Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: John Kerry 2004 = John Kerry 1971

  1. #1
    CaptShady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,461


    Yes | No

    Default John Kerry 2004 = John Kerry 1971

    See? Kerry sucks just as bad.


    John Kerry 2004 = John Kerry 1971

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: April 2, 2004
    1:00 a.m. Eastern


    2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.


    Since Democrats will only tell us how much they loathe President Bush and what he's doing wrong in the War on Terror, never offering their solutions for us to critique, let me tell you a few things I fear about a Kerry presidency.

    Frankly, the prospect of John Kerry becoming commander in chief at this critical point in our history horrifies me, mainly because I believe the John Kerry of 1971 is the John Kerry of today.

    Just imagine someone with the mindset of Jane Fonda circa 1971 leading our war on terror. Forget the allegedly doctored photographs showing Kerry and Fonda together. We don't need to know that these two may have met to discuss the evils of American "aggression" against the North Vietnamese.

    We know from Kerry's own words that he possessed the same contempt for America's cause and our armed services around that time. And don't tell me that his distinguished military record immunizes him from accountability for his later despicable behavior.

    It would be different if Kerry had ever grown out of his youthful nihilism. I would say "idealism," but there's nothing idealistic about accusing your fellow serviceman in Vietnam of unspeakable atrocities against innocent civilians.

    Kerry's congressional testimony in 1971 seemed to suggest that he had first-hand knowledge of such horrible acts and may have even participated in them. Of course, we are supposed to laud him for his "courage" in coming forward and shining the light of truth and thereby exempt him from any role he may have played in it.

    But how outrageous is that! If he was privy to such crimes and didn't report them, he should be held accountable. There is nothing noble about him reporting those alleged crimes and not naming names or assuming responsibility.

    Such anonymous, generalized charges merely served the purposes of the enemy, just like Jane Fonda's cavorting with North Vietnamese troops. We now know these types of activities gave comfort to the enemy and were used to demoralize our troops and prisoners of war.

    No, you say, John Kerry neither participated nor had first-hand knowledge of any barbarous acts he was merely reporting what he'd been told. Well, who told him? Ho Chi Minh? Either he had reliable information or he was spewing third-hand hearsay likely spawned by nefarious communist propagandists.

    The type of testimony he so proudly gave at those hearings wouldn't be admissible in the most primitive tribunals with the most relaxed rules of evidence, unless Kerry owned up to his own specific participation or divulged his sources. He didn't do either because outlining his participation would have been incriminating, and he had no sources to divulge.

    You see, I simply don't believe John Kerry's defamation, and I don't believe he believed it either. Sure, there were doubtlessly some atrocities committed by our side (we know of a few) we're not perfect. But I don't believe the rank and file American soldier in Vietnam was a veritable agent of Satan. By and large, these were great guys who served their country admirably and would never have considered participating in the kinds of acts Kerry described.

    We are entitled to know whether Kerry still stands by his testimony. If so, did he participate or witness these events? If so, why didn't he name names? If not, why did he rush to believe the worst about his own colleagues still in the jungles of Vietnam?

    Does he still believe that America was engaged in an immoral cause in trying to contain communism? Does he still believe there would be no bloodbath at the hands of the communists if we were to withdraw from Southeast Asia?

    And if Kerry refuses to repent and it's obvious he does, since he wears his protesting days as a badge of honor what does that tell us about his present attitude about America's enemies?

    I think he still harbors an attitude that America is an ugly bully on the world stage, that we have no business acting to protect our security without playing "Mother, may I?" with France, Germany and the United Nations, and that there is little connection between international terrorists and sponsoring states. Sure, just like there was no coordination between communists worldwide during Kerry's anti-war heyday in the '70s.

    Yes, I'm thoroughly convinced that the John Kerry of today is the John Kerry of 1971, who has no more business steering this ship of state than Jane Fonda. In these sobering times with our security, national sovereignty and freedom at stake, I shudder at the possibility that John Kerry could become our wartime president.

  2. #2
    DJeter1234
    Guest DJeter1234's Avatar


    Yes | No

    Default

    "Does he still believe that America was engaged in an immoral cause in trying to contain communism?"

    America was involved in quite a few immoral causes in trying to contain communism. And what is this evil thing that would have happened if Kerry had been President in the early 70's? The US pulling out of Vietnam? Giant government scandels involving the comitee to reelect? O, wait, that was Nixon. If you don't like smear tactics being used on bush, stop trying doing it yourself. Kerry has a lot of faults but druding up anti-hippie rhetoric from the 70's doesn't do much to convince anyone who isn't already on Bush's side.

  3. #3
    CaptShady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,461


    Yes | No

    Default

    I'm NOT on Bush's side. Polluting this fora with anti Bush misinformation is bullshit. So what can one do? GIVE IT RIGHT BACK! And what I RESPOND with is a mere fraction of the flip side of this. Oh .. I guess I should also say, "if you don't like it, don't read it"

  4. #4
    DJeter1234
    Guest DJeter1234's Avatar


    Yes | No

    Default

    "what can one do? GIVE IT RIGHT BACK!"

    great attitude! That's the way to make politics better. It in no way contributes to the reason why both candidates leave much to be desired

    "if you don't like it, don't read it"

    usually i don't. Every time i log onto this site i see thread after thread you started insulting Kerry. The sheer number of posts i have to skim was beginning to annoy me, so I decided to respond.

  5. #5
    CaptShady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,461


    Yes | No

    Default

    ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!! Like I said .. a mere fraction of threads when compared to that of the anti Bush bullshit.

  6. #6
    DJeter1234
    Guest DJeter1234's Avatar


    Yes | No

    Default

    probably in general, but not on this site. You want a way to make sure they balance? Just post one of your "arguements" in every one of their threads and cut the BS threads in half. its funny, today i was skimming throguh an artical, i think in newsweek, with some quote about how young South Africans are so tired of everyone telling them how they are the nation's future and hope that none of them care anymore. I'm on spring brake, so watching a lot rmoe TV than usual, and I'm so sick of anti-Bush and anti-Kerry adds that I might have to vote for nadar. which i woudl very mcuh rather not do

  7. #7
    The Wastrel
    Guest The Wastrel's Avatar


    Yes | No

    Default

    CaptShady,
    Misinformation should be pretty easy to dispel. I mean, you KNOW it's misinformation, right? So you must be able to find a refutation? Or are you really just talking about opinion?

    It's funny you talk about misinformation, yet post an article that is nothing but naked conjecture.

    Hmm...from now on, I'm going to say that Bush is exactly the same as he was in 1971, a callow frat-boy drunk.

    Wait...that's not true. Never mind.

  8. #8
    CaptShady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,461


    Yes | No

    Default

    LOL!

    In rebuttal, you know as well as I do that 1) those posting anti Bush rhetoric are impressionable BY such rhetoric, and 2) the main composition of the members of this site fit into the above category.

  9. #9
    CaptShady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,461


    Yes | No

    Default

    Originally posted by DJeter1234
    probably in general, but not on this site.
    Bullshido! Count balloonknot's posts in this fora! Hell, he posted 6 in a matter of 5 minutes! His anti bush threads alone outnumber ALL of mine in this fora. Let alone the OTHER anti Bush threads.

  10. #10
    DJeter1234
    Guest DJeter1234's Avatar


    Yes | No

    Default

    but he recognizes it is misinformation. i just don't understand why one would see through the one-sided mudslinging and somehow take it on him/herself to make sure that it continues, but equally.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
◮ Top