John Kerry the Betrayer: Unfit to Command, part 3

[Lincoln]

[Tattila the Hun]

I buy nothing of the bull**** any political entity says, be it rep, dem or com. Be they "independent" or not...

But anybody should be better than Bush... Atleast now. Ask people in 5 years, what they thought of the Kerry presidency.

[Patroklos]

You mean the nonexistant one that will never be?

And of course very few of Kerry's veteran detractors have even identified themselves as a party memeber. Care to guess how many are democrats?

If Kerry had simple told the truth I would respect him, not vote for him, but respect him. There is absolutly nothing wrong with an unremarkable swift boat career in the Delta without any medals. The fact is he put went over there and was in combat, risking his life for his ideals.

However, bieng the unscupulous publicity hound he is, he is a proven liar who basically ivalidated everything he did by bieng dishonorable. Three PHs in four months, that right there is so absurd it amazes me that any of you can pretend to defend him. Then there is Cambodia, then there is this new POW thing (which is unsolicited by anyone, but I guess because it is anti-Kerry he must be part of the conspiracy).

The veteran tally against Kerry is something like 10/1. And in the anti-Kerry camp are his peers who served with him, which would be the most telling assesment.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Winston
I never liked him.

This "new" information again makes me realise just how much people must hate the President in order for them to support Kerry with such fervour.

Sad isn't it.

Anybody but Kerry.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Patroklos
then there is this new POW thing (which is unsolicited by anyone, but I guess because it is anti-Kerry he must be part of the conspiracy).

Wait, are you serious? Somebody pays very significant money to broadcast an ad villifying Kerry. A whole organization has been created with the only aim of villifying Kerry (notice that even in the ad depicted in the article, the vet doesn't even try to deny Kerry's claims of war crimes, nor does he try to restore his honor)

The timing is chosen right now, when the whole campaign revolves around Kerry's military record. And you think that with all that money, with such good timing, and with such impact in the campaign, this is "unsolicited by anyone"?

Gee, the more I look at the reactions of Republicans in this campaign, the more I get a live example of what my textbooks called "party identification". "Party fanaticism" would be more like it actually.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Anybody but Kerry.

I didn't expect you to be that easily manipulated, Og.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Let's try an exercise and substitue a few words in the following passage:


"Wait, are you serious? Somebody pays very significant money to broadcast an ad villifying Bush. A whole organization (via Soros named Moveon.org)has been created with the only aim of villifying Bush.

The timing is chosen right now, when the whole campaign revolves around Bush's military record. And you think that with all that money, with such good timing, and with such impact in the campaign, this is "unsolicited by anyone"?

Gee, the more I look at the reactions of Democrats in this campaign, the more I get a live example of what my textbooks called "party identification". "Party fanaticism" would be more like it actually."

Yes I realize it is along the lines of "they started it" , but in reality they did.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I didn't expect you to be that easily manipulated, Og.

I despised Kerry long before the ads came out.

[Spiffor]

Ogie:

Duh.

MoveOn.org is an organization with an agenda. When they broadcast their ads villifying Bush, of course it's solicited. Of course it's organized with the Kerry's campaigners.

I haven't seen any Dem saying that Soros' ads were "unsolicited by anybody", but then again, I don't read the Kerry threads too often. If a Dem really believed the Soros campaigns do not belong to the "conspiracy" (i.e Kerry's campaign plan), I would consider him severely delusioned, just like Patrokolos was in the quote I responded to.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I despised Kerry long before the ads came out.

Good

I thought you were one of those libs who thought Kerry was the lesser of the two evils. My mistake.

[Ming]

What about Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. It's a full length movie timed to hurt Bush's re-election chances... Isn't that worse than just an Ad? And while they didn't fund the movie, they did feature Moore at their Convention... So if you are going to whine about the ads... at least whine at both sides

[Patroklos]

Wait, are you serious? Somebody pays very significant money to broadcast an ad villifying Kerry. A whole organization has been created with the only aim of villifying Kerry (notice that even in the ad depicted in the article, the vet doesn't even try to deny Kerry's claims of war crimes, nor does he try to restore his honor)

The timing is chosen right now, when the whole campaign revolves around Kerry's military record. And you think that with all that money, with such good timing, and with such impact in the campaign, this is "unsolicited by anyone"?

Gee, the more I look at the reactions of Republicans in this campaign, the more I get a live example of what my textbooks called "party identification". "Party fanaticism" would be more like it actually.

Perhaps in France you know all the political figures in your government, but here a citizen of CA could care less about an Mass Senator. Probobly didn't even know he was in politics untill be became national a year ago. I. E. no need to point put the failings of a non entity.

And did the fighter pilot or swifties pay for these adds? They simply told the right people the stories, and of course it would the anti-Kerry team, and someone sponsored them. If this confounds you, well you are a communist so open politics would. Perhaps the Kerry team would have enlighted us out of a sense of far play?

And Kerry revolved his own campaign around his military record, which is FALSE. Talk about party idenfication, you are the poster child.

notice that even in the ad depicted in the article, the vet doesn't even try to deny Kerry's claims of war crimes, nor does he try to restore his honor

HAHAHAHAH

Thats a good one Spiffor, that claim from Kerry doesn't even warrent the dignity of a respose. Kerry himself has bent over backwards to erase the memory of his claims of "war criminals" from the public eye. NOBODY, except maybe disgruntled Apolytoner's (which the best indication of nobody in the real world) considisders Vietnam Vets war criminals. Classic Spiffor, Classic.

[Spiffor]

F911 apparently sucks.

I didn't go there, as I don't want to pay to see propaganda, but all my friends who watched it told me it explained nothing but Bush's evil.

In France we had an acclaimed documentary made for years by an investigation journalist. Nothing nice with Bush at all, but it was backed by facts, and by many testimonies from Bushie officials. When the pieces were put together, the picture was terribly scary (exaggeratingly so, IMHO).

Yet the documentary was solid, and it was seen by pretty much every Frenchman that would be interested in the later-released F911. The difference of quality between the two made a bad press for Moore.

---

And I'm not *****ing about 527s or whatever it is called (despite disliking them). I'm *****ing about Patrokolos believing it's not organized in Bush's campaign

[Patroklos]

Spiffor, I didn't say Bush didn't pay for the adds, but that the vets volunteered their stories to his campaign of their own accord. You take a lot of liberties when you get excited.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Good

I thought you were one of those libs who thought Kerry was the lesser of the two evils. My mistake.

In reality my anybody but Kerry line was a not so subtle jab of the rallying cry of the Dems. It is a very sad state of affairs in US politics when the general feeling is that 80% of the public is merely voting against candidates.

I find the past two elections especially troublesome. I wasn't particularly pleased with either of the candidates in 2000 and ultimately went with a lesser of two evils decision. For 2004 it appears as if both candidates have uppped the suck quotient.