|
Would Kerry do a better job countering terrorism (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Forgive me for stirring the pot a bit.
Why won't he release his medical records then? I've heard several reports that have claimed Kerry got a purple heart for something pretty minor. But I will say it takes balls to go into a warzone so I'm not going to dwell on the matter of what he actually did while he was over there--though what he did when he got home wasn't exactly worth writing home about either.
|
Well snopes did a rather decent cover story on Kerry's purple hearts. While they weren't serious, I would hardly classify them as nothing. It's somewhat admirable that he stood his ground to continue his duty despite his wounds. Personally, I think his actions to earn the bronze star and the silver star to be the more important highlights of his military service.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
| quote: |
Tell me this: Why is it that when Clinton was running, his service record was so readily dismissed by Democrats when Republicans brought it to the forefront and now Democrats are all up in arms over Bush's service (He may have been in the national guard, but he didn't dodge the draft). Suddenly the Dems want to focus only on the fact that Kerry was in Vietnam and therefore would be a great president. Why didn't service matter in 1992 but now it's the only thing that counts in 2004? The only thing Kerry can brag about is the fact that he was in Vietnam. Hell, it seems like more and more of the cornerstone of his campaign! |
The absence of service doesn't really matter to me with respect to Bush or Clinton. But if they happen to serve and anything stands out about what they did while in the service I think that SHOULD be recognized and commended eg. Kerry's acheivements, McCain's acheivements, George H W Walker's acheivements, Kennedy's acheivements, etc. Because Bush or Clinton weren't thrust into a warzone, I can't really comment on their bravery in the face of adversity ... it's an unknown but not really a negative against them. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
Let's see what they say about General Clark if he's on the ticket lol.
:haha: |
Well, we already know he got fired for character issues. I'd be curious for greater elaboration as well.;) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
The absence of service doesn't really matter to me with respect to Bush or Clinton. But if they happen to serve and anything stands out about what they did while in the service I think that SHOULD be recognized and commended eg. Kerry's acheivements, McCain's acheivements, George H W Walker's acheivements, Kennedy's acheivements, etc. Because Bush or Clinton weren't thrust into a warzone, I can't really comment on their bravery in the face of adversity ... it's an unknown but not really a negative against them. |
By all means. I'm just getting a bit sick of the fact that Kerry has built his campaign around the fact that he spent some time in Nam. Is it not the least bit telling that you have an entire organization of veterans that do NOT want him to be president? If anyone can pass judgement on his service, I dare say the Vietnam vets probably have as much ground to stand on as anyone. Can Kerry do anything else aside from tell me he served in Nam, accuse me of voting for Bush(:nervous: ), or give Ted Kennedy a hand-job under the table? It's just the fact that he uses his service in Vietnam as an entitlement more than anything. 'I served in Vietnam, I deserve to be President, and shame on you for thinking anything else. My initials are JFK too, dammit!' |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Ah ok. Allow me to clarify my original statement. While I'm most certainly of the opinion that people should have the equality in opportunity, or as close to it as reasonably possible, I most certainly do not regard an equality in status (outside of opportunity) as being particularly fair. |
What do you mean by status tho? Position in society? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
What do you mean by status tho? Position in society? |
Economic status ... wealth. Wealth/income/status should be determined by the individual. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| Fair enough if thats what you want, but that can never bring about true equality (as our societies prove perfectly...) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Fair enough if thats what you want, but that can never bring about true equality (as our societies prove perfectly...) |
Just as communism cannot bring about true equality fairly ... subjected to the weaknesses of society of course :) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Just as communism cannot bring about true equality fairly ... subjected to the weaknesses of society of course :) |
Never said it could! ;) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Fair enough if thats what you want, but that can never bring about true equality (as our societies prove perfectly...) |
You desire Utopia? Furthermore do you think that you live solely to be identically equal to everyone else? That no single person should have more or less than anyone else? That we should all be clones??? Brave New World???:nervous:
Who would be in charge of things in your Utopian society? A small group of all powerful dictators? Or do you think that a democracy works in a Utopia?
I'll take equality of opportunity, and the freedom to pursue my individual abilities and opportunities any day over that. I would prefer to be in control of my own life and not live for the sake of some all powerful big brother. |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
Sara, I might go with you to Poland lol.
Well, I guess you aren't even safe in Europe anymore either. |
A cutie who's into photography and politics is welcome with me anytime ;)
I really don't know if I think Kerry would be doing a better job. Kerry terrifies me with his changing minds every few minutes. He takes the shape and colour of whatever object he believes to bring him more votes. I'm not sure even he knows what he stands for anymore.
America keeps pushing for democracy in other countries and yet it can't even handle it's own. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by anuneventrade
I really don't know if I think Kerry would be doing a better job. Kerry terrifies me with his changing minds every few minutes. He takes the shape and colour of whatever object he believes to bring him more votes. I'm not sure even he knows what he stands for anymore. |
The reason I support Kerry over bush is due to Bush's stance on gay issues, the PATRIOT act, and primarily the war in Iraq. Quite frankly the 'lesser of the two evils' concept comes into play here IMO. Personally I would have much preferred Kucinich (as Kucinich is actually a liberal, not someone like Kerry who's actually a right-winger parading as the voice of the left) or Dean, but since Kerry is what we have now, it's him or Bush. Presumably Kerry wont go and kill thousands of people for no valid reason, so hey, that's why I support him over Bush. But yeah, if I were American I'd be torn between the need to oust Bush, and the fact that I believe that Ralph Nader is the candidate who would best reflect my views and beliefs. Ugh, the two party system is a cancer upon society.
For me, Bush's warmongering scares me far more than Kerry's so called flip flopping, when I compare the two there really isn't a comparison, Kerry wins hands down. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by anuneventrade
[font=comic sans ms]A cutie who's into photography and politics is welcome with me anytime ;)
|
Good. :P :)
Yes it's obvious Kerry has done some flip flopping, but so has Bush.
I thought we were going to Mars, and now there is no word of it because of polls.
I thought we were going to have guest worker programs for illegal aliens, and now I hear no word of it because of polls.
They both shift positions with the polls instead of taking a stand for what they believe in (like Truman and civil rights for example) and that's really a shame.
Republican Chuck Hagel on Kerry:
| quote: |
On the more serious side, one other prominent Republican, Senator Chuck Hagel, was also critical of the Bush campaign's attacks on Kerry's Senate voting record.
"The facts just don't measure the rhetoric," he told ABC television.
He said campaigns could take the voting record of any longstanding senator "pick out different votes, and then try to manufacture something around that."
All the senators warned that a vicious election campaign risked undermining what should be a common aim to win the war on terror and make a success of attempts to restore order in Iraq (news - web sites).
Hagel said: "Kerry and Bush must conduct themselves in a way that when November 2 comes, whoever wins, they are going to have to be able to have legitimacy and the authority to govern this country and keep this coalition together."
He warned: "We may find ourselves over the next four years unable to sustain our policies in Iraq, Afghanistan (news - web sites) and on our war against terrorism, because the politics have so divided this country."
|
I agree with Arctic that the two party stystem is a cancer.
The only reason I'm supporting Kerry is because of Bush's blatant disregard for the Constitution.
Like I've said though, I'm betting on Bush to win even with all the scandals because of the Electoral College. He's basically just a fundie democrat anyways. |
|
|
|
|
