The best jab I heard at the Democratic convention last night belonged to Bill Clinton when he said: " Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values -- they go hand in hand."
Zing, head shot to Bush. Hahahahahaha Bwaahaahaa!!!
Printable View
The best jab I heard at the Democratic convention last night belonged to Bill Clinton when he said: " Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values -- they go hand in hand."
Zing, head shot to Bush. Hahahahahaha Bwaahaahaa!!!
Coming from a guy that is so virtuous..please. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by jitBob
If that's the best the Democrats got, Bush doesn't have anything to fear... ;)
No it wasn't the best, but it sure was funny. https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Because of the irony of the statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by jitBob
but your first statement, even the title of your thread both state "best jabs". Don't tell me you got a case of the Kerry "flip-flop"...! That's even worse then teh Gay!Quote:
Originally Posted by jitBob
Speaking of flip/flopping. Jimmy Carter got one into the body.
"You can't be a war president one day and claim to be a peace president the next, depending on the latest political polls."
Even Al Gore got a good one in.
"Did you expect, for example, the largest deficits in history? One after another? And the loss of more than a million jobs? "
Let's see what the "candidate" has to say on Thursday. I can't wait for that speech, when everyone can see what a dry, boring person Mr. Kerry really is and how he has no reason to elect him except "I was in Vietnam!" and "I'm not President Bush".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil
That's enough in my book. I think I would vote for Nader before Bush. :eek2: But yes, let's see what Mr. Kerry has to say.
Dry and boring? As opposed to stupid and irrational? Give me dry and boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil
Elect him because he showed personal courage and enough love for his country to risk his life defending it? Two really good reasons.
"At least I'm not President Bush" Isn't that what people say after they do something really stupid.
He didn't risk his life defending this country...he did some stupid sh!t over sea’s, forged his way to an early end to his tour of duty, then came right back to the US to protest the efforts of his country—all in direct violation of his commission as an officer in the US armed services. He’s a criminal if you ask me…and should have been charged with dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and disobeying lawful orders…I wouldn’t go so far as to charge him with treason, but a borderline offender he certainly is!Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
I still don’t see how you can support this loser with such zeal, knowing all of this about him.
That's nonesense. He won three purple hearts and a bronze star. When I see how the chickenhawk Bush allows his minions to smear Kerry with those lies it proves Gores and Clintons point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Bush has lied to the American people more than any president in history. Thats saying alot since we had Nixon.
He lied his way into the presidency.
Note what he said to get elected and then what he did when elected:
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM
BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS
BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES
BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE
BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE
BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING
BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD
BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW
BUSH SUPPORTS ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
BUSH REFUSES TO PUSH FOR ASSUALT WEAPONS BAN
BUSH IS AGAINST DEFICITS
BUSH IS FOR DEFICITS
BUSH PROMISES TO FULLY FUND 'NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND'
BUSH FAILS TO FULLY FUND 'NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND'
BUSH IS AGAINST THE US TAKING SIDES IN THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAEL DISPUTE
BUSH TAKES ISRAELS SIDE
BUSH SAYS THE US WON'T NEGOTIATE WITH N. KOREA
BUSH SAYS THE US WILL NEGOTIATE WITH N. KOREA
Where is the President Bush that ran for President? Obviously he felt that in the midst of a crisis he didn't have to live up to his promises. He could use 9-11 as a cover to completely disregard every promise he made to the American people.
And that's why he has to go.
Oh, you mean like Bush going AWOL?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Hey Cleetus don't you have to wonder what the troops in Iraq think about the way Bush treats war heroes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
Not Georgie. Georgie wouldn't do that. A little beer and cocaine and he might forget to show up, but AWOL, no, never. https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
Thanks for proving my specific point:
You gave no reason why John Kerry should be president other than the reasons from my quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil
I think you should read his record before you criticize him. Especially the part about how he killed a Viet Cong and took a rocket launcher from him. Why don't you read them both while you're at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp
Wow. What do you have to say now Ya_Know?Quote:
Originally Posted by edball
Bullsh!t!! Plain and simple. You do know that there is a difference between being an ardent supporter of Bush, and just plain old anti-Kerry, right? Now you sound like techs and his virulent anti-Bush crusade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Most officers with a brain in their heads came home or stayed stateside and were AGAINST the Vietnam war. In fact, the people from that era that I respected the most were the Vets against Vietnam. Now you are being blind, as if to be a patriot we have to agree with every move our country makes. Nope, sorry, a true American and patriot will indeed fight and/or protest even against his own country when the time is right, or wrong. Vietnam was WRONG, and Kerry was right to protest it, as were the thousands of other Vet's who did.
I like the part where Clinton noted he is now in that one percent who are getting 50 percent of the tax cut. He was really touched how the Republicans now cared for him so much that they were willing to cut every thing else, health care, vet benefits, education just so he could keep the tax cut.
He was touched because he said "as you know when I was President some of the Republicans weren't very nice to me"
Vietnam wasn't wrong, but it was stupid to get involved in. We are backed up by hindsight that trying to stop the Communists was noble, but we should have realized beforehand that there was no way we were going to win in Vietnam without going fullbore.Quote:
Originally Posted by TripleRLtd
Which is why Presidents have to be careful what they say. "Bear any burden, pay any price" Sounded great didn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by jaeger
I wonder what life is like for the average Vietnamese these days?
I know this jab may not apply to this convention, but I loved Arnold's speech about calling the California Democrats a bunch of girlie men!!!
:devil:
Tell me jaeger, what about our involvement in VietNam was noble? I really want to know. Was it this:Quote:
Originally Posted by jaeger
Read all about it: http://www.vvaw.org/about/warhistory.php
Or, how about this:Quote:
In 1945, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was formed with Ho Chi Minh as the first President. American planes flew over Hanoi in celebration of the founding. The Vietnamese Declaration of Independence echoed that of the U.S.: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...This immortal statement is extracted from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. Understood in the broader sense this means: All people on earth are born equal. Every person has the right to live, to be happy, and free."
Ho Chi Minh asked the Americans to honor their commitment to independence, citing the Atlantic Charter and the U.N. Charter on self-determination. However, by the end of the war, the U.S. government had begun to redirect its foreign policy from the wartime goal of the liberation of all occupied countries and colonies to the postwar anti-communist crusade, which became the Cold War.
Tell me would ya? How, in fact was our involvement in Vietnam "noble"? And, how many blinded Americans believed in that policy...obviously, until today: with you, too?Quote:
According to international agreement, Vietnam was to be temporarily divided into north and south, with free elections to take place nationwide in 1956. Even before the French were out, the U.S. was moving in. Prior to Dien Bien Phu, the U.S. set up MAAG (Military Assistance and Advisory Group) consisting of 350 U.S. personnel operating in Saigon in support of the French. Between 1950 and 1954, the U.S. contributed over $3 billion to their French allies in the fight for Vietnam. By 1954, the U.S. contributions were providing 80% of the cost of the war. MAAG began to train a "nationalistic" Vietnamese force of a quarter of a million men. This force was largely made up of Vietnamese who had fought for the French.
Former Emperor Bao Dai had appointed Ngo Dinh Diem, a Vietnamese Catholic who had lived in the U.S. and Europe, Premier of South Vietnam. Though Vietnam was 95% Buddhist, the Catholic Diem was soon recognized as the future leader of Vietnam by the CIA and other U.S. interests. In 1956 the U.S. refused to go along with the promised nation-wide elections because, in the words of President Eisenhower, "Possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai."
U.S. involvement continued and so did U.S. money and men. American presence rose to 500 under Eisenhower and grew to 15,000 under Kennedy. But Diem continued to be in trouble: former Viet Minh cadres helped to support a number of groups to oppose Diem and the French successor in Vietnam -- the U.S. The similarity between the French and the U.S. forces in Vietnam was, from the Vietnamese point of view, more than that both were foreign oppressors. Even our uniforms were similar, right down to the green berets. In fact, U.S. troops were known as "Frenchmen with money."
Blame the frelling French and their sale guerre from 1945 to 1954 which came crashing down at Dien Bien Phu. You can actually blame it on the whole French Union concept and France's commitment to protect Laos sovereignty from the DRV.
Boy this subject could lead to several thousand pages of reply's.
Tell me about it Major!https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2006/04/1.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Major Kong
And, nothing but BAD memories, and bad policies, and bad history!!
If there was EVER one thing that we should NOT have gotten involved in, it was VietNam!! So sad that we " had" to support France after their downfall.
So sad that we "had" to stop communism at "all" costs.
So sad that WE, for once lost, and deserved to.
So sad that we killed millions of Vietnamese who only wanted to rule themselves after a thousand years.
So sad that we defoliated 20% of their land and their people for our "own" purposes.
So sad that we, for once, made ourselves a mockery to to the world for the first, and sadly...not last, time in history.
And, so sad that it was BOTH parties that did it!! Not the Dems or Republicans, but ALL of us!! And our policy? Was it Imperialistic? Was it? Only time will tell! But guess what? To much of the world, IT sure is looking that way...and, really, who can blame "them" for seeing things that way? Tell me, would ya? Why does America look so bad in the eyes of the rest of world? I'll tell you: it ALL started with VietNam!!!
Even when "we" do a good thing like Afghanistan or Iraq, we will always pay with Vietnam.
Trip it could have been much worse!!! Have you ever heard of Operation Vulture? Thankfully on April 8, 1954 the Eisenhower White House rejected the French request for American intervention at Dien Bien Phu (DNP). However on the same day SoS Dulles offered the French TWO A-Bombs to save DBP. The French turned down the offer as they did not want to use nukes.
We came awfully close to full out commitment to war with Vietnam and China years before the escalation in the 60's because of the Domino Theory.
Yeah, I do remember ( of course, not personally, but reading about it). Indeed, thankfully, cooler heads prevailed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Kong
My question is: how often is that going to be the case with us humans with our "shoot from the hip" ways? One of these days, it is surely going to get the best of us all. What then?
btw Ya_k,
this was NOT meant as a condemnation of what you said. Sometimes cooler heads DO prevail. What you said was NOT one of them,
Kerry did his part in a lousy chapter of OUR history. So, take him up on his issues, or lack thereof, but NOT his part in Vietnam. Not one of us can be proud of what we did to, or for, or against, Vietnam. None of us!
Does that mean that we'll never hear from the Democrats ever again about how Kerry went to Vietnam and was awarded some commendations? Are they going to focus on their issues, or lack thereor?Quote:
Originally Posted by TripleRLtd
Other then the very valid second reason, he isn't a liar, drunk, coke head that drives everything he touches into the ground while somehow taking credit for how stuff bounces back after he leaves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil
Son of a bitch duped me with the whole WMD's thing, he lied, I fell for it, I won't let it happen again. Of course, now I am going to get everyone jumping in that has picked up their GOP talking points from the oh so "liberal media" telling me that I don't care about all the people that Saddam was killing, yada, yada, yada, while we try to forget that it was in fact about the WMD's esp when Powell went in front of the UN and the World and presented facts that they somehow existed and we should go to war to find them, then suddenly our intelligence is so bad that Saddam was able to sneak the entire supply out of his country and out of the hands of his armies that were being crushed.
You mean like no more preemptive wars? You mean like the economy? You mean like not only giving stock holders tax breaks?Quote:
Originally Posted by RIOT
Any site that starts out as awolbush.com isn't going to give me any creditably balanced information. I offer only to use of a grain of salt...in that the references to the combat action of Kerry are not perfect accounts of his actions, but biased to present one side of a story to mask his image as a war protester. His protesting against the war showed his support of the troops. Those efforts undermined support for them throughout the nation, and was a gross display that can only be scrutinized—and as an effect of his possible motives his war record becomes a playing field to expose deceit.Quote:
Originally Posted by jitBob
We don’t know what happened in combat with Kerry, but we can presume that Kerry's motivation to leave the war is what drove him to submit for the decorations required to receive an early boat home. And it’s also possible that the actual accounts that went into the citations were grossly exaggerated, or perhaps largely fabricated. It has been know at times that recipients actually composed their citations by their own accounts, without scrutiny.
To come here and tell me he was a hero, but not even approach the thought that he was a cheat, liar, and a fraud simply because “he’s a war hero” doesn’t add up.
So you are saying because he is a self proclaimed "war hero" that his record should go un-scrutinized, especially with the events that followed and the brief timeframe in which everything occurred...it is all very suspicious, and should be addressed. Simply because there are heroes out there that didn’t get the coverage that Kerry got, those men didn’t get medals for what they did, yet Kerry walked out of there within only a few months with a full chest, and a quick ride home to protest the war. Sorry man, it ain’t that cut and dry.Quote:
Originally Posted by TripleRLtd
I admit that site was biased but it had all the actual documents in pdf form, you just had to read them for yourself. Anyway, here is a snopes page that tells you that the claims about Kerry's war record being fishy are false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
But we do know what happened. See my thread http://forums.windrivers.com/showthread.php?t=61616Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
We have the text from his decorations, the after action reports and the testimony of the men who were with him
And your saying that protesting the war undermined the support for our troops? Are you saying we shouldn't protest a war? That trying to end a war is not supporting our trooops? That supporting the war is supporting our troops?
I disagree with you 100 percent on this.
And to "not even approach the thought that he was cheat, liar and fraud" statement is possibly the result of the smear campaign against him.
There is no evidence in the military records and no evidence from ANYONE who was there that these events did not happen exactly as reported.
There are claims from people who were not there that they happened differently. These people originally said they were there. When proved they weren't they said the heard it from someone else.
BUT not one single shred of evidence exists to show these events did not happen exactly as stated in the text of the citations and the after action reports. And the men who were with him will be with him tonite in Boston.
I think you missed the boat on this one. I am surprised that you have taken this position. It seems unlike you.
I don't read that much on the subject that much anymore, because either side is slanted towards their own objective, and I haven’t seen the conclusive evidence for either side, so if it exists I overlooked it simply because I am bored with all of the back and forth. I tell you what, I'll just take your word for it and move on. :thumbs:Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
[currently reading some more]
Fair enough. The links in my other post might help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
I am not ashamed of my behavior during the Viet Nam war. I protested the war in the moratorium of 1969 and I enlisted in 1972. I was fully against my countrys' policies in southeast Asia and more than enough of a patriot to do my duties. I can fully understand where John Kerry was coming from. To fight a war without conviction is not right or just.Quote:
Originally Posted by TripleRLtd
Again, no one gives me an answer that does not fall into the 2 reasons I said earlier. You guys love to bash Bush's "mistakes" and throw mud all over him, yet you offer no reason on Kerry's agenda or platform that makes you want to vote for the guy. Is there anyone who is positive about Kerry's campaign (in that there is no Bush-bashing, just praise for Kerry)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
I challenge techs, Cleetus or whoever to post a positive message (and a sample of the agenda) on why we should vote for John Kerry without bashing Pres. Bush (besides the fact that he was in Vietnam). Your former President couldn't even keep to the positive.