Heheh

[Sava]

WELCOME BACK FEZZIKINS!



you are back just in time to see Bush's downfall begin

[Giancarlo]

Bush isn't going to fall. Don't be so stupid. He's more popular than those idiot demoncrats.

And anybody against the removal of a dictator who murdered a 1 million people is a moron.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MrFun


Oh yeah -- well I typed with one hand tied to a post, while balancing a spoon on my nose AND while looking watching my television. And I still beat you!!

Well there's a set of auto-erotic sexual pathologies I haven't heard of.

When did you first fixate on posts and spoons? Before or after your first exposure to television?

Do you engage them in frottage? Do you enjoy a Princeton rub with your 45" t.v. ?

Please fill in the questionnaire, and doctors Masters and Johnson will get back to you.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Fez
Bush isn't going to fall. Don't be so stupid. He's more popular than those idiot demoncrats.

I dunno, he's losing in all the polls I see... his approval rating has dropped... the sharks are circling Fezzy the AWOL story, the WMD debacle... it's all coming together nicely.

Also, record voter turnout at the primaries... and today the Chicago Tribune (a conservative paper) reported that they are getting about 10:1 ratio of anti-Bush mail as compared to pro-Bush. The ratio used to be even about a year ago.

anyways, I don't want to threadjack any more...

WELCOME BACK!

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
I dunno, he's losing in all the polls I see... his approval rating has dropped...

That's natural from record highs. Anyways, Reagan had a 37% approval rating in 1983. Did that mean anything in his reelection bid? NO!

the sharks are circling Fezzy the AWOL story, the WMD debacle... it's all coming together nicely.

Both of which are bull****. They just released his records and show he served in the Guard sufficiently. And I believe there are WMDs still in Iraq right now.

Also, record voter turnout at the primaries... and today the Chicago Tribune (a conservative paper) reported that they are getting about 10:1 ratio of anti-Bush mail as compared to pro-Bush. The ratio used to be even about a year ago.

That's also irrelevant. Just means the anti-Bush morons are more active.

[Giancarlo]

But no more thread jacking.. wanna be my boyfriend, sava? Opposites attract.

[Sava]

Both of which are bull****. They just released his records and show he served in the Guard sufficiently. And I believe there are WMDs still in Iraq right now.

actually, those records don't say ****... and the media is saying the records are in sharp contrast from his Guard records before and after the year Bush was AWOL. I suspect this scandal is true. I mean, how hard is it to prove you were showing up for duty? How come nobody has come forward saying they remember Bush? Where are the sign in sheets from drills? How come his commanding officers have no record of him between May '72 and May '73?

You should educate yourself Fezzy, you don't want to back a losing horse on this one.

[Giancarlo]

B.S.

Well actually you should educate yourself about the facts.. like this little tid bit.. I posted on a different forum.. enough of Bush, what about the democrats? Clark has a respectable record for sure. But Kerry has lied about his.

As I listened to the news, I was stunned by the blatant lies being put forth by one Senator John Kerry.

He ranted and raved about how Bush is using the troops for political purposes. He is cutting their pay, their benefits and if HE were President, he would fix all that. I guess Kerry has had some private revelation about how the troops are being taken care of because nothing he said is even vaguely true. He has been and voted anti-military for decades. We do not need another military hating liberal in the White House. Now is NOT the time. It will be our undoing.

He compared Iraq to Vietnam. You know that war where he said he threw his medals away in protest. Well, not really. He threw someone else's. His are in a case on the wall behind his desk. It was the war that he used to put himself in the public light so he could get elected. He claims Bush is using the war for political reasons. What crap. (Gosh, what is HE doing right now?) Kerry said we need to send more troops. That Bush needs to listen to the Congress in regard to managing the war. We need to crawl to the U.N. because WE just can't handle the situation. That's what got us into trouble in Viet Nam! NOT LISTENING TO THE MILITARY MEN! Instead, LBJ and his democrat congress tried to run the war and you see how it ended up. The General in command in Iraq has said repeatedly that he DOES NOT NEED more troops. He needs more cops! He needs more engineers. He doesn't want OUR troops guarding bridges and buildings where they will just be targets. But Kerry thinks he knows it all. Like Gore, he feels a couple of years in the military, which he decried for years, is suddenly some banner for him to wear. He apparently thinks no one will look up his abysmal record when it comes to shafting the military and the men and women in them. He's wrong.

He said he has long advocated all things good for our military. RUBBISH! I can't believe he can even stand up in front of veterans, who have served this country and lie to them like that.

Here is a sample of his record: Kerry was lieutenant governor under Dukakis, one of the worst Governors in history. He was thrashed when he ran for President. Kerry was all for the passes for murderers and rapists which, once enacted, resulted in the rapes and murders of innocent people. He wants taxpayers to pay for all abortions on demand, including the partial birth murders.

Kerry Has Voted Against A Balanced Budget Amendment At Least Five Times.
Kerry Voted Against President Bush's Tax Cuts, At Least The Tenth Key Anti-Tax Relief Vote Of His Senate Career.
Kerry Voted For The Biggest Tax Increase In American History Under President Clinton.
Kerry Has Voted For At Least Seven Major Reductions In Defense And Military Spending Necessary For Our National Security.
In 1996, Introduced Bill To Slash Defense Department Funding By $6.5 Billion.
In 1995, Voted To Freeze Defense Spending For 7 Years, Slashing Over $34 Billion From Defense.
Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution – Defense Freeze. “Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training.”
In 1993, Introduced Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs, Including:
Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program
Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.

Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Defense Spending, Including:

In 1993, Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years.

In 1992, Voted To Cut $6 Billion From Defense.

In 1991, Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion From Defense, Shift Money To Social Programs.

In 1991, Voted To Cut Defense Spending By 2%.

Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Or Eliminate Funding For B-2 Stealth Bomber Has Voted Repeatedly Against Missile Defense. Weapons Kerry Sought To Phase Out Were Vital In Iraq. “[K]erry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might -- the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks.” (Brian C. Mooney, “Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One,” The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

Military hardware he felt we no longer need since the "cold war" is past. The money would be better spent on "social" programs. These weapons are now the core of our military might.

F-16 Fighting Falcons.
B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s.
M1 Abrams.
Patriot Missile.
AH-64 Apache Helicopter
Tomahawk Cruise Missile.
Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser

During 1980s, Kerry And Michael Dukakis Joined Forces With Liberal Group Dedicated To Slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of “Jobs With Peace Campaign,” which sought to “develop public support for cutting the defense budget…”(“Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs,” The Associated Press, 6/3/88)



Running For Congress In 1972, Kerry Promised To Cut Defense Spending. “On what he’ll do if he’s elected to Congress, Kerry said he would ‘bring a different kind of message to the president.’ He said he would vote against military appropriations.” (“Candidate’s For Congress Capture Campus In Andover,” Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)



“So you can look at all the potential threats of the world, and when you add the expenditures of all of our allies to the United States of America, you have to stop and say to yourself, ‘What is it that we are really preparing for in a post-cold-war world?’”(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/15/96, p. S5061)



Apparently, Kerry was blissfully unaware of any of the multitude of terror attacks and threats against the country. If we had listened to him, we would have no military at all.



Kerry was also one of those who helped castrate our CIA and intelligence gathering, which, along with Clinton's total ignoring of the problem, led to 9/11 and the present global war on terror we are now fighting.



What upsets me most about this man is how easily he can LIE. Just like Bill. He even makes himself look like a Kennedy clone and married a woman rolling in money who would be an embarrassment as First Lady. (Almost as bad as Hillary, but more honest about it) I don't care if he was in the military. I don't care if he was in Viet Nam. He is a socialist and thus he abhors the military. He can write his time off in the service as "youthful indiscretion".



He is a Liar. If you value your freedom, your very life and that of your children, don't even consider voting for this man. It may well be the last vote you live to make. This man could no more conduct the war we are facing than my 4 year old Grandson. NOTE: My grandson might even be better.



Sources:

http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/Research012303.htm

http://www.rnc.org/newsroom/rncresearch/research071803.htm

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_bills&docid=f:s1580is.txt.pdf

[Giancarlo]

How about this...

http://bjcat0.tripod.com/kerrylies.htm

The facts are emerging about this natural born liar...



The real facts about the Kerry's supposed war record, another lie:

Is Kerry a proud war hero or angry antiwar protester?







John Kerry, we know, is running against John Kerry: his own voting record. But there is another record that John Kerry is running against, and this has to do with his very emergence as a Democratic politician: Kerry, the proud Vietnam veteran vs. Kerry, the antiwar activist who accused his fellow Vietnam veterans of the most heinous atrocities imaginable.

John Kerry not only served honorably in Vietnam, but also with distinction, earning a Silver Star (America's third-highest award for valor), a Bronze Star, and three awards of the Purple Heart for wounds received in combat as a swift-boat commander. Kerry did not return from Vietnam a radical antiwar activist. According to the indispensable Stolen Valor, by H. G. "Jug" Burkett and Genna Whitley, "Friends said that when Kerry first began talking about running for office, he was not visibly agitated about the Vietnam War. 'I thought of him as a rather normal vet,' a friend said to a reporter, 'glad to be out but not terribly uptight about the war.' Another acquaintance who talked to Kerry about his political ambitions called him a 'very charismatic fellow looking for a good issue.'" Apparently, this good issue would be Vietnam.

Kerry hooked up with an organization called Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Two events cooked up by this group went a long way toward cementing in the public mind the image of Vietnam as one big atrocity. The first of these was the January 31, 1971, "Winter Soldier Investigation," organized by "the usual suspects" among antiwar celebrities such as Jane Fonda, Dick Gregory, and Kennedy-assassination conspiracy theorist, Mark Lane. Here, individuals purporting to be Vietnam veterans told horrible stories of atrocities in Vietnam: using prisoners for target practice, throwing them out of helicopters, cutting off the ears of dead Viet Cong soldiers, burning villages, and gang-raping women as a matter of course.

The second event was "Dewey Canyon III," or what VVAW called a "limited incursion into the country of Congress" in April of 1971. It was during this VVAW "operation" that John Kerry first came to public attention. The group marched on Congress to deliver petitions to Congress and then to the White House. The highlight of this event occurred when veterans threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the Capitol, symbolizing a rebuke to the government that they claimed had betrayed them. One of the veterans flinging medals back in the face of his government was John Kerry, although it turns out they were not his medals, but someone else's.

Several days later Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His speech, touted as a spontaneous rhetorical endeavor, was a tour de force, convincing many Americans that their country had indeed waged a merciless and immoral war in Vietnam. It was particularly powerful because Kerry did not fit the antiwar-protester mold — he was no scruffy, wide-eyed hippie. He was instead the best that America had to offer. He was, according to Burkett and Whitley, the "All-American boy, mentally twisted by being asked to do terrible things, then abandoned by his government."

Kerry began by referring to the Winter Soldiers Investigation in Detroit. Here, he claimed, "over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did, they relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told their stories. At times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

This is quite a bill of particulars to lay at the feet of the U.S. military. He said in essence that his fellow veterans had committed unparalleled war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course, indeed, that it was American policy to commit such atrocities.

In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie. It was inspired by Mark Lane's 1970 book entitled Conversations with Americans, which claimed to recount atrocity stories by Vietnam veterans. This book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane's "eye witnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.

Nonetheless, Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record and asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire study in his book, America in Vietnam.

Kerry's 1971 testimony includes every left-wing cliché about Vietnam and the men who served there. It is part of the reason that even today, people who are too young to remember Vietnam are predisposed to believe the worst about the Vietnam War and those who fought it. This predisposition was driven home by the fraudulent "Tailwind" episode some months ago.

The first cliché is that atrocities were widespread in Vietnam. But this is nonsense. Atrocities did occur in Vietnam, but they were far from widespread. Between 1965 and 1973, 201 soldiers and 77 Marines were convicted of serious crimes against the Vietnamese. Of course, the fact that many crimes, either in war or peace, go unreported, combined with the particular difficulties encountered by Americans fighting in Vietnam, suggest that more such acts were committed than reported or tried.

But even Daniel Ellsberg, a severe critic of U.S. policy in Vietnam, rejected the argument that the biggest U.S. atrocity in Vietnam, My Lai, was in any way a normal event: "My Lai was beyond the bounds of permissible behavior, and that is recognizable by virtually every soldier in Vietnam. They know it was wrong....The men who were at My Lai knew there were aspects out of the ordinary. That is why they tried to hide the event, talked about it to no one, discussed it very little even among themselves."

My Lai was an extreme case, but anyone who has been in combat understands the thin line between permissible acts and atrocity. The first and potentially most powerful emotion in combat is fear arising from the instinct of self-preservation. But in soldiers, fear is overcome by what the Greeks called thumos, spiritedness and righteous anger. In the Iliad, it is thumos, awakened by the death of his comrade Patroclus that causes Achilles to leave sulking in his tent and wade into the Trojans.

But unchecked, thumos can engender rage and frenzy. It is the role of leadership, which provides strategic context for killing and enforces discipline, to prevent this outcome. Such leadership was not in evidence at My Lai.

But My Lai also must be placed within a larger context. The NVA and VC frequently committed atrocities, not as a result of thumos run amok, but as a matter of policy. While left-wing anti-war critics of U.S. policy in Vietnam were always quick to invoke Auschwitz and the Nazis in discussing alleged American atrocities, they were silent about Hue City, where a month and a half before My Lai, the North Vietnamese and VC systematically murdered 3,000 people. They were also willing to excuse Pol Pot's mass murderer of upwards of a million Cambodians.

The second cliché is that is that Vietnam scarred an entire generation of young men. But for years, many of us who served in Vietnam tried to make the case that the popular image of the Vietnam vet as maladjusted loser, dehumanized killer, or ticking "time bomb" was at odds with reality. Indeed, it was our experience that those who had served in Vietnam generally did so with honor, decency, and restraint; that despite often being viewed with distrust or opprobrium at home, most had asked for nothing but to be left alone to make the transition back to civilian life; and that most had in fact made that transition if not always smoothly, at least successfully.

But the press could always find the stereotypical, traumatized vet who could be counted on to tell the most harrowing and gruesome stories of combat in Vietnam, often involving atrocities, the sort of stories that John Kerry gave credence to in his 1971 testimony. Many of the war stories recounted by these individuals were wildly implausible to any one who had been in Vietnam, but credulous journalists, most of whom had no military experience, uncritically passed their reports along to the public.

I had always agreed with the observation of the late Harry Summers, a well-known military commentator who served as an infantryman in Korean and Vietnam, that the story teller's distance from the battle zone was directly proportional to the gruesomeness of his atrocity story. But until the publication of the aforementioned Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and its History, neither Harry nor I any idea just how true his observation was.

In the course of trying to raise money for a Texas Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Burkett discovered that reporters were only interested in homeless veterans and drug abuse and that the corporate leaders he approached had bought into the popular image of Vietnam veterans. They were not honorable men who took pride in their service, but whining welfare cases, bellyaching about what an immoral government did to them.

Fed up, Burkett did something that any reporter worth his or her salt could have done: he used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to check the actual records of the "image makers" used by reporters to flesh out their stories on homelessness, Agent Orange, suicide, drug abuse, criminality, or alcoholism. What he found was astounding. More often than not, the showcase "veteran" who cried on camera about his dead buddies, about committing or witnessing atrocities, or about some heroic action in combat that led him to the current dead end in his life, was an impostor.

Indeed, Burkett discovered that over the last decade, some 1,700 individuals, including some of the most prominent examples of the Vietnam veteran as dysfunctional loser, had fabricated their war stories. Many had never even been in the service. Others, had been, but had never been in Vietnam.

Stolen Valor made it clear why John Kerry's testimony in 1971 slandered an entire generation of soldiers. Kerry gave credence to the claim that the war was fought primarily by reluctant draftees, predominantly composed of the poor, the young, or racial minorities.

The record shows something different, indicating that 86 percent of those who died during the war were white and 12.5 percent were black, from an age group in which blacks comprised 13.1 percent of the population. Two thirds of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers, and volunteers accounted for 77 percent of combat deaths.

Kerry portrayed the Vietnam veteran as ashamed of his service:

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and the fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more, and so when in 30 years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

But a comprehensive 1980 survey commissioned by Veterans' Administration (VA) reported that 91 percent of those who had seen combat in Vietnam were "glad they had served their country;" 80 percent disagreed with the statement that "the US took advantage of me;" and nearly two out of three would go to Vietnam again, even knowing how the war would end.

Today, Sen. Kerry appeals to veterans in his quest for the White House. He invokes his Vietnam service at every turn. But an honest, enterprising reporter should ask Sen. Kerry this: Were you lying in 1971 or are you lying now? We do know that his speech was not the spontaneous, emotional, from-the-heart offering that he suggested it was. Burkett and Whitley report that instead, "it had been carefully crafted by a speech writer for Robert Kennedy named Adam Walinsky, who also tutored him on how to present it."

But the issue goes far beyond theatrics. If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service. Who can be proud of committing war crimes of the sort that Kerry recounted in his 1971 testimony? But if he is proud of his service today, perhaps it is because he always knew that his indictment in 1971 was a piece of political theater that he, an aspiring politician, exploited merely as a "good issue." If the latter is true, he should apologize to every veteran of that war for slandering them to advance his political fortunes. — Mackubin Thomas Owens is an NRO contributing editor and a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He led a Marine infantry platoon in Vietnam in 1968-1969.

[Sava]

okay mr red herring, how does this prove bushy wasn't drunk and sniffing coke when he should have been on duty?

btw I'm aware of Kerry's record... he's not exactly my first choice, but I'm ABB (except Lieberman, but he's gone so WHOOPTIY!)

and personally, I like some of his ideas about slashing defense spending... it would have saved us a lot of money back when reagan was spending like a drunken sailor on all his defense programs that were big cash cows that turned up to be full of ****... remember "star wars"?

[monkspider]

Hey Fezzikins, what do you think about the great South American champion of democracy, Chavez?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
okay mr red herring, how does this prove bushy wasn't drunk and sniffing coke when he should have been on duty?

That isn't my agenda right now. I am just bashing Kerry.

But back to the topic.. whatever topic that was..

Chavez is an a-hole who should be tried for crimes against humanity for those 100 protesters he brutally murdered.

[Sava]

Chavez is an a-hole who should be tried for crimes against humanity for those 100 protesters he brutally murdered.

yeah okay...

and how about that coup to overthrow a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER? the US sponsored right-wing coup, while successful for several days, they suspended the constitution, disbanded the legislature and courts... then, when the people were about to revolt against the soon to be right-wing dictatorship, Chavez came back to power... and then dopey Condileeza (I'm a house n***A) Rice says "Chavez needs to respect the constitutional process?

omg that was rich...

I'm not sure if I like this Chavez guy... but he's who the people chose. And since all the corporations and the right-wing nuts want to get rid of him, he sounds like a good guy.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
yeah okay...

and how about that coup to overthrow a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER? the US sponsored right-wing coup, while successful for several days, they suspended the constitution, disbanded the legislature and courts...

Respectively, that's bull****. It was a popular uprising. But I'm sure you'll defend Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Saddam was elected afterall, he got 100% of the vote...

then, when the people were about to revolt against the soon to be right-wing dictatorship, Chavez came back to power... and then dopey Condileeza (I'm a house n***A) Rice says "Chavez needs to respect the constitutional process?

Chavez has to. He has to do a referembum (SP?) when enough signatures are collected. The Venezuelan constitution allows it. Right now everybody hates him in Venezuela being the left wing ******* he is.

I'm not sure if I like this Chavez guy... but he's who the people chose. And since all the corporations and the right-wing nuts want to get rid of him, he sounds like a good guy.

The people don't want him anymore. They were screwed over by him. There was a small but sizable middle class before he was elected. Now there is none. Now 90% of the population is below the poverty line. The economy completely collapsed becuase of his arachic economic methods.

Edit: Several of my friends back in Argentina, were from Venezuela. I don't appreciate you talking about something you don't know about.

[Sava]

Now 90% of the population is below the poverty line. The economy completely collapsed becuase of his arachic economic methods.

actually, if Venezuela was anything like Argentina, the neo-liberal market policies are to blame...