a target because of who and what we are....good or bad (in your opinion bad) who we are seen as in the world is because of our foreign policy Then wouldn't it be wise to examine and modify your foreign policy? Wouldn't modification to foreign policy then diminish and/or eliminate any perceived threats to your security? Quote: There is no flip flopping....I will admitt to all of the atrocities that are DOCUMENTED. Nope. That's a "flip-flop" by your own definition. Either way, if such behaviour occured, slandering Kerry for speaking out against it is very un-american of you. Quote: I AM appling the same standards! I will attack anybody who flip flops to the extreme like Kerry! Lib or conservative! If you want to name a few then go ahead. Ok, here's one: Quote: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war." —George W. Bush, October 11, 2000 ^^ Said whilst campaigning Quote: "We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation, and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us ... Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more." (italics added) —George W. Bush, February 26, 2003 ^^ Obviously in office. Quite the flip-flop no? Quote: if we had to go to war because of the PRK it just might start something far larger. Sorry BG. Your arm-chair-general speculation doesn't prove that NK is a threat to your security. Quote: Another leftist talking point with no basis in fact. Is GWB not a xtian? Has GWB not implemented xtian-centric policy? "Faith-based" initiatives? How about the gay marriage thing? Isn't there a constitutional ammendment in the works to define marriage in xtian terms? That looks like religious zealotry to me.
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:35 am    Post subject:   I notice you have not responded to any of the other links I have provided. I like our foreign policy.....risk is something one needs to take in order to do the right and moral things in the world. You have twisted my words over and over......I notice you do not respond to the article questioning Kerrys motives. You example of flip flopping is indeed correct....but the world changed greatly after 9/11 by your own defintion W would have been stupid not to react to world evenst wich is a huge diffference from changing his views for political ends like Kerry. Did he change his entire morality??? NO....if you cant see the difference then, again, you are not being honest. W is the same man he was on 9/10.... do i have to link MORE articles you wont comment on to prove to you that the PRK IS a threat to peace of the world and us??? How dense can you be? Quote: Is GWB not a xtian? Has GWB not implemented xtian-centric policy? "Faith-based" initiatives? How about the gay marriage thing? Isn't there a constitutional ammendment in the works to define marriage in xtian terms? That looks like religious zealotry to me. The President is indeed a Christain.....as are the vast majority of our countrymen. Do I smell some bigotry here against Christians? Are you saying that being a Christian is the same as being a religious zealot? That is a bigoted statement! Since when has faith been a crime? Again the more you talk the more you show who and what you are. Stop trying to change the subject by bringing up a mans faith...
Back to top
sleK Administrator Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 1010 Location: over yonder	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:59 am    Post subject:   Quote: I notice you have not responded to any of the other links I have provided. Yeah, I'm returning the favour for you avoiding almost all of my points. ;) Quote: I like our foreign policy.....risk is something one needs to take in order to do the right and moral things in the world. That's assuming, of course, that your policies are "right" and "moral" and I haven't seen much evidence to suggest that they are. In fact, the backlash that the US has experienced for their policies demonstrate just the opposite. Quote: but the world changed greatly after 9/11 by your own defintion W would have been stupid not to react to world evenst Oh! I've never stated that GWB should not have reacted. It's the manner with which he reacted that concerns me. Quote: wich is a huge diffference from changing his views for political ends like Kerry. Not really. GWB is now using the war, national security, nation-building etc. as his platform for re-election. Quote: Are you saying that being a Christian is the same as being a religious zealot? Zealotry affects all faiths. Quote: Since when has faith been a crime? I dunno, perhaps you should ask Ann Coulter, or Lieutenant-General William G. Boykin. Quote: Stop trying to change the subject by bringing up a mans faith... Umm... you brought it up when you said this: Quote: Iran is controlled by a radical Islamic regime Islam is a religion no? So stop trying to change the subject huh?
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:12 am    Post subject:   I have answered almost everyone of your points. You however I noticed answer less and less of mine. Are you man enought to admitt to your bigotry regarding your statements on Christians? I doubt it since you have never admitted being wrong that I have seen. I did not bring up the fact that you think that being a Christain equates to being a zealot......that is very offensive. You have totally discredited yourself, slek. Your knowledge of history and world events is obviously lacking a basis in fact. You distort my words to try and mask that fact. Just give it up. Lets give someone else a chance to comment on how you feel on these subjects
Back to top
sleK Administrator Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 1010 Location: over yonder	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:20 am    Post subject:   Quote: I did not bring up the fact that you think that being a Christain equates to being a zealot. :roll: I said no such thing. And you should check your PM's.
Back to top
USA#1 Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1964	Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:46 am    Post subject:   Yep. Here we go again.
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:09 pm    Post subject:   Here is the link you requested regarding the VVAW and communist influence in it....there are more links in the article....take a look the one regarding the lawsuit between the factions in the VVAW itself. (The communist wing split the organization) http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/page2.html You will need to read it in order to discuss it. Here is a piece of what it says..... Quote: Kerry was a supporter of the "People's Peace Treaty," a supposed "people's" declaration to end the war, reportedly drawn up in communist East Germany. It included nine points, all of which were taken from Viet Cong peace proposals at the Paris peace talks as conditions for ending the war. One of the provisions stated: "The Vietnamese pledge that as soon as the U.S. government publicly sets a date for total withdrawal [from Vietnam], they will enter discussion to secure the release of all American prisoners, including pilots captured while bombing North Vietnam." In other words, Kerry and his VVAW advocated the communist line to withdraw all U.S. troops from Vietnam first and then negotiate with Hanoi over the release of prisoners. Had the nine points of the "People's Peace Treaty" favored by Kerry been accepted by American negotiators, the United States would have totally lost all leverage to get the communists to release any POWs captured during the war years.
Back to top
sleK Administrator Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 1010 Location: over yonder	Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:11 pm    Post subject:   You've got two problems here BG. 1) This doesn't support your assertion that Kerry was a "pawn of the cong" nor does it support your assertion that the "Ex-Servicemen Against the War" was "infiltrated by agents of North Vietnam". Both statements, by you, were clearly red-baited exaggerations intended to imply a political relationship between Kerry and Vietnamese communists that simply didn't exist and you should concede them as such (and stop stooping to such tactics). 2) The author of the article commits a pretty big and transparent fallacy: This, a quote from the provisions: Quote: "The Vietnamese pledge that as soon as the U.S. government publicly sets a date for total withdrawal [from Vietnam], they will enter discussion to secure the release of all American prisoners, including pilots captured while bombing North Vietnam." (emphasis added) This, the authors take on it: Quote: In other words, Kerry and his VVAW advocated the communist line to withdraw all U.S. troops from Vietnam first and then negotiate with Hanoi over the release of prisoners. (emphasis added) The provision sets out, quite clearly, that the US .gov need only set a date for withdrawal. It says nothing about all troops being withdrawn first as the author asserts. This puts the objectivity of the author in question (and you already know how I feel about reliance on logical fallacies in this case a "straw man").
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:48 pm    Post subject:   sleK wrote: You've got two problems here BG. 1) This doesn't support your assertion that Kerry was a "pawn of the cong" nor does it support your assertion that the "Ex-Servicemen Against the War" was "infiltrated by agents of North Vietnam". Both statements, by you, were clearly red-baited exaggerations intended to imply a political relationship between Kerry and Vietnamese communists that simply didn't exist and you should concede them as such (and stop stooping to such tactics). 2) The author of the article commits a pretty big and transparent fallacy: This, a quote from the provisions: Quote: "The Vietnamese pledge that as soon as the U.S. government publicly sets a date for total withdrawal [from Vietnam], they will enter discussion to secure the release of all American prisoners, including pilots captured while bombing North Vietnam." (emphasis added) This, the authors take on it: Quote: In other words, Kerry and his VVAW advocated the communist line to withdraw all U.S. troops from Vietnam first and then negotiate with Hanoi over the release of prisoners. (emphasis added) The provision sets out, quite clearly, that the US .gov need only set a date for withdrawal. It says nothing about all troops being withdrawn first as the author asserts. This puts the objectivity of the author in question (and you already know how I feel about reliance on logical fallacies in this case a "straw man"). OK the pawn of the cong statement was a bit much I admitt....(had a nice ring to it however) VVAW was indeed infiltrated by communist agents (that is what I meant by "ex serviceman against the war) I am not sure how you can deny this but whatever you think. The proposal that was outlined was the north vietamese proposal...the North was a communist controlled country. If indeed Kerry and the VVAW advocated the position of a communist country how is the assertion a fallacy? BTW this proposal was rejected. The author (IMO) was not trying to be objective....he was making a very obvious point. MY point is that to show that communist infiltration was indeed happening during the war. You scoffed at my assertation. Do you still believe that the anti war movement was not infiltrated at all? ( I have read interviews with former N Vietamese commanders that confirm the anti war movement was covertly suppoted by the North) I will try to find them if you wish. Now I am not saying that ALL of the anti war movements were Communist controlled. (Many were led by caring and patriotic Americans) BUT to deny that NONE of them were is foolish and unrealistic in my opinion. My other point is that Kerry was once a member of a radical anti war group that had indeed some policies supported by communist agents. VVAW was one of the more radical and voilent of the protest groups. The groups that led peacefull protests seemed to have far less radical (possibly dare I say leftist) views. They wanted to stop a war. The more radical ones...(like Jane Fonda supported groups) were more anti-American rather than anti-war. I can provide links to support this also if you wish. (one is from the last site I linked). My last point is that I think (and we are starting to see) Kerry distancing himself from the VVAW and its policies. (and also his voting record) I think (and have tried to show with the links in the past few posts) that Kerry is an oppertunist who will say and do anything to get elected. I do not accept the premise that just because other politians do it, that makes it right.
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:54 pm    Post subject:   Thought I would give a few Jane Fonda quotes to back up what I said about her in an earlier post. Quote: In 1972, Fonda took her pro-communist radicalism to North Vietnam. She visited that country's Russian built anti-aircraft emplacements and cheered the spirits of its communist gunners by wearing a gunners steel helmet and peeping through the gun sight, "looking for one of those blue eyed murderers." Quote: In a speech to Duke University students in 1970, Fonda told the gathering, "If you understood what Communism was, you would hope and pray on your knees that we would someday become Communist." here is the link to the entire article http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/story8.htm
Back to top
sleK Administrator Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 1010 Location: over yonder	Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:59 pm    Post subject:   Quote: The proposal that was outlined was the north vietamese proposal...the North was a communist controlled country. If indeed Kerry and the VVAW advocated the position of a communist country how is the assertion a fallacy? It is a fallacy because you've dismissed the proposal solely on the grounds of its relation to a communist country instead of its merits. This is analogous to me asserting that, as GWB is stupid and an American, all Americans are stupid. Which is plainly false despite that fact that GWB is, indeed, a few sandwiches short of a picnic. ;) Quote: The author (IMO) was not trying to be objective....he was making a very obvious point. The author had to construct a false argument in order to make his point. Thus his point is without merit. Quote: (I have read interviews with former N Vietamese commanders that confirm the anti war movement was covertly suppoted by the North) I will try to find them if you wish. I would be very interested in reading those. Quote: Now I am not saying that ALL of the anti war movements were Communist controlled. (Many were led by caring and patriotic Americans) BUT to deny that NONE of them were is foolish and unrealistic in my opinion. You've asserted that the protests and/or movement and/or organization that Kerry was involved in were "infiltrated by Vietnamese agents" and you've dismissed the merits of his candidacy based on this assertion. Now you're suggesting that only some of the movements may have had communist influence. This is a double-whammy: ;) First, as before, dismissing the merits of a movement with such a clear and worthy and well-documented goal (ending the war), simply because their may have been Vietnamese and/or Communist (whichever you prefer) people involved in it, is fallacy. Second, as before, to dismiss the merits of Kerry's candidacy based upon this fallacy, is fallacy itself. Now, I've got no problem if you don't like Kerry, I don't like him either, but using such obvious and ineffective smear tactics to slander his candidacy simply cheapens the American political process (and doesn't make for very good discussion either). Quote: My other point is that Kerry was once a member of a radical anti war group that had indeed some policies supported by communist agents. Merely being related to communists does not diminish the merit of the groups goals (to stop the war) nor Kerry's belief and commitment to the groups goals. If I hang out with Democrats does that make me a Democrat? If I hang out with Democrats who protest the slaughter of kittens, is my view that slaughtering kittens is bad worthless because Democrats feel the same way? Quote: Kerry is an oppertunist who will say and do anything to get elected. I do not accept the premise that just because other politians do it, that makes it right. I agree. However, you should be fairer when applying such labels.
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:28 am    Post subject:   I did not dismiss the proposal......it was rejected by Kissenger and the US government as being not workable because the North was not considered trustworthy..(they indeed violated the treaty in 1975 when they invaded the south). The point is that communist governments were and are still not considered trustworthy......it depends on your view of the world if it is fallacy or not. The author did not construct a fale argument....merely one you do not believe. I do not dismiss the merits of his candidacy at all. I say these things to REVEAL who and what he is and stands for. You are saying that the ends justify the means wich I do not agree with. The thousands of S vietamese who were slaughtered by the North and the communist take over of Cambodia wich resulted in the death of MILLIONS ....those people just may dissagree with you that ending the war was more imorale than the continuing of it. The group of people you associate yourself with do at least in part define who and what you are.....especially if you decide to run for public office. I think it is funny that the Dems are whining about the "Rebublican smear machine".....whenever somebody points out the Senators records on votes and his past statements...he is being "smeared"....... I have pointed out that Kerry has associated himself in the past with groups that were and still are considered dangerous to the security of the US. Those are facts, not smears. It is up to those who find out about his past to decide if his actions in the past will determine his future course. I have a question.....do you think that there was no communist infiltration or even influence in the US anti-war movement? Or do you still maintain there was none?
Back to top
CCCs Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 762	Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:40 am    Post subject:   Yet again, John Kerry and John Edwards refuse to take a stand on an issue. When questioned by Chris Matthews on Hardball tonight, the spokesmen for both candidates dodged the issue of Gay marriage and refused to answer the direct question "If your candidate was president, would he support a states right to not recognize a gay marriage that was deemed legal in one state but not in another state?" . Both spokespeople, just as the candidates themselves mumbled something about a states right to decide, but would not give a direct answer to the question. Just what do the democrats stand for?
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:50 am    Post subject:   While I was looking for the info on NV goverment infuence on anti war protesters I ran accross this piece on the atrocities issue we discussed above From rjsmith.com Quote: Myth: American Atrocities Were Widespread If they were they were covered up with extraordinary skill and precision. Only two documented cases of War Crimes can be attributed to American Military personnel. One was the senseless slaughter of civilians in March 1968 at the village of My Lai by the 1st platoon of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion 20th Infantry, 11th Light Infantry Brigade, 23rd Infantry Division (Americal). The other was the murder of 16 noncombatant women and children by five U.S. Marines of Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, at a village named Son Thang-4, southwest of Danang, on 19 February 1970. In both cases there was a court martial, and in both cases the accused were found guilty. In the case of Lt. William Calley, President Nixon stepped in and pardoned him after he had spent three years under house arrest. Why Nixon did this is unknown, but it is beyond belief that he would do such a thing. For the end result is a slap in the face to every Vietnam Veteran who did their job and served with honor by adhering to the Rules of Land Warfare of the 1949 Geneva Convention which set the rules of engagement and expressly forbid the type of behavior exhibited by Calley and the thugs he commanded. They were not soldiers. They were thugs. But while these egregious crimes have been trotted out at every opportunity by the anti-war movement, very little attention was paid to the horrendous atrocities committed by the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong on their own people. One of the end results of the 1968 Tet offensive was the deliberate roundup and murder of as many as 5,000 South Vietnamese civilians--doctors, teachers, lawyers, businessmen--by the NVA/VC during the periods that they held territory. The most widespread atrocities occurred in the Imperial city of Hue. There alone the Communists killed over 3,000 South Vietnamese. This behavior was not widely reported by the press, and either ignored by the anti-war movement at best, or justified by them as necessary in a socialist revolution. Additionally, not much of a fuss has been made over the intentional murder of American civilians (including missionaries and USAID workers) captured and murdered by the North Vietnamese. U.S. POWs did not fair any better. Those that were not murdered were systematically tortured by the North Vietnamese. Although these atrocities qualify as war crimes under the Geneva Convention, the lunatic fringe of the radical left condones those acts as "justifiable".
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:28 am    Post subject:   First of a few things I will post on the communist and radical influence in the anti war movement..... This is an article I have found was written at the time of the Gulf War. The author was a member of the SDS. Here is the introduction written by the website that displays the article. Quote: (This essay was written in 1990-1, at the time of the Gulf War, by a veteran of the Anti-Vietnam War movement of the 1960, of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the main campus-based anti-war organization, of the Worker-Student Alliance Caucus of SDS, which stood for urging students to ally with the American working class to oppose capitalist and imperialist exploitation both at home and abroad -- exploitation which they saw as the root cause of the war in Vietnam. It is also written from the perspective of the Progressive Labor Party, a Marxist-Leninist, Communist party, which broke from the old communist movement in the early 1960s, founded the anti-war movement, and did so much to reintroduce Marxism and communist ideas generally in the U.S. PLP is still very active. -- GF) http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/riseandfall.html
Back to top
Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

	Forum Index -> Politics Schmolitics	All times are GMT Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

Jump to: Select a forum The Newswire----------------Announcements & Information The Commons----------------Behind the BanterPolitics SchmoliticsFeedback & Support Crazy Earls Employee Emporium----------------Dollar GeneralHome DepotJCPenneyLowesMacy'sMisc' RetailRonaSears Holding Corporation / Sears CanadaStaplesTarget  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, 2002 phpBB Group
Theme created by Vjacheslav Trushkin