Kerry and Bush are two diffrent sides of the same devilish coin. Get over it!!!

Originally posted by DaTruth
Kerry and Bush are two diffrent sides of the same devilish coin. Get over it!!!

I couldn't agree more. This 'opposames' game playing stuff is just a distraction, to keep us busy while the underpinning agenda rolls on. It's only because Bush is SO stupid, that Kerry comes out with such awkward, uncertain crap, in order to make us think Bush is the better option.

They're BOTH Skull and Boners as someone else mentioned earlier. They're on the same team. We can use our energies more efficiently than following the back and forth commentary of 'opposames'.


Note. 'opposames' is 'borrowed' from David Icke with respect.

Oh god...
Disgusting
hey Mr. Sensationalism care to point out where Kerry said US soldiers are terrorists? Please show me...
Talk about taking things out of context.

Have we gotten so indoctrinated with Newspeak that the term terror can only be used in the context of terrorism?
If so this yet another in a series of very sad days for America.

I don't know if I would say he's accusing them of being terrorist in the sense that you're thinking of. They aren't blowing themselves up in coffee shops or shopping malls. Still when Sen. Kerry states that the soldiers are terrorizing he's implying that our troops are doing bad things over there. At least that's the impression I get without even trying to "read into it". He just flat out said that our troops were bullies basically.

Same rhetoric that we heard from him as he threw his medals over the White House fence back in the 70s. "U.S. troops bad....Vietnam Iraqi people good".

[edit on 8-12-2005 by dbates]

Originally posted by dbates
Same rhetoric that we heard from him as he threw his medals over the White House fence back in the 70s. "U.S. troops bad....Vietnam Iraqi people good".

[edit on 8-12-2005 by dbates]

Do you think that it's a misnomer? The War of American Aggression (what the victors call it) aside, do you not think that US troops are frightening people, sometimes unnecessarily? That certain duties are best served by Iraqi nationals? Just because of cultural issues? Or do you simply wish Kerry would of 'dumbed it down' so that middle America and the south could understand what he said?


EDIT: Yes, I went there!

[edit on 8-12-2005 by curme]

Where to start?

Kerry's an idiot. In a business wherein true intelligence is something of a handicap anyway, he still stands out as almost entirely braindead. He's a haircut and an empty suit, saying and doing whatever seems expedient at the moment in his endless pursuit of personal power and glory. He's a dried-up husk of a man who's lied and cheated and prevaricated and distorted for so long that he doesn't have the faintest idea of what's actually true. He's just a collection of buzzwords and empty phrases, instinctively presented so as to not really communicate anything, lest he be caught telling a lie or making a promise. His only goal (and that of all politicians) is to say just enough, in just the right way, to get elected, but not so much that he has to actually DO anything that might threaten the cozy little world of lies in which he and the rest of the politicians live.

To that end, he dropped the word "terrorizing." Why? So that his self-involved followers, who fail to recognize that opposing Bush by supporting the opposition is really little more than choosing one's rapist, would have a little morsel of disdain with which to support their narrow and erroneous view of the world, and so that his self-righteous opponents, who likewise fail to recognize that supporting Bush by opposing the opposition is also little more than choosing one's rapist, would have a little morsel of indignation with which to support their narrow and erroneous view of the world.

You all lose, and the power-drunk scumbags win. Again.

Kerry's an idiot, but he does his job reasonably well. He plays one side against the other, just as all politicians do, and it works.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To say that he "called US troops 'terrorists' " (and you know the connotations of that word) is simply sensationalism.

So, in the same breath, when Mr. Kerry, in the matter of semantics, stated unequivocally that the troops in Vietnam were baby killers and murderers, it was simply a matter of sensationalism? Just wondering....

Personally, I think Kerry, like Bush, has a significant speech impediment.





seekerof

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
So, in the same breath, when Mr. Kerry, in the matter of semantic, stated unequivocally that the troops in Vietnam were baby killers and murderers, it was simply a matter of sensationalism?

Well, have both idiotic sides of the fence playing the silly game, don't we? Yesterday, because Dean commented that he doesn't think we can win the war, the NY Post ran a picture of Dean as a Frenchman with the word "Traitor" above him. "Sensationalism" is so much a part of the rhetoric from both absurdly idiotic sides that sane discussion is impossible.

To comment on your comment: I've had the chance to discuss these issues with 9 or 10 Vietnam vets of various rank over the past 2 years. When we got down to reality, they all said something along the lines of: "everyone did crap they shouldn't have done over there... some of us are better at denial than others."

War is hell, in part because of what it does to people who fight.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
..."everyone did crap they shouldn't have done over there... some of us are better at denial than others."

War is hell, in part because of what it does to people who fight.

I would have a great tendency to agree with what you lastly mentioned, quoted above, SO.

I have no doubt that my own personal combat experiences have shaped how I perceive, interpret, and then give commentary.





seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
So, in the same breath, when Mr. Kerry, in the matter of semantics, stated unequivocally that the troops in Vietnam were baby killers and murderers, it was simply a matter of sensationalism? Just wondering....

Seekerof, is there nothing on Kerry "stating unequivocally that the troops in Vietnam were baby killers and murders"? Or is that just more of the same sensationalism that has him calling our troops 'terrorists'?

Because I can't find anywhere where he says that. I'd love to know if you have a source or not. There are plenty of webpages that claim he says "baby killers" but when I investigate, all that's there is the portion of the quote in my last post, with the bolded part cut out, of course, so it would seem like it was Kerry himself making these accusations instead of recounting what he had been told.

Just looking for the truth...

Originally posted by Seekerof
As such, the issue of whether Kerry called US troops serving in Vietnam as "baby killers" is subjective and interpreted by those who remember such first-hand.

If people said he said it (or implied it), then he said it, huh? Just like here where he 'called the troops "terrorists"'... Believe what you will, Seekerof, but I don't buy it. I'm not just taking your word for it. Besides, I believe my brother. The soldiers killed babies. Are you implying they didn't?

I will hold to what I said initially, being it was a question to you regarding sensationalism.

And I will hold to what I said. Your accusations of him are sensationalism. If he didn't say it, then it's you who are being sensational, not him. If he did say that troops killed babies, he was simply telling the ugly truth.

In proving the subjective use of "baby killer" in relation to Kerry saying it or implying it, I let you browse these:

Don't you think I did that search already? Of course I did. I cannot find one place that John Kerry is quoted as using that term. And even if he implied that troops killed babies, that's nothing more than the truth!

If you cannot provide a quote, then your accusation does not stand. It's not up to me to track down this 'subjective' (illusory) statement. Sorry. If you care whether or not I hold you as credible, you'll find the quote and post it here.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If people said he said it (or implied it), then he said it, huh? Just like here where he 'called the troops "terrorists"'... Believe what you will, Seekerof, but I don't buy it. I'm not just taking your word for it. Besides, I believe my brother. The soldiers killed babies. Are you implying they didn't?

I am implying two things here:
First, that to be labeled maliciously as a "baby killer" implies purposeful intent, Benevolent Heretic. Are you implying that that is exactly what the US troops in Vietnam were doing: all services, across-the-board blantantly, maliciously, and purposely targeting and killing babies? Was this also an official or unofficial across-the-board DOD policy? Or was Kerry's mere Freudian slip mention of "baby killers" simply a vehicle for sensationalism, to be used by the anti-war left just as it was by the pro-war right? I'd also be interested in what your brother had to say on this, since you have twice brought him onto play.

Secondly, I am surely not taking your's or your brother's word on this entirely, either. I will respect what your brother said being we both have been in combat environments. What I disagree with is the labeling and mentioning of "baby killer," period. I have explained such above. What I will do is accept the words of a multitude of Vietnam vets from the likes of the Vietnam vets association, etc, and how the interpreted Kerry's speech impediment. To them and to me, whether or not a quote can be provided for Kerry directly word-for-word saying such, he implied such. Why else would Kerry bring the word "baby killers" up in the first place at the 1971 Senate hearing? Would it not be for the sake of sheer sensationalism reasons, being he was part of an anti-war movement? Cause if he brought it up because it was the truth, when, perchance, is he going to admit to being a "baby killer," or murderer, or whatever else the Vietnam anti-war movement used to describe US troops in Vietnam?

And I will hold to what I said. Your accusations of him are sensationalism. If he didn't say it, then it's you who are being sensational, not him. If he did say that troops killed babies, he was simply telling the ugly truth.

Benevolent Heretic, I provided you a link to a multitude of individuals who have interpreted Kerry's reference to "baby killer." You can call it sensationalism as you see fit. No skin of my back and definately no skin of the backs of those multitudes of Vietnam vets who likewise interpreted Kerry's word usage as I have. What is ugly truth is that war is hell and even children die in it. What you, as with others, need to do is find evidences that those US troops in Vietnam purposely, maliciously, and blantantly targeted and set out to kill babies. Till you produce such, the notion of "baby killers" is a misfortune of war.

Don't you think I did that search already? Of course I did. I cannot find one place that John Kerry is quoted as using that term. And even if he implied that troops killed babies, that's nothing more than the truth!

If you cannot provide a quote, then your accusation does not stand. It's not up to me to track down this 'subjective' (illusory) statement. Sorry. If you care whether or not I hold you as credible, you'll find the quote and post it here.

You might want to hit that link again, being it was given so as to show perspective and interpretation, in relation to others who served in Vietnam and Kerry's mention of "baby killers.". I mentioned this already, and I am definately not here to back up your view. Personally, I can careless whether you hold me as credible. My position is quite clear.
I do find it humorous that even Sen. Dole asked Kerry to apologize over his implied insinuations from that 1971 Senate Testimony. Maybe he thought Kerry said or implied the same thing as I did, as those multitudes of Vietnam vets did?







seekerof

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
I am implying two things here:
First, that to be labeled maliciously as a "baby killer" implies purposeful intent, Benevolent Heretic.

If someone was labeled maliciously as a "baby killer" then yes, I agree that would imply purposeful intent.

Are you implying that that is exactly what the US troops in Vietnam were doing: all services, across-the-board blantantly, maliciously, and purposely targeting and killing babies?

No. Not at all. I don't imply, remember? If I have something to say, I'll say it.

Or was Kerry's mere Freudian slip mention of "baby killers" simply a vehicle for sensationalism, to be used by the anti-war left just as it was by the pro-war right?

I have yet to witness or see proof of this statment by Kerry, so this whole conversation is hypothetical.

I'd also be interested in what your brother had to say on this, since you have twice brought him onto play.

The ONLY thing my brother ever said to me regarding Vietnam is that he killed babies. He has since become estranged from the rest of the family so I have no idea what he thought about Kerry. I lost my brother to Vietnam and haven't heard from him for over 15 years.

Why else would Kerry bring the word "baby killers" up in the first place at the 1971 Senate hearing?

HE DIDN'T. Search the text. It's not there. You're believing something that didn't happen.

Would it not be for the sake of sheer sensationalism reasons, being he was part of an anti-war movement? Cause if he brought it up because it was the truth, when, perchance, is he going to admit to being a "baby killer," or murderer, or whatever else the Vietnam anti-war movement used to describe US troops in Vietnam?

If that had happened, I would say yes, it would probably have been for sensationalism. But it didn't happen!

No skin of my back and definately no skin of the backs of those multitudes of Vietnam vets who likewise interpreted Kerry's word usage as I have.

Help me out here. Which words of Kerry's did you interpret as meaning "baby killer"? Specifically...

I do find it humorous that even Sen. Dole asked Kerry to apologize over his implied insinuations from that 1971 Senate Testimony. Maybe he thought Kerry said or implied the same thing as I did, as those multitudes of Vietnam vets did?

Again, show me the part of the 1971 Senate Hearings that you think Kerry insinuated these things, please.

Or don't. I know you have no leg to stand on and I'm tired of this hypothetical situation of implications and insinuations. You put "baby killer" in quotes as if Kerry actually said this, but cannot show me where.

Did he say it or not? If he did, then show me where, if not... then find someone else to argue with. I'm not interested in arguing over something that didn't happen.

Sure BH.

Next I'm sure you'll be telling us that you can't find any evidence that Kerry gave aid and comfort to an enemy and violated U.S. law by going to Paris and meeting directly with the North Vietnamese to promote his anti-war views while still on active duty with the U.S. military and while there were many of his fellow servicemen still held captive by the same north Vietnamese.

No reason to wonder anymore why Kerry won't release his military records.