Anything Forums

shenbaw wrote:

MrSelf wrote: Do you think it is wrong for him to be truthful about events that happened?

I'd have to say a definite NO on that one. Personally, I'd rather have a President who fought and has some regrets than have one that didn't fight and couldn't be more proud.

"I mean come on, do we really want a President who isn't smart enough to avoid going to Vietnam?" - Rob Corddrey

There can be no doubt what-so-ever that the events John Kerry described that have gotten him in all this trouble (congressional hearing - Senate Foreign Relations Committee - 92nd Congress) are true. There were great atrocities committed by our troops in Veitnam. SBVFT seem to think that he should not have testified against is fellow troops, even though they were doing illegal things that were sactioned by our military leaders. So he stood up for what is right, and in return angry vets who either didn't see these atrocities (not every person is going to see the same things, not everyone saw D-day but that doesn't mean it didn't happen) or are mad because he went outside the military and 'betrayed' troops still in Veitnam by testifying and trying to get them home. Vietnam was a nasty war, and our troops did some nasty things (obviously the other side did horrible things as well) that are well documented. And I have spoken to many vets, my dad is even a vet, and the majority of them say the same thing and know that this attack is baseless and dirty.

That part aside, from official records and personal testamony from people who served with Kerry show that the other accusations are false as well, so why would the president not come out and condemn the ad which is based on provenly false information? All the While Mr. Cheney has personally attacked Kerry on every issue. So while Bush has not directly attacked Kerry, he has sent out his friends to do the dirty work.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11988

What did I say about you Joe? Other than

Ok i guess i took them the wrong way, Sorry i accused you.

If you want to see rude comments mention stuff they strongly support, such as homies.

I will shut my mouth now.  Oh and did anyone watch the game last night? 

Is that A Joke?



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11989

The testamony that has cause the controversy:

here

edit: bad code....

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11990

Joe wrote:

What did I say about you Joe? Other than

Ok i guess i took them the wrong way, Sorry i accused you.

No biggy. How about those unproven assumptions?

What are homies? And who is in strong support of them?


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12001

MrSelf wrote:

Joe wrote: There not bitterl old men. Do you know the vets personally?

None of these men know John Kerry personally. None of them even served with him.

I'll pose a question:

John Kerry testified against cruel and inhuman torture by US troops during the Vietnam war. Do you think it is wrong for him to be truthful about events that happened? The commercial implies that it was wrong to testify before congress and that he lied about what happened.

Is there evidence other then his testimony that proves his accusations to be true? Just a question not being a smart . The commercials do not say it was wrong they just believe that Kerry is not being truthful.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12004

Joe wrote: Is there evidence other then his testimony that proves his accusations to be true? Just a question not being a smart . The commercials do not say it was wrong they just believe that Kerry is not being truthful.

Ever seen Apocalypse Now? LOL! Just kidding, I know it's just a movie, but it has been hailed as being a disturbingly accurate depiction of what life was like in Vietnam. The atrocities committed there are widely acknowledged today by those who were and those who were not there. John Kerry just had the guts to speak up about them at the time when no one else wanted to and recognize them as being inherantly wrong, even in the wake of war.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12009

Joe wrote:

MrSelf wrote:

Joe wrote: There not bitterl old men. Do you know the vets personally?

None of these men know John Kerry personally. None of them even served with him.

I'll pose a question:

John Kerry testified against cruel and inhuman torture by US troops during the Vietnam war. Do you think it is wrong for him to be truthful about events that happened? The commercial implies that it was wrong to testify before congress and that he lied about what happened.

Is there evidence other then his testimony that proves his accusations to be true? Just a question not being a smart . The commercials do not say it was wrong they just believe that Kerry is not being truthful.

There is tons of evidince. I have personally seen polaroids of horrible things done by troops and by agent orange to the civilian population. And it's not like the Gov't said "lets kill the civilians!", but they did say "You can shoot anything that moves, good or bad, in this area". Winning became more important than the cost or reason. It's not hard to find evidence, the fact it got all the way to Wahington DC should show how well known it was. No, there is absolutely no way anyone can claim otherwise, the evidence is paramount.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12010

I don't think committing atrocities was the norm. John Kerry wanted everyone out of Vietnam and he wanted the American people to think the troops were these vicious killers. He told other troops to also testify and now many of them are coming forward. There were Atrocities commited but not the way Kerry made it look. And the fact that he threw his medals away shows how he really feels about the military.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12027

Joe wrote: I don't think committing atrocities was the norm. John Kerry wanted everyone out of Vietnam and he wanted the American people to think the troops were these vicious killers. He told other troops to also testify and now many of them are coming forward. There were Atrocities commited but not the way Kerry made it look. And the fact that he threw his medals away shows how he really feels about the military.

It's interesting that's what you think. Let me think about that and get back to you. I will say that he never wanted the American people to think the troops were vicious killers. The problem was in policy, and he took it up with politicians. And there were atrocities just the way he descibed and worse. Though I'm not sure if he ever saw them personally.(can't remember) The quote the ad uses is him saying that he met with a group in Detroit who had "personally witness.... etc", funny how the ad makes it seem as if Kerry is saying it about himself, ah editing.... enough though.. I'd better stop

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12028

Please excuse my matey joe, living in new york can turn you into an a__hole over time.

I mean, I've been to new york, and I was surprised to find how many rude and idiotic people there are there.

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. Euripides

Au revoir, mon ami.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12030

Yup i'm an cause i have a different opinion they you. Are you done now?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12036

MrSelf wrote:

Joe wrote: I don't think committing atrocities was the norm. John Kerry wanted everyone out of Vietnam and he wanted the American people to think the troops were these vicious killers. He told other troops to also testify and now many of them are coming forward. There were Atrocities commited but not the way Kerry made it look. And the fact that he threw his medals away shows how he really feels about the military.

It's interesting that's what you think. Let me think about that and get back to you. I will say that he never wanted the American people to think the troops were vicious killers. The problem was in policy, and he took it up with politicians. And there were atrocities just the way he descibed and worse. Though I'm not sure if he ever saw them personally.(can't remember) The quote the ad uses is him saying that he met with a group in Detroit who had "personally witness.... etc", funny how the ad makes it seem as if Kerry is saying it about himself, ah editing.... enough though.. I'd better stop

i did notice that


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12037

Joe wrote: Yup i'm an cause i have a different opinion they you.  Are you done now?

No, you're an a__hole for being rude and soft in the head. Shenbaw crushed you entirely and all you could do was gibber. IF you had presents your opinion in an intelligent form I might have spared you.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12038

William Wallace wrote:

Joe wrote: Yup i'm an cause i have a different opinion they you. Are you done now?

No, you're an a__hole for being rude and soft in the head. Shenbaw crushed you entirely and all you could do was gibber. IF you had presents your opinion in an intelligent form I might have spared you.

Will if you want to debate the topic then fine i will but your comments are not needed and i find them to be rude and childish.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12042

Joe wrote:

William Wallace wrote:

Joe wrote: Yup i'm an cause i have a different opinion they you. Are you done now?

No, you're an a__hole for being rude and soft in the head. Shenbaw crushed you entirely and all you could do was gibber. IF you had presents your opinion in an intelligent form I might have spared you.

Will if you want to debate the topic then fine i will but your comments are not needed and i find them to be rude and childish.

ditto

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12045

Joe has been very polite and willing to listen to intelligent debate, show him the respect he has earned WW.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12048

I'm a solid Bush supporter, and I'd have to say I am more frustrated by the possibility that Bush didn't fulfill his National Guard obligation than I am about the possibility that Kerry may have exaggerated his war service.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12053

First of all let me say even though I’ve been talking about his war service I do not believe that should be the main reason Kerry should not get into office. But that’s the topic we are on. As for the cbs documents there are obviously a fraud and cbs has lost ALL credibility.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12054

Bookworm wrote: I'm a solid Bush supporter, and I'd have to say I am more frustrated by the possibility that Bush didn't fulfill his National Guard obligation than I am about the possibility that Kerry may have exaggerated his war service.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Sorry, I got a little too excited when I read that, but this is the exact kind of 'neutral' ground I've been attempting to approach this from from the start. See I figure the only rational viewpoint on this issue is the one that both sides can see, if viewed objectively. With so many liars and truth benders running ads and giving speeches the only true way to evaluate the situation is through possibilities. So, who would I rather have as our President? Someone who fought in a war for this country, received honors for his conduct in combat, and then came home and expressed his regrets about the things that he and others did during the war and possibly exaggerated his injuries during combat. Or someone who used his family connections to place himself at the top of a list to enter the National Gaurd, requested to stay at home and not be sent to war, possibly fulfilled his duties even though the records we have been presented with don't support this, and then requested to and did leave the Gaurd early in order to work on a "political campaign in Alabama?" All I can say is, I know who I'm voting for. The one who's actually fought and doesn't just send others to fight for him.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12055

Why should you vote just because of what he did in Vietnam? Don't you think things going on today are more important?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12057

Joe wrote: Why should you vote just because of what he did in Vietnam? Don't you think things going on today are more important?

One would like to think so, but apparently this election is one big exception to that rule. Both sides are to blame for that.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12058

Joe wrote: Why should you vote just because of what he did in Vietnam? Don't you think things going on today are more important?

damn... I just had a really long post and accidentally erased it..... I'll try again soon

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12059

Joe wrote: Why should you vote just because of what he did in Vietnam? Don't you think things going on today are more important?

Yes I do, and that is exacly why I am voting for Kerry this November. I supported bush for a long time, he was someone who could get something done, better that Gore, and had some good ideas, but none of them have happened. He has spent more time of foreign affairs than the people in his own country. And I know there is a 'war on terror' going on, but that is why he has a very intelligent and capable Cabinet, so he can concentrate on all the issues he needs to. Instead of a president who has taken more vacation time than any other president in history, I want one who will spend that time on help his own people. All the while spending enormous amount of money we don't actually have on foreign issues, increasing the debt to record amounts. That's why the economy isn't responding, our debt is causing inflation fears. Bush is going to be the first pres in a long time to have a net job loss, meaning more jobs were loss than made during his term, plus the jobs we are creating now are lower paying, lower skilled than the ones we lost. And that's not including the fact we are not making the 130,000 jobs a month we need to to keep pace with population expansion. This has nothing to do with 9/11 either, let me go off on a tangent (And thanks for reading Joe)

The terrorist attacks were scheduled to take place later in 2001, but upon seeing how little resistance airports were giving and seeing the drop in the stock market, it was moved forward. Osama knew that if he could help be a catalyst and force a stock market crash, it would hurt America even more than the lost of lives. Since a stock market crash was emminent(sp?), it was hurried along. The economy isn't bad because of 9/11, those attacked happened at that time because we were a prime target. The economy was already horrible. It is still we below where it was when Bush took office. It's like an abusive relationship. We forget how much better it was 4 years ago because its better now than it was 2 years ago, making it look like we've improved. In reality, things are worse off than before Bush took office. The last couple of months under Clinton had a job loss I believe, but the rest of Clinton's economy was great. It has gotten much worse under Bush.

Back to the point; You (by 'you' I mean most people, and by your dialogue you as well) thing that the president is here to do what the people want, but the president has an actual job description. He is not the voice of the people, Congress is. It's all set up in the manual, the constitution. If Bush had practiced what he preached, it would be a different story. I am for many Republican ideas, but never did I think I would see a republican that expanded the role of government in our lives(violating our civil liberties which they claim to hold so dear), expanded the size of government, and couldn't control his spending. He has gone directly against many of his party platforms. Bush is not a good president, he has done some good things, but he is a bad president.


It's never as good the second time around, I know I forgot something or something doesn't make sense. Oh well, I guess that's more than enough for now

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12114

I can't say that I enjoy the idea of Bush expanding the size of the government any more than the next Republican, but voting for Kerry is certainly not the solution for that. Every time I hear a speech by Kerry, he is promising more money for this and more money for that, and I don't see where he is going to get the money to keep all his promises. Even eliminating the recent tax cuts wouldn't be enough.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12153

Gimme a sec to get back to you.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12157