Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Do I know why Kerry keeps bringing it up? No.

Do I care why Kerry keeps bringing it up? Not particularly.

All I know is it is a positive issue for Kerry, and a negative one for Bush.

And on pretty much every other issue, Kerry has the Republican spin machine dead to rights. I don't know, and don't care, why Kerry brings it up, when there are so much better issues for the Dems to question Bush about.

At 8/19/04 08:02 PM, Skvnk_Hunter wrote: Do I know why Kerry keeps bringing it up? No.

I don't get why he does. He should know good and well people are going to pick this apart.

Do I care why Kerry keeps bringing it up? Not particularly.

I do.

All I know is it is a positive issue for Kerry, and a negative one for Bush.

Positive? Not in my eyes. Bush has a horrible record and Kerry has a questionable one.

And on pretty much every other issue, Kerry has the Republican spin machine dead to rights. I don't know, and don't care, why Kerry brings it up, when there are so much better issues for the Dems to question Bush about.

Well, since he's against guns he has lost my vote, so i really could'nt care less where he stands on the other issues. His military record is a slight indicator as to what he will do in office and that worries me. ANYONE who pursues more than once anything they don't deserve looses my trust and respect.

but what im saying is that he DID deserve the medals. but hey, it will be the debates that really decide voters, not some war that happened 30 years ago.

You're welcome to feel however you want to feel Spook, but the fact remains that I think you're being stupid. Voting on one issue that you may feel is important is fine, but you really ought to expand your Poli-vision. Vote on a range of issues, not just one specific issue.

We have slightly different views. I think a person can vote whoever they want, make as many laws as they want and everything else, but our second amendment gurantees that we will be free. Take that away and all you have is trust, which is worth nothing. You have no gurantees no matter what they say. At least under Bush I would be able to fight back. Under Kerry I loose EVERYTHING I hold dear.

So...

You would rather lose your job, lose your house, lose your car and lose any semblance of a real life and keep your assault rifle then keep yourjob, keep your house, keep your car, and keep your life and lose that ak-47 you've been coveting?

That one simple item can provide all of those. I believe that the question of when will America splinter is not a matter of if but when. I want to be ready for that day. I don't believe Bush will get rid of all those as I don't make much to begin with. My point was can you REALLY trust ANY politician?

At 8/19/04 09:06 PM, Spookshow wrote: That one simple item can provide all of those. I believe that the question of when will America splinter is not a matter of if but when. I want to be ready for that day.

So you are a conspiracy theorist waiting for the next civil war?

I don't believe Bush will get rid of all those as I don't make much to begin with. My point was can you REALLY trust ANY politician?

Neither do I. But what little I do make is being sucked up by my school b/c tuition rates are 35% higher now than in 2000.

And no, there are very few politicans you can trust. But we have to put a little bit of faith in their abilities, or else the entire system collapses.

At 8/18/04 03:16 AM, antiklaus wrote:
How about no.
mmmmmmmmmmaybe because that's not the way it's done?

should be. If you toss your medals, obviously you really don't care about the military. If you don't care about the military, what is on your dd-214 will never matter. Your either a hero all the time, or not one.

He was serving in a region, and career where people were dying daily. It's not uncommon to see field promotions of 3 ranks or more - so why not three medals - under intense fighting conditions.

Three purple hearts, as you noted people were dying, and quick. A purple heart is giving for a serious combat wound. Three in four months in unheard of, in ANY war, in ANY condition, ESPECIALLY VIETNAM. Two purple hearts is rare as is. Not only did he get 3 purple hearts in 4 months, he has no visable war wound. I am pretty sure he did not get hurt bad enough to warrent a purple heart.

Besides I want some mainstream links. propiganda sites don't help cause I got ones on the other end of ths spectrum saying he got a purple heart for a 1 cm piece of shrapnal on his eyebrow the medic took out with a tweezer, that didn't even pierce the skin.

The site I posted refers to them. Admittedly, it doesn't have his physical, but why should it? In a combat zone, wounds are often treated without reports or paperwork.

Don't you think you'd want some paper work before you signed off on a puple heart if you were a CO

Besides I want some mainstream links. propiganda sites don't help cause I got ones on the other end of ths spectrum saying he got a purple heart for a 1 cm piece of shrapnal on his eyebrow the medic took out with a tweezer, that didn't even pierce the skin.

Really? And Bush doesn't 'flip flop'? For every instance you can show me of Kerry doing so, I can show you 2 of Bush doing the same?

You think I am a Bush supporter cause I hate Kerry, priceless. I don't like bush either. Now explain to me how Bush's stupidity has anything to do with Kerry being a lying sack of shit.

The bigger issue is WHY did Kerry change his mind on the issue? or even Bush for that matter?

Why did he change his mind BACK. I am not pissed for Kerry tossing his medals. I am pissed at him for trying to get them back 30 years after he tossed him. This shows to him military services is nothing but PR, a fad or fashion if you will. The military is not a fucking game. Its serious shit. Like his salute, he is so fucking fake. I will never ever support a presidental canidate who so blatantly uses the military like this.

Without those facts, then the word 'flip flop' is a political buzzword distributed by the Republican party to FOX on a 'talk sheet' and then memoed about via Rupert Murdock.

Negative, its been around long time.

try not to use the term in the political sense... it shows a lack of initiative on your part to find out the truth...

I don't bite your bullshit hook line and sinker so I lack iniative. I have heard all the bullshit the liberals have to spew. I find it none more informative or factual than the republcan't camp.

YOU, open YOUR eyes. YOUR the one telling me there is a diffrence between rich white guy #1 and rich white guy #2, when the only diffrence is who is a bigger asshole.

Before you say pick the lesser of two evils, I say, they are both so vile and putrid, I do not think I could bring myself to vote for either one.

Let's settle this. I propose the following, if everyone agrees, this conversation is over.

1) John Kerry, however controversially, risked his life for America. Bush's equivalent is hiding in Texas while the real Americans were dying in Vietnam.

2) Kerry was awarded medals. Bush wasn't.

3) There was, at one time, a controversy over whether or not Bush was AWOL during Vietnam. No such questions were ever raised about Kerry.

Now, if you dispute those three FACTS, I will personally beat you to death with my reality stick.

At 8/20/04 01:14 AM, theburningliberal wrote: So you are a conspiracy theorist waiting for the next civil war?

No but I study the past tp see our future. America is becoming increasingly divided. It's only a matter of time. Certain cities are already talking about it.

And no, there are very few politicans you can trust. But we have to put a little bit of faith in their abilities, or else the entire system collapses.

But when things are becoming increasingly bad and we have no way to fight back, what then? All we could do is sit and take it.

He was serving in a region, and career where people were dying daily. It's not uncommon to see field promotions of 3 ranks or more - so why not three medals - under intense fighting conditions.

Three purple hearts, as you noted people were dying, and quick. A purple heart is giving for a serious combat wound. Three in four months in unheard of, in ANY war, in ANY condition, ESPECIALLY VIETNAM.

Actually, that's not true. Several of the people who served got four or more.
http://www.150th.com/stories/h_s.htm
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001016.html
http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/marine-corps-bs/others3.asp

I could have found more, but I think my point is made.

Don't you think you'd want some paper work before you signed off on a puple heart if you were a CO

If you were there, why is paperwork so vital? All of the prerequisites were met... the ship had to be repaired, and Kerry's blood was spilled... why doubt him because some Republican funded group of people who CHANGE their stories AFTER the fact... ?

Besides I want some mainstream links.

I posted SNOPES.com as well as the Kerry Link, and CNN as well. What qualifies as mainstream? Certainly not Swiftvets.com...

Really? And Bush doesn't 'flip flop'? For every instance you can show me of Kerry doing so, I can show you 2 of Bush doing the same?

You think I am a Bush supporter cause I hate Kerry, priceless. I don't like bush either. Now explain to me how Bush's stupidity has anything to do with Kerry being a lying sack of shit.

You presume Kerry to be a liar without mainstream media links or proof. George Bush's stupididty is evident. All he needs to do is open his mouth.

And FYI, I'm not a Kerry supporter. I think he and Bush are creatures of the same cloth. I just hate people acting like Kerry is some big liar over Viet Nam. He served proudly, just like I did. There is no evidence at all that Bush did. There is however a lot of NO-SHOW evidence...

The bigger issue is WHY did Kerry change his mind on the issue? or even Bush for that matter?

Why did he change his mind BACK. I am not pissed for Kerry tossing his medals. I am pissed at him for trying to get them back 30 years after he tossed him.

Why? Why does that bother you? Do you think after 30 years of life you might grow to change your mind about things you did when you were younger? Not that I agree with it, but I do give him the benefit of the doubt.

Without those facts, then the word 'flip flop' is a political buzzword distributed by the Republican party to FOX on a 'talk sheet' and then memoed about via Rupert Murdock.

Negative, its been around long time.

Kerry was not called a flip-flopper ONCE before the FOX memo came out. If you can cite me one example in the mainstream media prior to the memo, I'll consider you correct. If not, I stand by my statement.

try not to use the term in the political sense... it shows a lack of initiative on your part to find out the truth...

I don't bite your bullshit hook line and sinker so I lack iniative.

No - you use a term that is devoid of explaining anything. The word has no meaning because it doesn't consider the 'why' someone does something.

If I toss a cold bucket of water over someone and you call me an asshole, you are assigning a label without getting the facts. Maybe I was trying to put out a fire... all those labels exhonerate you from finding out the why.

YOU, open YOUR eyes. YOUR the one telling me there is a diffrence between rich white guy #1 and rich white guy #2, when the only diffrence is who is a bigger asshole.

Before you say pick the lesser of two evils, I say, they are both so vile and putrid, I do not think I could bring myself to vote for either one.

Good for you... then we agree on something.

At 8/20/04 03:01 AM, theburningliberal wrote: 3) There was, at one time, a controversy over whether or not Bush was AWOL during Vietnam. No such questions were ever raised about Kerry.

Actually there are questions being raised about Kerry. In fact this threads topic is the title of a book about raising questions on Kerry's record, if you cared to pay attention.

Bush wasn't AWOL during his guard service even though the media jumped through hoops to try and prove that he was. They failed.

Bush wasn't AWOL during his guard service even though the media jumped through hoops to try and prove that he was. They failed.

Only because the records of his employment (which they claimed up until the very last second they had) turned up MIA, supposedly destroyed in 1997.

If they had been destroyed, why did the campaign claim, "we have irrifutable proof with his pay records that he was in service"

FOX claims they were released... but they only have a partial list http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110956,00.html

yet the BBC shows according to our own reports... many were lost.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3880141.stm

The real question of Bush is not "was he AWOL" but "why was he grounded for 2 years, when he could have/ should have been flying?"
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=George_W._Bush's_military_serv
ice

*sigh*

You just keep on choosing to believe with a double standard.

Kerry was a vietnam hero, despite the evidence.

Bush was a deserter, despite the evidence.

At 8/24/04 02:48 PM, The_Enforcer wrote: *sigh*

You just keep on choosing to believe with a double standard.

Kerry was a vietnam hero, despite the evidence.

what evidence? Swiftboat vets? That's a well debunked one by now. Even Bush has 'jumped ship' on them.

Bush was a deserter, despite the evidence.

Actually, that's not a given, but it is suspect. What IS a given, is that Bush ducked out of two years of flying after he missed his drug screen.

While honest folk fought bravely in 'Nam, bush couldn't even live up to his National Guard duties in the states.

That's pretty damned sad if you ask me.

At 8/24/04 02:52 PM, antiklaus wrote:

Kerry was a vietnam hero, despite the evidence.

what evidence? Swiftboat vets? That's a well debunked one by now. Even Bush has 'jumped ship' on them.

#1 The swiftboat veterans have never been debunked

#2 Bush hasn't jumped ship. He said that 527's shouldn't be allowed in his opinion. He never claimed that what the SBVT were false in their claims.

Bush was a deserter, despite the evidence.

Actually, that's not a given, but it is suspect. What IS a given, is that Bush ducked out of two years of flying after he missed his drug screen.

Since it's "not a given" send me some proof. I'll look at any link you post as I've done in the past.

At 8/24/04 03:13 PM, The_Enforcer wrote:

At 8/24/04 02:52 PM, antiklaus wrote:

Kerry was a vietnam hero, despite the evidence.

what evidence? Swiftboat vets? That's a well debunked one by now. Even Bush has 'jumped ship' on them.

#1 The swiftboat veterans have never been debunked

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Read it and weep. Swiftvets DEBUNKED.

#2 Bush hasn't jumped ship. He said that 527's shouldn't be allowed in his opinion. He never claimed that what the SBVT were false in their claims.

He specifically said "That ad" referring to the Swiftboat vets...

Bush was a deserter, despite the evidence.

Actually, that's not a given, but it is suspect. What IS a given, is that Bush ducked out of two years of flying after he missed his drug screen.

Since it's "not a given" send me some proof. I'll look at any link you post as I've done in the past.

http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

compare Kerry's record to Bush's side by side.

Who volunteered to go to VietNam? Kerry.
Who checked, NO THANKS... Bush.

At 8/24/04 03:53 PM, antiklaus wrote:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Read it and weep. Swiftvets DEBUNKED.

Try reading that a little closer.

#2 Bush hasn't jumped ship. He said that 527's shouldn't be allowed in his opinion. He never claimed that what the SBVT were false in their claims.

He specifically said "That ad" referring to the Swiftboat vets...

Yes. He said that ad shouldn't have aired, not that its claims were false.

http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

compare Kerry's record to Bush's side by side.

What could possible make you think that a site called "AWOLBUSH" has any agenda at exposing truth. It looks like they are out to make the president look bad, possibly omitting facts along the way.

Your sources suck.

The snopes site refutes every claim the Vets make... how could it be any clearer?

What it does make clear is that they changed their testimonies after a large contribution...

What could possible make you think that a site called "AWOLBUSH" has any agenda at exposing truth. It looks like they are out to make the president look bad, possibly omitting facts along the way.

Your sources suck.

Oh it sucks because it posts both of their service records for you to see, side by side? Any omissions in Bush's records are because they were destroyed under unusual circumstances.

FYI if you looked at the service records, it's pretty clear Bush probably wasn't AWOL... at least not for a significant period of time... what is at question is when you prop the two side by side... which looks better?

According to that website? Kerry's service record looks better. Thats to be expected from a group with that name. What proves their bias in making the president look bad are some of the comments they made. Such as, "Boy, that document sure has gone through the wash a few times! Wonder what's on the original microfiche? "

AWOLBUSH.com is making comments about documents against the president but doesn't even mention that Kerry's medals may not be deserved as stated by individuals who served with Kerry and saw what happened first hand.

AWOLBUSH.com is making comments about documents against the president but doesn't even mention that Kerry's medals may not be deserved as stated by individuals who served with Kerry and saw what happened first hand.

They don't need to - Snopes did a stellar job of showing that the people who served with Kerry found him to be 'commendable under fire' - even the guy on the commercial who tried badmouthing him.

Oh and there is the Bush statement, "Kerry should be proud of his service record in VietNam"

At 8/24/04 04:55 PM, antiklaus wrote: Oh and there is the Bush statement, "Kerry should be proud of his service record in VietNam"

This is true! Bush said that because his lousy war record outshines his awful senate record.

You have to put yourself in the best light possible to try and win.

you all are trying to dtermine who is correct over something that occurred when the candidates were young. i dont know about you but if a draft ever comes up i will do whatever i can to legally avoid it. i just am not ready for that. but to say kerry messed up or bush messed up when they were younger is really dumb. i say just forget about it and focus on the issues.

listen there are a lot of veterans who hate kerry because he spoke out so strongly against the war when he came back.. they felt is as betrayal, you never know what they might say/do/lie about to hurt him now.. especially with the republican party looking so hard for things to use against Kerry.. The veterans who work with Kerry might also be lying but all I'm trying to say is dont believe everyting you hear people say.. it shouldnt even be about war history in the first place!

1. You cant trust the variouse sources, they are all subjective

2. It's not even important in the first place

Conclusion: When talking about this shit.. your missing the point.

I didn't start this inane topic.

I wonder who did?

It's all really a situation of "He said, she said!" where Kerry and Bush are pointing fingers at each other. whom would you believe in this case? Kerry? Or Bush? A guy who actually served? Or a guy whom never even showed up for service? It's your decision in the end, make it wisely.

At 8/23/04 04:18 PM, The_Enforcer wrote:

At 8/20/04 03:01 AM, theburningliberal wrote: 3) There was, at one time, a controversy over whether or not Bush was AWOL during Vietnam. No such questions were ever raised about Kerry.

Actually there are questions being raised about Kerry. In fact this threads topic is the title of a book about raising questions on Kerry's record, if you cared to pay attention.

Bush wasn't AWOL during his guard service even though the media jumped through hoops to try and prove that he was. They failed.

1) There are no questions being raised, nor have there ever been questions raised about whether or not Kerry was AWOL during Vietnam. The point I was making that Bush has been accused of being AWOL, and Kerry has not. Dispute that, and you are an idiot.

2) Personally, I don't care one way or the other about past military experience. It makes very little difference. But, such things do make for funny pictures.