[mixin visuals]

how can someone that is a communist sympathizer even allowed to run for office? what if he doesn't get elected... is he going to wear more communist fatigues and do more anti-american protests? you know he can't keep his word already. what makes you think he will now?

Can someone please explain this?

seriously please explain why you would ever vote for someone who's communist sympathizing father, then his communist sympathizing son attends anti-u.s. rallies with flag burnings and all, who ends up being hailed in communist press, pictures and all, should even be allowed to run for anything at all in the government.

or this

What you don't know about Kerry



PLEASE ONLY REPLY IF YOU ARE NOT A COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZER


?

[gerbnl]

Oh! Hmmm... are you doubting the officers that awarded the medals or whom?

oh... damn... no commies, ok back to bed then!

[fireside]

did you just watch "Dr. Strangelove"?

[Scallywag]

Nothing to see here, folks. Just another mental patient who's gone off his medication. Move along.

[mixin visuals]

you guys that just responded can't respond to any of those things at all?

just answer why a presidential candidate for the U.S. President should able to attend anti-american, flag burning, communist rallies?

feel free to take your time...

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
you guys that just responded can't respond to any of those things at all?

just answer why a presidential candidate for the U.S. President should able to attend anti-american, flag burning, communist rallies?

feel free to take your time...

Because EVERYBODY should be able to attend anti-american, flag burning, communist rallies.

It's called 'freedom' and once was the thing the US could be proud of.

But then, being commie sympathetic myself, what do i know?

[effgee]

You want a discussion? Okie-dokie. Here's a to-do list for you ...

1. define "communist sympathizer"
2. please provide at least one picture (several is better) from a reliable source(*) that shows Kerry in "communist" fatigues.
3. please provide reliable, conclusive evidence(*) that Kerry participated in "anti-US" (not "anti-Vietnam-war") rallies
4. your "Can someone please explain this?"(**) link does not provide independent, reliable and conclusive evidence for anything.(***)
5. please provide reliable, conclusive evidence(*) that Kerry's father was "communist sympathizer"
6. see "c." above
7. please provide reliable, conclusive evidence(*) that Kerry attempted to get PR in the "communist press"
8. your link "What you don't know about Kerry"(**) is an op-ed piece containing allegations only, no proof whatsoever - please provide links to reliable and conclusive evidence(*) for your allegations

... then we talk.

(* - reliable source, conclusive evidence = reports, articles, photos, etc. from independent news sources such as "Associated Press" or "Reuters", containing dates, places and/or names of multiple witnesses corroborating your statements. Providing more than one independent source to support each of your statements will make them all the more credible.)

(** - attempts to sell snake-oil and bridges, such as citing material from partisan "short-bus" outlets (like your newsmax.com "article" above) as "reliable evidence" are not suited to make your claims appear more factual and will be ridiculed from here on.)

(*** - a quick whois check on "ussyorktown.com" shows that the domain is registered to a "Daniel A. Bernath" from Tigard, OR. A Google search then will tell you that, while I'm not going to pass judgment on the guy here, he can hardly be described as a reliable source of information ... e.g.:)

• ... Daniel Bernath, 52, was once a member of that class. But after practicing personal-injury and consumer law for 10 years in California, he was denied admittance to the Oregon State Bar when he moved north of the border. The bar accused Bernath of not informing it of a yearlong suspension to practice law in California for not paying child support, as well as failing to inform it of his involvement in various lawsuits and money disputes with a client.* Bernath, who now owns A Special Day Photo, which specializes in wedding photography, disputes the allegations and says Oregon is trying to exclude out-of-state lawyers to keep legal-service prices high. ...
  
  *The California Bar investigated the same complaints but found the allegations from the disgruntled untruthful client and ex wife to be untrue and dismissed all complaints. ...
  (link)

[effgee]

And just so we're all on the same page ...

• communism
  
  \Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.
  
  Note: At different times, and in different countries, various schemes pertaining to socialism in government and the conditions of domestic life, as well as in the distribution of wealth, have been called communism.
  
  Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

[Millennium]

The Cold War ended years ago, mixin. I still find communism to have spawned some of the most dehumanizing political systems known to humanity (with Maoism taking the top spot), but the man's sympathies aren't enough to keep him out of politics. That said, I doubt he'd be nearly as popular were it not for the Anybody-But-Bush crowd.

Then again, he knows this as much as anyone else, and he knows that if he's elected, it will be with no real mandate, because many of those who voted for him did so only out of ruthless pragmatism. This is in large part how he can get away with his flip-flopping; he knows that his promises may as well be meaningless anyway because a large part of his crowd doesn't really care what he does; they care only about who he is (or more to the point, who he isn't).

[effgee]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The Cold War ended years ago, mixin. I still find communism to have spawned some of the most dehumanizing political systems known to humanity (with Maoism taking the top spot), but the man's sympathies aren't enough to keep him out of politics. ...

While the theory (not any of its implementations!!!) of communism in itself is one of the better utopian thought constructs out there, it is of course idiotic to believe that it could ever be implemented and actually work in real life - I agree 100% that every single one of those attempts at creating a "communist society" resulted in some of the most inhumane and cruel forms of government ever concocted.

But ... and I'm not excluding the possibility that I am not aware of all the facts here ... what the hell are you people talking about when you refer to Kerry as a communist sympathizer??

Enlightenment, please? As in links that provide independent and conclusive evidence that this is true. And please - no links of the kind mv provided above - if I want to see/read bullcrap like that I'll get me a copy of the "National Enquirer" at the supermarket checkout.

[icruise]

Originally posted by Millennium:

Then again, he knows this as much as anyone else, and he knows that if he's elected, it will be with no real mandate, because many of those who voted for him did so only out of ruthless pragmatism. This is in large part how he can get away with his flip-flopping; he knows that his promises may as well be meaningless anyway because a large part of his crowd doesn't really care what he does; they care only about who he is (or more to the point, who he isn't).

Is this the argument the Republicans are going to use to discredit Kerry's presidency?

As for the topic of this thread, the attempts to discredit Kerry have been both frantic and shameless, but I guess it's to be expected. When you have a candidate who is a draft dodger going up against a decorated war hero, I guess you have to attack the war hero's record to attract attention from your guy's record. Interestingly this is the exact opposite of the situation that occurred when George Bush senior was running against Bill Clinton. I don't recall anyone trying to discredit George Bush's record at the time, but the Republicans certainly did their best to paint Clinton as a coward and draft dodger.

Anyway, as this page illustrates, Kerry's wounds might not have been all that serious, but they were certainly legitimate causes for getting purple hearts. And how does someone get shrapnel in their leg without getting any scars, hmm?

[effgee]

Originally posted by Millennium:
... This is in large part how he can get away with his flip-flopping; he knows that his promises may as well be meaningless anyway ...

Unless you intend to cite Bush's infamous "nation-building" promise from the 2000 campaign (or any other of the many examples of Bush's "flip-flopping") in the same sentence/paragraph and pass equal and fair judgement on the conduct of both candidates, I suggest you rather not paint Kerry as the "flip-flopping boogieman" - it just looks ... uhm, dishonest.

Read this, verify the validity of the statements made therein by checking out independent resources (uncle Google will be most helpful), and then we'll talk about Kerry being the only "flip-flopper" - preferably in another thread because I'm still interested in hearing more about these "communist sympathizer" statements made in this one.

(edit: more info added)

[andi*pandi]

mixin, this lounge has a) already seen much discussion of swift-boats and records, and b) Communist?!?!?! what? Where do you get your phraseology, young man?

OMG, IF JOE MCCARTHY WERE ALIVE TODAY I"D TOTALLY BE VOTING FOR HIM!!! TEH DAMNED COMMUNISTS ARE OUT TO GET ME!@!!!1!!

[mitchell_pgh]

He was also on active duty for less then 100 days in Vietnam.

He averaged a purple a month...

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by effgee:
While the theory (not any of its implementations!!!) of communism in itself is one of the better utopian thought constructs out there, it is of course idiotic to believe that it could ever be implemented and actually work in real life - I agree 100% that every single one of those attempts at creating a "communist society" resulted in some of the most inhumane and cruel forms of government ever concocted.

The main issue with communism is it goes against human nature...

If I work hard or have a special talent, I deserve more then those that don't.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The Cold War ended years ago, mixin. I still find communism to have spawned some of the most dehumanizing political systems known to humanity (with Maoism taking the top spot), but the man's sympathies aren't enough to keep him out of politics. That said, I doubt he'd be nearly as popular were it not for the Anybody-But-Bush crowd.

Then again, he knows this as much as anyone else, and he knows that if he's elected, it will be with no real mandate, because many of those who voted for him did so only out of ruthless pragmatism. This is in large part how he can get away with his flip-flopping; he knows that his promises may as well be meaningless anyway because a large part of his crowd doesn't really care what he does; they care only about who he is (or more to the point, who he isn't).

Or you could say that a President who lost the popular vote, has done the opposite of what he originally promised, and has a job approval rating below 50% has a weak mandate and deserves to be voted out by a coalition of people who aren't completely sympatico but had the presence of mind to reject a firebrand and nominate someone who is better qualified than Bush to hold the office. All a matter of perspective, I'd say.

Also: does voting for someone because he promises to lower your taxes, no matter what the consequences - indeed, while growing the government and increasing deficit spending - qualify as "ruthless pragmatism"? How would you characterize that, exactly?

[itai195]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Also: does voting for someone because he promises to lower your taxes, no matter what the consequences - indeed, while growing the government and increasing deficit spending - qualify as "ruthless pragmatism"? How would you characterize that, exactly?

What about the folks who dislike Bush but dislike Kerry more? There's an anybody-but-Kerry crowd that's often ignored on this forum. Or the folks who would vote for any Republican. This thread is 100% silly, but it's intriguing how much more partisan and illogical some posters are getting as the election nears.

Communist sympathizer blah blah blah... it's a trusty page out of the old Republican playbook.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by effgee:
While the theory (not any of its implementations!!!) of communism in itself is one of the better utopian thought constructs out there, it is of course idiotic to believe that it could ever be implemented and actually work in real life - I agree 100% that every single one of those attempts at creating a "communist society" resulted in some of the most inhumane and cruel forms of government ever concocted.

You're right that true communism has never been implemented. That's why I said that it spawned dehumanizing political systems, not that it was one.

That said, after a fair amount of thought on the matter I'm forced to believe that true communism would be almost as dehumanizing, because it places the individual in a peripheral role rather than a central one.

But ... and I'm not excluding the possibility that I am not aware of all the facts here ... what the hell are you people talking about when you refer to Kerry as a communist sympathizer??

It wasn't my intent to say whether or not Kerry was a Communist sympathizer; I don't feel I have enough data to judge that one. What I was trying to say is that whether or not he is one doesn't matter; either way he shouldn't be kept out of politics for that reason.

[MindFad]

[effgee]

Originally posted by Millennium:
*snip*

Thanks for taking the time to explain - I guess I misunderstood the part about Kerry - mea culpa and apologies.



And as far as communism is concerned - we're in "violent" agreement. Way too many prerequisites and assumptions about human nature - I'm just not sure if the idea came a couple of centuries too early/late (depending on one's pov) or if it's bs altogether ... but as you already mentioned ... I prefer kicking it back and forth a bit every now and then instead of being forced to take part in yet another failed implementation.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
just answer why a presidential candidate for the U.S. President should able to attend anti-american, flag burning, communist rallies?

Because you live in a democracy. That means not only do you have the freedom to support your government, but that you also have the freedom to criticize it.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Is this the argument the Republicans are going to use to discredit Kerry's presidency?

No because the anti-Bush crowd is handling that one nicely. Anyone get a kick out of the higher percentage of anti-Bush stickers on cars versus the pro-Kerry ones? I'm lovin' it.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Because you live in a democracy.

No, we don't.

That means not only do you have the freedom to support your government, but that you also have the freedom to criticize it.

No freedom is absolute.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Because you live in a democracy.

This explains a lot about why we don't see things the same, mien kapitan -- you don't even know what type of government we live under.

Google is your friend.

Maury

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
This explains a lot about why we don't see things the same, mien kapitan -- you don't even know what type of government we live under.

Google is your friend.

Maury

Because you live in a republic and because your government isn't the Taliban.

I love how you only use Democracy when it suits you.

[effgee]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
This explains a lot about why we don't see things the same, mien kapitan -- you don't even know what type of government we live under. Google is your friend. Maury

Huh? What else would you call it? Here's what the CIA World Factbook thinks about that ...

USA, "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition"

compared to:

Switzerland,"federal republic"
Germany, "federal republic"
France, "republic"




The US is the only one of those example where the word "democratic" is explicitly mentioned ... ?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Because you live in a republic and because your government isn't the Taliban.

I love how you only use Democracy when it suits you.

Pretty much, yeah -- and that's what it's there for.

Where's the problem?

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by effgee:
Huh? What else would you call it? Here's what the CIA World Factbook thinks about that "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition"



The US is the only one of those example where the word "democratic" is explicitly mentioned ... ?

Come on now, this isn't a point for debate -- everyone know we live in a Republic, which is why your site stated the US is a Constitution-based federal republic. Period.

No confusion.

Maury

[effgee]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
... Period. No confusion. Maury

Whatever ...

• democracy
  
  \De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Democracies. [F. d['e]mocratie, fr. Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people + kratei^n to be strong, to rule, kra`tos strength.] 1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
  
  2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.
  
  3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government. --Milton.
  
  4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called. [U.S.]
  
  Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by effgee:
Whatever ...

• democracy
  
  \De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Democracies. [F. d['e]mocratie, fr. Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people + kratei^n to be strong, to rule, kra`tos strength.] 1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
  
  2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.
  
  3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government. --Milton.
  
  4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called. [U.S.]
  
  Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

All fine and dandy if it were true, however, we are a federal republic and not a democracy. We have a democratic form of government but hardly a pure democracy.

[effgee]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
All fine and dandy if it were true, however, we are a federal republic and not a democracy. We have a democratic form of government but hardly a pure democracy.

You're not serious, are you? A republic is one of the multiple varieties of democracy ... read the quote from Webster's above, especially the last word under "2.". The term federal describes the way in which the respective country is structured - see "2." below.

• federal
  
  \Fed"er*al\, a. [L. foedus league, treaty, compact; akin to fides faith: cf. F. f['e]d['e]ral. see Faith.] 1. Pertaining to a league or treaty; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, especially between nations; constituted by a compact between parties, usually governments or their representatives.
  
  The Romans compelled them, contrary to all federal right, . . . to part with Sardinia. --Grew.
  
  2. Specifically: (a) Composed of states or districts which retain only a subordinate and limited sovereignty, as the Union of the United States, or the Sonderbund of Switzerland. (b) Consisting or pertaining to such a government; as, the Federal Constitution; a Federal officer. (c) Friendly or devoted to such a government; as, the Federal party. see Federalist.
  
  Federal Congress. See under Congress.
  
  Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
  
  

It's not really relevant whether or not you agree that a (federal) republic is one (of the various) form(s) of democracy - it simply is the official definion - nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, and no splitting hairs, please - the term "pure" was not used anywhere in this thread until you tossed it in the mix.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by effgee:
You're not serious, are you? A republic is one of the multiple varieties of democracy ... read the quote from Webster's above, especially the last word under "2.". The term federal describes the way in which the respective country is structured - see "2." below.

A republic in specific terms isn't necessarily a democracy unless you considered the former USSR and the current People's Republic of China to be democracies as well. Specifically, a republic refers only to a form of government in which the head of state isn't a monarch or a religious leader.

Federal means that specific rights are delegated to the national government and specific rights delegated to the state governments.

We are in some ways a representative democracy because we choose our governors, Senators, and Representatives for the legislature. We don't choose the President or Vice President directly, hence, the "federal" part of our republican form of government.

The original poster stated that we are a democracy. We are not.

[effgee]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
*snip*'ed for brevity, not malice

C'mon Mattress ... don't make do this ...

• republic
  
  \Re*pub"lic\ (r?-p?b"l?k), n. [F. r['e]publique, L. respublica commonwealth; res a thing, an affair + publicus, publica, public. See Real, a., and Public.] 1. Common weal. [Obs.] --B. Jonson.
  
  2. A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them; a commonwealth. Cf. Democracy, 2.
  
  Note: In some ancient states called republics the sovereign power was exercised by an hereditary aristocracy or a privileged few, constituting a government now distinctively called an aristocracy. In some there was a division of authority between an aristocracy and the whole body of the people except slaves. No existing republic recognizes an exclusive privilege of any class to govern, or tolerates the institution of slavery.
  
  Republic of letters, The collective body of literary or learned men.
  
  
  Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
  
  republic
  
  n 1: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them [syn: democracy, commonwealth] [ant: autocracy] 2: a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"
  
  
  Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
  

You citing an apparent aberration, namely the USSR (among others, the "People's Republic of China" comes to mind), does not change the definition of the term. It might change your perception and/or interpretation but the definition remains the same. See also "2." above for specifics.

And again - there was no mention in this discussion of a "pure" democracy (in a historical and/or theoretical context) - please re-read the definition for democracy above. The term "republic" is explicitly included therein.

[MATTRESS]

A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them.

Theoretically all Communist bloc nations had elections as well, however, we know that only hand picked candidates from one party were allowed to run for "election." This doesn't make it a democracy. The members of the People's Congress, for example, are chosen in local elections, but, is it democracy if there's only one candidate for office?

Dictionary definitions are troublesome in that they are generalized definitions. My college English professors always warned me about sticking to dictionary definitions.

The poster in question here stated:

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Because you live in a democracy.

According to the real meaning of the word, we do not.

[effgee]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Theoretically all Communist bloc nations had elections as well, however, we know that only hand picked candidates from one party were allowed to run for "election." This doesn't make it a democracy. The members of the People's Congress, for example, are chosen in local elections, but, is it democracy if there's only one candidate for office?

Dictionary definitions are troublesome in that they are generalized definitions. My college English professors always warned me about sticking to dictionary definitions.

The poster in question here stated:



According to the real meaning of the word, we do not.

Agreed on sticking to dicitonary definitions as if they were the bible ... but democracy is defined (also) as

• 2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

The definition states "through a system of representation" - nowhere does it define how candidates are picked, how many parties there have to be, etc., etc. You are talking about your definition of democracy - and this is exactly where a dictionary comes in handy - because (usually) it documents the one definition that represents a consensus among a multitude of personal interpretations and thus provides a common reference on the basis of which folks talk to each other. It's not Babel after all - even though, when reading through some of the threads in here it may not always appear that way.

Gotta run off to bed - t'was fun bickering with you.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
All fine and dandy if it were true, however, we are a federal republic and not a democracy. We have a democratic form of government but hardly a pure democracy.

Democracy derail aside, the answer to mixin visual's initial question is "because of the freedom American's value above all others; freedom of speech. Yes, this freedom has it's limitations, but the freedoms to criticize the government and attend non-violent rallies that some might consider "anti-American" are not among those limitations. The primary purpose of "freedom of speech" is to allow citizens the ability to criticize the government."

[effgee]

... oops ... wrong button

[Mrjinglesusa]

This is hilarious. Now you people are arguing about the definition of Republic vs. Democracy. "We're a REPUBLIC!" "No, we're a DEMOCRACY!" Who gives a rat's ass.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Any group that supports Bush and puts out ANYTHING that slights Kerry's service record is hypocritical at best. I mean, you support a President who dodged the draft and got into the National Guard despite a waiting period(1) and then went AWOL for several months(2). Not to mention losing his flight status because he failed to show up and take a physical(3). And you have the NERVE to question a man who fought for his country by saying he lied about his Purple Hearts and possibly got a Dishonorable Discharge? Give me a break.

(1) http://www.usatoday.com/news/politi...h-service_x.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...bush.professor/

(2) http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc4.gif
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc28.gif

(3) http://www.awolbush.com/documents/BushGuardaugust1.pdf


Kerry HONORABLE DISCHARGE: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmils...rom_Reserve.pdf

Repub Spin that doesn't answer any of the above allegations or questions: http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx

[MATTRESS]

Kerry's questionable activities during and after the war wouldn't be an issue were it not for Kerry running under false pretenses.

Kerry a war hero? Honourable? Makes me spray coffee all over my G5.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Kerry's questionable activities during and after the war wouldn't be an issue were it not for Kerry running under false pretenses.

Kerry a war hero? Honourable? Makes me spray coffee all over my G5.

According to the military he is: 3 Purple Hearts, 1 Bronze Star, 1 Silver Star and an HONORABLE Discharge. You know where you can stick your unfound allegations of "questionable activities".

[CD Hanks]

I really don't know how to respond to this thread. So here goes nothing:

Mixin: you're grasp of the English language is probably some of the absolute worst I've seen on this board, ever. To then further compound the matter by trying to be deadly serious with this subject, you just come off sounding like a bumbling moron, which you have always had great ability with.

But yeah, Kerry scares the hell out of me almost as much (if not more) than Bush. Seems like if Bush wins, we all get screwed nice and hard with no sugar coating. If Kerry wins, he'll take us all out to dinner, get us nice and loaded, slip a roofie in our drinks, and screw us like the sloppy contradicting horseface'd goofball he is.

Personally I'd like to get this Presidential Rape-o-Rama done with as soon as possible.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
According to the military he is: 3 Purple Hearts, 1 Bronze Star, 1 Silver Star and an HONORABLE Discharge. You know where you can stick your unfound allegations of "questionable activities".

Oh, yeah, I forgot that medals make the man. Thanks

If Kerry's honorable discharge isn't to be questioned than neither is Bush's.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Oh, yeah, I forgot that medals make the man. Thanks

If Kerry's honorable discharge isn't to be questioned than neither is Bush's.

No one is questioning Bush's discharge. They are questioning his service record and for a good reason. And if you don't think the medals are worth anything, you obviously don't know many veterans.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
No one is questioning Bush's discharge. They are questioning his service record and for a good reason. And if you don't think the medals are worth anything, you obviously don't know many veterans.

Kerry's medals don't impress me. Real medals on real veterans impress me.

[icruise]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
Mixin: you're grasp of the English language is probably some of the absolute worst I've seen on this board, ever.

This post brought to you by irony.

[icruise]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Kerry's medals don't impress me. Real medals on real veterans impress me.

You are so full of it. You've totally bought the party line on Kerry.

For the record, I would totally be willing to ignore the issue of military service, but when you have someone who by all accounts pulled strings to get out of serving in Vietnam (and who probably didn't even live up to his modest obligations while serving in the US) criticizing the credentials of a decorated veteran, I get angry. And no matter what the right-wing conspiracy theorists say, the military says that Kerry served honorably and deserved his medals. Hell, even Bush said that (although his refusal to condemn the Swiftboat ads and other attacks on Kerry make that a little questionable).

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Kerry's medals don't impress me. Real medals on real veterans impress me.

I'm not even going to bother responding to idiocy.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Icruise:
You are so full of it. You've totally bought the party line on Kerry.

I haven't bought the party line on anything. I made up my own damn mind not.

The guy is BOASTING about his medals as if they were prizes he got out of a box of Cracker Jacks. Real veterans would never do such a thing.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Kerry's medals don't impress me. Real medals on real veterans impress me.

I wonder if you even realize that by questioning the validity of his medals you are questioning the integrity of the US military more than you are questioning the integrity of Kerry.

Sure, it's possible that he didn't actually earn those medals. However, if that's the case, then it is the institution that awarded him those medals that is questionable.