PDA

View Full Version : Kerry misses another defense vote



highsea
08-05-2004, 04:23 PM
Now I know Kerry will probably not cast another vote in the Senate before the election, but it really pisses me off.
[ QUOTE ]
Before leaving for the Midwest, Bush signed a $417.5 billion wartime defense bill providing an additional $25 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, body armor for troops and reinforced Humvee vehicles. Kerry, a four-term Massachusetts senator, missed the votes on the bill.<hr /></blockquote>
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040805_1483.html

Kerry knows that if he votes for it, he looks like he is supporting the war, and if he votes against, he isn't supporting the troops. So he chooses to not vote. No explanation given, he's just AWOL.

What a wimp.

Barbara
08-05-2004, 05:07 PM
CM,

Did you hear the one with Kerry and the DNC threatening to sue any station that airs the ad the Swift Vets put together addressing (in a somewhat less-than-glowing note) Kerry's actions in Vietnam?

Gee, Kerry gets to use their images but they can't come back to rebutt the situation.

Barbara

highsea
08-05-2004, 05:50 PM
I just read that he sent a letter to all the stations that have contracted to air the ad, but I don't know exactly what the content of the letters are, only that they seem to be somewhat threatening to the stations.

But the Dems seem to think everything can be solved by throwing lawyers at the problem, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit. As of right now, they have 6000 lawyers around the country preparing to contest any election results that go against them. There are teams of Kerry lawyers in every State capitol. This is unprecedented in the US.

In 2000 we had to wait, what almost 2 months before we had an official result? Look how that raised hell with the transition, and that was only a couple counties in one State. How long will it be dragged out this year?

Too many fingers in the pie, imo. The parties need to let the elected officials in the States do their jobs without interference.

But my rant is drifting off topic. As far as the SBV ad, they are a 527 group, so legally they can say whetever they want. I say if it's okay for Move-on.org and the all time #1 Dem cheerleader, MM, then it's okay for the SBV's.

-CM

Ross
08-05-2004, 10:28 PM
You guys truly don't see your own (not to be mean, but I don't know any other word for it) hypocritical double-standard?

Without checking the facts about the ad or reading the letter that the Democrats wrote, you "assume" the claims in the ad are true and that Democrats objecting is evidence of "Democratic lawyering". Well, if you reason that way, I guess the advantage is that you will always be "right". A Clinton-hating conservative zealot funds an ad that is, from all objective accounts, so dishonest it makes Farenheit 9/11 look like the Ten Commandments. Democrats object and you conclude from this that this is evidence the Democrats are bad!!!!!!!!!!

You apply a logic that's like testing for a witch by throwing her in the water - if she tries to swim and save herself, she obviously is a witch and needs to be burned at the stake.

McCain has condemned the ad and rightly so. It is a "dirty tricks" ad of the lowest form, and you are falling for it just like thousands of South Carolinians did when the Bush people used rumors to smear McCain's war record as the Republican primaries went into that state. And they did the same thing (falsely questioning patriotism) to the Vietnam vet quadruple amputee guy in the deep south (I don't remember his name) to sabotage his election chances.

At least have the decency to read the Democrats letter and read some objective reports about the "swiftboat" TV ad before you decide how "wrong" the Democrats are to object.

And Highsea, you end with words to the effect "if it's alright for MM to mislead" then it's ok for the swiftboat vets to mislead. But in your other post you argued the exact opposite - that it isn't OK for MM to mislead - that makes him a liar. So you want it both ways - in your view MM is a liar and garbage because you don't think he was fair in his assesment of the Bush administration, but the swiftboat vets are defended by you -- "legally they can say whatever they want." What happened to the righteous condemnation of dishonesty?

(I think I'm going to air an ad that says Bush has sex with sheep, and if any conservatives object, I'm going to accuse them of "hiding behind lawyers.")

Lord, help us all...

Fair_Play
08-05-2004, 11:37 PM
"hypocritical double standard" OK, so the 21 Medal of Honor winners who signed a letter strongly anti Kerry-Heinz? What are the odds that they are ALL democrats, or ALL republicans, that they are all dishonorable lying sacks of fecal matter? Go figure, it is obvious and evident that they are gullible goon dupes of the RNC.
(guess my partisanship got away with me there, boyo!)
AND - there has got to be a good reason why John F. Kerry- Heinz is willing to say on television that ALL of his military records have been released.. but then, of course, ALL have ONLY been released, if at all, to the Sartorial Senatorial Yachtsman, and ARE NOT available to anyone else... hey, he was a navy guy, right? That goes a long way to explaining why I and others <font color="red">smell a rotten fish... </font color>/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Heck, all the best to all.

Ross
08-06-2004, 01:02 AM
Watch the ad. Then tell me if you suspected that NOT ONE OF THE 12 VETS who say "I served with Kerry" actually served with Kerry's on either of his two swiftboats? And then tell me what you think it means that everyone WHO ACTUALLY WAS ON THE BOAT WITH HIM praises him?

Hell, I wasn't there - Kerry might have been a hero or a goat. You don't know either. But you are choosing to believe an ad paid for by a man who has a long history of being a Clinton hater, who himself created the "swiftboat vets" group and their website, and whose ad quotes ONLY men who didn't actually work with him on the swiftboats, instead of the men who actually were on the boat with him?!!!!

Yes, I will say you aren't interested in the truth. You seem predisposed to believe any anti-Kerry blather you hear and ignore contrary evidence. Of course if you read www.newsmax.com (http://www.newsmax.com), Drudgereport, and other similar "Al Jazerra for conservatives" news outlets that spout this rhetoric, you will be able to cite mountains of similar evidence that prove Kerry is a scumbag, since creating these "hate points" daily is how they get their audience to pay their bills.

What happened to the call for "fair and balanced" reporting? Was that a sham phrase for "conservative viewpoint" reporting?

Logic shmogic - Bush opponents are evil, stupid, unpatriotic, waffling, unAmerican, lying fools!!!! Go with it!!!

Qtec
08-06-2004, 05:51 AM
Tap.Tap.Tap.


Q

pooltchr
08-06-2004, 06:03 AM
Ross,
I have a tendency not to believe either add. Having spent my military time primarily on a ship, I can tell you that if <font color="red"> anyone </font color> claimed to have the 100% support of his crew, I would argue that fact. Likewise, I doubt everyone was totally against him either. Let's face it, it's election time, and everyone puts their own spin on everything.
I would rather Kerry focus on his political record rather than his military record. He is running for political office, not boat captain.
Steve ~~ Doesn't believe much of anything in political adds from ANY candidate!

eg8r
08-06-2004, 06:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I would rather Kerry focus on his political record rather than his military record. He is running for political office, not boat captain. <hr /></blockquote> You are absolutely correct. Kerry asked to be specifically judged based on his record. Just wondering which record Kerry is referring to. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
08-06-2004, 06:31 AM
http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_pdf.html

Apparently the tv stations received, along with the ad, 60 pages of affadavits from the veterans in the ad.

Qtec
08-06-2004, 07:21 AM
McCain condems anti-Kerry ad.

Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

The White House declined.

"In the advertisement, running on stations in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, men who served on Swift boats say Mr. Kerry "is no war hero'' and "lied to get his Bronze Star.'' The spot opens with some of the men saying "I served with John Kerry.'' None of the men served with Mr. Kerry on his Swift boat but claim to have served on boats that were often near his




So, according to their own criteria, basically everyone who fought in Vietnam 'served'with J Kerry. LOL

This is so low.


Q [ anybody remember honour,integrity and truth?]

Wally_in_Cincy
08-06-2004, 07:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>None of the men served with Mr. Kerry on his Swift boat but claim to have served on boats that were often near his




So, according to their own criteria, basically everyone who fought in Vietnam 'served'with J Kerry. LOL

This is so low.


Q [ anybody remember honour,integrity and truth?]



<hr /></blockquote>

The boats worked in teams. They were often in very close proximity and fighting the same battles.

One of the vets commanded a boat that ferried Kerry to a hospital ship. He requested and got a purple heart for his injury. A bruise on his arm.

08-06-2004, 09:38 AM
Bush makes me sick is my only comment

Wally_in_Cincy
08-06-2004, 10:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote VooDoozDoll:</font><hr> Bush makes me sick is my only comment <hr /></blockquote>

You can't get a purple heart for being sick, just a silver star

Ross
08-06-2004, 11:29 AM
Steve,

You are right to pretty much ignore all TV political ads. They are usually so biased and manipulative as to be essentially worthless.

I was just saying that everything we have heard from the handful of men who served under Kerry on his swiftboat has been positive but some are choosing to give more credibility to a political ad from a group that was created by Merrie Spaeth and John O'Neill. Spaeth has a track record of doing PR for dishonest ads, and O'Neill has been attacking Kerry since 1971.

In 2000, Spaeth was the PR person for a set of television ads falsely attacking the environmental record of Sen. John McCain in California, New York and Ohio. The ads were disguised to appear to be from an independent group called "Republicans for Clean Air" and the real ad backers tried to keep their identity hidden. Reporters ultimately found that, in reality, there was no such group, and the ad's backers consisted entirely of Sam Wyly and his brother, both major benefactors of George Bush.

Houston attorney O'Neill has been attacking Kerry since tapped to do so in 1971 by Chuck Colson, Nixon's right-hand man. Spaeth herself once described O'Neill as "sounding like a crazed extremist".

Not the type of people I would look to for the straight scoop!

highsea
08-06-2004, 11:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> And Highsea, you end with words to the effect "if it's alright for MM to mislead" then it's ok for the swiftboat vets to mislead. But in your other post you argued the exact opposite - that it isn't OK for MM to mislead - that makes him a liar. So you want it both ways - in your view MM is a liar and garbage because you don't think he was fair in his assesment of the Bush administration, but the swiftboat vets are defended by you -- "legally they can say whatever they want." What happened to the righteous condemnation of dishonesty?

(I think I'm going to air an ad that says Bush has sex with sheep, and if any conservatives object, I'm going to accuse them of "hiding behind lawyers.")

Lord, help us all... <hr /></blockquote>Geez, Ross, you forgot to call me a Kool-aid drinking Moonie! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Lol. Anyone want to talk about the OP, or should I start another thread?

-CM

Ross
08-06-2004, 11:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Geez, Ross, you forgot to call me a Kool-aid drinking Moonie! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Lol. Anyone want to talk about the OP, or should I start another thread?

-CM <hr /></blockquote>
Damn, Highsea, I KNEW there was something I was going to call you - thanks for reminding me! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

bluewolf
08-07-2004, 10:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> You guys truly don't see your own (not to be mean, but I don't know any other word for it) hypocritical double-standard?

Without checking the facts about the ad or reading the letter that the Democrats wrote, you "assume" the claims in the ad are true and that Democrats objecting is evidence of "Democratic lawyering". Well, if you reason that way, I guess the advantage is that you will always be "right". A Clinton-hating conservative zealot funds an ad that is, from all objective accounts, so dishonest it makes Farenheit 9/11 look like the Ten Commandments. Democrats object and you conclude from this that this is evidence the Democrats are bad!!!!!!!!!!

You apply a logic that's like testing for a witch by throwing her in the water - if she tries to swim and save herself, she obviously is a witch and needs to be burned at the stake.

McCain has condemned the ad and rightly so. It is a "dirty tricks" ad of the lowest form, and you are falling for it just like thousands of South Carolinians did when the Bush people used rumors to smear McCain's war record as the Republican primaries went into that state. And they did the same thing (falsely questioning patriotism) to the Vietnam vet quadruple amputee guy in the deep south (I don't remember his name) to sabotage his election chances.


<hr /></blockquote>

Ross,

You got a lot of guts to stay in these discussions and I always enjoy reading your responses and thoughts. Guess I am not as courageous as you since I ducked out of these partison arguments a long time ago. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Laura

highsea
08-07-2004, 12:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>Without checking the facts about the ad or reading the letter that the Democrats wrote, you "assume" the claims in the ad are true and that Democrats objecting is evidence of "Democratic lawyering". <hr /></blockquote>Ross, If you read my reply, it says nothing about the claims in the SBV ad. Please don't put words in my mouth.

As a matter of fact, the OP had nothing to do with the SBV ad, it was about Kerry's absence in the Senate during the Defense Budget Vote. BTW, did you know that the Senate has a rule that anyone that misses 20% of the votes is supposed to relinquish their salary? Kerry has missed 87% of the votes this year. Do you suppose he is surrendering his salary? (hint: no)

My reply to Barbara said specifically that I had not seen the DNC letter to the stations, only that I had heard that it was somewhat threatening. You compare that to a witch hunt. Whatever.

You can read the letter from Kerry's lawyers here:
http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_pdf.html

The site summarizes: The letter claims the ad is "false" and "libelous" and suggests, in not-so-subtle terms, that TV stations should use their "legal authority" to refuse any requests for advertising airtime, stating that "because your station has this freedom [to refuse the ad], and because it is not a 'use' of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor"

Considering the source, I would say that sounds like a threat.

And finally, I said nothing about the SBV's right to mislead. I said that as a 527, they have the legal right to make their ads, no different then the many liberal 527's campaigning for Kerry. As a matter of fact, the Dems are way ahead in this respect, with over $75 million spent so far on 527 attack ads. It's up to the viewer to decide the credibility.

-CM

Qtec
08-07-2004, 10:08 PM
"It's up to the viewer to decide the credibility."

Is that what you said about MM,s film??? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Slander is a crime. The law says you are not allowed to spread LIES about another person.

Q

highsea
08-08-2004, 12:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> "It's up to the viewer to decide the credibility."

Is that what you said about MM,s film??? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Slander is a crime. The law says you are not allowed to spread LIES about another person.

Q
<hr /></blockquote>Yes, Q, that is what I say about MM's films. Even when they are being showed in Syria and Lebanon, etc., I only criticize Moore for marketing them there. Show me one time when I said a theatre should be prevented from showing the film.

I also have the right to speak my opinion about the film, and back it up with facts if I so choose. Just as you do with the SBV ads, if you so choose. I am not about censoring anyone who wants to publicly state their opinion of our leaders.

Slander and Libel have to be proved in a court of law. Kerry's boys have this option AFTER the ads are played. What they are attempting is prior censorship. If their case is so strong, why didn't they go to a judge and just get an injunction instead of threatening the stations?

Also, a public figure like a politician doesn't enjoy the same privacy that the general public enjoys. Kerry continuously says that Bush misled the nation to war, though the 9/11 comission has clearly stated that it was the intel that was faulty. So Kerry is calling Bush a liar. Is that Slander? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that faulty intel led us to war?

Kerry could shut up the SBV's very easy. Just sign a DD180 and release his medical records like Bush has done. Kerry is the one who chose to make Vietnam a central part of his campaign. He has his team of SBV's campaigning with him, so why shouldn't other vets be allowed to have their say?

-CM