Navy records support Kerry's version





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Navy records support Kerry's version
By Simba (Simba) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Navy Task Force 115 was commanded at the time by retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the founder of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has been running ads challenging Kerry’s account of the episode.

The Task Force report twice mentions the incident five days earlier and both times calls it “an enemy initiated firefight” that included automatic weapons fire and underwater mines used against a group of five boats that included Kerry’s.

more at

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818634/

The Navy task force overseeing John Kerry’s swift boat squadron in Vietnam reported that his group of boats came under enemy fire during a March 13, 1969, incident that three decades later is being challenged by the Democratic presidential nominee’s critics.

The March 18, 1969, weekly report from Task Force 115, which was located by The Associated Press during a search of Navy archives, is the latest document to surface that supports Kerry’s description of an event for which he won a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart.

It seems some people just don't want to believe the real data.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 06:10 pm: Edit

It's funny how when I saw the subject of the post, I knew exactly who the poster was...hehehe...

By Simba (Simba) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Thank you

By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 06:19 pm: Edit

Maybe if I keep a good record I can run for president.
*daydreams*
nah
Is this a who served better campaign? heh

By Simba (Simba) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Well kind of...it is about pretend GI Joe and real GI Joe.

By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Ack. Well how are you contributing to this year's election, Mr Simba? They made all of us here register to vote and most people here are going Republican but I didn't assign a party. I don't want to vote.

By Simba (Simba) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 08:27 pm: Edit

by separating fact from fiction.

By Simba (Simba) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 09:45 pm: Edit

Swift Boat Writer (O'neil) Lied on Cambodia Claim.

chief critic of John Kerry's military record told President Nixon in 1971 that he had been in Cambodia in a swift boat during the Vietnam War — a claim at odds with his recent statements that he was not.

"I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," said John E. O'Neill in a conversation that was taped by the former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored at the National Archives in College Park, Md.

more at

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20040825/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_critic_swift_boats_1&printer=1

By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 09:50 am: Edit

I'll be ticked of if I can't get a normal conversation out of you. Stop with the quotes and links of sites I'm not gonna go to.

By Destinypath (Destinypath) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:10 am: Edit

Aah just a note.

Kerry has refused to release any of his Vietnam records to the public, despite what many people think.

Bush already has released his military records.

By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:12 am: Edit

at least they both wore the uniform because noone else will (forgot author)
just the way I see it

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:36 am: Edit

This is a non-story. Of course the naval records show that there was gunfire. It has never been disputed that the records show that there was gunfire - how else would they have justified giving out a bronze star to Kerry? What is being questioned is the veracity of the naval records and who filled them out. As I said on a recent post, to get to the truth we would have to look at the forensic evidence - including no bullet holes in Kerry's boat; not a single person with a bullet wound despite a 90 minute salvage operation. I'm sure that the CSI crew would be looking at the naval records with a questioning eye.

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:40 am: Edit

Aah just a note.

Kerry has refused to release any of his Vietnam records to the public, despite what many people think.

Bush already has released his military records.


Are you lying deliberately, or just woefully misinformed? Or is this today's talking point from the smear and fear campaign?

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

Kerry has released military records, and published them visibly on his campaign site. The exception is his confidential medical records, which he showed to members of the press, who didn't find anything worth reporting on.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:10 am: Edit

No one said that Kerry refused to release ANY of his records. What he HASN'T done is sign the form to allow full release of all his records. He also hasn't made his complete private journal available - just selective parts with key gaps.

So, no I'm not lying nor misinformed. How about you?

Edit: Oops, I thought you were addressing me. The person you were addressing was factually wrong - Kerry has released some of his records - just not all.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Fundingfather you are still pushing for these SBVT accusations? Practically your whole party has condemned them as untruthful, unjustifiable, and wrong. It makes your political integrity seem questionable.....

I thought this issue was closed weeks ago when McCaine spoke out against it..

By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:33 pm: Edit

The fact of the matter is people, Simba has listed reasons why the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth group is invalid. They're full of lies, have no hard evidence to substantiate their claims, and most importantly, its leader was caught lying to the President some 30 years earlier.

The incident under question shouldn't even be questioned -- official Naval documents (from various sources) state that Kerry's PT boat was under fire. Official.. OFFICIAL NAVY DOCUMENTS. official. OFFICIAL. OFFICIAL NAVY DOCUMENTS. OFFICIAL. official!

So how can some people still believe the lies of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, after their credibility has been blown out the water?

By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:41 pm: Edit

so his boat got shot at and now he should be president
i really don't know what im getting at here
?

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Scuba: The party has taken the PC position that these ads should not be aired. They have not called the Swifties liars. If you look beyond the headlines and do some fundamental research you will see that there is a lot of evidence to support their charges. You must also ask yourself why the Kerry account of things keeps changing. Doesn't that make you a bit nervous about smearing the swift boat vets as liars?

By Simba (Simba) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Fundingfather: do you ever read/watch news (besides Fox, Drudge and FR)? It is for people like you that I post the links.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Well, actually I go a lot further than watch news. (I'm not even sure what "FR" is.) I try to get to the source as much as possible. However, I must admit that some (most?) of your posts appear that they are taken directly from headlines or liberal-biased media. Like the one yesterday regarding the Bush lawyer who also represented the Swifties - conveniently ignoring similar and much more pervasive ties between the Democratic party and their 527s.

This report that you linked here is also just another liberal fluff piece with no additional information - just a reaffirmation of what has been known since day one; the obvious intent was to convince the uninformed (those who are content with reading headlines or hearing 30 second sound bites) that the mountain of evidence against the Swifties is getting bigger and bigger with each passing day. The fact is that very little has come out to impugn their testimony and instead the Kerry camp has had to keep changing its position.

I think that if you started to read objectively, there may even be some hope that you too could leave the dark side (I would insert one of your little smiley faces here, but haven't figured that out yet). Try it, it might make you feel better.

By Simba (Simba) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 01:33 pm: Edit

I can teach you how to insert smiley faces and lot more.

At the issertion point type (without quotes) " the symbol for back slash clipart{simley}"

To get different variety of them click on the smileys on the left hand side - the happy face. There is a whole library of them.

By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 02:22 pm: Edit

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 03:01 pm: Edit

"They have not called the Swifties liars"


Senator McCain did not call the ads false and untruthful? Just answer that one for me because I can bring up the quote if you would like.

It takes a lot of balls to question official Navy documents. Kerry did not doop the United States Navy. They gave him the medals based on his actions. They give medals out in every war, im sure if we went back and investigated every single medal handed out we could find some descrepencies.

I am blown away by the audacity of some of you SBVT supporters. Has Bush ever even been considered for a medal? Answer that question then please explain to me how this whole Kerry issue even helps Bush. (aside from the typical Bush negative, mudsling agaisnt his opponent.)

Our current President has disgraced all those who have served by allowing these veterans to to politically involve themselves (and yes inaction is infact an action). Only now has Bush made a serious effort to put an end to this due to McCain, the Dems, and many GOPS turning up the heat for him to do so. (talk about "decisive")

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 03:17 pm: Edit

McCain is not the official spokesman for the Republican party nor for the Bush re-election campaign. He had some negative things to say about the swift vet ad, but I doubt that he would personally call them liars. If he does, that is to his discredit.

It's not just the swift vets who dispute naval records, Kerry's own journal and book refute the accuracy of naval records. In fact, a lot of the swift vet source material is discrepancies between Kerry's journal and naval records. If you want to hang your hat on the the absolute accuracy of naval records, be my guest. But then that makes Kerry into somewhat of a liar himself. You can't have it both ways.

I am "blown away" by you Kerry supporters who are so blinded by politics that you refuse to see that there are gaping holes in the Kerry story.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Instead of sitting hear and debating over the truth or lack thereof of these pointless ads (as they don't deal with any of the issues), let's actually get something done -- take down all of these 527s through legislation like Bush appears to want to do. If Bush wants to debate Kerry on his war record, then fine. If not, then it's not an issue.

These groups really don't have to be accountable for anything they say so even if it just sways a few people then it's successful. People can be very clever in convincing people (just look at Holocaust revisionist stuff) and with unlimited funds they can smother you with it. I don't know if the Swift Vets are telling the truth, but this structure makes it easy for people to bend the truth in order to get what they want.

So why not stop dealing with stuff like this and actually reform something that needs to be?

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 03:30 pm: Edit

What chance do you think that there is that the Democrats will go along with this? Slim or none? They know that they have FAR more $$$ in 527 ads than the Republicans do.

As to the accuracy of naval records, check this out from Kerry's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971:

-----

Kerry's comments about the battle reports came in response to a question from then Senator Stuart Symington (D- Mo.), who wondered about the accuracy of information from military sources.

According to the testimony , which is available in the Congressional Record, Sen. Symington asked Kerry, "Mr. Kerry, from your experience in Vietnam do you think it is possible for the President or Congress to get accurate and undistorted information through official military channels.[?]"

Kerry responded, "I had direct experience with that. Senator, I had direct experience with that and I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission; and including the GDA, gunfire damage assessments, in which we would say, maybe 15 sampans sunk or whatever it was. And I often read about my own missions in the Stars and Stripes and the very mission we had been on had been doubled in figures and tripled in figures.

Kerry later added, "I also think men in the military, sir, as do men in many other things, have a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to see."

______________

Funny how Kerry's own words keep coming back and biting him.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 03:35 pm: Edit

I don't care if the Democrats go along with it. I guarantee if the Republicans really wanted to get this done, they could. Think how poorly it would reflect on the Democrats. Don't you realize that this is going absolutely nowhere and is just distracting everyone from what really matters?

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Fundingfather: Great catch. So the Navy Task Force Report is based on reports that were actually submitted by Kerry, and Kerry clearly suggests to the Senator back in 1971 that he may have exxagerated those reports. That would explain why Swift Boat Veteran Larry Thurlow believes that he has a legitimate gripe about the wording on his own citation. John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report about the incident and the wording on Thurlow's citation comes directly from Kerry's report.

So when the mainstream press thought they had a gotcha on Thurlow, they really had nothing of the kind. It also explains why even the Washington Post has had to admit that "much of the debate over who is telling the truth boils down to whether the two page after-action report and other Navy records are accurate or whether they have been embellished by Kerry or someone else." I wonder when the NYT,ABC,NBC,CBS,NPR et al are going to start doing a little digging on this rather than smearing the Swift Boat Vets. If they do, the Kerry/Soros ticket is toast.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 04:27 pm: Edit

"gaping holes in the kerry story"

let's not forget george bush's service records mysteriously disappeared from the pentagon.

if you're going to compare service records of the candidates, then who do you think really served more honorably, made more of a real sacrifice? bush or kerry?

people bashing kerry's service record oughtta give this a break and focus on trying to make good of bush's awful record in office. which, frankly, is an impossible task. no wonder they're throwing up all these smoke screens.

KERRY EDWARDS. PLEASE, THEY'RE JUST BETTER FOR THE COUNTRY AND THE WORLD.

By Simba (Simba) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 04:42 pm: Edit

people bashing kerry's service record oughtta give this a break and focus on trying to make good of bush's awful record in office.

They can't. There is no defence for the awful record in the office. Hence the distractions.

Just another headline....number of people living in poverty and without medical insurance rising since last 3 years. It just keeps getting tough and tough defending your guy.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 05:21 pm: Edit

Simba,

Who started this thread anyway, and what's it about again?

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 07:02 pm: Edit

Annakat: The issue is not who was at greatest risk, because despite the likely exaggerations by Kerry and despite the fact that Bush also exhibited bravery for being a pilot (check out Morgantruce's post on the subject if you disagree), if who was in the most danger is the criteria, Kerry wins hands down. But if that is your qualification for President, then we should elect Evil Knieval. Also, the person that you would have as a heart beat away from the presidency really fails your test because he didn't volunteer for anything.

But, did you know that Kerry really wasn't volunteering for a dangerous position? He is on record as saying that he really didn't want to get involved with the real war - that's why he volunteered for Swift Boat duty. Ironically, at the time that he volunteered, Swift Boats were not being used for dangerous combat missions. It was only after he got transferred into that role that the mission changed and they became dangerous. So, it's not like he was a gung ho, macho guy looking to see some up close fighting. The tables could have been turned; Bush could have thought that he was signing up for a cushy jet jockey role and could have been transferred to Nam and ended up being shot down. So, let's be honest, neither one was really looking for heavy duty wartime action. Kerry was just more unlucky than Bush.

But, even that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the character, or lack thereof, exhibited by Kerry in both the exaggerations/lies regarding his service and even more damning about the service of his fellow swift boat people. Even that can be excused as something that happened a long time ago, but Kerry insisted about making it a key claim for his qualifications to be President. When someone makes such a claim, then it is appropriate/necessary for the press to go in and evaluate these claims. Kerry needs to stop acting like a baby by assuming he has the right to make assertions about his qualifications without them being challenged.

That being said, I still have a lot of respect for Kerry having served and he certainly was in a very dangerous environment.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 09:49 pm: Edit

yes, and i have more respect for kerry than i do for president bush. i think he's smarter, more thoughtful, trying harder to help the average person, more worldly, taken more seriously, and more respected by other world leaders. i don't agree with a lot of george bush's policies, i don't like the direction the country's going under his helm, and i don't think he's the best man for the job. that's why i'm voting for kerry and doing my best to see that george bush is defeated. this election is a referendum on the incumbent, and i'm giving him a thumbs down.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 12:08 am: Edit

Question for JFK: It's been widely reported that John McCain was your first choce as a running mate. If true, why did you prefer John McCain to George Soros?

By Neo (Neo) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 12:11 am: Edit

Why oh why is Bush running this country into the ground?

I think an eight year old girl in Ohio said it best when she held up a sign at a rally.
"My grandfather lost his job. Now it's your turn."

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 12:36 am: Edit

Grandfather should have invested in 401K during the glorious Clinton years.

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 01:30 am: Edit

umm..
"So the Navy Task Force Report is based on reports that were actually submitted by Kerry,"

"What is relevant is the character, or lack thereof, exhibited by Kerry in both the exaggerations/lies regarding his service"

The idea that the reports were submitted by kerry was a statement made by his accusers, not an actual fact, so be mindful of accepting it as a premise for one of your arguments.

Its been reported that the reports included information that Kerry, by his physical position in the incident, couldn't possibly have known about, so Kerry couldn't have wrote them.

Either way, the burden of proof most CERTAINLY is on the individuals making claims against Kerry and anywhere you look, you will see that not one document (evidence) has been found to support their claims. All other men on kerry's boat support kerry's claim and OFFICIAL navy documents support his claim. What is he suppose to do?... come up with some other way of proving that his claims are true ASIDE from official navy documents and eye-witness accounts? Shall he pull a full-length videotape of the incident out of his a**?

-Jose

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 08:06 am: Edit

Jose,

I disagree that the burden of proof is on his accusers. Forget the fact that Kerry has had 35 years to polish his image as a hero and think of it in terms of looking at both stories from an impartial perspective. It boils down to one group of people saying one thing and another group of people saying something else. We will probably never know definitively which side is 100% correct - probably neither. What we can do is look at the physical evidence (i.e., lack of bullet holes in Kerry's boat, no one being shot) and also the inconsistencies between what is in the naval records with what is in Kerry's journals and finally the reversals of the Kerry camp on several of their initial allegations.

You, as a member of the "jury" looking at this evidence may still side with the Kerry version. That's fine, but it doesn't give Kerry the right to smear the Swifties as liars. It doesn't give Kerry's goons the right to start digging up dirt on the private lives of his accusers. It doesn't warrant the calls for one of his accusers to be fired from his job as a district attorney.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:04 am: Edit

Fundingfather,

I've avoided further postings because I've sensed that further dialog is futile, but your most recent post is a curious one. I finally understand why you are so dogmatic. Your position is a curious one, but in the spirit of "I disagree that the burden of proof is on his accusers" I say YOU ARE WRONG.

Now, stay consistent, and recognize that YOU must now work to disprove me. By your standard, the burden of proof is yours. GOOD LUCK.

BTW, have you ever taken a logic course? I suspect you missed that in college? Do you understand the futility of some arguments here? Think of it this way: How do you prove something is safe? The biggie: How do you "prove' something did NOT happen? It is relatively simple to state, and impossible to refute, the claim that someone that did NOT see something just was not looking at the right time. Think about it. Or maybe not. I'm sure your mind is already made up.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:17 am: Edit


"I disagree that the burden of proof is on his accusers.
"...wow what a bold new concept.

By Neo (Neo) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:15 am: Edit

Haha :^) That's incredible.

Yeah, I'm logging out of here too. It's not worth it anymore.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:35 am: Edit

MassDad: You need to read my post more carefully. You seem to assert that I have put the burden of proof on Kerry to prove that the Swifties are wrong. I did not say that. I am saying, let's not presume from the outset that either party is right or wrong (you know, that old "unbiased" thing). We should not presume from the outset that either party has the right to claim the mantel of "truth-ship" that the other party has provide overwhelming evidence to dispel it. Rather, let's let both parties state their case and we will decide based on who we think makes the strongest case. Now that's not so illogical is it?

When your kids were smaller and if you came home to find a lamp broken and David says "I didn't do it, Billy did" You don't make Billy prove that he didn't do it or that David actually did it just because David was the first to assert his version of what happened. Same principle with the Swift Vet controversy. It's really not that complicated - but perhaps it is if your mind is already made up.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:50 am: Edit

Fundingfather: You won. I concede my defeat. Thank you for the most exciting thought:

"I disagree that the burden of proof is on his accusers."....Fundingfather 8/27/04.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 12:10 pm: Edit

The latest I hear on this morning's news is that a former admiral, who has heretofore stayed out of the whole controversy, has now come forward with an interview with Robert Novak and confirms the story about Kerry's commanding officer telling him to get lost when he asked for his first purple heart. He says he was there and Kerry had a little bandaid and was asking his commanding officer to apply for a purple heart and was turned down. He also says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted from firing a grenade launcher into a rock that was too close to the boat.

They are publishing excerpts from the Unfit for Command book in the Washington Times, and it makes for very interesting reading. Without getting bogged down in the details, the picture it paints is of a very self-serving Kerry who made no effort to hide his presidential aspirations from his own crew. I've also heard this about him when at Yale. Everyone on his floor supposedly was aware of his political ambitions and referred to him as "Mr. President". The book says that shortly after the first purple heart incident, Kerry was assigned to a mission under a certain Captain who told him to stay 1,000 yards behind him or he would show him what a real purple heart was.

Personally, I would be very leery of electing anyone who has made it their lifelong ambition to be President. They're probably in it more for personal glory and prestige than for any real interest in helping people or doing good. I think Clinton was very similarly motivated.

And for those who say we shouldn't be "re-fighting" the Vietnam war and getting off-track, I say I for one am very much interested in what the Swift vets have to say, because the issue is character, not Vietnam. Listen to posters like Annakat. He doesn't seem to care about character and is only interested in putting the Democrats in power. This is very sad, and I only hope that if so many feel the same way, that we don't get what we truly deserve when it comes to leadership.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 02:27 pm: Edit

Simba,

Please refute the logic as I explained it. Or do you think the first person who says something is automatically telling the truth unless someone can prove that they are wrong. I'd hate to be a kid in your household.

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit

"When your kids were smaller and if you came home to find a lamp broken and David says "I didn't do it, Billy did" You don't make Billy prove that he didn't do it or that David actually did it just because David was the first to assert his version of what happened. Same principle with the Swift Vet controversy."

Lets not oversimplify the situation into something its really not. How about we turn your David-Billy analogy into something that actually resembles what we are talking about?

Lets say David was found to be guilty of the act by the official authority on settling such matters, which would be a court of law. 30 or so years later David comes out and says that Billy in fact did it. Now… because David was in fact found guilty OFFICIALLY and thus Billy was found innocent, Billy has no obligation whatsoever to prove his innocence because his innocence was declared by the final authority on judging on such matters. The burden of proof lies on the individual who is arguing against the decision of the Official Ruling made by the institution that IS accepted as the authority on such conflicts.

The kerry accusers are arguing against OFFICIAL navy documents and thus OFFICIAL navy decisions. They MOST CERTAINLY have the burden of proof, which no evidence (other than the argument that there isn’t enough evidence to support the other side, which isn’t evidence in itself) has been brought up to support their claim.

By Neo (Neo) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Wow...and they call Kerry a flip flopper.

Foundingfather has backpeddled so hard in his last five posts I'm surprised he's not in a third world country.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:35 pm: Edit

If it's about character, then Bush's past problems with alcohol and drugs become extremely relevant. But guess what? I don't care about that because people change -- Kerry's character should not be judged on events so long ago just like Bush's should not. Character will always be secondary to issues in my mind.

I'd be leery about anything to do with Novak. This is the fine, upstanding journalist who revealed the identity of a US spy. He really writes anything that would get some sort of reaction, and actually give him some notoriety.

I don't think you are in any position to judge Clinton nor Kerry on their motivations in becoming president just like I cannot do so with Bush. Just because you disagree with their view of the world does not make them selfishly motivated. I think many people on both sides take politics very personally and in a black and white manner inappropriately.

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:37 pm: Edit

"Without getting bogged down in the details, the picture it paints is of a very self-serving Kerry who made no effort to hide his presidential aspirations from his own crew. I've also heard this about him when at Yale."

Hmm.. i sure wouldn't want to vote for someone who while in his 20's at Yale already was ambitious enough to want to be President of the U.S. and volunteered to fight in the war after graduating (how many Yale kids do this?)

"Personally, I would be very leery of electing anyone who has made it their lifelong ambition to be President."

I sure as hell wouldn’t!.. now thats leadership and determination.

"because the issue is character, not Vietnam"

Oh man. I sure don't want a motivated, determined, intelligent, and ambitious individual (who has wanted to be president since he was an undergrad in college) in the white house. No sirry.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign appreciates your support Chavi.

-Jose

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:53 pm: Edit

Jose: If the intent of the swifties was to strip Kerry of his medals, I would agree completely. But that's not the case here is it? Their point is that he is unfit to be President of the US; we the electorate are being asked: a) is this an important consideration and, if so, b) which side do we believe. This is NOT a case of criminal law in which the burden of proof is upon the accuser as your analogy maintains.

If you, as a voter place a lot of weight on the fact that part of the naval records support Kerry's story, then you are free to have your opinion. But, please allow others who see how naval records are already at odds with other parts of Kerry's story and see that Kerry has admitted to submitting fraudulant reports to have a divergent opinion.

Neo: you're good at accusations with no substance; care to enlighten me on the flip-flop?

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:07 pm: Edit

"If the intent of the swifties was to strip Kerry of his medals, I would agree completely. But that's not the case here is it? Their point is that he is unfit to be President of the US; we the electorate are being asked"

Forgive me Fundingfather. I think we all understand that the swiftboat veterans are trying to say that he is unfit to be president, but what is there main premise for arguing their POV? That his record is a farce.

How about we look at some of your previous posts.

"What is being questioned is the veracity of the naval records and who filled them out."

"I am "blown away" by you Kerry supporters who are so blinded by politics that you refuse to see that there are gaping holes in the Kerry story."

"What is relevant is the character, or lack thereof, exhibited by Kerry in both the exaggerations/lies regarding his service"

hmmm... All I see your posts talking about is Kerry's record.. which is what the Swiftboats are doing, and therefore I'll just point you back to my previous posts.

and btw,

"Neo: you're good at accusations with no substance; care to enlighten me on the flip-flop?"

Why does Neo have to provide substance for his accusation, but the SwiftBoaters and republicans dont have to? hehe

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Does anyone know why Kerry's website displays an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career that includes a "Silver Star with combat V" when the U.S. Navy doesn't issue "combat V" with Silver Stars? Today's
Chicago Sun Times reports that a Navy spokesman has stated that "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star." Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a "combat V" for the Silver Star. Yet apparently it's right there on Kerry's web site. Can anyone explain this?

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Jose: Fundingfather is a single issue man (Bush no matter what) - he had admitted that once. He can't talk about the reckless economic policy with mind boggling deficits, or the rise of poverty or the pople without medical insurance or the fact that average houshold income has dropped by about $1,500, or that the mercury pollution from his buddies in coal power industries are poisoning the lakes and rivers. I can list a dozen more issues, but he can't argue. He has nothing to argue against. Fox and RNC has not given the talking points yet.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:23 pm: Edit

Jose: OK, I admit it, you have lost me with your last post. I have no clue as to what your point is.

Craig: here are Kerry's words with respect to character and earned versus unearned medals:

“Is it wrong? Yes, it is very wrong. Sufficient to question his leadership position? The answer is yes, which he clearly understood,”

He said this after a naval admiral (chief of naval operations) committed suicide over the issue of whether he had the right to wear the "V" for valor on one of his medals.

Interestingly, Kerry's web site depicts the "V" associated with his silver star even though the navy said that it has never authorized ANYONE to wear a "V" with a silver star.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:26 pm: Edit

I can't find the thread where FF was giving one of responses that induces severe eye-rolling the other day so I'll make do with this one:

Even a the Bush-supporting CPO who was on Thurlow's boat has said that, while he doesn't like Kerry, Thurlow may have been too busy assisting on the damaged boat or some such to have noted what was going on. This CPO got a Bronze Star in the same action and was ever so decorously saying that Thurlow is wrong and doesn't know wtf was going on.

Shrug. The attacks are working, at least on a transient basis. How typically Republican to muddy the waters when they can't stand on their record...only that's not mud.

I'm not going to be here for the next couple of weeks and so I bid adieu to this discussion for a while. But a couple of more points:

=============

For all the people arguing about what Kerry did or didn't do, here is a list of people who recall serving with George Bush in Alabama before he got released several months early to attend business school:


=============

Dick Cheney didn't serve anywhere because "he had other priorities."


I can only imagine how many national guardsmen and reservists have other priorities or would like to be released several months early today.

==============

Finally, back to one of my observations about FundingFather that I first made a couple of weeks ago:

he has no participation in the CC community besides running an instant response operation on political threads in the Cafe.

I'll pass the suggestion to some Dems for the next campaign that we have on-line volunteers covering every message board.

Wait...no I won't. Because the whole idea is kind of icky and despicable. Whether FF is a parasite or a cybertroll it really doesn't matter. He laughed off...but didn't deny...the notion that defending Bush is his purpose for being on this board...a sort of political perv looking for places to flash. His contributions to the CC community are zippo, zilch, nada...I guess he's following in the example of Bush's national guard service.

Cheers. See the rest of you good people in a couple of weeks.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:27 pm: Edit

Simba, Simba, I'm disappointed but not surprised that you would mis-quote me. It's too bad that you don't have a response to my points but rather resort to other smears on me. I'm sure that in real life you are better than that.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Thedad: ahhh the politics of personal destruction - you guys have it mastered, I see.

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:32 pm: Edit

"It's too bad that you don't have a response to my points but rather resort to other smears on me"

Its even worse that you don't respond to my points, but simply backpedal into a new position or say you don't "understand" my post.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Goodluck TheDad. When I read happy and SOB stories on the parents forum, I am torn. I don't know how I will feel next year.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Jose: I read your post 3 times and honestly don't have a clue.

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:39 pm: Edit

FF, you said: "If the intent of the swifties was to strip Kerry of his medals, I would agree completely. But that's not the case here is it? Their point is that he is unfit to be President of the US;"

Nice statement... they aren't making any actual claims to support their point of view... they're just stating it and thats it (that he is unfit to be president)... right FF?

I said: "but what is there main premise for arguing their POV? That his record is a farce."

And then I showed you some quotes from your previous posts.

"What is being questioned is the veracity of the naval records and who filled them out."

"I am "blown away" by you Kerry supporters who are so blinded by politics that you refuse to see that there are gaping holes in the Kerry story."

"What is relevant is the character, or lack thereof, exhibited by Kerry in both the exaggerations/lies regarding his service"

And then I said : "All I see your posts talking about is Kerry's record.. which is what the Swiftboats are doing, and therefore I'll just point you back to my previous posts."

I shall await your response, most likely directed toward Simba.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:43 pm: Edit

Fundingfather:

Welcome to Simba's world. There's a meltdown going on because Major Frank Burns is in freefall.

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:43 pm: Edit

"Chicago Sun Times reports that a Navy spokesman has stated that "Kerry's record is incorrect."

Ah.. the Chicago Sun Times what a wonderful institution of completely unbiased news reporting.

Look at other wonderful features they have on their website:

Defending Bush Against Critics: Questions and answers about Bush's policies on Iraq, Tax Cuts, Judicial Appointments and the Patriot Act.

Sign a Petition: Support the Marriage Amendment.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:02 pm: Edit


"I disagree that the burden of proof is on his accusers."....Fundingfather 8/27/04.


Hotlips browninfall, do you also subscribe to this logic? In that case I would ammend that quote. I am sure fundingfather won't mind

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Jose, I'm still not sure of your point(s) but if it relates to the swift vets not substantaiting their allegations you are sorely mistaken. They have documented in excruciating detail all of their charges.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Simba, I see you have gone to the Michael Moore school of journalism. But, that's OK ... he has proven that you can make a ton of money if you through ethics out of the window.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Fundingfather -- you can't use words out of Kerry's mouth with me by the way as I'm not really a Kerry-supporter so come up with another response.

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:23 pm: Edit

So about... 4 or 5 responses back instead of saying that they have such "excruciating" details in evidence, you preferred to just twist your argument around? But now.. you mention it. hmm

I guess the evidence is so excruciating that the news just hasn't caught onto it yet. Whats excruciating is listening to these responses.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Still Reeling about Moore?....wait till John Sales' Silver City comes out in the next few weeks.

Trailer at

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376890/trailers

By Chavi (Chavi) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:27 pm: Edit

Joseancer, I couldn't even understand your point the second time around. One mistaken premise I see you have made is in saying that the SWBVT's, in claiming that Kerry is unfit to be President, do not make any actual claims to support their point of view. Read the book - they make loads of claims, and put forth lots of facts. There are 60-something eyewitness accounts.

And BTW, Bush's alcohol, partying problems are a different story. He's pretty well admitted to these past indiscretions and apologized for them. He openly recounts that he made a big change in his life and turned over a new leaf. Kerry hasn't admitted to any of these mistakes, and is further accusing the Swifties of lying.

A presidential election is about judgment. You have to judge the character of the candidates. No one is condemning anyone to hell or otherwise. But you have to size up a person and decide who is the best man for the job. That requires some discernment of a person's motivations, honesty, sincerity and fortitude. If you don't have that, your positions on the issues don't matter because you can't be trusted to really believe in them or to follow through on your promises.

I have read everything I can about the candidates, and my opinion of Kerry is that he is a JFK wannabe who volunteered for the military as an addition to his political resume, and for swift boat duty as his PT 109. His ambition for being President was based on a personal need for approval and prestige. I have often known people like him (especially in law school) and the problem with his ambition is that it isn't grounded in any real ideals. He goes along with whatever political winds are favorable at the time, whether it be the anti-war movement or invading Iraq, because his ultiimate goal is gaining political office, not furthering the common good. And that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it! (:

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Sorry, Jose, but this one's not going away. What is there about those military records that your boy doesn't want them released? Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post (one of your side's favorites) has written that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file".

Emily: I don't understand most of what you write.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:35 pm: Edit

my opinion of Kerry is that he is a JFK wannabe who volunteered for the military as an addition to his political resume,

So now we are questioning his patriotism....To volunteer and possibly get killed just to pad his resume?

He was well connected, could have gotton in to national guard, AWOLed it for a while or did stuff like Dick 'chickenhawk' Cheney. Then he certainly would have shown his true patriotism.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Chavi, I don't know what is driving kerry, but I certainly agree with your assessment of his lacking of core beliefs - or at least his willingness to subjugate his beliefs to political expediency. I honestly don't know what his views on national security are. Are they going to be hawkish as they were leading up to the Iraq war or pacifist or isolationaist or internationalist or what? To paraphrase Forrest Gump's mother, John Kerry is like a box of chocolates - you never know what you are going to get.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:41 pm: Edit

....but they are all yummy.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Not if you don't like nuts

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:45 pm: Edit

Let's be honest here. No one here knows what happened in Vietnam with John Kerry. So how can you condemn him for not telling the truth if you yourself really do not know the truth?

"If you don't have that, your positions on the issues don't matter because you can't be trusted to really believe in them or to follow through on your promises."

I don't think I trust more than one or two politicians alive so I'm not sure this matter for me. John McCain and ... damn, that's about it. (Trust does not equal agreeing with someone by the way.)

I am befuddled by how any one of you can claim to "know" John Kerry.

"He goes along with whatever political winds are favorable at the time"
I think I can say the same thing about Bush and any other politician. That's how they get votes.

"I have read everything I can about the candidates"
I bet you had a predetermined bias. It makes it fun because of that cynicism, but it's also important to recognize.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:47 pm: Edit

"He was well connected, could have gotton in to national guard, AWOLed it for a while or did stuff like Dick 'chickenhawk' Cheney. Then he certainly would have shown his true patriotism."

Hmmm.... I guess you didn't know that he applied for a student deferment for grad school but was rejected. As to "chickenhawk" Cheney, I guess that term applies to Edwards as well.

By Neo (Neo) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:47 pm: Edit

Thanks for your contribution. Hope you'll enjoy another board. Goodbye!
Moderator Trinity

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:48 pm: Edit

My opinion of Kerry is that he is an honest, decent, courageous leader who has had the guts to fight for his country and to challenge the wrongness of the war when he returned. He's served with honor in the Senate, and will be one of our great Presidents.

Whereas the current President is a coward who hides behind the smear tactics of Karl Rove, pretending to be above the fray. The Smear boat veterans for Bush are proven liars, used with tremendous cynicism and calculation to suppress voter turnout by turning the election into a dirty ugly process.

And Fundinfather eats babies. Sure he denies it, and there's no "proof", but it's true. Some may say he only eats parts of babies or babies who are already dead, but there must be some truth to it. Where there's smoke there's fire.

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:48 pm: Edit

"One mistaken premise I see you have made is in saying that the SWBVT's, in claiming that Kerry is unfit to be President, do not make any actual claims to support their point of view."

You obviously didnt understand my point because I was saying that FF was implying that, not me.

The entire argument for the view that Kerry is unfit to be president has been the supposed "fallacies" in his record. After all the arguments about Burden of Proof and lack of evidence.. FF says that the SWBVTs aren't "trying to strip kerry of his medals" but are just saying that he is unfit to be president.

"If the intent of the swifties was to strip Kerry of his medals, I would agree completely. But that's not the case here is it? Their point is that he is unfit to be President of the US"

Of course they are saying he is unfit to be president! BUT!, their main point for stating that claim is their argument over the validity of his records...doesn't claiming that the records for which Kerry won his medals are wrong, also imply that the decision to give him those medals was wrong as well!

“And that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it!”

And that’s all the SWBVTs have, opinions.

OMG, a person goes to Yale, already has an interest in holding office at such a young age, VOLUNTEERS into the war after graduating, and all you have is “my opinion of Kerry is that he is a JFK wannabe who volunteered for the military as an addition to his political resume”.

If a kid walked around mentioning how he wanted to be a hero, jumped into a burning building and saved a family, you’d be the person sitting in the back of the room saying “he’s just a selfish little kid who just did it for the fame”.

But hey! “that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it!”

Good luck with that.

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Edited!

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Thought I'd share this ...
http://www.photodump.com/direct/ELWeasel/thompson321.jpg

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:55 pm: Edit

"I am befuddled by how any one of you can claim to "know" John Kerry."

Craig, I laud your presumed independance, but the whole point of a campaign and an election is for us to "know" the candidates to the best that the electoral process allows it. After "knowing" the candidates each person needs to vote for the person that makes them most comfortable. This to most includes a measure of a person's character.

However, I do agree that Kerry's varying stances on all of the issues does make it difficult to really "know" him.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:59 pm: Edit

He can't talk about the reckless economic policy with mind boggling deficits, or the rise of poverty or the pople without medical insurance or the fact that average houshold income has dropped by about $1,500, or that the mercury pollution from his buddies in coal power industries are poisoning the lakes and rivers. I can list a dozen more issues, but he can't argue. He has nothing to argue against. Fox and RNC has not given the talking points yet.

Since this ought to be one of the last post I will ever read on CC, I'll try to anchor ii into my memory as a clear representation of what is expected from Kerry's supporters: froebelian argumentation , outright fabrications, and half-truths are the norm. The most reprehensible commonality of the posters who are prone to bash the Bush supporters is the total lack of basic comprehension of economic cycles and concepts.

Simba, I wish I could help you understand a few facts about how averages and statistics work. Not having the time nor patience, allow me to simply point you to the numbers produced by the IRS. I think that the defenders of Average Joe should wet their pouty lips when reading about the class of citizens who suffered a major decrease in income. Just a hint: it AIN'T the middle class!

As far as your insistence in bringing up environmental issues, we have already established that GWB record is not worse than his illustrious predecessors. However, the dismal record of Clinton-Gore is a subject that this bunch of bleeding liberals consider taboo on CC. I wish that my father would come to CC and post a bit more on the environmental issues, and explain in greater detail how abysmal the policies of the democrat Presidents -and Vice-President- have been. The worst part is that the last batch WAS in a position to make changes but did as much for the environment as it did in general: a total and cynical laissez-faire.

Lastly, the discussions about the valor of Kerry in Vietnam are pointless. The country will not vote for a President based on a military record. After all, didn't we reject true heroes like Bob Dola and McCain while electing an abject draft dodger and war opponent like Bill Clinton? Kerry made the mistake to embellish his past and make it a central point of his campaign but it should not make a bit of difference. I would prefer to focus on the issues Kerry tried to bury in his acceptance speech. How long did he babble about his Mekong adventures compared to his record in the Senate? Republicans should leave the murkiness of the past in the waters of the Mekong and focus on the crystal clear records found on the embankments of the Potomac. While his few Vietnamese months and body scratches are not relevant, his lackluster Senate career is telling in measuring his courage and fortitude.

All I can say is that if Kerry is the answer to your problems, the question was a really screwy one!

And with this, your compadre Xiggi tells you: Adios amigos y vaya con dios!

By Thedad (Thedad) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 06:01 pm: Edit

No, FundingFather, I learned about the politics of personal destruction from the GOP, everything from Nixon's "Enemies List" to the Willie Horton ad to the attack ads on John McCain in the lead up to the 2000 South Carolina primary to the Swift Boat Liars ads.

As for you, you continually muddy the waters or change the subject. It's not about personal destruction to point out that nobody remembers serving with Bush. And it's certainly not personal destruction to point out that you're a cipher on this board except for maintaining a constant attack on Kerry...14 posts in just this thread between 8:06am and 5:47pm today.

Jeers to you, cybertroll.

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 06:11 pm: Edit

As for everything Xiggi said that doesn't have to do with the Vietnam issue, it is true that presidents have very little to do with economic cycles, especially because their terms are only 4 years. (Republican tax cuts aside). And environmental issues, i don't know.. and it would be nice if daddy could have a chat with us because it'd be very nice to hear about it.

My entire argument on this post, as for that of most individuals, has been about the SWBVT issue.

"The country will not vote for a President based on a military record."

Of course not, but surely if lies or unsupported opinions are brought up about issues that perhaps shouldn't be important, you can't blame people for arguing back.

My main reason for voting Kerry? The republican party's inability to comprehend the concept of "separation of church and state". And as for the war in iraq.

Man creates a war, unjustly. War goes bad. Then man says that he is the only one who can fix the mistakes, so vote for him.

I think not.

-Jose

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 06:13 pm: Edit

Xiggi: Your rambling makes no sense.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 06:13 pm: Edit

"As for you, you continually muddy the waters or change the subject."

Interesting observation, but I believe that I have been pretty consistently on-topic in this thread. But yet I have been personally attacked by at least three people who should be old enough to know better. Is the Kerry campaign really going that badly that you need to get so nasty?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 06:22 pm: Edit

How can anyone really claim to "know" either candidate personally or why they are running? All that can be done is for voters to get to know each candidates stance and make their decision. The job of the voter is not to make assumptions like many have done on both sides. This was mostly in response to Chavi's post which I would hope anyone would recognize as a little bit of a stretch.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 06:34 pm: Edit

GWB is running because God asked him to. I don't know why JFK is running.

I am not joking. That is what he confided to an evagelican minister. Just about the time he proclaimed June 10 as the Jesus Day in Texas.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Simba~

Rambling? As I said, froebelian argumentation is the norm of your ilk.

FWIW, you may try some READING COMPREHENSION classes.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 07:20 pm: Edit

Kerry has to prove that he was really in Vietnam. I do not believe these DNC and Kerry talking points that claim John Kerry served in Vietnam. It is Kerry's job to prove that he served in the military in the 1960s, not the Swift Boat Vets. They don't have to prove anything. They are just patriotic Americans doing their duty in helping President Bush get reelected. Kerry is obviously not very patriotic since he lied about medals and Vietnam. His own crewmates that support his story are obviously DNC shills. The Swift Vets could be no such thing.

Why should we believe anything Kerry says? He has lied that he was in Vietnam or Cambodia when President Nixon was in office. The Swift Boat Vets have been completely truthful and honest in all their facts they have pointed out about Kerry.

As for other character issues... who cares about the President's DUI?? Look how far it was in the past! He's apologized for it, but Kerry's service shows what he's really about: hatred for America and being unfit for the office of President. And how dare you suggest that the President's daughters reflect on him in any way. He is clearly a clean, loving, God-fearing man... unlike French Kerry, the falsely decorated military veteran.

Look at who else supports Kerry: Max Cleland. He clearly must have thrown a grenade at himself so that he could lose both his legs and get a medal. I knew him in law school and he always wanted to run for Senate. You should never vote for someone who WANTS to be a politican. That is the mark of an ambitious JFK-wannabe. I only vote for politicians who are forced into running for office at gunpoint. Anyone who wants to be President clearly shouldn't be President.

By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 07:27 pm: Edit

I finally see common sense here from Riflesforwatie. Then again what do I know.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 09:13 pm: Edit

riflesforwatie, that was a classic.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 09:13 pm: Edit

accidental double post

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:01 pm: Edit

Emily: what's going on?

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:10 pm: Edit

Fundingfather, you are beating these lefties with one arm tied behind your back. You Da Man! You got several of them to call you names that the mods had to delete. Victory is yours!

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:17 pm: Edit

I'm confused how "victory" is his considering you have a biased opinion and no one has changed their minds on any of this. Frankly, it's just been a waste of time.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:36 pm: Edit

Fundingfather: I agree...great job. We haven't seen one of Simba's smiley faces in nearly seven hours and the others have left because they know they've lost...a job well done.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:42 pm: Edit

I don't put Kerry down for joining up and going to 'nam. But I don't respect the man for going after his medals and purple hearts in such a calculating manner. Ambition for public service is a fine thing. But ambition for personal glory is not. My opinion is a pretty educated one, not just some random assumption. No, I cannot crawl inside his head and know everything about him with absolute certainty, but if you don't learn to judge another person's character in this life, you're in for a heap of trouble.

Oh, and about the baby-eating comment. Aren't you talking about Kerry? He especially loves pre-born ones. (had to get that one in, sorry!)


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page