This will be my own thoughts and opinions, on a couple of points that just stick in my crawl. Kerry spent a total of 4 months in Nam, and was awarded several (3) purple hearts and I think, am not sure, but I believe the Silver Star. By all accounts, a hero. He has been accused of calculating, and manipulating his time in country, to benefit his future political ambitions. It is widely known he filmed re-enactments of the battles he participated in. Here's my problem, if he is not just a total klutz, you have to be mighty gung-ho, totally committed to what it is you're doing, and willing to lay your life on the line, to legitimately earn the medals and ribbons he has acquired, in just 4 short months. (even in todays military circles, it is prestigious to have combat ribbons on your chest) So if his master plan was high political office, it was very important to have a sterling military career. I believe this is exactly what he had set out to accomplish, and achieve.(which he did) So, how do you go from laying your life on the line, to throwing your hard earned hardware on the White House Lawn, in such a short period of time? Could it be when he returned home and witnessed all the protesting over the war, he realized that a military career that was once a career plus, was now going to be a ball and chain around his aspiring political ambitions. What kind of mindset does it take to go from being a combat hero, to being a war protesting zero? This was a complete aboutface, totally out of character for a supposed war hero. (you don't put your life on the line for a war you disagree with) Do you think, just maybe, his whole life has been whichever way the wind blows. The American public had tired of the war, and he saw his opportunity to switch sides, and go with the frustrated majority, leaving his fellow soldiers behind, in order to further his own personal and political ambitions. It appears he is willing to take, whichever side of any issue, he percieves to be in his best interest In conclusion: People like Kerry, who are willing to say or do anything, just to achieve power, scare the hell out of me. Hopefully, he scares the hell out of you too.:thumb:
John Kerry is unfamiliar to us and unproven in a national office, as GW Bush was four years ago. There are many questions about his Senate voting record, since he was representing one of the most liberal states in the country. Would he be more moderate when representing the entire nation? We won't know unless he gets an opportunity to try. But we have four years of George W. Bush's presidency to guide us in evaluating him . . . and it is not impressive. Bush is a likeable fellow with an easygoing personality who stays the course--right or wrong. GW Bush's policies have failed, however, and he is just not up to his job as president. His four years have brought us unprecedented national debt, an expensive avoidable war, increased government size, tax breaks for the wealthy, huge budget deficits, environmental lethargy, fewer allies, more enemies, a stagnant economy, millions fewer jobs for Americans, a worsening trade deficit, and a bitterly divided country. This administration increased non-war government spending at FOUR times the rate of the Clinton administration. And then, during a period when the market tanked and tax revenues decreased AND while an expensive foreign war was going on--he irresponsibly cut government revenues producing an unprecedented budget deficit of a Trillion dollars. This is saddling America with a record National Debt that must inevitably lead to inflation and reduced Social Security benefits for young Americans, according to Alan Greenspan. This avoidable war in Iraq is a distraction from the unfinished war in Afghanistan and is crippling our military from properly preparing for other imminent military trouble in Korea and the Taiwan Straits. The economic and security situation is deteriorating and we have no exit strategy. The war is costing the US between 150 and 250 billion dollars that we don't have. Woodrow Wilson paid for WWI with taxes and Liberty Loans. Roosevelt paid for WWII with taxes, rationing, and War Bonds. Bush is simply borrowing hundreds of billions to pay for the Iraq war, from the Bank of China among others. A six-Trillion dollar national debt is a disgrace and a badge of an incompetent administration. Yet people ignore the many criteria that a president be judged by in their blind devotion to a single issue--homeland security. And they compound that narrow viewpoint by believing against all evidence that this war on Iraq is justified as payback for 9/11. These people were mislead by a dishonest administration. I believe America needs a change very badly.
My thoughts and questions are of Kerry the man, and what makes someone like him tic. Everything you discussed was policy issues. You and I can agree to disagree all day long on policy, but how about giving your thoughts on the actual post. I am curious as to your thoughts on such a short stint in country. It was common knowledge, 3 seperate combat related injuries was a ticket home. Anyone with an inquiring mind would have to question how you suffer 3 seperate injuries, none of which required any loss of time on duty.(was he a klutz or extremely lucky or did he just want to get the hell home?)
Well, I think you are ducking the issues I listed above. If you or I spend more money than we take in we are being irresponsible. Why doesn't it work that way for the President running our country? Just answer me that one. He complains about "tax and spend" democrats, yet his policies are "borrow and spend" which I think is clearly much worse. I talked till I'm blue in the face on the Kerry Service issue. But I'll do it one more time. It is dishonest and dishonorable to slime a combat veteran because somebody doesn't like his politics. 1. It was four months into his second tour of duty! Nobody ever mentions that. 2. He earned a Silver Star, a Bronze star, and 3 Purple Hearts. 3. Purple Hearts have always been handed out generously--to everybody, not just Kerry. Minor wounds rate a Purple Heart and they always have. It is misleading and just plain wrong to suggest that Kerrys minor combat wounds were somehow dishonorable. Most of Audie Murphy's Purple Hearts were for minor wounds, too. But a Silver Star is a major decoration that is not given lightly and is only approved at high levels. 4. The swift boats were engaged in hot combat action during Kerry's tour. Many other Swift boat veterans were decorated and wounded at the time. After three Purple Hearts, you qualified for transfer home. Most took advantage of it. The guy volunteered for Vietnam and in his second tour, he volunteered for Swift boat duty to see some action. He saw it, he performed his duty, and left under honorable circumstances with two major valor decorations and three Purple Hearts. He did his share and did it better than most. 5. Did he want to go home when offered the opportunity? Hell, yes. But he went home after doing his duty. Unlike GW Bush who checked the box "Unwilling to serve overseas" on his National Guard papers. And then failed to properly complete his homeland security job. 6. The swift boat veterans who actually served Kerry's boat support him and back up his combat record as do all of the official documents. The swift boat veterans who now criticize Kerry served in other boats or were in other parts of Vietnam. The guy who wrote the book wasn't even in Vietnam during the time Kerry was there! Their stories would never hold up in court. And they may have to. Some are guilty of slander and libel. Kerry could sue after the election. It just galls conservatives that the liberal candidate served in the active armed forces, volunteered for combat, served with distinction, and was decorated, while their candidate served part-time, dodged Vietnam combat service, and failed to maintain his flight status or report for duty in his last year. So all they can do is try to discredit Kerry.
i dont buy this "spending more than you earn is bad" thing. for instance, most people buy a house without having the money for it, effectively putting themselves hugely in debt and i dont find that to be particularly irresponsible. as long as taxes are lowered, i do not care how much the government spends. in fact, read this: http://slate.msn.com/id/2036/ besides, some things are justified. do our children not stand to benefit financially from a more peaceful world with more dead terrorists and more democracy worldwide? i dont feel guilty charging up debt for a better future. we can whine all day, but we all know damn well our kids will be richer than we are, not crippled by some scary tax burden. you act like it is a given that kerry's service in vietname was heroic. at best it is debatable. i do not claim to know. i judge him on other things. but isnt that exactly what kerry did to his fellow soldiers after returning from vietnam? calling them war criminals and telling stories of mass murder and torture by american soldiers? and how does he know this is true unless he saw it? and if he did, how could he allow it? if he didnt see it, he should be quiet. all this while his fellow soldiers were still being tortured and forced to say the same things he was saying voluntarily. anyone who favors affirmative action is beyond stupid. totally condescending and disrespectful to minorities. anyone who favors raising the minimum wage is basically admitting they care more about political approval than the reality of economics. pure demagoguery. i do not believe that kerry does not know how bad raising the minimum wage is for business and how many jobs it kills. but hey, he wants votes! 'Demagogue: one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." - HL Mencken
rickyd, I don't think you're interested in the truth. I have recommended "Going Upriver" to everybody here. It's a free download, even, at www.kerrymovie.com Or, if you want me to, I can set it up somewhere else for you to download. Your questions are answered in that documentary. If you don't take the time to hear what went on, then you're only interested in badmouthing instead of understanding.
This is so aggrevating to keep reading.... apparently nobody in the freakin' country understands what the hell the national debt is all about. On a side note, I have decided that liberals are Sophists. The word comes from old Greek philosophers that would make the worse argument look better by being devious, bringing up irrelevant arguments (i.e. "oh yea, well bush sucks!"), and attempting to create emotional ties to related subjects (i.e. Rex's "you're children could go to war.") although not the subject at hand. Let's look at Red's argument... oh wait - there isn't one. He goes off on a tangent about something completely different! Then, pretends to get back on subject but never answers the question at hand.
i freely admit i dont really understand it. however, i do understand that lower taxes are better, almost always.
