beaker Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 As for Kerry, why don't you tell him to "forever shut up" about his service record. Why should Kerry shut up? We're at a time of war. The United States needs a President who has had first-hand exposure to war, someone with real combat experience. All Kerry is doing is explaining why he is qualified for the job of President, and George Bush isn't. It's an important message... one that voters have to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F. Kerry Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 He now claims he was in Vietnam twice. 5867[/snapback] Well, actually, what day of the week is it? Which way is the wind blowing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F. Kerry Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Why should Kerry shut up? We're at a time of war. The United States needs a President who has had first-hand exposure to war, someone with real combat experience. All Kerry is doing is explaining why he is qualified for the job of President, and George Bush isn't. It's an important message... one that voters have to hear. 5880[/snapback] My four months of service 30 years ago makes me qualified to be President. Thank you for your support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 My four months of service 30 years ago makes me qualified to be President. Thank you for your support. 5888[/snapback] Wasn't it 36 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 From Kerry's official biography at johnkerry.com: QUOTE John Kerry was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1982. Two years later, he was elected to the United States Senate and has won reelection three-times since. In the Senate, John Kerry fought to strengthen our economy, improve public education, make health care more affordable, and protect our environment. And during his 19 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has distinguished himself as one of our nation's most respected voices on national security and international affairs. Don't you find it strange that when you go to johnkerry.com, you see a picture of John Kerry -- and then when you go to georgewbush.com, you see a picture of John Kerry? Just look at the home pages. Kerry is running on his record because he can. Bush is running against Kerry's record because he can't run on his own. 5825[/snapback] That is the most I have heard about Kerry's service as a senator this entire election! Of course you can't be more general than that statement - "strengthen our economy, improve public education . . ." Every senator can make those statements. As for the pictures on the web sites, you are really reaching. The websites are almost identical. Just because there is a picture of Kerry, you come to that ridiculous conclusion? Give me a break. Both candidates have significant coverage on their policies, ads, experience, etc. I can't even believe you brought that up. Kerry is running on his Vietnam record first, then his record as a Senator. You can't deny it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 That is the most I have heard about Kerry's service as a senator this entire election! Of course you can't be more general than that statement - "strengthen our economy, improve public education . . ." Every senator can make those statements. As for the pictures on the web sites, you are really reaching. The websites are almost identical. Just because there is a picture of Kerry, you come to that ridiculous conclusion? Give me a break. Both candidates have significant coverage on their policies, ads, experience, etc. I can't even believe you brought that up. Kerry is running on his Vietnam record first, then his record as a Senator. You can't deny it. 5897[/snapback] Lies, all lies. How dare you? Kerry has no policies, or experience. And he can deny it, because he already is. What have you been reading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LasBillz Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 Let's explain this just one more time. Guardsman cannot be AWOL. AWOL is defined as "Absent WithOut Leave." Guardsman DO NOT accrue leave. Ergo, there is no way for a Guardsman to be AWOL. You people who know !@#$ all about the military should shut your mouths. George Bush may very well have been a horrible guardsman, but that was for his superiors at the time to handle. Obviously, they didn't or he wasn't. Either way, this issue is moot TODAY and repeating the same bull stevestojan over and over is retarded. 5849[/snapback] Your debate skills are showing- when hopelessly cornered, resort to distortion, bluster and insult to distract from the point lost. THE FACT IS George Bush was a horrible Guardsman. You said it yourself. He must be hald responsible for it- just as Kerry has been for what he did in the same period of time. Saying his superiors should have handled it is irrelevant. The fact that he DID NOT SHOW UP was HIS responsiblity and speaks to his character- or lack of it. Tigers don't change their stripes, my friend. The same lack of responsibilty is relevant today. Bush blames the CIA for faulty intelligence prior to 9/11, while it is a know fact he neglected his duty as President for the first 8 months his term- Crawford, Tx, Camp David while he should have been dealing with a gathering threat. See the parallel? If he didn't show up for Guard duty, why shouldn't he take off as much as possible from other jobs? And for such flaws in character, he must be held responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F. Kerry Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Wasn't it 36 years ago? 5893[/snapback] Depends, what year did I spend Christmas in Cambodia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F. Kerry Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Your debate skills are showing- when hopelessly cornered, resort to distortion, bluster and insult to distract from the point lost. THE FACT IS George Bush was a horrible Guardsman. You said it yourself. He must be hald responsible for it- just as Kerry has been for what he did in the same period of time. Saying his superiors should have handled it is irrelevant. The fact that he DID NOT SHOW UP was HIS responsiblity and speaks to his character- or lack of it. Tigers don't change their stripes, my friend. The same lack of responsibilty is relevant today. Bush blames the CIA for faulty intelligence prior to 9/11, while it is a know fact he neglected his duty as President for the first 8 months his term- Crawford, Tx, Camp David while he should have been dealing with a gathering threat. See the parallel? If he didn't show up for Guard duty, why shouldn't he take off as much as possible from other jobs? And for such flaws in character, he must be held responsible. 5903[/snapback] I thank you for your efforts, but you might want to stay away from the absentee stuff. With my record of not showing up for work, this is not something we want to bring up. Thank you for your support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Depends, what year did I spend Christmas in Cambodia? 5904[/snapback] Well help me out here. Was it 30 or 36? I thought you gave your shooting children in the back speech and every serviceman is a scumbag war criminal in 1971, after you were out of service. I though you were in Vietnam running away on your fastbast in 1968 and 1969, where you got two paper cuts and a sliver from the roof of your fastboat, when you were stoned and dropping grenades. So was it 30 or 36 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 "Leave" in this instance does not mean the "leave" you accrue on your paycheck, AD. "Leave" simply means "permission." He was absent without permission to be absent. And it's Absent Without Official Leave, not Absent WithOut Leave. 5858[/snapback] My term for AWOL comes from Article 86 of the UCMJ. Absence Without Leave. Regardless of the actual meaning of the acronym, it's still not possible for him to be AWOL. He may have been derelict in his duty, but apparently his superiors were also - since he wasn't reprimanded and was honorably discharged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 My term for AWOL comes from Article 86 of the UCMJ. Absence Without Leave. Regardless of the actual meaning of the acronym, it's still not possible for him to be AWOL. He may have been derelict in his duty, but apparently his superiors were also - since he wasn't reprimanded and was honorably discharged. 5911[/snapback] Which is why the Naval Services have Unauthorized Absense. Hence they can get you on both charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Your debate skills are showing- when hopelessly cornered, resort to distortion, bluster and insult to distract from the point lost. THE FACT IS George Bush was a horrible Guardsman. You said it yourself. He must be hald responsible for it- just as Kerry has been for what he did in the same period of time. Saying his superiors should have handled it is irrelevant. The fact that he DID NOT SHOW UP was HIS responsiblity and speaks to his character- or lack of it. Tigers don't change their stripes, my friend. The same lack of responsibilty is relevant today. Bush blames the CIA for faulty intelligence prior to 9/11, while it is a know fact he neglected his duty as President for the first 8 months his term- Crawford, Tx, Camp David while he should have been dealing with a gathering threat. See the parallel? If he didn't show up for Guard duty, why shouldn't he take off as much as possible from other jobs? And for such flaws in character, he must be held responsible. 5903[/snapback] I'm not defending the current President - I'm not very fond of him or his party. It doesn't change the fact that he wasn't AWOL. His superiors are as much to blame as he is. I served for 12 years. Did you? The rest of your post is typical liberal garbage. The President of the United States is never on vacation, regardless of where he spends his time. I'm not about to go back and debate all of the things that led to airplanes flying into buildings. They are not the fault of any single person in the government and to continue playing the "blame game" is counter productive. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F. Kerry Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Well help me out here. Was it 30 or 36? I thought you gave your shooting children in the back speech and every serviceman is a scumbag war criminal in 1971, after you were out of service. I though you were in Vietnam running away on your fastbast in 1968 and 1969, where you got two paper cuts and a sliver from the roof of your fastboat, when you were stoned and dropping grenades. So was it 30 or 36 years ago? 5910[/snapback] Hell, I can't keep my story straight from last week, and you want me to remember what I said/did 30+ years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 WHO CARES! People like Beaker truly scare me. Everything comes back to Bush Bad Kerry good. Kerry says Kerry is good because he has three purple hearts. Ergo, Kerry must be President. Yes, we ARE at war-and under even the BEST of circumstances four months on a patrol boat have as much to do with being President as eating Captain Crunch. you have several thousand people working the situation now. Several hundred of them, who know the situation intimately will probably lose their jobs as a new administration comes in. Lets just start from scratch. You guys will become fallout landing in Ohio before it's over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 WHO CARES! People like Beaker truly scare me. Everything comes back to Bush Bad Kerry good. Kerry says Kerry is good because he has three purple hearts. Ergo, Kerry must be President. Yes, we ARE at war-and under even the BEST of circumstances four months on a patrol boat have as much to do with being President as eating Captain Crunch. you have several thousand people working the situation now. Several hundred of them, who know the situation intimately will probably lose their jobs as a new administration comes in. Lets just start from scratch. You guys will become fallout landing in Ohio before it's over. 5942[/snapback] I thought the president choaked on pretzels, not CC?? It might make a difference especially if you get the ones with crunchberries. Seriously though, ................................................ Well I tried to be serious, I just can't do it. I am having a vision of someone lauching nukes at us and Kerry sitting in the kitchen at the WH trying to get the prize out of a box of cereal, and trying to decide between Co-CO Puffs and Captain Crunch. His advisors blaming Bush even though Bush had been out of office 3 years. And yet Kerry still can't decide which to eat, let alone how to react to the nuclear strike against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Well I tried to be serious, I just can't do it. I am having a vision of someone lauching nukes at us and Kerry sitting in the kitchen at the WH trying to get the prize out of a box of cereal, and trying to decide between Co-CO Puffs and Captain Crunch. His advisors blaming Bush even though Bush had been out of office 3 years. And yet Kerry still can't decide which to eat, let alone how to react to the nuclear strike against us. 5947[/snapback] I'm having a vision of someone attacking us on our soil and Bush sitting there with a chimplike gaze on his face for seven minutes waiting for someone to tell him what to do. Oh wait that wasn't just a vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I thought the president choaked on pretzels, not CC?? It might make a difference especially if you get the ones with crunchberries. Seriously though, ................................................ Well I tried to be serious, I just can't do it. I am having a vision of someone lauching nukes at us and Kerry sitting in the kitchen at the WH trying to get the prize out of a box of cereal, and trying to decide between Co-CO Puffs and Captain Crunch. His advisors blaming Bush even though Bush had been out of office 3 years. And yet Kerry still can't decide which to eat, let alone how to react to the nuclear strike against us. 5947[/snapback] I envision it more like him standing in the middle of the Oval Office saying "They can't launch at me! I won THREE Purple Hearts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I'm having a vision of someone attacking us on our soil and Bush sitting there with a chimplike gaze on his face for seven minutes waiting for someone to tell him what to do. Oh wait that wasn't just a vision. 5956[/snapback] Yeah and your right I made that up. Of course Kerry admitted to just sitting there staring at the TV for an hour, unable to move or speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I envision it more like him standing in the middle of the Oval Office saying "They can't launch at me! I won THREE Purple Hearts! 5958[/snapback] Actually it was probably, can I get a 4th since I am the CinC for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.