Let's Take A Look At The Military Records

[NWA/AMT]

Fred,
Looking at the v after combat might mean five bronze medals.

[post="194584"][/post]​

No, the V device is used to denote awards for valor of medals such as the Bronze Star which may also be awarded for meritorious service. The Silver Star, which is only awarded for valor in combat, does not get the V device. We dealt with this issue weeks ago and I provided Fred with links to official Navy information on the subject. He doesn't want answers, he just wants to ask the questions, and he certainly doesn't want to answer any.

 

[FredF]

Except the navy has never issued the V on the Silver Star. Maybe it is just a type by some cleark, but the fact still remains that he is claiming a decoration he never earned.


The DOD has come out and said that there are over 100 pages of Kerry's records that have not been released yet the president has signed the 108 form allowing all of his records to be released.

So again, Kerry is lying and the president is not and so are you if keep going on down that path. You should know the truth you just refuse to acknoledge it and yet you seem to take the holier than thou about it.

The president was never awol that is a lie started by Moore in his movie. The fact remains that the president served all of his required time in the guard. The problem is that by admitting it, you actually have noting to try to hold against him.

It has been shown time and time again that he has no part in any manipulation about is selection into the guard nor at any time did he ask for any so I wonder why do you continue to state that lie?

Why is it that only you can post what you consider fact yet when the rest of us do it, you call it opinion. I have backed most of my posts up with information supporting them, yet you still call them opinion.

Why is it, that every time I ask about why Kerry has or has not done something, all you can answer with is something about Bush? Could it be, that when looked at alone, Kerry is an empty shell? He does not know how to lead, he never has. He has done almost nothing in 20 years in the senate and yet you still only are able to come back with something about the president.

I wonder why that is. All you ever post are links to the john john website. Like there is anything there other than pure literature.

 

[FredF]

If he is such a great leader, if he is going to do all these wonderful things should he be elected, why, in the 4 years that he has been in office - when his party controlled all three branches of government - has he not done ANY OF THESE THINGS?

[post="194622"][/post]​

Let see here.

20 years in the senate vs 3 1/2 years in the Oval Office
Class warfare vs A global war on terror
Tax Increases vs Tax Cuts for everyone
Never holding a leadership position vs First a Governor then President
Calling for a Global Test vs The test is what makes America Safer
Not taking action with the UN vs Understanding the UN is a corrupt anit-american agency
Apeasing France and Germany vs Doing what is required to ensure the safety of America
Trying to tax the economy into health vs Allowing taxpayers to keep more of their own money
Believing that power of the people coms from the government vs Believing the people have the power and the government should listen.


Any more questions?

 

[KCFlyer]

Tax Increases vs Tax Cuts for everyone

[post="194638"][/post]​

Yep... everyone got a tax cut, with no strings attached. It's as if he never heard his treasury secretary at the time, or Alan Greenspan say that a tax cut without triggers (in the event of a deficeit) were economic suicide. Little things they were trying tell them that spending money you don't have is not a good way to run the government. Read the book about Paul O'Neil..."The price of loyalty". If the parts about how Bush doesn't ask questions...how Bush just gives his cabinet members a blank look...and then makes "decisions" that appear that he he didn't care what he was hearing...his "gut" told him it was the right thing to do...if that doesn't scare you about the man sitting in the white house, nothing will. Heck...I think it's a great idea to buy whatever I want...but my bank seems to feel that if I don't have the money in my account, I shouldn't be writing checks. How does Bush's government propose to address the little issue? It is easy to see why every company that Bush ran failed....any business who believes in spending more than you take in is doomed to fail. God help the United States if W is re-elected.

 

[FredF]

Tax Cuts in this instance equated to economic growth. Economic growth equates to more people working and spending. More people working and spending equals greater tax revenues.


No nation has ever taxed its way out of a recession, ever.

 

[KCFlyer]

Tax Cuts in this instance equated to economic growth. Economic growth equates to more people working and spending. More people working and spending equals greater tax revenues.

It's resulting in economic growth in Bangaloor. How do you explain a drop in jobs, a drop in incomes, and drop in tax revenues? Bush didn't really want tax cuts to go to everybody...folks on the lower end of the economic scale tend to buy only food and shelter. The upper end uses their cut to "invest"...which perks up the stock market...but not the economy. But Bush had to keep on message and grant a tax cut to everybody...deficeits be damned. Because he knew that cutting taxes only on the rich would go over like a lead balloon.

No nation has ever taxed its way out of a recession, ever.

But the last four years have shown that it IS possible to "untax" a nation INTO a recession.

 

[FredF]

It's resulting in economic growth in Bangaloor. How do you explain a drop in jobs, a drop in incomes, and drop in tax revenues? Bush didn't really want tax cuts to go to everybody...folks on the lower end of the economic scale tend to buy only food and shelter. The upper end uses their cut to "invest"...which perks up the stock market...but not the economy. But Bush had to keep on message and grant a tax cut to everybody...deficeits be damned. Because he knew that cutting taxes only on the rich would go over like a lead balloon.
But the last four years have shown that it IS possible to "untax" a nation INTO a recession.

[post="194649"][/post]​

Jobs are growing in case you haven't seen. The economy is growing in case you haven't seen.

It is hard to give someone who does not pay taxes a tax break. The economy is coming out of a recession, not going into one in case you haven't noticed and nobody told you.

And for your information, without investment in companies, companies cannot grow. They cannot expand. If they don't grow and expand, then they cannot create jobs. So I guess that "Investing" in companies actually IS good for the economy. Perhaps some people here should take an economics course.

Answer this one then, if these companies that are moving jobs overseas for less expense kept them here, just how many more people would the have to lay off becasue they could not afford to pay them?

 

[KCFlyer]

Jobs are growing in case you haven't seen. The economy is growing in case you haven't seen.

HIgh paying jobs are not growing...they are fewer. And the overall job picture is down. In caseyou haven't noticed.

It is hard to give someone who does not pay taxes a tax break. The economy is coming out of a recession, not going into one in case you haven't noticed and nobody told you.

Who said that? I said that people on the low end, who got their $300, spent it on food.

And for your information, without investment in companies, companies cannot grow. They cannot expand. If they don't grow and expand, then they cannot create jobs. So I guess that "Investing" in companies actually IS good for the economy. Perhaps some people here should take an economics course.

You're missing it Fred....the rich view "investing" as "stocks"...NOT starting their own companies. And here's how the stock market works...since most stock that is traded isn't an IPO, those that trade stocks are not "investing" in a company...they are buying stock from another individual. That individual most likely has no decision making postition within the company that the stock is issued against. So...someone "invests" in a stock at $20 after his tax break...then decides to sell his stake to another "investor" who buys it at $25. He's made a profit of $5 per share he owns. The company gets....nothing. You are so right...when a COMPANY invests it might grow, but when a person "invests" via Wall Street, they are not providing any funds for that company to invest. So it's pretty much a case of the rich getting richer.

Answer this one then, if these companies that are moving jobs overseas for less expense kept them here, just how many more people would the have to lay off becasue they could not afford to pay them?

Fred...have you ever heard of Henry Ford? He had a remarkable idea a long time ago....pay your employees enough to buy the product that they are building, and you will insure that a market for your product exists. Now...here's the kicker....these jobs that are being offshored reduced the costs to provide it. And here's where it gets tricky...the price of the goods or service have remained the same. Why haven't these cost savings been passed along to the consumer, who is earning less now that their job is being performed in some foreign country? Who will buy these products, now that many who might have can't? Hell...why don't we get rid of all the jobs in the US (except yours of course...it wouldn't make sense to get rid of YOUR job...let that be the worry of the OTHER guy). Then we could all get rich trading the stocks.

There's more to Econ 101 than "supply and demand". Somewhere in there is something about a market for the widgets. YOu reduce the buying power of that market, and you either have to raise the prices and sell fewer widgets, or you have to get out of the widget making business.

 

[FredF]

Fred...have you ever heard of Henry Ford? He had a remarkable idea a long time ago....pay your employees enough to buy the product that they are building, and you will insure that a market for your product exists. Now...here's the kicker....these jobs that are being offshored reduced the costs to provide it. And here's where it gets tricky...the price of the goods or service have remained the same. Why hasn't these cost savings been passed along to the consumer, who is earning less now that their job is being performed in some foreign country? Who will buy these products, now that many who might have can't? Hell...why don't we get rid of all the jobs in the US (except yours of course...it wouldn't make sense to get rid of YOUR job...let that be the worry of the OTHER guy). Then we could all get rich trading the stocks.

And for this you are blaming the President?


Besids, companies use stock value for a lot of things that help them grow and expand. Also, when that person earned that $5 in trading, he had to pay taxes on that so guess what, that is even more money that the government is confiscating from him, but what you don't count that either?




You have got to be joking, except I know you are not. My company did get rid of my job. Guess what, it had nothing to do with the president, the economy or outsourcing.

So what, these companies are all evil and the president is helping them? These laws have been on the books for quite a few years. Companies have a duty to try to make money, but I guess that goes against you ideals and values right?

I'm sorry that you blame the president for your lot in life, but guess what? It is not his fault. Try as you might want to blame him for it if it makes you feel better, but there are a ton more factors involved here that he cannot control.

So I guess those that worked their butts off and are what you consider Rich, should just give it all to you because you know better what could be done with their money?

 

[TWAnr]

...let's hope John Kerry's Boeing 757 finds its way into the side of a mountain....

[post="194563"][/post]​

Wow!!!

This is a new low, even for your vitriolic posts.

:down:

 

[USAir757]

This is a new low, even for your vitriolic posts.

I obviously don't feel that way... I was illustrating a point. Other people got it. But like a true democrat, you're quick to take it out of context! Well done!

 

[KCFlyer]

And for this you are blaming the President?

No...I am blaming the president for putting a higher value on corporate profits than jobs. The corporate tax rate is at an all time low. And the 315 billion dollar pork express just pulled out in time for the election. Oddly, none seems to be going towards job creation.

Besids, companies use stock value for a lot of things that help them grow and expand. Also, when that person earned that $5 in trading, he had to pay taxes on that so guess what, that is even more money that the government is confiscating from him, but what you don't count that either?

Hmmm...your president sights are also set on capital gains...that means those "investors" won't have to pay tax on that $5 profit. This idea of no taxes is great. How do you fund the country then?

You have got to be joking, except I know you are not. My company did get rid of my job. Guess what, it had nothing to do with the president, the economy or outsourcing.

I live in an area where several jobs were ouffshored. The big company in town laid of tens of thousands of workers. Those that remain are putting in a "mandatory 50" hour work week. Divorce is up. Jobs are down.

So what, these companies are all evil and the president is helping them? These laws have been on the books for quite a few years. Companies have a duty to try to make money, but I guess that goes against you ideals and values right?

Nope, not at all. But I do believe that people and companies should be taxed fairly. And since corporations are among the biggest users, they should bear a greater share of the tax burden than they currently do.

I'm sorry that you blame the president for your lot in life, but guess what? It is not his fault. Try as you might want to blame him for it if it makes you feel better, but there are a ton more factors involved here that he cannot control.

My lot in life is quite comfortable, thank you very much. I blame the president for dragging this country into a war on false pretenses. I blame this president for spending more money than his government takes in. I blame this president for eliminating almost every rule to protect the environment. I blame this president for encouraging companies to rid themselves of employees making a decent wage and sending those jobs offshore. I blame this president for not listening to a contrary viewpoint...only choosing to listen to a bunch of bobble head yes men. Decisions are made weighing information. Bush doesn't weigh anything that goes against his "gut".

So I guess those that worked their butts off and are what you consider Rich, should just give it all to you because you know better what could be done with their money?

Where did I say that the rich should give their money to me? What I am saying is that this country is taking in less money than it is spending. Where do you propose the money come from? Bake Sales? Bush gave everybody tax breaks in early 2001. Then he went to war. Expenditures tend to rise during a time of war. Did Bush say "Folks, we are in a war on terror...a war that will drag on and costs will escalate...I approved a tax cut before our country was attacked. Now we are at war, and I reluctantly have to revoke those breaks...for the good of the country....for the strength of the country". Nope....he wants to cut even more. I guess a bankrupt country is his idea of the good life.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Except the navy has never issued the V on the Silver Star. Maybe it is just a type by some cleark, but the fact still remains that he is claiming a decoration he never earned.

Kerry earned his Silver Star and the Navy verified that and it is only awarded for valor in combat. He has never claimed that the 'combat V' device referred to on his DD214 is part of that award, nor had he ever affixed that device to his Silver Star or its ribbon. You can see clearly in the pictures of him where he is wearing his ribbons, the Silver Star ribbon is present without the V device.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...20%5C%22V%5C%22

The DOD has come out and said that there are over 100 pages of Kerry's records that have not been released yet the president has signed the 108 form allowing all of his records to be released.

Another NeoCon fiction. Where is the link to that statement by the DOD? Other than one article by the Cybercast News Service, which relied on 'undisclosed sources', what evidence do you have?

The NPRC form SF-180 does not require a servicemembers signature or approval nor does a request by a servicemember use the SF-180. Kerry's records on his campaign site, and others, are far more complete than those provided by Bush.

http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

Since you say that Bush has signed his '108 form' and DD Form 108 is an Application For Retirement Pay Benefits, one must assume that he has some military service time he's not telling us about.

http://www.archives.gov/facilities/mo/st_l...d_form_180.html

So again, Kerry is lying and the president is not and so are you if keep going on down that path. You should know the truth you just refuse to acknoledge it and yet you seem to take the holier than thou about it.

Opinion is not truth, Fred, and requiring facts to back up claims is not 'holier than thou'.

The president was never awol that is a lie started by Moore in his movie.

The White House has released documents which only cover parts of his term of service. Are you going to provide the documentation to account for his absences and his removal from flight status for missing his medical exam?

The fact remains that the president served all of his required time in the guard. The problem is that by admitting it, you actually have noting to try to hold against him.

No, the problem is that the documentation provided to date does not support your conclusion.

It has been shown time and time again that he has no part in any manipulation about is selection into the guard nor at any time did he ask for any so I wonder why do you continue to state that lie?

Perhaps because Ben Barnes, the former Lt. Governor in Texas and the man who got Bush on the list ahead of hundreds of other applicants says that he did so because a business partner of Bush Sr. asked him to. Think Dad's buddy did so spontaneously?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...9-2004Sep3.html

Why is it that only you can post what you consider fact yet when the rest of us do it, you call it opinion.

When I have posted something that I stated was fact I have provided proof to back it up, when I have posted opinion I have stated it as such and used terms like "I think..." and "I believe...". Perhaps you might try that as well.

I have backed most of my posts up with information supporting them, yet you still call them opinion.

Indeed, often you have done so, but I have just as often provided information contradicting that which you provided or I have asked questions about it, both of which you then proceeded to ignore.

Why is it, that every time I ask about why Kerry has or has not done something, all you can answer with is something about Bush?

Far from it. I have repeatedly answered your questions regarding Kerry and his positions without any mention of Bush. Would that you would return the favor and answer the simple questions I have asked you.

Could it be, that when looked at alone, Kerry is an empty shell? He does not know how to lead, he never has. He has done almost nothing in 20 years in the senate and yet you still only are able to come back with something about the president.

Could it be that, when looked at alone, George W. Bush is a puppet with Karl Rove's hand up his back? He does not know how to lead. He has done almost nothing in 4 years in the White House and yet you still are only able to come back with something about Kerry.

Fred, my posting was an exact response to your posting on Kerry and was meant to serve as an example of posting opinion as fact, something you have raised to an art form. I assumed that you would pick up on that fact, but I was wrong.

You don't want answers Fred, you just want to ask the questions and attack, attack, attack. Whenever I have tried to engage you on subjects of substance or asked you what you would do different, why is it that you have avoided the question or simply started off another attack on Kerry?

I wonder why that is. All you ever post are links to the john john website. Like there is anything there other than pure literature.

Certainly more substance than was available on the Bush/Cheney site, which appears to be more of a personality cult than a political web site. When I am asked questions about Kerry, I prefer to let him speak for himself. When I look for information on Bush, I first look at the pro-Bush sites so I can hear both sides. Would you prefer that I get my info on a candidate only from the anti-candidate sites as you do? No, thanks.

 

[TheLazarusman]

I blame the president for dragging this country into a war on false pretenses.

[post="194720"][/post]​

Wasn't 9-11 pretense enough? We had to join the fight somewhere. Or would you prefer we continue our stance of passive agression? Give me George Bush' and Toby Keith's way any day; "We'll put a boot up your a*s, that's the American way..." How many more American's had to die before we took action? So it was with Saddam. It didn't matter if it was Saddam, Osama, Iraq, Iran, Hesbolah, the Sheite Muslims, or whoever. They're all terrorists; and they all hate Americans. We had to make a stand somewhere; and we did. WMD's my A*S! How about the body count in NYC?! :angry:

Kerry earned his Silver Star and the Navy verified that and it is only awarded for valor in combat. He has never claimed that the 'combat V' device referred to on his DD214 is part of that award, nor had he ever affixed that device to his Silver Star or its ribbon. You can see clearly in the pictures of him where he is wearing his ribbons, the Silver Star ribbon is present without the V device.

[post="194738"][/post]​

Then wouldn't it be so very easy for him to come out and publicly state that HE never claimed it, never had anything to do with it, and state what his combat V is attached to? It could put an end to all this bulls*@t forever.

 

[KCFlyer]

Wasn't 9-11 pretense enough? We had to join the fight somewhere. Or would you prefer we continue our stance of passive agression? Give me George Bush' and Toby Keith's way any day; "We'll put a boot up your a*s, that's the American way..." How many more American's had to die before we took action? So it was with Saddam. It didn't matter if it was Saddam, Osama, Iraq, Iran, Hesbolah, the Sheite Muslims, or whoever. They're all terrorists; and they all hate Americans. We had to make a stand somewhere; and we did. WMD's my A*S! How about the body count in NYC?! :angry:

So....let me get this straight...kill anyone as long as they are Muslim, right? Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11...but he's an Arab. Saddam didn't fund al Queda...but he's an Arab. Saddam didn't have WMD's in March of 2003....but he's an Arab. Osama was responsible for bringing the WTC down and hitting the Pentagon, but he wasn't as easy to find as Saddam, so we go after Saddam, right? And them damn A-rabs hate Amurhicans...so let's kill the ones over here...they most likely are terrorists, right? That strategy sounds like one in Germany many years ago. Just substitute the word "Jew" for "Arab" and you got it covered.

And if Toby Keith is so gung ho to put a boot up someones ass, how come he hasn't volunteered to go over their and do just that instead of plucking a guitar, sing an ass kicking song, and head back to Nashville?

If Bush had been president during WW2, I guess you would have supported an attack on Cambodia in retaliation for Pearl Harbor...after all, them folks has them funny eyes. :down: