Let's Take A Look At The Military Records
- Thread starter Imagolfer
- Start date
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,284
- 1,427
delldude said:
And I'm sure that good old Sean wouldn't dream of pulling a "Michael Moore" and running only the clips that show his point...
Don't forget though...if some of those "oh wow man" voters actually do go to the polls and vote for Kerry...it doesn't bode too well for Bush.
FredF said:
Ummm, no it doesn't. Your own references state that Bush 'cleared' his base in Texas on 15 May 1972, skipped his annual physical in July of that year and did not request assignment to a new unit until Sept, 1972, a three month absence and a clear violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39ea05224b3e.htm
That source thoroughly discredited itself some time ago, but even if I accept it, I've seen no evidence from them to question. Nowhere on the Judicial Watch website does it mention any such 'refusal' by Kerry to provide any documentation. Indeed, the only problem Judicial Watch seems to have with Kerry's records is their refusal to accept the US Navy Inspector General's investigation that found Kerry's medals were awarded correctly.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
Your source states:
A "release authorization" would have to come from Kerry filling out and signing a Standard Form 180, something he has yet to do. A Standard Form 180 would authorize the complete release of all his military records.
Yet the website for the National Personnel Records Center clearly states that a servicemember does not use the SF-180 to obtain their own records and provides for others to obtain the records of a servicemember, through the use of the SF-180.
http://www.archives.gov/facilities/mo/st_l...d_form_180.html
No, he did not. He said he was approached by Bush family friend Sid Adger about finding a place for Bush Jr. in the Texas National Guard. I ask again, do you think Sid did this out of the goodness of his heart?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/...ain642060.shtml
Again, I find it fascinationg that you demand answers to your questions but refuse to answer the questions of others. I answered your question with the exact equal of your question, if you don't like it then perhaps you should deal with the questions I asked you weeks ago regarding statements you made on government responsibility instead of going off on another anti-Kerry rant and witch hunt.
Nope, I know propaganda when I see it and I know NeoCon propaganda when I smell it. I'm willing to take a man at his word but I verify it as well. It's not a choice of "either or", Fred, it's a matter of looking at all statements and making up your own mind rather than letting Karl Rove do it for you.
You have no idea what I believe, Fred. When I believe anything it is because I saw it myself or verified it from several sources and not just the ones who told me what I wanted to hear as you do.
"Are you suggesting that if Kerry is elected we will no longer be at war?"
So why would a person under 29 be safer voting for Kerry? If you say the war will go on regardless of who is elected, then how will the Kerry vote keep them from fighting "Bush's war for Dad"?
NWA/AMT said:
The assertation was AWOL and that he never completed his service requirements. It shows quite clearly that those assertions are false.
Your idea about answering questions is to trhow them back into the face of the person asking as a question yourself. That is not an answer even though you claim that you have answered them.
It is not an anti-Kerry rant and which hunt as you call it. He has clearly said numerous things that are un-true. From him being in cambodia over christmas to being at a red sox game at Fenway that took place in Shea stadium in a whole nother state.
I'm sorry, but the man can't tell the truth to save his campaign and all I do is continue to point that out.
See here again you go with completely untrue and unfounded accusations about where I get my information. You assume, since you have nothing else to go by, where I get my ideas from yet you have no clue about it.
Actually I have a pretty good idea. You are very quick to post anything and everything from the Kerry website, yet you call Fox News a biased source. No, I have a pretty good idea about what and who you believe.
FredF said:
Three months not reporting for duty. Read Article 86 of the UCMJ.
Something I resorted to after weeks of attempting to get you to answer my questions as I have answered yours.
We dealt with the question of international borders, and inaccurate maps provided to US forces in the RVN months ago. Did you think there were signs on the Mekong saying "Now Entering Cambodia, Have A Nice Day"? At least Kerry was close enouigh to Cambodia to be confused about it.
Horrors! An obvious untruth like that cannot go unpunished! Funny I haven't heard any similar condemnation from you about the Governor of California and his many such inaccuracies, like seeing Soviet troops where they hadn't been for years or watching the non-existent Nixon/Humphrey debates.
No, I get that information from the sources you quote. As for your ideas, that is clear from your statements. Yet, you refuse to answer questions about your statements or your sources.
Unlike you, Fred, I post links to multiple sources and not just the ones I agree with or those which agree with me. When I have posted links to the Kerry site it was to answer questions about Kerry or the policies he proposes. I would post links to the Bush site to answer questions about him but, like many of his supporters, his site doesn't really answer any questions.
You feel you can post any of your accusations and they should be accepted without question but when someone posts something that contradicts them no amount of proof is acceptable, Fred. Why is that?
Actually these are the "questions" that you asked that I won't answer because they don't merrit a response. You have been doing that since I started posting on this board.
No, this actually goes to his character. Kerry is trying so hard to represent that he is "just one of the guys" that he keep saying things that are untrue in order to try to appeal to voters. This is not a question of getting the city wrong, this is a question about his continuing efforts to try to act like the average person and not some elitist that he has been for a number of years. This is about him representing himself as something he is not. Saying he went to the members of the UN security Council when he didn't. Saying he was at a ballgame that he could not have been at. There is a systematic and almost pathalogical trend toward these lies.
The same thing about christmas in cambodia that was "seared" in his brain, except none of it ever happened. It is not the lie here that is important, it is the fact that he feels he has to lie, exxagerate or just streach the truth to be accepted.
You know, I have ofter thought here, but I have not posted it untill now, that should I ever be in front of a jury that I want you on it. You cannot see the truth presented to you in facts. So, to take a page out of your book, why is it that you cannot see the truth presented to you in facts when you dislike the result and it contradicts with your preconceived notions about how things should be instead of how they are?
Of course you don't have to answer these and I am sure you won't except to slice and dice the entire post and turn all these things back against me. But, you have a knack for that which I am learning from you very well.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,284
- 1,427
USAir757 said:
Because they might feel that Kerry would have a better chance of enlisting international support to help us fix what Bush has botched, reducing the need for them to have to go over. You have to admit, the biggest fault many of you find with Kerry is his "sensitivity", yet this may be the very thing it takes to get a true coalition. Bush could never get that. The other side of that is that since this war is long term, and IMHO, the draft will return - they might wonder why they should reward Bush for the haphazard job he has done in Iraq, which made the whole issue possible.
You think the world is going to jump just because John Kerry takes office? He has just as good a chance as anybody in enlisting international support - his only fault being that he wavers from day to day on how he feels about the war. (If you want to know what John Kerry is going to say on a given day, just pick up a copy of the New York Times).
But you bring up a good point, and that is that John Kerry will make sure it's ok with the "international community" before he does anything to protect this nation abroad. It all goes back to the "global test." Not good, not good at all. :down:
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,284
- 1,427
No...I don't think the world is going to jump...but there is a sliver of hope that they might. And that sliver is far more than Bush could enlist.
It sure looks like we could have used some help over in Iraq, doesn't it? Seems like a little "sensitivity" might have gone a long way, but Bush and Cheny didn't want to be "girly men". I think y'all need to be afraid of the 18-29 year old vote. It's THEIR lives that Bush is playing with.
FredF said:
I suppose it was unrealistic of me to expect you to respond to my questions in a civil manner or to expect you to back up your statements of opinion which you present as fact. You stated several points that you felt the government was not responsible for and, when asked what you propose instead, you claim the questions don't merit a response. OK, so you have nothing to propose in place of that which you would dismantle, that's some agenda you have there and one I'm sure will make America a more interesting, if not better, place to live.
And to take a page that's definitely NOT in your book, I'll answer.
I find the facts you present and which you rest your arguments upon to be incomplete and slanted to support your point of view. For instance, the link you provided on Ben Barnes was an op ed piece trying to pass as real news that consisted mostly of a personal attack on Barnes himself and did nothing to refute his statements. In fact, it confirmed his statements, but apparently the character assassination it contained was enough to pass as refutation for you.
My 'preconceived notions', as you would characterize it, are the result of looking at BOTH sides and deciding which I believe to be true, not just those which support my 'preconceived notions' as you do.
That two people can look at the same information and draw two different conclusions is not in any way surprising. However, when only one is prepared to stand behind his statements and answer questions on them, the situation devolves to what we have currently. I have offered you ample opportunity to defend your statements, and you have declined and state that my questions are without merit, but the real problem appears to be that you do not have the ability to answer them. Fine, consider them withdrawn.
You asked a question and I answered it, even though I know you will not like or accept the answer. While it may seem unfamiliar to you, the rest of us call it having a discussion. You might try it some time, instead of merely attacking those who question you, it'll be a nice change.
John Kerry
Fought to help laid-off airline workers
Protects collective bargaining rights
Opposes White House intervention in
airline-labor negotiations
Opposes expanding foreign control of U.S. airlines
Opposes privatizing air traffic control
Opposes dangerous loopholes in
aircraft repair
Favors anti-terrorism training for
flight attendants
Will fight for strong health and safety
laws for flight attendants
Fought to help laid-off airline workers
George W. Bush
Opposed helping laid-off airline workers
Opposes collective bargaining rights
Supports White House intervention in
airline-labor negotiations.
Supports expanding foreign control of
U.S. airlines
Supports privatizing air traffic control
Supports dangerous loopholes in
aircraft repair
Opposed anti-terrorism training for
flight attendants
Opposed strong health and safety laws
for flight attendants
Opposed helping laid-off airline workers
Why airline employees should NEVER vote for Bush
Fought to help laid-off airline workers
Protects collective bargaining rights
Opposes White House intervention in
airline-labor negotiations
Opposes expanding foreign control of U.S. airlines
Opposes privatizing air traffic control
Opposes dangerous loopholes in
aircraft repair
Favors anti-terrorism training for
flight attendants
Will fight for strong health and safety
laws for flight attendants
Fought to help laid-off airline workers
George W. Bush
Opposed helping laid-off airline workers
Opposes collective bargaining rights
Supports White House intervention in
airline-labor negotiations.
Supports expanding foreign control of
U.S. airlines
Supports privatizing air traffic control
Supports dangerous loopholes in
aircraft repair
Opposed anti-terrorism training for
flight attendants
Opposed strong health and safety laws
for flight attendants
Opposed helping laid-off airline workers
Why airline employees should NEVER vote for Bush
