Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ghost_flash · Mar 13, 2004, 12:34 PM

On the other hand... maybe not:

Kerry.

John Kerry served in Vietnam:

"Dan Tran, President of the Vietnam Human Rights Project and a member of Vietnamese Americans Against John Kerry said "John Kerry aided and abetted the communist government in Hanoi and has hindered any human rights progress in Vietnam."

"By C.J. Cheetham
�_2004_WorldNetDaily.com

He was a patriot. He led forces in the critical capture of an enemy position early in the war effort.

Five months later, this American commander led an expedition of 1,150 riflemen against an enemy's capital city. The American commander drove his men hard through the wilderness, overcoming leaky boats, spoiled provisions, treacherous rivers and near starvation to arrive at the capital in November, his force reduced to 650 men.

He fought on. Joining with another unit he pressed the attack to another key enemy city where his troops took heavy losses and he himself was wounded. As he charged at the enemy, his leg was taken out from under him � an enemy round running right through his thigh.

And yet, he fought on! For five more years he fought valiantly and was wounded in action a second time (again shot in the leg). No general was more imaginative than he, no field officer more daring, no soldier more courageous.

Yet Benedict Arnold has gone down in history not as a hero but as a villain, a military traitor who, as commander of the American fort at West Point, N.Y., in 1780, schemed to hand it over to the British.

He deserved to be called a traitor. And he deserves to be synonymous with treason.

When America had a clear moral vision, we were able to see that people like Benedict Arnold were traitors. Yet today, a man who was far less valiant and far more treasonous is about to be nominated by the Democrats for the presidency.

John Kerry couldn't hold a candle to Benedict Arnold in terms of service. Arnold served longer, with greater distinction, and in more dangerous environs.

Kerry has outdone Arnold in only one respect � Kerry's treason was more insidious, more immoral and more harmful to America than Arnold could muster.

Sadly, America has lost her ability to understand issues of treason. So, the name Arnold remains interchangeable with treason and Kerry continues to be called a "hero." On many of America's elementary-school playgrounds, boys will still playfully call each other "Benedict Arnold" in order to convey a feeling of betrayal. These children will see no moral dichotomy in understanding clearly that Arnold was a traitor, while a man of lesser character vies for the presidency. This is not the fault of our children, but the fault of American adults who have grown weary of right and wrong.

So, Kerry who sold out to the communists is a hero. Kerry who accused American soldiers of horrific war crimes without a shred of evidence is a hero. Kerry who threw his medals at the White House in the 1970s is a hero. Kerry who cavorted with Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and the radical left at a time we still had brave soldiers on the field of battle is a hero. Kerry who voted against every major weapons system now defending us in the war on terror is a hero. Kerry who wanted to abolish the CIA is now a hero.

After all, the argument goes: "That was 30 years ago!" And yet, Benedict Arnold (rightfully) is still considered a traitor 224 years later."

More to follow, or you can just go and learn for yourself.

zachs · Mar 13, 2004, 01:04 PM

Yes, because Bush is the better choice!

ghost_flash · Mar 13, 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
Yes, because Bush is

I see you have nothing in response to anything about Kerry. All you can do is BASH BUSH.
This is a Kerry thread, thank you very much.

zachs · Mar 13, 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I see you have nothing in response to anything about Kerry. All you can do is BASH BUSH.
This is a Kerry thread, thank you very much.

Fair enough. Here's my response: click

angaq0k · Mar 13, 2004, 01:23 PM

This looks like some form of tango.

"I'm Right and You're Wrong!
No I'm Right and You're Wrong"

...followed by several escalation steps, well rationalized into a repetitive song.

It's all about getting some edge.. right?

You won't; it's an issue of opinion and people need demonstrations.

In the end, you'll get the leader someone else choose for you with their financing.

Your act of democracy will last the time of a vote, based on images and showcase and marketing plans.

If you want to adhere to your dream, that is your business. But fighting and arguing like you are is turning comical, at your expense.

You have crystallized your positions; these will only harden as you argue. Not useful.

And that is very sad because you are worth much more than that.

No offense intended.

Zimphire · Mar 13, 2004, 01:27 PM

People screaming BUSH IS BAD WE NEED SOMETHING BETTER!

When Kerry is obviously NOT better.

But yet they will choose him blindly anyhow.

That shows what it's about. And it's not about "Who is better"

zachs · Mar 13, 2004, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
People screaming BUSH IS BAD WE NEED SOMETHING BETTER!

When Kerry is obviously NOT better.

But yet they will choose him blindly anyhow.

That shows what it's about. And it's not about "Who is better"

For me, ANYONE is better than Bush. You can have your opinion, but that's mine. I would have rather had someone else get the nomination, but Kerry is perfectly fine -- and a lot better than Bush.

And I'm not choosing Kerry "blindly", FYI.

ghost_flash · Mar 13, 2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
People screaming BUSH IS BAD WE NEED SOMETHING BETTER!

When Kerry is obviously NOT better.

But yet they will choose him blindly anyhow.

That shows what it's about. And it's not about "Who is better"

Right on! Zim.

Zimphire · Mar 13, 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
For me, ANYONE is better than Bush.

That says it all. No need to say anymore.

zachs · Mar 13, 2004, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That says it all. No need to say anymore.

Doesn't mean Kerry isn't better than Bush.

ghost_flash · Mar 13, 2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
For me, ANYONE is better than Bush. You can have your opinion, but that's mine. I would have rather had someone else get the nomination, but Kerry is perfectly fine -- and a lot better than Bush.

And I'm not choosing Kerry "blindly", FYI.

You crack me up. You aren't choosing him blindly? So, you aprove of his actions during and post Vietnam. You aprove of his constant flip-flopping just to get what he wants, you agree with the fact that he can't use language becoming an adult. The same man that thinks the microphones are off, spouts off some garbage, that the Mayor of Chicago, Richard Daily (DEM) takes back his endorsement.

Even Daily thinks Bush is better than Kerry!

Zimphire · Mar 13, 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
Doesn't mean Kerry isn't better than Bush.

No it means you'd vote for Hitler if he was on the Democrat ticket.

Anyone is better than Bush right?

zachs · Mar 13, 2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No it means you'd vote for Hitler if he was on the Democrat ticket.

Anyone is better than Bush right?

Anyone who's ALIVE, and can run for President.

Zimphire · Mar 13, 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
Anyone who's ALIVE, and can run for President.

Right in other words, you don't care who. YOU JUST HATE BUSH!

I understand.

zachs · Mar 13, 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You crack me up. You aren't choosing him blindly? So, you aprove of his actions during and post Vietnam. You aprove of his constant flip-flopping just to get what he wants, you agree with the fact that he can't use language becoming an adult. The same man that thinks the microphones are off, spouts off some garbage, that the Mayor of Chicago, Richard Daily (DEM) takes back his endorsement.

Even Daily thinks Bush is better than Kerry!

I don't approve all of his actions. Bush has flip-flopped plenty of times, as have pretty much every politician in Washington. Bush has also used "language unbecoming an adult"...although I don't think you'll find many adults who haven't used those words.

ghost_flash · Mar 13, 2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
Anyone who's ALIVE, and can run for President.

So, what do you have to say about Mayor Richard M. Daley taking back his endorsement of Kerry for President?

zachs · Mar 13, 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Right in other words, you don't care who. YOU JUST HATE BUSH!

I understand.

I have plenty of reasons to hate Bush.

Zimphire · Mar 13, 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
I have plenty of reasons to hate Bush.

Oh I am sure you think you do.

ghost_flash · Mar 13, 2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
I have plenty of reasons to hate Bush.

No endorsement of the Mayor of Chicago.
Do you know what that means?

Kerry loses. That's what.

zachs · Mar 13, 2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
No endorsement of the Mayor of Chicago.
Do you know what that means?

Kerry loses. That's what.

Heh.

Illinois
Research 2000. 3/1-3. MoE 4%.

Bush 36
Kerry 54

zachs · Mar 13, 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh I am sure you think you do.

I do. Thanks.

zachs · Mar 13, 2004, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
So, what do you have to say about Mayor Richard M. Daley taking back his endorsement of Kerry for President?

Could you post a link to a news story?

ghost_flash · Mar 13, 2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
Heh.

Illinois
Research 2000. 3/1-3. MoE 4%.

Bush 36
Kerry 54

That sucks considering Illinois is DEMOCRATIC, and a non-issue as a state for the elections.

Nice try.
No cigar.

zachs · Mar 13, 2004, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
That sucks considering Illinois is DEMOCRATIC, and a non-issue as a state for the elections.

Nice try.
No cigar.

Thanks. I kinda knew that.

But you're the one who said "Do you know what that means? Kerry loses. That's what."

Edit: unless you meant in the general election. In that case:

American Research Group. 3/9-11. MoE 3.5%. (February results)

Bush 43 (46)
Kerry 50 (48)

Republicans
Bush 81
Kerry 11

Democrats
Bush 5
Kerry 87

Independents
Bush 42
Kerry 51

clt2 · Mar 13, 2004, 02:20 PM

If this was USENET, the thread would be dead already. But then again, this isn't USENET, it's just the training ground for USENET trolls.

ghost_flash · Mar 13, 2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
Thanks. I kinda knew that. But you're the one who said "Do you know what that means? Kerry loses. That's what."

Edit: unless you meant in the general election. In that case:

American Research Group. 3/9-11. MoE 3.5%. (February results)

Bush 43 (46)
Kerry 50 (48)

Republicans
Bush 81
Kerry 11

Democrats
Bush 5
Kerry 87

Independents
Bush 42
Kerry 51

That was pathetic.
What I said was, without the endorsement of the MAYOR of Chicago, not the state.
Try again. You will fail.

zachs · Mar 13, 2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
That was pathetic.
What I said was, without the endorsement of the MAYOR of Chicago, not the state.
Try again. You will fail.

OK, without his endorsement, he will lose what? I just don't get what you're saying.

Wiskedjak · Mar 13, 2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
"Dan Tran, President of the Vietnam Human Rights Project and a member of Vietnamese Americans Against John Kerry said "John Kerry aided and abetted the communist government in Hanoi and has hindered any human rights progress in Vietnam."

How did John Kerry aid and abet the Communist government in Hanoi and hinder any human rights progress in Vietnam?

clt2 · Mar 13, 2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
How did John Kerry aid and abet the Communist government in Hanoi and hinder any human rights progress in Vietnam?

He wore red underwear?

tie · Mar 13, 2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
When America had a clear moral vision, we were able to see that people like Benedict Arnold were traitors. Yet today, a man who was far less valiant and far more treasonous is about to be nominated by the Democrats for the presidency.

John Kerry couldn't hold a candle to Benedict Arnold in terms of service. Arnold served longer, with greater distinction, and in more dangerous environs.

Kerry has outdone Arnold in only one respect � Kerry's treason was more insidious, more immoral and more harmful to America than Arnold could muster.

Sadly, America has lost her ability to understand issues of treason. So, the name Arnold remains interchangeable with treason and Kerry continues to be called a "hero."

I think America is perfectly well able to see what treason is and is not. Americans aren't stupid, and articles claiming that Americans are stupid, broadly, don't know what they are talking about. Kerry didn't commit treason. Benedict Arnold did.

This article claims that free speech and voting are treasonous. The article itself is anti-American. Applying its standards, you [ghost_flash] deserve to be called a traitor, for subverting American ideals. That's ridiculous.

Of course if you are looking for real treason, you don't need to look any further than the current White House. Whoever exposed an undercover American spy is a traitor, as well might be the White House officials who subsequently "steamrolled" (their words) the investigation.

medmuse · Mar 13, 2004, 03:26 PM

Here

soul searching · Mar 13, 2004, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
....The same man that thinks the microphones are off..

Back when Bush was campaining for the 2000 elections, while talking to Chaney, he cursed out some reporter from the Post (might have been from the NY Times) thinking the microphones were off.

Zimphire · Mar 13, 2004, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by soul searching:
Back when Bush was campaining for the 2000 elections, while talking to Chaney, he cursed out some reporter from the Post (might have been from the NY Times) thinking the microphones were off.

Yes, he called a NYtimes reporter an asshole.

Knowing how NYT reporters act, It was probably fitting.

medmuse · Mar 13, 2004, 03:43 PM

and here he shredded mia/pow info

theolein · Mar 13, 2004, 03:52 PM

NO! In my view, the guy who wrote this polemic article is the real traitor!

Why? I was under the impression that your country has, above all, one thing that it holds very dearly, and which in fact, are written in the founding document of your nation: Freedom of speech.

Your country was alos, at least theoretically, a democracy, the last time I looked.

That freedom to speak out and the freedom to oppose the current government is part and parcel of your country. It means that a republican can criticise a democratic government and that a democrat can criticise a republican government.

It does NOT say that only republicans or only democrats can do the criticising, or else there would be a lot of republicans in jail from Clinton's time and a lot of democrats in jail from Bush's time.

This attempt by this man to paint Kerry as a traitor in war time is an abuse of that very freedom. Kerry, for all his faults, did NOT give away military information to the Vietnamese, nor did he connive with the enemy. He exercised his right to protest against a war that he felt was wrong after having participated in it himself.

In my view, calling him a traitor for exercising his rights under your constitution is a far more traitorous act.

zigzag · Mar 13, 2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by theolein:
NO! In my view, the guy who wrote this polemic article is the real traitor!

Why? I was under the impression that your country has, above all, one thing that it holds very dearly, and which in fact, are written in the founding document of your nation: Freedom of speech.

Your country was alos, at least theoretically, a democracy, the last time I looked.

That freedom to speak out and the freedom to oppose the current government is part and parcel of your country. It means that a republican can criticise a democratic government and that a democrat can criticise a republican government.

It does NOT say that only republicans or only democrats can do the criticising, or else there would be a lot of republicans in jail from Clinton's time and a lot of democrats in jail from Bush's time.

This attempt by this man to paint Kerry as a traitor in war time is an abuse of that very freedom. Kerry, for all his faults, did NOT give away military information to the Vietnamese, nor did he connive with the enemy. He exercised his right to protest against a war that he felt was wrong after having participated in it himself.

In my view, calling him a traitor for exercising his rights under your constitution is a far more traitorous act.

You mustn't confuse ghost_flash with such sophisticated concepts.

I don't begrudge anyone the right to disapprove of Kerry's anti-war stance, but accusing him of treason is about as meaningful as comparing Bush to Hitler. By this standard, anyone who opposed the war was guilty of treason, which is patently false.

Robert McNamara knows more about the war than anyone - he engineered it. He was the Rumsfeld of his day. He says the anti-war folks were right. You can disagree with him but I'd dare anyone here to debate him on it.

Zimphire · Mar 13, 2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by zigzag:
You mustn't confuse ghost_flash with such sophisticated concepts.

Silly.

vmpaul · Mar 13, 2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by zigzag:
You mustn't confuse ghost_flash with such sophisticated concepts.

I don't begrudge anyone the right to disapprove of Kerry's anti-war stance, but accusing him of treason is about as meaningful as comparing Bush to Hitler. By this standard, anyone who opposed the war was guilty of treason, which is patently false.

Actually ghost_flash is just channeling Anne Coulter. Liberals are treasonous, didn't you know?

zachs · Mar 13, 2004, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes, he called a NYtimes reporter an asshole.

Knowing how NYT reporters act, It was probably fitting.

Ahhh, OK. When Bush uses that kind of language, it's OK.
When Kerry uses it, it's despicable, and unbecoming a presidential candidate.

Gotchya. Thanks for clearing that up!

Zimphire · 06:36 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
Ahhh, OK. When Bush uses that kind of language, it's OK.

Who said it was ok? It's not.

Wiskedjak · Mar 13, 2004, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Who said it was ok? It's not.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Knowing how NYT reporters act, It was probably fitting.

Zimphire · Mar 13, 2004, 07:54 PM

Knowing how NYT reporters act, It was probably fitting = He was probably right.

Knowing how NYT reporters act, It was probably fitting. DOES NOT = And Bush saying it is ok!

Nice try though.

Wiskedjak · Mar 13, 2004, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Knowing how NYT reporters act, It was probably fitting = He was probably right.

Knowing how NYT reporters act, It was probably fitting. DOES NOT = And Bush saying it is ok!

Nice try though.

Just wanted you to be clear on that. Your initial statement ("it was probably fitting") implied, to me, that the statement was o.k.

Zimphire · Mar 13, 2004, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Just wanted you to be clear on that. Your initial statement ("it was probably fitting") implied, to me, that the statement was o.k.

It implied they probably was assholes.

theolein · Mar 13, 2004, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It implied they probably was assholes.

I don't mean to be insulting, but I wonder, do you have problem with writing and/or comprehension? I know I've been one of the major culprits in mocking you because of your posting style, but I just noticed that you seem to have difficulties in expressing yourself in a way that is clear to others. Have you thought of perhaps doing an online writing or gramar course?

Zimphire · Mar 13, 2004, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by theolein:
I don't mean to be insulting, but I wonder, do you have problem with writing and/or comprehension? I know I've been one of the major culprits in mocking you because of your posting style, but I just noticed that you seem to have difficulties in expressing yourself in a way that is clear to others. Have you thought of perhaps doing an online writing or gramar course?

No, some people read what they want into things.

Take for example what I just said.

In no way did I imply it was OK for Bush to have said that. Unless you just ASSUMED. Which is what happened here.

Now if someone takes it that way, is that somehow my problem?

No.

There is just a lot of assuming going on in here. Esp lately.

That and petty personal attacks.

clt2 · Mar 13, 2004, 09:43 PM

Assumptions don't form in vacuums.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Knowing how NYT reporters act, It was probably fitting.

Kid comes home at 1 AM:

Parents: Where the h. have you been? You were supposed to be back at 10 PM.
Kid: Chill you guys. I've been out drinking with some friends.
Parents: Drinking?!! You're only 13 years old. You're not allowed to drink alcohol.
Kid: Alcohol? Who said anything about alcohol? We were drinking Coca Cola. Stop making assumptions.

Zimphire · Mar 13, 2004, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by clt2:
Assumptions don't form in vacuums.

Kid comes home at 1 AM:

Parents: Where the h. have you been? You were supposed to be back at 10 PM.
Kid: Chill you guys. I've been out drinking with some friends.
Parents: Drinking?!! You're only 13 years old. You're not allowed to drink alcohol.
Kid: Alcohol? Who said anything about alcohol? We were drinking Coca Cola. Stop making

Comparison not even close. Sorry.

And yes in here assumptions do form in vacuums in this place.

clt2 · Mar 13, 2004, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And yes in here assumptions do form in vacuums in this place.

You're free to believe that. When someone reads "French Group Seeks Royalties on IPod" and it ends up as "France now claims Apple owes it money" in their head, it's obvious where the problem is.

Zimphire · Mar 13, 2004, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by clt2:
You're free to believe that.

I will. Because it does. Not just with me either.

When someone reads "French Group Seeks Royalties on IPod" and it ends up as "France now claims Apple owes it money" in their head, it's obvious where the problem is.

That has nothing to do with assumption or this discussion. You are now just being silly.

Get the chip off your shoulder.