Kerry & Cambodia

[spiderman]

If it is proven that John Kerry did in fact lie about being in Cambodia during Christmas does that matter to anybody?

[townes]

Not me.


Let's see, where was W at the same time??????? Hmmmnnnn?.....


oh, that's right, he was cheating on his wife with strippers and doing as much coke as he could, not too mention feeding his alcohol addiction for all it was worth.





What matters in this election is the direction the country is going, and right now that happens to be ---down the toilet.


EVERYTHING is worse now than it was four years ago, and it's only going to get worse with this administration destroying everything in it's sight.

[Nomadic Logic]

While I think townes is going a bit overboard, I wouldn't care so much about that paticular lie as I would what it say about his overall character and integrity.

[Undertaker #59]

Originally posted by townes
What matters in this election is the direction the country is going, and right now that happens to be ---down the toilet.


I happen to agree that the country is going down hill, maybe not to the extreme you do, but definately down. Where I disagree is I don't think Kerry would make a lick of difference in this.

[townes]

Originally posted by Nomadic Logic
While I think townes is going a bit overboard, I wouldn't care so much about that paticular lie as I would what it say about his overall character and integrity.


Townes going overboard????


Next we know you will be claiming that the happily married democratic governor of new jersey hits from the other side of the plate:eek:

[townes]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
I happen to agree that the country is going down hill, maybe not to the extreme you do, but definately down. Where I disagree is I don't think Kerry would make a lick of difference in this.


Undertaker, you are absolutely right that Kerry won't go nearly far enough in reforming the government to make me happy, but watching thses guys get frogwalked out of the White House would be a good start imo.


Kerry will start taking tax breaks away from corporations that are outsourcing, and that would be a great start.

I see the advantages this way:

Hope for a foreign policy that includes our allies, instead of pissing on them.

Enforcement of trade and labor agreements.

Support for american workers--this country is getting wal-martized and we need a President who respects the american worker, not one who thinks we are total sh*t. Higher wages and respect for unions. CEO Cheney and the silver spoon boy are as anti american worker as any two people in this country, and we are all paying the price for it.

The Supreme Court-This court is one appointment away from making life miserable for many generations to come, they are right wing now, and one more appointment will make them the nastiest bunmch we have ever seen.

Stem cell research bans will be lifted. For anyone with kids the may be the biggest issue of them all, as everyone has family who gets sick, and we are denying them the benefits of medical breakthoughs by keeping them from ever happening.

Envirnmental laws will be enforced again and trade treaties will be enforced. The Bush administration is currently blocking the AFLCIO from filing grievances against the chinese for grossly disregarding trade agreements.

The possibility of meaningful alliances, which a are vital to combatting terror,will again exist, whereas now it clearly doesn't.



The idiot W will be out of office, and DICK will no longer be the most powerful man in the world.

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by townes
Not me.


Let's see, where was W at the same time??????? Hmmmnnnn?.....


oh, that's right, he was cheating on his wife with strippers and doing as much coke as he could, not too mention feeding his alcohol addiction for all it was worth.





What matters in this election is the direction the country is going, and right now that happens to be ---down the toilet.


EVERYTHING is worse now than it was four years ago, and it's only going to get worse with this administration destroying everything in it's sight.

God, I hope Bush gets re-elected.

[townes]

Originally posted by Nomadic Logic
While I think townes is going a bit overboard, I wouldn't care so much about that paticular lie as I would what it say about his overall character and integrity.


Nomadic logic, have you ever done cocaine?

[Spinal Tap]

I've done cocaine. Just a few times though. Really don't like it that much, but I can see how so many others love it.

Sorry, had to share.

[bideau]

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
God, I hope Bush gets re-elected.

And me and my family are praying that he doesn't. At least I know he won't win my state.

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
Next we know you will be claiming that the happily married democratic governor of new jersey hits from the other side of the plate:eek: I didn't know what you were talking about until I saw this.

N.J. governor, saying he?s gay, resigns office (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5686618/)

McGreevey?s decision comes ahead of expected sex-harassment lawsuit
NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 5:23 p.m. ET Aug. 12, 2004

TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey announced his resignation Thursday afternoon, saying he had had an extramarital affair with another man that could leave the state government vulnerable to undue outside influences.

?My truth is that I am a gay American,? McGreevey, a Democratic former prosecutor who has seen several political aides and fund-raisers accused of corruption, said at a televised news conference.

?Shamefully, I engaged in adult consensual affairs with another man, which violates my bonds of matrimony,? said McGreevey, 47, the married father of two. ?It was wrong. It was foolish. It was inexecusable.?

McGreevey said his secret ? both his sexuality and his affair ? left the governor?s office vulnerable. ?I am removing these threats by telling you about my sexuality,? he said.

Specter of lawsuit
WABC-TV of New York reported that McGreevey was expecting a lawsuit by a former aide accusing him of sexual harassment. The station identified the former aide as Golan Cipel, who resigned as McGreevey?s security adviser in 2002 after months of questioning about his credentials and job qualifications.

A former Israeli sailor and a published poet, Cipel, 33, was criticized because he did not have a security clearance or law enforcement background. He had worked in television news and public relations.

The governor, who was married once before, said he had long struggled with the thoughts of his sexuality.

?Because of my resolve and also thinking I was doing the right thing, I also forced what I thought was an acceptable reality onto myself,? he said.

Steven Fisher, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for gay and lesbian causes, told MSNBC-TV: ?Coming out is a deeply personal journey, and Governor McGreevey today showed enormous courage.?

Earlier this year, McGreevey signed a domestic partners law granting gay and lesbian couples many of the same rights as married couples. But he explicitly opposed same-sex marriages throughout the 2002 campaign and his administration.

McGreevey called on judges in 2002 to reject petitions seeking to legalize same-sex marriages, saying they would have a ?detrimental impact ... in the state of New Jersey.? He stepped into the national controversy over same-sex marriages last March when he directed the state attorney general to order local officials not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
________
vapir air one (http://vaporizers.net/vapir-air-one)

[dchester]

Originally posted by Nomadic Logic
While I think townes is going a bit overboard, I wouldn't care so much about that paticular lie as I would what it say about his overall character and integrity. I would agree with this as well. I don't know why it's so difficult for politicians to be more honest.

It's kind of like when Clinton said he smoked pot, but he never inhaled it. I couldn't have cared less about whether he smoked some pot or not, but it told me about his character.
________
XKSS (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Jaguar_XKSS)

[spiderman]

Originally posted by dchester
I would agree with this as well. I don't know why it's so difficult for politicians to be more honest.

It's kind of like when Clinton said he smoked pot, but he never inhaled it. I couldn't have cared less about whether he smoked some pot or not, but it told me about his character.

But is this the same thing? Is Kerry being evasive like Clinton was in a sense, or is this something more sinister? I mean, here he is telling this story over and over in order to make a convincing argument to Congress, and it could all be a total fabrication? Should this be cause for concern?

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by townes
Nomadic logic, have you ever done cocaine?
I have. what's your point here, though?

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman
If it is proven that John Kerry did in fact lie about being in Cambodia during Christmas does that matter to anybody?

He may or may not have thought he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 (I doubt the borders were really well marked at the time), but the real lie is that he implied that Nixon was President then. What's that all about? Is Kerry trying to rewrite history?

[townes]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
I have. what's your point here, though?

So have I.


My point is that anyonewho has never done cocaine has no problem acknowledging that they have never done it, yet, every time the press asked the Bush Campaign about his use of cocaine, their response was that "he could pass security clearance." i.e...he hadn't done any within the past 7 years, not that he had never done it, which they would have readily claimed if it were true that he hadn't.


My larger point is thew gross hypocrisy behind the claim to moral high ground that the Bush supporters claim for him; the truth is much different.

He was cheating on his wife with little girls at home, to the point where she threatened to leave him if it didn't stop.

He abused cocaine, alcohol and who knows what else.

He was arrested for drunk driving in his thirties, and lied about it on his federal election papers.





I don't know about you, but I'm not going to allow someone with W's track record for being a spoiled little frat boy to hold the moral high ground, and the Bush supporters who attacked Clinton for years, and then Gore and kerry, have a serious case of convenient amnesia when it comes to the behavior of the candidate they support.

Now they are attacking Kerry for his service in Nam, while talking up the strength and resolve of a man called AWOL.

I think I'm going to puke.

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
I think I'm going to puke. I hope that you feel better, after watching the Patriots tonight.
:D
________
universal health warehouse (http://uhwh.com/)

[townes]

Thanks dchester, i'm sure i will. I'm really looking forward to seeing the young DL, Wilfork and M. Hill. The Patriots have built a DL that I believe will dominate for many years to come, and i don't mind if Belichek uses his first on dominating DL for the foreseeable future---you just can't have enough of them imo.


If teams can't win the battle of the lines then they won't be beating the Patriots.

Damn it's a good time to be a Patriot's fan.

This is the first year i haven't had to drive south to catch the pre-season games live on TV, and I'm psyched to be able to hang out at home and watch the game.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by townes
So have I.


My point is that anyonewho has never done cocaine has no problem acknowledging that they have never done it, yet, every time the press asked the Bush Campaign about his use of cocaine, their response was that "he could pass security clearance." i.e...he hadn't done any within the past 7 years, not that he had never done it, which they would have readily claimed if it were true that he hadn't.


Yeah Townes, but if Kerry had done cocaine regularly and was drunk half the time until he was 40, it's not like any Republicans would dwell on it....

[townes]

Mark, I agree completely, and it's the hypocrisy about W that really pisses me off. It's no different than the left continuing to claim that Clinton wasn't an adulterer because he didn't bone the fat chick in the ugly blue dress.


At least Clinton was qualified to govern, I wouldn't let W run the counter at 7-11.

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by townes
Mark, I agree completely, and it's the hypocrisy about W that really pisses me off. It's no different than the left continuing to claim that Clinton wasn't an adulterer because he didn't bone the fat chick in the ugly blue dress.


At least Clinton was qualified to govern, I wouldn't let W run the counter at 7-11.

God, I hope Bush gets re-elected.

[townes]

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
God, I hope Bush gets re-elected.


me too

four more wars

four more wars

four more wars

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
me too

four more wars

four more wars

four more wars Four seems a tad excessive to me. I would think dealing with Iran and Syria would be enough.
________
arizona dispensaries (http://dispensaries.org/)

[spiderman]

Originally posted by townes
Mark, I agree completely, and it's the hypocrisy about W that really pisses me off. It's no different than the left continuing to claim that Clinton wasn't an adulterer because he didn't bone the fat chick in the ugly blue dress.


At least Clinton was qualified to govern, I wouldn't let W run the counter at 7-11.

So what are we saying here? The question is "Should it matter that Kerry lied about being in Cambodia on Christmas?" You are saying it shouldn't because Bush supposedly did cocaine in the 70s, and won't own up to it? I'm confused? Why did you bring this up?

[Nomadic Logic]

Originally posted by dchester
Four seems a tad excessive to me. I would think dealing with Iran and Syria would be enough.
North Korea, too.

...and we can add Canada if we need an even number.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by spiderman
So what are we saying here? The question is "Should it matter that Kerry lied about being in Cambodia on Christmas?" You are saying it shouldn't because Bush supposedly did cocaine in the 70s, and won't own up to it? I'm confused? Why did you bring this up?

I think it does matter if a Presidential candidate misrepresented himself. A classic case is when Joe Biden delivered a speech talking about his childhood and it turned out that portions of the speech were actually plagiarized word for word from English politician Neil Kinnock.

I believe what Townes is responding to, and I know I am, is the orchestrated nature of the smear campaign against Kerry and the hypocrisy of those behind it. As soon as Kerry got the nomination all of the attacks against his Vietnam service were quite obviously in the can, ready to roll.

I don't like it, but politicians often bend the facts of their stories to make them more self-serving. A lot of the time, the rambling endearing stories Reagan would tell about Betty Sue somebody in Iowa didn't actually add up.

Kerry did volunteer to serve in Vietnam and he specifically volunteered for hazardous duty. He was repeatedly under enemy fire and was shot several times. That is undisputed.

Now, the details are being picked apart to benefit a President
who not only used his connections to get a cherished National Guard spot, but then used his connections again to get away with skipping out on a year of that service. He REFUSES to admit this, though the only evidence he could come up to dispute his year AWOL (after several YEARS of allegations) was some paperwork that documents that he showed up for a doctor's appointment one day.

Serving in the military isn't a solitary task like running the Iditarod. If he was there, SOMEBODY would remember it.

Spider - don't you see the utter hypocrisy of someone with Bush's record (and Cheney, who got 5 deferments) trying to use Kerry's service to tarnish his character? You've bought into it because you posted this thread. Kerry brought this on a bit by featuring his Vietnam service so prominently, but it's kind of bizarro-world that the Bush campaign can be getting away with this.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
Spider - don't you see the utter hypocrisy of someone with Bush's record (and Cheney, who got 5 deferments) trying to use Kerry's service to tarnish his character? You've bought into it because you posted this thread. Kerry brought this on a bit by featuring his Vietnam service so prominently, but it's kind of bizarro-world that the Bush campaign can be getting away with this.

Kerry lied about being in Cambodia during Christmas...who exposed the story and why, are secondary issues that don't change the fact that he's fabricating stories about his service, and more importantly implicating Naval Officers as war criminals.

What exactly is the Bush campaign getting away with? The facts are the facts, are they not?...are they lying? If anyone has been getting away with anything it has been Kerry not Bush.

-It's so telling how you choose to rationalize Kerry's dishonesty by attacking the messenger, that is, if Bush is even the messenger. But I'm sure you'd probably believe in some grand Bush/Swift Boat Veterans conspiracy before you would ever believe that Kerry is a liar.

[townes]

Mark is right, I don't give a crap where Kerry was in SE Asia, only that he volunteered to go there, while the Coward in Chief cowered under mommy's apron. One served honorably and tyhe other went AWOL. There is absolutely no question as to who the better leader is imo, because W is the WORST "leader" this country has ever had the misfortune of having.


The pattern is set, if anyone with a military background runs against George Hoover Bush his aides smear them and make crap up to distort their records and obfuscate W's own background. The issue is who is best qualified to run this country, and W's record is one of ruining it, not running it.


W can't run on his record, because it SUCKS! Not one thing has improved the past four years, and i can't believe anyone is stupid enough to want four more years of these scumbags.

W's platform:

More war.

More debt.

Fewer jobs.

lower wages.

More pollution.

more corporate pillaging of the american worker.

Less education.

More religion in government.

less scientific progress.




W SUCKS!

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
W can't run on his record, because it SUCKS! Not one thing has improved the past four years, and i can't believe anyone is stupid enough to want four more years of these scumbags. I guess it just shows how little some people think of Kerry, when Bush still looks like the better alternative.

W's platform:

More war. I agree that if Gore had been President instead of Bush, it's less likely we would have gone into Iraq. I'm just not sure that's a good thing (and apparently neither does Kerry, if you can believe what he said last week, in that he still would have given the Prsident the authorization to go to War if he knew back then what he knows now). I will say that there are some aspects of the war, and subsequent occupation that I think were handled poorly (I prefer the Powell approach, very large forces). But thus far I agree with the decision to go to war.

More debt.

Fewer jobs.

lower wages. Macro-economics is a difficult thing to discuss, and there is enough hypocracy in BOTH parties where this is concerned. Without going on for pages (and I know, the devil's in the details), there are only a few things the government can do to really help the economy.
1) Lower the interest rates - This task has long ago been delegated to the fed, to try to take some of the politics out of it. A benefit, up and until it causes inflation.
2) Cut Taxes - Short term benefit. Long term, likely will increase the deficit. (there are some formulas where people will try to convince you that it can lower the deficit under the right circumstances. It just seems that those circumstances rarely happen)
3) Increase spending - Short term benefit. Long term, likely will increase the deficit. - Reagan probably did this about as well as anyone recently to boost the economy (spending that led to jobs creation, of course when the spending stopped, so did a lot of the jobs).

There is a lot of debate of other options, like trade agreements and such. My feeling is that they tend to shuffle things around (helping some and hurting others), rather than doing as much as the other options to help things overall.

Basically the options (that do the most) involve lowering the interest rates, and raising the deficit.

More pollution. I'd have to see the data you are refering to, before I could comment on this. I know that Clinton set up a time table for various pollution cuts, where all the (pie in the sky) things that he couldn't implement where pushed into the next administration. This left Bush the task of announcing he wouldn't follow what Clinton had said. Of course this was great politics on Clinton's part.

more corporate pillaging of the american worker. BTW, companies like Enron that raped everyone blind are being prosecuted by Bush. I think the democrats did a masterful job of linking corruption in companies like Enron and Worldcom to Bush, even though they committed their crimes under the incompetant Clinton administration (actually I suppose that dim-witted Janet Reno should get the majority of the blame for that free for all).

Less education. I'd have to see the data you are refering to, before I could comment on this.

More religion in government. Not everyone thinks this is a bad thing. My self, I have to look at these thing on a case by case basis. I think some of them are good, while others are bad.

less scientific progress. I wouldn't agree with this, although I suspect his priorities on where to fund research may be different from yours.

Townes, I have no illusions that I can persuade you, or anyone else here that my opinions are any better than yours, or anyone elses. It's just that I felt like saying there are other points of view, and different ways of looking at things.

I'm also really curious to see if it is possible to discuss issues like this without it turning into a flame war. You seem like a good guy (even if you don't see my wisdom :D ), so maybe it is possible.

Take care
________
no2 vaporizer (http://vaporizers.net/no2-vaporizer/)

[townes]

Good response dchester, and the answer is yes, I can discuss policy without bringing out the flamethrower, but only with those who aren't throwing flames. When it comes to this particular issue-Kerry's service, i would say the answer is no, because I consider any questioning of Kerry's service by Bush supporters to be gross hypocrisy, and just a furtherance of a nasty smear campaign their boy wants them to wage. Questioning Kerry's service, while supporting the Deserter in Chief is as ludicrous as giving unbid contracts for billions to Cheney's company

I have said before that my tendency is to respond in kind, and i think my reponses in this forum show that. I wouldn't say it's always a good thing, but it is the the truth imo. There are examples where I talk policy, and examples where i basically say that they can blow it out their asses, it just depends on the way the discussion is going.



As far as Iraq goes, I have been opposed to it all along. The idea of attacking a secular nation as an action against the religious extremists who are attacking us makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, fact is, imo, that it was the plan all along, has nothing to do with terror, and Bush administration cabinet memebers and bureaucrats have both confirmed this. The swamps where terror breeds are the madrasses in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which have the support of their respective governments. While an argument can be made to go to war with either of these countries, or Iran for that matter, no such argument can be made for Iraq--It was a lie all along, and that's been confirmed as well.



Fact: The Bush State Department published a map in 2002 in which they showed forty countries harboring Al Queada---Iraq wasn't on it!


I don't buy any of the "bad man in his neighborhood" BS, and it's clear Hussein wasn't working with Al Queada-in short, the story created to go to war was pure fiction and complete nonsense. The Bush administration is guilty of numerous war crimes and they should be held accountable for them imo. I'm normally opposed to capital punishment, but i may be able to see clear to making exceptions in this case.

[Prometheus441]

The bottom line with Kerrys service is ,that is an issue ,since he has made the focal point of his campaign.If it comes to light that
little or none of what Kerry has claimed is true,then he is unworthy of any trust.Kerry also has serious issues to adress in his stances on serveral issues that simply does'nt gel.

As for the war in Iraq.We went there based on intelligence that
said Sadam was a threat and either did or would soon posses
the ability to kill Americans.It had nothing to do with Al Quadia,
although intelligence also pointed to several incidents where the
two had contact.This was noted in the 9/11 reports and can picked up at Barnes & Noble.It is also a fact,that almost every country in the world has an Al Quadia presence in it.

The arguement can be made that going with intelligence reports
was a bad decision,but the senate voted for the war with the same information as Bush had.Of course,you could exclude Kerry from that because,as he has said "I never actually read the intelligence commitee report before I voted to go to war with Iraq".

[townes]

I am writing the response to Swift Boat veterans for Truth right now, the working title is "COMBAT ZONE VETERANS FOR TRUTH," and it's every bit as credible as John O'Neil's version. W and I were both in the United States at the time, and neither were defending our country (although I was in grade school, so i had a better reason.)

In "Combat Zone" I detail the drug use and partying that went on in those days, and explain why W got a Rolled up Ten Spot Medal of Honor for brain damage incurred during his service. I discuss how W met Laura, who was dancing at that time, and reveal how they kept her drunken driving and abortions out of the public eye.



I repeat, I was also in the United States during this time, so it is entirely based upon these first hand accounts.




BTW-Laura injected herself into this campaign by arguing for the deaths of millions of future citzens as a way of honoring her religious belief system, so her past is now "FAIR GAME" as Karl Rove would say.




For those who find this offensive----now you know how we feel every time the Bush campaign smears another decent person (Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke, John McCain, John Kerry.............).


I'll talk policy with anyone who wants to talk policy, but the smearers are getting a kick in the ass right back.


Hopefully "Combat Zone" will be ready by October. It will be every bit as honest as the latest Bush commercial and the "Swift Boat veterans" are.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by townes
I am writing the response to Swift Boat veterans for Truth right now, the working title is "COMBAT ZONE VETERANS FOR TRUTH," and it's every bit as credible as John O'Neil's version. W and I were both in the United States at the time, and neither were defending our country (although I was in grade school, so i had a better reason.)

In "Combat Zone" I detail the drug use and partying that went on in those days, and explain why W got a Rolled up Ten Spot Medal of Honor for brain damage incurred during his service. I discuss how W met Laura, who was dancing at that time, and reveal how they kept her drunken driving and abortions out of the public eye.



I repeat, I was also in the United States during this time, so it is entirely based upon these first hand accounts.




BTW-Laura injected herself into this campaign by arguing for the deaths of millions of future citzens as a way of honoring her religious belief system, so her past is now "FAIR GAME" as Karl Rove would say.




For those who find this offensive----now you know how we feel every time the Bush campaign smears another decent person (Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke, John McCain, John Kerry.............).


I'll talk policy with anyone who wants to talk policy, but the smearers are getting a kick in the ass right back.


Hopefully "Combat Zone" will be ready by October. It will be every bit as honest as the latest Bush commercial and the "Swift Boat veterans" are.

Townes? If Kerry made up the story about being in Cambodia, and he was called on it, how is that smear?

Fact: He made up a story that was a complete fabrication.
Fact: He was proven to have made up the story.

Once again I ask, how is that smear?

You're doing a good job of trying to divert the focus of this discussion. But I think most people can see through what you are trying to do.