xbox-scene.com archived forum

Off Topic Forums => General Chat => Politics, News and Religion => Topic started by: pug_ster on October 17, 2004, 02:18:00 AM

Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 17, 2004, 02:18:00 AM
By now, some of you heard about this film which is probably almost just as bad as Fahrenheit 9/11.  Here's a report on it.

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain648662.shtml

The thing which pisses me off is that FCC Chairman Michael Powell (who happens to be Colin Powell's Son) won't stop it from Airing saying that "I don't know of any precedent in which the commission could do that."

Looks like another cheap Bush tactic to me just around 2 weeks before the election.


Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: dss311 on October 17, 2004, 03:57:00 AM
Why would you want to censor (or prohibit) what is played?  I would rather see garbage shows like Fahrenheit 9/11 then be censored.  I will decide what is accurate and what is fabricated.  I do not need the goverment doing this for me.  Freedom of speech should be something we all fight to preserve.  If you are claiming it is an unfair campaign contribution their contention is:

"Sinclair has contended that the program is news, covering an issue of interest and importance to viewers, and has invited Kerry to appear on a post-broadcast program. Kerry has declined."


Looks like Kerry might be missing out on an opportunity.  Or he is ashamed of something..... dry.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 17, 2004, 05:09:00 AM
Well, the problem I have is that Sinclair reaches several small media outlets that simply do not have access to an opposing view (the Sinclair station is the only local station). Basically, there will be lots of people who only hear (1) side of the story.

With a movie, like Fahrenheit 911, anyone who WANTS to pay to go see it can, and people have a right to see it equally everywhere.

On top of that, I thought it was heresy for a news or broadcast organization to "take sides" (remember CBS lol?).
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: dss311 on October 17, 2004, 04:22:00 AM
Good valid points fleflicker.  I would like to see ALL sides of an issue and not just one skewed view.  I am not familar with their coverage, but would assume they have competing stations in their teritory.  These other stations should maybe run a Kerry rebutal if he doesn't want to appear on Sinclair.


On another note;

I know everyone hates polls because of there margin of error.  But here is a site that has compiled all the polls into one list.  It is interesting to watch the trends after a debate or state speach.

List of Polls

And for those watching the electoral votes go here:

Electoral Votes
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 17, 2004, 04:48:00 AM
I agree dss311. That is why I generally rotate my news through MSNBC, CNN, and FOX. I figure I get decent "coverage" that way. (Even if I feel the urge to break my T.V. when Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter are talking). I balance that with my internet news reading as well (drudge, etc). People who limit themselves to (1) media outlet are opening themselves up for bias, if you ask me.

Sinclair actually has a lot of "middle America" coverage, where these stations are the only station the vast majority of people watch, or even get. That is why I have a problem with it. If it was a cable channel, it would be different in my opinion...

I disagree with the statement "other stations should maybe run a Kerry rebutal if he doesn't want to appear on Sinclair". Let's not get these news stations competing against each others biases OPENLY  jester.gif On top of that, from what I have heard so far about this film, it is sort of like Fahrenheit 911, it would be ridiculous to even try and rebutt the silliness (which Fahrenhype 911 did not do a good job of, if you ask me, I know, I know, different topic!).

As to the polls, the problem I have is that they don't openly tell you the math behind their election "forecast" model. On poll only expects 12% minority turnout, another one 18%, etc. Good links though, the best way to get a real feel for what is going on is to average it all out  wink.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: gcskate27 on October 17, 2004, 05:08:00 AM
QUOTE (dss311 @ Oct 17 2004, 02:00 AM)
Looks like Kerry might be missing out on an opportunity.  Or he is ashamed of something..... dry.gif

or he doesnt want some miseditted peice of crap airing where they take more remarks out of context... and/or he doesnt want to give anymore attention/validity to a piece of visual slander...
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 17, 2004, 10:39:00 AM
There are several reasons why I think this movie doesn't deserve to be here at this time.

1) Vietnam war was over a long time ago.  Many people just want to put that in the past because they already got hurt by it

2) It is election time, maybe they could've put up that film a year ago, or even after the election.

3) Fahrenheit 9/11 is more like a documentry.  Stolen Honor doesn't even fit in that category.

4) Fahenheit 9/11 is shown on theatres, pay-per view and now DVD.  So you have to pay for it to see it.  Whereas Stolen Honor is spoon fed thru free tv.  Might I add that there are already anti-Kerry films already out there (I don't remember the names) that you have to pay to see, and there was no controversy over it.  

5) I would imagine a film that would have the equivilent tear jerker emotion as Stolen Honor is a film of about Iraq vets who got  physically Injured asking Mr. Bush 'Why me.'  A bunch of relatives of dead Iraq vets asking Mr Bush 'why me?'  Any of you Anti-Kerry people tell me why a show like can't be on free TV.

Yet at the same time FCC Chairman (Colin Powell's Son) would probably say that you can't Air this type of program because of censorship and hurt the Iraqi war effort.  Yet the FCC Chairman says that Stolen Honor doesn't share the same category.  FCC says that Stolen Honor didn't violate any policies because it has not been aired yet.  Very convient excuse.

I just hope that the Major News Networks (probably except fox news) know that this is an underhanded trick and hopefully would respond negatively about airing this film.

This post has been edited by pug_ster on Oct 17 2004, 03:53 PM
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: mike96sc2 on October 17, 2004, 11:13:00 AM
Michael Moore has offered up Farenheit 9/11 to all Sinclair stations free of charge as long as they agree to air the movie as well to give two different viewpoints.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: thomes08 on October 17, 2004, 10:29:00 AM
this is also a good site (it's been posted here before but what the hell)
http://www.electoral-vote.com

It's nice because you can go back and look at previous reports and it's updated just about every day...

oh and does anyone know why new hampshire isn't a blue state (i know some of you sill respond like a 2 year old here).  Just because geographically it's surrounded by blue

thomes08
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: Baner on October 17, 2004, 02:52:00 PM
QUOTE
spoon fed thru free tv

Shh... not so loud, the cable guys might see it.

QUOTE
which is probably almost just as bad as Fahrenheit 9/11

QUOTE
Looks like another cheap Bush tactic to me just around 2 weeks before the election.

So wait, if Liberals attack a Repub, it's ok? But if the exact same happens between a Repub and a Liberal, it's a cheap "Bush" tactic?
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 17, 2004, 03:07:00 PM
Yeah yeah.  Read what I said.

This post has been edited by pug_ster on Oct 17 2004, 08:10 PM
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: Ween311 on October 17, 2004, 05:09:00 PM
I could really care less if they show it or F911 on TV before or after the elections.  If people are making thier votes based on a movie that they saw on TV or in a theater, then they really don't deserve to vote anyway.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: brandogg on October 17, 2004, 06:03:00 PM
No one is being forced to watch it. Same thing anyone here says about violent movies, or music with explicit lyrics. If you don't want to see it, don't watch it. And, the guy who runs Sinclair is no doubt a republican, but the RNC has nothing to do with this, and it is in no way a violation of the FCC.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: K98 on October 17, 2004, 09:31:00 PM
QUOTE
So wait, if Liberals attack a Repub, it's ok? But if the exact same happens between a Repub and a Liberal, it's a cheap "Bush" tactic?


This posts arguement ended right there.

QUOTE
3) Fahrenheit 9/11 is more like a documentry.


I havent seen this but from what I have heard it's not close to it.

Anyways freedom of speech comes to play here. They can show whatever they want on tv. Ecept if its nudity, language, vilence, but sometimes you need to show everything to get a point through. Kerry has done a few of these tactics to Bush also, it's not a one way thing here.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 17, 2004, 10:51:00 PM
QUOTE
Anyways freedom of speech comes to play here. They can show whatever they want on tv. Ecept if its nudity, language, vilence, but sometimes you need to show everything to get a point through. Kerry has done a few of these tactics to Bush also, it's not a one way thing here.


There is no such thing as freedom of speech when it comes to broadcasting. The FCC was created to control things, as it is well known that broadcast media is a very powerful way to communicate. On top of that, freedom of speech really gets gray when your audience gets larger...

I don't remember any liberal broadcast company funding and forcing their stations to play a documentary focusing on Bush's National Guard Service (or lack of it)! That would the equivalent story here...

The premise of this documentary is ridiculous. The claim is that Kerry's remarks after returning home from Vietnam made it more difficult on our POW's. Are we going to make a documentary on every thing that anyone said back then that *could have* negatively effected our Military men/women in Vietnam?  For the love of God, McCain even says Kerry did the right thing! dry.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: handydan on October 17, 2004, 11:05:00 PM
yeah, i have to agree that movies like this probably don't have much impact. everyone knows they're just advertising. and by now most people have made up their minds anyhow, so do these things really matter much?
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: krawhitham on October 17, 2004, 11:38:00 PM
this is the October surprise Rove was talking about. But Moore has offered f911 to Sinclair free of charge if it is ran before or after Stolen honor
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 18, 2004, 12:34:00 AM
QUOTE (K98 @ Oct 18 2004, 02:31 AM)
This posts arguement ended right there.

I havent seen this but from what I have heard it's not close to it.


If they want to do this type of documentry (at least that's what you want to call it) it could've been done months before the election day.

QUOTE
Anyways freedom of speech comes to play here. They can show whatever they want on tv. Ecept if its nudity, language, vilence, but sometimes you need to show everything to get a point through. Kerry has done a few of these tactics to Bush also, it's not a one way thing here.


Ummm, you forgot censorship.  For example, showing anthing that is anti-war is restricted a lot.  Eg, showing flag drapped coffins and things like that.

Even though Fahrenheit 9/11 is an anti-Bush film, it does point out a lot of facts (although some of it might not be true)  from the Florida at 2000 election, war on Iraq, Bush with ties with the Bin Laden Family.  It presents a lot of points that you want in a documentry.

Stolen Honor has none of that stuff, you have a dozen or so POW's blaming Kerry why they were kept for so long.  They blamed Kerry because the interrogators showed the former POW's Kerry's testimony in Congress and stuff like that.

I mean that Iraqi POW's today are interrogated by US in Abu Ghraib.  Do you think most of those Iraqi POW's are going to be released today?  No, unless the war or what Bush is called 'Conflict' is over.  

That basically what happens in the Vietnam war.  The war dragged on, and they have a hard time to talk about releasing the POW's on both sides until the war is over.  Dumbasses like Nixon dragged on the losing war for years and he should be blamed for the POW's long stay.  Kerry should be praised because he try to bring the war to an end.

Stolen Honor is not a documentry, it is just a bunch of former POW's blaming on Kerry when Kerry wants to end the POW's long stay.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 18, 2004, 11:17:00 AM
QUOTE (K98 @ Oct 18 2004, 08:08 AM)
I would think if you were a POW and had to endure everything that happened to you, and Kerry said what he said I would be very angry. Fact is they were there, and we weren't. They know what they were shown and if they were beaten more because of Kerry's actions.


No, I don't blame on the POW's thinking for thinking Kerry cause of the problem.  Hey, the enemy has to do to defeat the enemy, both physically and pshchologically.  At the same time, US just drag on this losing war for such a long time.

QUOTE
Sorry but just dropping a war and coming home isn't an easy option. Thousands dead, and billions spent, then just leave. It was only a losing war on the homefront and in morale. The Tet Offensive was a huge disaster for the NVA, but a winner for killing US morale. I have seen if a few more years were committed the north vietnamese would of just ran out of people, and supplies. Russia no longer helped them. It's a tough call though to say we would of won if we would of stayed. Vietnam was a war fought in D.C. not in Vietnam. To many restrictions were placed on what the generals could do.


I doubt it if even if the US put more troops in the Vietnam, China and Russia will retalitate by sending troops and more money to fight the US (aka. Korean War.)  From China and Russia's perspective, they just have too much in stake if they have US interest in their own backyard.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: Baner on October 18, 2004, 01:08:00 PM
QUOTE
it does point out a lot of facts (although some of it might not be true)

God, I hate those facts that aren't true! Bastards!!!

It's impossible to tell what would have happened if we stayed in the war for longer. Hell, maybe because of Bush's enviromental plans, the hurricanes might have hit the Vietnam shore, and destroyed the whole North Vietnamese(sp?) army.
Back on topic, Why should this movie be restricted from playing on tv? The same stuff that is said on Stolen Honor and F9/11 is told on Fox, CBS, and all the rest of those stations, whether they're the truth or lies. If you want to watch it, more power to you. If you don't, this topic shouldn't even consern you, And if you base your vote on a movie made to create bad criticisim towards the oponent, you're an idiot.

PS. I haven't seen Nemt since that one thread that said he'd stop psting here. Didn't someone else say that if he stopped posting they would too? I'm gonna go find it so I can figure out who else was suppose to leave. laugh.gif
Here's his last post in the political forums Link I guess the arguement about if one person left, the other one would too was between 2 other people, or just at another point in time. Not sure what this has to do with anything, just remembered a regular in this forum was missing.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 18, 2004, 01:25:00 PM
dry.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: Baner on October 18, 2004, 01:30:00 PM
QUOTE
If you want to watch it, more power to you. If you don't, this topic shouldn't even consern you, And if you base your vote on a movie made to create bad criticisim towards the oponent, you're an idiot.
There is no valid arguement about why this shouldn't be shown. Much like F9/11. This just needs to be dropped.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 18, 2004, 03:08:00 PM
QUOTE (feflicker @ Oct 18 2004, 07:28 PM)
I watched this "documentary" last night...

It is pretty bad. They interview the wives of the POW's and they whine about how their husbands were put through hell because of John Kerry... Talk about ridiculous.

I have watched pretty much all the political documentaries that are out, and frankly I think this was the most biased of the bunch (even more than F911)...

I don't think it would be such a big deal if Sinclair wasn't OPENLY BIASED  dry.gif

Really, If you don't mind me asking, what city do you live?  I wonder if anybody know where and when this 'documentry' is showing.

After going to Stolen Honor's web site, I figured that this 'documentry' is about bunch of people blaming on Kerry on what happened when they were a POW.  If I want to hear whining for 1.5 hours, I can listen to my wife.

I wondered if this was the cause of why Bush is up in the polls for the past few days.

Most of the news organizations didn't say much about airing this so called documentry.  So that is a good sign.  The news about Cheney's flip-flop decision to be angry at Kerry about his Daughter seems to be of little interest now so we can hear more of the common mudslinging in the news.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 18, 2004, 03:44:00 PM
QUOTE
Really, If you don't mind me asking, what city do you live? I wonder if anybody know where and when this 'documentry' is showing.


I got it from the newsgroups...

You can also pay to see it on the stolen honor website...

EDIT: I believe the intended broadcast date is the 23rd...


QUOTE
There is no valid arguement about why this shouldn't be shown.


I respectfully disagree. You are not the authority on what is/is not a valid argument.

I actually think that Sinclair's handling of this is very socialist, and that they are actually trying to intentionally sway voters, rather than report the "news".
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: BenJeremy on October 18, 2004, 03:51:00 PM
Poor orcs.

Damn Aragornitler, if only he had given the inspectors in Isengard more time!!


Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 18, 2004, 03:59:00 PM
jester.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: Baner on October 18, 2004, 04:00:00 PM
QUOTE
I actually think that Sinclair's handling of this is very socialist, and that they are actually trying to intentionally sway voters, rather than report the "news".

And how is that a valid arguement to not show it? Does it break any rules, regulations or laws in effect? Is it in immediate harm of anyone or anyone's property? It's all just a media gimmick, which seems to be working. As far as being a canidate basher, this is just as bad as F9/11. It was made to sway voters, if it does, well be it, if it doesn't, then good for the people who stand strong against stupid crap like this.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 18, 2004, 05:08:00 PM
QUOTE
And how is that a valid arguement to not show it?


Oh, I wasn't really trying to make an argument. I watched it, so I obviously don't feel that strongly about not having it aired.

My problem is not the content of the show, everyone has the right to voice their feelings on the matter. My problem was with a broadcast company openly being biased and promoting propoganda. It is one thing when they do it secretly, but this is blatant...

There is a difference between this and F911... F911 isn't being backed by a media giant and fed through the public airwaves.


The thing I don't get is, WHO CARES ABOUT VIETNAME NOW! I don't see how Bush's guard service or Kerry's vietname service are relevant to the election. I think they both served honorably. They certainly did more than I have at this point in terms of military service beerchug.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: BenJeremy on October 18, 2004, 05:40:00 PM
Well, actually, it may matter a lot.

The "October Surprise" may still happen.... in this case, Kerry's dishonorable discharge. Kerry's people have worked real hard to embed the isea that Bush went AWOL, though no evidence actually exists of this.

Bush signed form 180, surrendering any and all military records to the public.

Kerry refuses to sign form 180, and there's AT LEAST, according to the Navy, 96 more pages of information that has not been released. Additionally, Kerry's discharge was executed by a review board convended at the command of President Carter himself (you know, the guy who pardoned deserters and dishonorables), which does not happen for honorable or general discharges. Further evidence is in the fact that he's had all of his medals reissued (by pulling political favors) - the ONLY case this would be needed is under a dishonorable discharge, which revokes all medals.

The running theory is that Kerry's anti-war activity, before his discharge, placed him in line for treason charges under the Logan Act, for meeting the enemy (documented) and providing aid and comfort to the enemy (also documented), and he managed to plea it down, and under a new democratic president, was able to "minimize" the political damage.

So what does this mean 30 years later? Quite a lot.... what does it say if we elect a President who's (by his actions) legally a traitor, a dishonorably discharged veteran? There are a lot of current "Kerry voters" who would look at that particular information and see their candidate in an entirely different light, I might add.

Stolen Honor only treads ground already laid by the Democrats. If they did not want Kerry's past discussed, then they should NEVER have brought it up in the first place. They have no moral high ground here.

Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 18, 2004, 05:53:00 PM
wink.gif

Let me just say this: Things I did 5 years ago are not indicitive of who I am know. So why would things that happened 30 years ago when these guys were kids... That is my feeling... (For example, I don't care that Bush was an alcoholic, a Coke-head, etc. I know that isn't who he is NOW).
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: BenJeremy on October 18, 2004, 06:38:00 PM
QUOTE (feflicker @ Oct 18 2004, 06:56 PM)

Let me just say this: Things I did 5 years ago are not indicitive of who I am know. So why would things that happened 30 years ago when these guys were kids... That is my feeling... (For example, I don't care that Bush was an alcoholic, a Coke-head, etc. I know that isn't who he is NOW).

This is true... but when there's a pattern stretching back 30 years, and even his own words today reinforce the image, I don't think "changed" is a word you can use.

Bush is reborn, pretty much a zealot, though Liberals are quick to call him a hypocrite, coming up with wild evidence (Kitty Kelly's fabrication about drug usage in Camp David, the infamous G-8 picture, which was likely near bear or somebody else's bottle sitting in front of the President at a social gathering) and implanting the idea, regardless of it's truth ("Got Coke" image), using repetition and funny images or skits. I haven't seen any proof that Bush is anything other than what he says, and that he has done anything other than what he's said he would do.

Kerry, on the other hand, has a track record stretching 20 years as a Senator, by which we can gauge his current mindset, as well as the statements he makes, even today. Most troublesome are his statements to undermine the Iraqi Interem Prime Minister, his  alienation of our entire coalition of allies, and his odd belief that France and Germany will somehow help bail us out of a situation that's more hype than substance when you look at the facts (the UN, Germany, Russia and France had no interest in ousting saddam or changing the status quo, thanks to the massively corrupt "Food for Oil" program Saddam was using to punish Iraqis and line his pockets).

Worse is that a guy who's practically a billionaire pays only 12.8% in taxes, while I'm paying something over 20%, and he's going to fix my tax situation? I already got my tax cut, but he wants to stop it.

...and still funnier, in a tragic way, is the idea of a pair of lawyers fixing the health care system, particularly when one is a personal injury lawyer who got rich helping malpractice insurance rates rise uncontrollably.

For 20 years, these guys have been doing all the things that have squeezed the life out of the vitality of the United States, but we are suddenly supposed to believe that they've somehow changed their stripes and will miraculously lead the country to "renewed" greatness? Pffttt...

This isn't the 60's, the 70's, the 80's or even the 90's.... world power is shifting, and there are those who would see it shift away from the United States, by whatever means. Kerry has always been a part of that movement, on the inside. I wouldn't trust him with my kid's halloween candy sack, let alone with our nation. Too much is at stake.

Think about it.... you imagine the theory I posted above sounds farfetched, but you would accept what Kerry has been blabbing about a draft if Bush stays in office? How about the story of the death of social security (same story told in 2000, as well, but never materialized)? Bush inherited a recession AND a massively ruinous attack on New York City and the central operations of world trade... moved on terrorist sponsoring countries, to answer those attacks with the one thing that scares the terrorists... immediate and unstoppable force. Through all of that, the economy is recovering, and will continue to do so. If Bush was as inept or evil as the Democrats claim, how could the economy be recovering?

Did you know that Afghanistan had elections last week, without any incidents of violence to mar them? Turnout was strong, and included women voters?

As bleak as the Democrats paint Iraq, do you know the truth about the situation? There will be upheavals, particularly as countries like Iran and Syria attempt to influence things there, but every day, their effort to upset democracy and freedom in Iraq continues to dwindle away. Everything Kerry has done and stated from a decade ago, until now, points to a man who has no desire to see this through to a democracy.

It's about perspective, experience, and action. Kerry seems to be lacking on all three counts, with a history that dates back 30 years. Yes, I think it matters. It mattered before Kerry used/spun his war service of 30 years ago as some sort of indication that he had leadership skills. It was a centerpiece of his campaign during the convention, used in commercials, until Swiftboat vets objected to their implied support when he used a photo of them.

What's more telling is that if you find what he did objectionable 30 years ago, remember one thing: he's never apologized for it. He's sidestepped the issue countless times, avoided answering the hard questions of the time, but he's never said "I'm Sorry" for all the obvious harm he's done. 30 years and still waiting.... even a changed man apologizes for the things he believes are wrong now.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: Ween311 on October 18, 2004, 06:45:00 PM
Somebody posted this link in another thread.  It is about the Kerry discharge.

NY Sun Article
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 18, 2004, 06:58:00 PM
wink.gif

I don't think it is wrong to question our "coalition". I don't think that talking tough about our coalition negates it. The point isn't that we aren't getting world support, we are (30 countries?). The point is that we don't have ENOUGH, especially when it comes to covering the costs in terms of dollars and lives. I don't think that is un-American. There is a difference between Kerry and Bush right now. BUSH IS PRESIDENT, Kerry isn't. Kerry is allowed more dissent imho...

BJ, you make more than 200k (you say Kerry is taking away your tax cut...)? Nice, good work, I wish I did  sad.gif

I can't speak for Kerry's record as a lawyer, but I have read some of Edwards book. I think the cases he took were very honorable. Someone has to stand up for the little guy, or little girl in many cases...

My stance on the economy is brighter than dems paint it. I do think Bush has done well, I just personally think Kerry could do better...

I don't think Kerry needs to apologize for anything he said after Vietnam. He was there, he has the right to voice his concerns. I have read transcripts of what he said, I honestly believe he was trying to help, not harm people... Again, my opinion. I think dissent is the most patriotic thing you can do (when you feel it necessary).

The most important reason we need to get rid of Bush (in my opinion) is to restore our image in the world. Worldwide polls show evidence of STRONG Kerry support. It is very important to our future that countries are willing to work with us and respect us. Remember, Perception IS reality  wink.gif


Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 18, 2004, 08:20:00 PM
Let me say first feflicker that you are the first pro-Kerry that I know in the forum who can express his ideas.  And yes I agree what you said.

I might want to add that in Kerry's Senate Record, he has taken the tough issues, although Bush might differ with his opinion.   He was the person who broke the story about the Iran-Contra affair, took an investigation on BCCI, debunk the truth of Vietnam POW's and normalized relations with Vietnam.  He is not a ultraliberal and is willing to work with republicans while he was a senator.

That's the quality that I see in Kerry, a person who is willing to worth with the opposition on the tough issues to get his legistation passed.  Bush on the other hand, with his 'firm resolve' doesn't want to work with democrats and very few of his legistation are ever passed.  

Teresa paid little taxes because most of her income are tax free.  Her taxable income is 2.29 mil and she paid 627k in taxes.   I even put up the 'unbiased' drudgereport website for you.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

BJ and for all your 'kind words' for all Liberals including Kerry and Edwards, you didn't mentioned Bush's take on the domestic issue, besides more tax cuts, which will cripple our economy in the long run.

Wow, I am surprised that there is such peace in Iraq.  The 2 people who work for this 'organization' here are wearing body armor so that they can protect their asses.  It is getting to a point where most of the news media just want to reports their lowlights of the day here.  Many US Generals and top leaders who work with US said that we need more troops in Iraq but Bush said there is no need for a draft (again Bush's 'Firm Resolve') because it would inconvience the political election year.  

Personally, it doesn't matter who wins the election, either we get a draft so that we can get more troops to get rid of the insurgents and stabilize Iraq or US can chicken out from Iraq.  Just that it will be more likely under Bush's watch at least there might be a chance Kerry might be able to call their allies for help.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: BenJeremy on October 18, 2004, 08:43:00 PM
QUOTE (feflicker @ Oct 18 2004, 08:01 PM)
I am impressed BJ. We need more people like you in this country, who scratch beneath the surface... Even if we don't agree on every detail or issue, at least we are somewhat informed!

This is what I believe:

I believe that it is obvious that the interim government in Iraq has to paint a rosy picture on the situation, regardless of reality. I also believe that Bush cannot come out and say "he was wrong" with the invasion of Iraq, even if he personally believes it. I think it is obvious that Karzai and the Iraqi PM are both "puppets" as Kerry was quoted to have said. They have to be. They owe everything to the U.S. right now, and we have then by the cajones wink.gif

Well, that touches on a few things, but there are several points of view to examine here, but your assumptions about "painting things rosy" or "saying he was wrong" are two undermine your POV here. Alawi isn't painting things "all rosy" - but he, like most Iraqis, know that things will get better, but not if the forces attempting to destabilize the government are allowed to succeed. The lesson here to examine is Afghanistan in the early 90s... the Taliban strong-armed their way into power, a minority group with almost negligible strength took advantage of a volatile situation after the Soviets gave up. We, as a nation, lacked the will to support anything resembling a progressive government and the Wahabbists threw monetary support to the Taliban movement (not the whole of Mujhadeen, but a fraction of it) and they were able to take over. Iraq is certainly undersuch danger now, if the US pulls out. Iran, Syria and the Kurds would surely divide up the country and the whole region would fall into chaos. Our efforts to promote a progressive democracy in the region would be for NOTHING.

QUOTE


I don't think it is wrong to question our "coalition". I don't think that talking tough about our coalition negates it. The point isn't that we aren't getting world support, we are (30 countries?). The point is that we don't have ENOUGH, especially when it comes to covering the costs in terms of dollars and lives. I don't think that is un-American. There is a difference between Kerry and Bush right now. BUSH IS PRESIDENT, Kerry isn't. Kerry is allowed more dissent imho...


Yes, it was wrong. He's supposed to be acting Presidential, and that means being gracious and grateful for all the support others give our country. If he wasn't a candidate, fine... let him say what he wants, but at this point, he's burning his bridges before he comes to them - not very bright, in my opinion. Worse, it isn't really neccessary to belittle their contribution, is it? In the end, it's Kerry polarizing and pandering; it's a ploy to get one thing - not allies, but a throne. It give me the impression he doesn't care what he loses int he effort to gain one thing: The Oval Office, even if it's a burning wreck from his actions before he gets there.


QUOTE


BJ, you make more than 200k (you say Kerry is taking away your tax cut...)? Nice, good work, I wish I did  sad.gif


Nope, not even close. I make less then many auto shop workers. Kerry's made it quite clear the tax cut is temporary in his opinion. We heard the litany of Clinton, lying about his intentions and who he considered "rich" - right down to the $35k mark. I know I've got more money in my pocket to help my family, thanks to several tax breaks aimed at me, a family man who doesn't break 6 figures at all. Why should I expect such releif to continue from a guy who's always voted in favor of higher taxes for the past 20 years? You think a habitual taxer like Kerry changes his spots overnight? I think it's more likely he'll say whatever it takes to win "his" throne.

QUOTE

I can't speak for Kerry's record as a lawyer, but I have read some of Edwards book. I think the cases he took were very honorable. Someone has to stand up for the little guy, or little girl in many cases...



c'mon... he got stinking RICH "defending the little guy" - I know how that works, too. My parents got royally ripped off by a lawyer and the system, hit by a drunk driver on New Year's Eve, heading to a relative's house, my Mom broke her neck. When the dust settled, she got a measly $8k out of a $100k settlement. Lawyers and their barrage of "experts" swallowed up the rest - and she still has problems to this day.


He also used junk science to influence juries and wrongfully win cases. Again, there's a pattern established, and he's on the wrong side of Tort Reform, something desperately needed to reign in lawyers, and get more for that "little guy"

QUOTE


My stance on the economy is brighter than dems paint it. I do think Bush has done well, I just personally think Kerry could do better...



How, exactly? By shutting down the border to H-1B Visas? Tearing up NAFTA? Forcing Canada to subsidize our drugs? Free enterprise doesn't run well on government regulation and tariffs. Encouraging US businesses to grow helps our economy -  which is the Republicans' approach. New businesses mean more jobs, and more income, which generates more tax revenues. A stronger economy depends on MORE business, not MORE regulation.

QUOTE

I don't think Kerry needs to apologize for anything he said after Vietnam. He was there, he has the right to voice his concerns. I have read transcripts of what he said, I honestly believe he was trying to help, not harm people... Again, my opinion. I think dissent is the most patriotic thing you can do (when you feel it necessary).


Jane Fonda did... and she's not even running for President. Ask a Vietnam Vet what they think about the way they were treated upon returning to the US. Kerry headed the movement that's largely responsible for that. His own testimony was used against POWs as they were tortured. His false accusations were a propoganda gold mine for the communists.


QUOTE


The most important reason we need to get rid of Bush (in my opinion) is to restore our image in the world. Worldwide polls show evidence of STRONG Kerry support. It is very important to our future that countries are willing to work with us and respect us. Remember, Perception IS reality  wink.gif


No, we've never had the respect of France and Germany, and Russia DOES respect us, as does China, India, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Italy, and a whole slew of countries FAR MORE POWERFUL AND IMPORTANT in the worlkd arena than two faded and jaded ex-world powers. More on that after I eat dinner.... wink.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on October 18, 2004, 09:01:00 PM
QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Oct 18 2004, 08:46 PM)


No, we've never had the respect of France and Germany, and Russia DOES respect us, as does China, India, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Italy, and a whole slew of countries FAR MORE POWERFUL AND IMPORTANT in the worlkd arena than two faded and jaded ex-world powers. More on that after I eat dinner.... wink.gif

respect is one thing, and i agree, these countries still respect the US (but personally, i think some of them dont have full respect for bush, but thats ok)

but its cooperation, understanding and the willingness to work together (ie, the UN, but without the UN)

we obviously dont have any of that, or else we'd have alot more foreign troops in iraq right now, or at least alot more aid and funds
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 18, 2004, 09:28:00 PM
beerchug.gif

Let me first say that I don't think we should "pull out" of Iraq. No way. We are there, we have to finish the job. We are not quitters. Regardless of who is President, for the sake of everyone involved, I hope they wage the "second war" in Iraq quickly, and get this country secured.

I agree it does sound like Kerry is "belittling" our allies contributions at times, but someone has to belittle the job the president did of forming this so-called coalition. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the support we have is not appreciated, the point is that we *should have had a lot more*.

As you know, the tax relief has not been made permanent yet. I too benefited from the relief. I believe that it should be made permanent for middle income and below. (Bush wants it permanent for everyone). For those that make over $200,000, I think it should be repealed back to where it was before 9/11. I think that just makes sense, especially when we are looking at $120 Billion for this war (on the low side).

I know Edwards got rich, but he also made a lot of other people rich. I guess I have always liked it when someone takes down "the big guy". You know these companies screw families on a daily basis. Maybe if they didn't do that, they wouldn't be getting sued? I guess my opinion is that Edwards lawsuits were not "frivolous". Frivolous lawsuits should be stopped, we all agree on that...

As for the economy, I honestly think that a new president will relieve the main problem --> Consumer Confidence. I think free trade is the way to go, and I think allowing drugs from Canada is also the way to go. Just a difference of opinion I guess...

You and I both know that what Jane Fonda said/did was 100 times worse than Kerry. That bitch needed to apologize!  jester.gif

When I speak about being respected in the world, I am not talking about foreign governments. We all know they will respect us for our power and money. I am talking about the people. The people who overwhelmingly support American citizens, but have no respect for our president. I think what Bush has done has been a lot worse than just making "unpopular decisions", as he put it. I think he has all but destroyed our reputation in the world when it comes to foreign policy, ask just about anyone on this board who does not live in the U.S.  ph34r.gif

=================================================

Reading this it sounds like I absolutely hate Bush. That isn't the case, I respect a lot of what he did, especially post 9-11. I just don't agree with a lot of his policy.

- Stem Cells: Get over it already, let's research wherever we can!
- Abortion: Women should be able to choose.
- Taxes: Cuts should be repealed for wealthy.
- Supreme Court: I prefer liberal judges, not extreme conservatives.
- Religion: I think Bush is "too" religious for MY own good.
- Foreign Policy: I support the "Bush Doctrine", I just don't think we were diligent.
- Gay Rights: An amendment "protecting" marriage? Give me a break...
- Patriot Act: I think several parts of this need to be re-evaluated, re-wrote, etc.
- 911 Commission: We need to take more of their advice.
- Ann Coulter: She supports him, enough said!

The list goes on and on...   ohmy.gif



Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: BenJeremy on October 18, 2004, 09:32:00 PM
I think it's simple enough to see why some countries (France, Germany, Russia) acted as they did when the US came calling to oust Saddam; the Food-for-Oil scam.   The line drawn was simply too harsh, and the reasonings too muddled to be anything else.

That said, in retrospect, the Russians are probably kicking themselves at this point for their role in it all (a recent poll showed a majority of Russians supported Bush), but diplomatic realities and their own struggles means we won't see them join any coalition right now (although we may see some involvement after Bush is re-elected.)

We find many of the hot spots in the world are the broken pieces of Europe's colonial age. We find the French have NEVER been our friends, at least in this century, and we'd have to ignore history to forget that Europe has had an axe to grind with the US since its birth. Democracy was a true revolution, and ideal that withstands every argument a citizen can throw against it, and while the monarchies and barons of Old Europe transformed their power base from leading armies to running businesses and influencing policies, they have never forgotten who's denied them their "right of rule", merely by existing.

Toss in a butt-load of anarchists, communists, and generally unruly rabble who are easily lead by propoganda, and you've got a force to be reckoned with.... add the legitmacy of a subverted organization like the UN, and maybe, just maybe, you can remake the world again. The problem with bringing back Fuedalism is that control is required. I'm beginning to think that's where the Islamists come in. Catholicism and Protestantism don't hold the weight they did, say, during the Thirty Years War, where kings and princes used the church to control the masses and steal land and treasures. Today the only alternative is the only bastion of zealous unquestioned religious authority - Islam. As a tool, the Saudis serve as a model for the future Emirs of Europe, controlling the population. Toss in the bonus the the long-hated "Jews" and kicking those upstarts across the pond, and you've got a plan, I'd guess.

Scary? It should be, but one thing  - ONE THING - can upset that potential track: the spread of Democracy in the Middle East, and the inevitable shift of Islam into the modern age as a tolerant and MODERATE religion (sort of like adding milk to strong coffee, or a hurricane slowing into a tropical depression).

Why else would the "old powers" of Europe wish to stand in the way of our plans for the region?

Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: BenJeremy on October 18, 2004, 09:59:00 PM
biggrin.gif ). I don't see the "wonderful speaker" I keep hearing about, nor do I see hime doing a single damn thing about getting more respect for our country or the office of the President Of The United States. I think Europe sees Kerry as a dupe... somebody easily moldable when you hold him accountable to a promise he's made in private, but flip-flopped to other parties on.

Dammit, worst of all the man is atrocious at sports. He's a disaster with a ball, gun, bike, or pair of skis, and seems to me like a snobby wine and cheese tasting elitist who thinks he knows better then anybody else what to do with our money and our country, no matter how badly he runs things into the ground.

I see Bush as the kind of guy who would argue with you over a football game (good naturedly) and know what he was talking about, while Kerry would be puzzled why the team leading a game wouldn't go for it on 4th and 3 at their own 30yd line (and couldn't get the name of the team right). Kerry is the guy who calls an exterminator to remove the dead possum on his driveway, while Bush is the guy who'd put on work gloves and get the job done himself. I may not always agree with Bush, but he's a hell of a lot more likeable, so long as you are not obsessed and prejudiced with ideas implanted in your head for the past 6 years by a bitter propoganda machine.






Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 18, 2004, 10:03:00 PM
wink.gif

It will certainly be interesting to look back on this in 10/20/30 years. That will be the true test.

Back on topic, "Stolen Honor" is part of the RNC Mind Machine  jester.gif



EDIT: (contd)

I don't think Kerry would withdraw prematurely for one second. We can't afford to do that, it is too risky. I don't think that is going to happen regardless of who wins...

Ha ha, he is bad at sports. He is all elbows  jester.gif

I agree with you about Bush too, I think he would be more enjoyable to hang out with. I have watched lots of footage with him on the campaign trail (2000 and 2004). He has a good sense of humor, and is more down to earth. I just don't think that matters when you have the most formal job in the world...
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: BenJeremy on October 18, 2004, 10:18:00 PM
QUOTE (feflicker @ Oct 18 2004, 11:06 PM)
You are right about that Food-For-Oil scam Saddam had going. He pretty much handed over the deeds to oil fields to prevent those countries from voting with America...

I also agree about democracy in Iraq being in our long-term best interest for the region.

"It isn't about the fact that we did it, it is about the way we did it".  wink.gif

It will certainly be interesting to look back on this in 10/20/30 years. That will be the true test.

Back on topic, "Stolen Honor" is part of the RNC Mind Machine  jester.gif

Kerry has enough enemies across the political spectrum.... plenty of vets hate him for what he's done; it doesn't have to be a Republican effort - just an ex-POW or any vet that got spit on after returning to the US.

Besides, considering Kerry has most of the news media (CBS still won't admit the obvious forgeries are forgeries and flogs anti-Bush stories every week), the comedy shows and a lot of the entertainment industry cranked up in anti-Bush fervor (Sundance channel has an 80-hour Bush Hate-a-thon scheduled).

Let's face it, we've been bombarded by anti-Bush messages in every medium known to man since he was elected President. If two hours of truth can tip the balance from Kerry to Bush (who endured 4 years of criticism, both real and imagined, as well as a TON of slander and satire taken at face value as truth), then honestly, what does that say about Kerry, anyway?

How big of a library of lies (in addition to the truth) has been leveled at Bush in the last 4 years (on free TV, cable, premium, etc...)? Even that short-lived series about Bush on Comedy Central more than makes up for two little hours of truthful documentary on Kerry, don't you think?

Why is scrutiny a bad thing, if Kerry is such a wonderful person?
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 18, 2004, 11:24:00 PM
sad.gif

You don't think the "bombardment" of Bush has anything to do with his performance? I will agree that the media has been tough on him, but I think rightfully so *most of the time*.

I think scrutiny and dissent are both extremely healthy. As a citizen, I want to know as much as possible before deciding on issues. I don't mind hearing every angle, it makes my final stance that much stronger.

Sometimes after learning more, studying an issue, hearing opposing viewpoints, as time passes and the world changes - I change my mind on things. Some may call that a "flip-flop", I call it common sense wink.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: brandogg on October 18, 2004, 11:28:00 PM
Has anyone read the polls among the military and their families? This was shown on MSNBC, maybe on Foxnews I believe (can't find the link, it was shown on the net 2 days ago), that about 71% of the military and their families support Bush for reelection. Many of them do think their duty has been stretched out, but they still would rather have Bush as president, by far. Undecided voters should really take that into consideration. I'll post the link if I can find it...or anyone else can if they find it first.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 18, 2004, 11:35:00 PM
QUOTE
that about 71% of the military and their families support Bush for reelection


I was wondering if that was going to come up...

My take on this: If your son, brother, etc. died in Iraq, or is fighting there right now, what would you rather believe:

a.) That they faught/died for nothing under a reckless President.

b.) That they faught/died for some great justified cause.

I think that plays a big part of this...

Also, I think that the RNC has done a good job of making people think that Kerry will not do the job in Iraq, and that would mean more casualties. I don't believe that, but I think that message has been successful for Bush.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 18, 2004, 11:44:00 PM
QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Oct 19 2004, 04:21 AM)
Kerry has enough enemies across the political spectrum.... plenty of vets hate him for what he's done; it doesn't have to be a Republican effort - just an ex-POW or any vet that got spit on after returning to the US.

Besides, considering Kerry has most of the news media (CBS still won't admit the obvious forgeries are forgeries and flogs anti-Bush stories every week), the comedy shows and a lot of the entertainment industry cranked up in anti-Bush fervor (Sundance channel has an 80-hour Bush Hate-a-thon scheduled).

Let's face it, we've been bombarded by anti-Bush messages in every medium known to man since he was elected President. If two hours of truth can tip the balance from Kerry to Bush (who endured 4 years of criticism, both real and imagined, as well as a TON of slander and satire taken at face value as truth), then honestly, what does that say about Kerry, anyway?

How big of a library of lies (in addition to the truth) has been leveled at Bush in the last 4 years (on free TV, cable, premium, etc...)? Even that short-lived series about Bush on Comedy Central more than makes up for two little hours of truthful documentary on Kerry, don't you think?

Why is scrutiny a bad thing, if Kerry is such a wonderful person?

Kerry didn't go on for 20 years in the senate without coming out with a laundry list of political riff-raff.  3 out of last 4 presidents are governors of individual states, not from senate or house.  Thus these candidates has little controversy and it is kind of harder to demean them (even slick Bill) and has a good resume of being a head figure of their state.

My main peeve is why are they airing that film in less than 2 weeks before a election in free tv.  Could've done it a few months ago along with Swiftvets for Lies BS.  

Personally, Kerry is not the best man for Democratic candidate, someone more unkown like Wesley Clark.  The person who can beat Bush at his game as being a commander in chief.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: brandogg on October 18, 2004, 11:48:00 PM
There's plenty of anti-Bush propaganda on free television, it's called CBS/CNN.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 18, 2004, 11:51:00 PM
QUOTE
someone more unkown like Wesley Clark


That is who I supported in the primaries  wink.gif

I actually supported McCain in 2000 as well. I am not partisan, I will go with who I think is the better candidate...
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: Colonel32 on October 19, 2004, 12:22:00 AM
wink.gif


EDIT:
QUOTE
My main peeve is why are they airing that film in less than 2 weeks before a election in free tv.


Then sent out a mass email to all of Sinclair's sponsors and let them know you think they are communists HERE
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: The unProfessional on October 19, 2004, 12:52:00 AM
QUOTE

Fleflicker I voted for Mccain in the primaries too. He will be a good president in 2008 I hope regardless of who wins in Nov


Moi aussi! smile.gif  McCain 2008
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 19, 2004, 01:20:00 AM
beerchug.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 19, 2004, 12:19:00 PM
biggrin.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: brandogg on October 19, 2004, 12:42:00 PM
I'm thinking it's going to be president Jeb Bush in 2008...maybe 2012.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 19, 2004, 02:02:00 PM
QUOTE (feflicker @ Oct 19 2004, 06:22 PM)
Here is a good article that is in the AZ Republic this morning...

http://www.azcentral...9montini19.html

This is how I have felt for awhile now. McCain usually isn't a Republican yes-boy, but right now he has to support Bush even if he doesn't like it... The only way I can forgive him for it is if he does run in 2008  biggrin.gif

I have seen the debate McCain and Bush at 2000.  Bush defeated McCain by spreading rumors asking if McCain was 'mentally competant' enough for president after years he spent as a POW in vietnam.  They should have a 'Stolen Honor' film for Bush instead.  Also, Bush won the support of all those conservative Right Wing numbnuts because McCain was more moderate.

As for McCain, I think he is competant but I think he will be kind of old at 2008 and his age might be an issue...
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 19, 2004, 02:07:00 PM
QUOTE
I'm thinking it's going to be president Jeb Bush in 2008...maybe 2012


Not if my secret militia has anything to say about it  jester.gif

QUOTE
Bush defeated McCain by spreading rumors asking if McCain was 'mentally competant' enough for president after years he spent as a POW in vietnam


You should look into the negative mailers and attack adds that Bush sent out in North Carolina. That is how Bush got back into the game and overtook McCain. We all know he has never forgiven Bush for that, nor should he.

I agree, there should be a Bush documentary called "Stolen Elections". Oh wait, there are a lot of those already  tongue.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 19, 2004, 02:19:00 PM
Bush's younger alcoholism days probably damaged a significant amount of his brain cells.  There should've been attack ads that questioned his mental competance to run for office.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: brandogg on October 19, 2004, 04:26:00 PM
That's the thing. There's no doubt that some American gas companies, Chevron, Texaco, etc, made some money off the scandal, but they are not part of the UN. I don't think Chevron has any influence on Sanctions for Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 19, 2004, 05:23:00 PM
beerchug.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 19, 2004, 09:10:00 PM
Excellent news.  At least that sounds a fair, sort of.

I am downloading... errr going to preview that film right now.  Let's see if this is the garbage that they say that is.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: thomes08 on October 20, 2004, 09:24:00 AM
i haven't been reading this thread and i don't know where the hell it's gone from the original opic but they're not going to air the movie anymore.  Now they're going to run a special with clips from the movie

http://story.news.ya...eatsonkerryfilm

thomes08
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 20, 2004, 11:38:00 AM
Mattyj25, I agree with you, but you can put the long post in 'kerry vs Bush' thread.

There's some more news about Democratic investors have a beef with Sinclair Communications for opening up this controversy.

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain650030.shtml
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 20, 2004, 12:21:00 PM
tongue.gif

The bottom line is that this crapumentary wouldn't even be an issue if there wasn't a Bush Vs. Kerry, so of course the topic is going to have its moments when the focus is shifted to the candidates...

Anyway... That being said, this thread turned out nicely. A lot of intelligent, thought-out, informative, responses  beerchug.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: Baner on October 20, 2004, 01:14:00 PM
QUOTE
1. The war in Iraq was not neccessary. There were no WMD's or an 'emenent threat' like Bush told us. They lied to the UN and gave bogus information showing setallite photos saying they knew 'exactly' where these WMD sites are only to come up empty handed. There was no eminent threat to the U.S. and no need to engage in this war to begin with but not only that, we barely have any help. Don't even go on about the 30 nations that are a 'coalition of the willing', compared with the number of troops that we have over there, their support, while appreciated, isn't that much and we could have used more troops and greater cooperation from 'other' nations.

Wasn't it the CIA that told Bush that information? We all believed Clinton when he was told there were WMDs in Iraq the first time, and we believed it again. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me again, shame on me."

QUOTE
2. Bush lied and flip-flopped about medical marijuana. He said he thought the states were compenent enough to take care of the issue on their own, same with gay marriage. Yet now he is sending the DEA and FBI to bust people who use it medicinally and who have APPROVED the measure to do so in their own state. I guess when he said he thought the states could handle it on their own he meant 'they can handle it on their own if they agree with me' (then gives retarded look).

1. Source please?
2. I doubt he'd use the FBI into a home with someone using medicinal Mary Jane, considering the low amount of herb they're actually given.

QUOTE
3. I'm not saying I like or even understand Kerry's tax plan but under Bush, I didn't get crap.

I'm sorry to hear that. sad.gif I don't think blindly going with the other canidate is a good choice either tho.

QUOTE
4. I don't know where you are reading your news BJ, but from every Canadian I have spoken to, Canada's health care system is something to be admired and I haven't read a damn thing about it being a bad thing for Canada or trying to change it too drastically. It's good because everyone is covered. I am not saying we should use that exact same approach here (you'd never get it with the pharm companies hands in the politicians pockets), but it's a novel approach and I think we should move in that direction. I don't know about anyone else but Health care is crazy expensive and I for one am one of the people who lost health coverage under bush's presidency.

I've noticed that Americans aren't ones to allow themselves to be taxed more, even if it benifits them a little. You get a canidate that openly says he's going to tax people more, and you won't see him as president. Not saying the Canadian health care plan is bad, just saying it won't happen in America.

QUOTE
5. I'm sorry again BJ, but I don't know how in the hell you can say that Bush seems more competent than Kerry like "he's a guy that would know what to do if there is a possum dead in his driveway". Whatever! Just watching him in the first debate, all he could say was flip flopper to Kerry. Bush seems like the kind of guy to me who is controlled and not in control. He wasn't prepared or could even find the words to use against Kerry in that debate and that to me shows a man who knows no more than what someone else has written or told him to say.

The bold words implies that it's an opinion, and your's differs from his.
I might be wrong, but I don't remember Bush calling Kerry a Flip Flopper during the debate. I know Bush got his ass handed to him in the first debate (yet to see the other two), but it is harder to debate as the current president against a master debater (hehe), then as the "attacker".

QUOTE
6. He can't even pronounce Nuclear for christ's sake! It's not nucular you friggin moron!

Sucks that you don't like his accent, maybe we all don't\can't pronunciate as well as you do.

QUOTE
7. He damaged relations with other country's over a war that shouldn't have been. Again, remember there were no WMD's and there was no immediate threat.

Who's relations did he damage? I'm pretty sure France, Russia, Germany, Iraq, and Iran weren't on our good side to begin with.

QUOTE
8. To the country's that decided not to help the US in the war in Iraq, Bush sent a big middle finger their way by telling them they are not able to bid for contracts to help rebuild Iraq. WTF was that?! For a president to turn away help was retarded. Seems like a tit for tat thing to me. Again, showing his child like actions.

I don't see why a nation should beable to profit form a reformed country, that they didn't help reform.

QUOTE
9. No real stratedgy going into Iraq and getting out of Iraq. Two more things that could have been accomplished much better if he wouldn't have been so impatient.
10. Complete and total secrecy for things that should have been made open to the public.

Hmm... those fit together pretty well, except for the part about being made open to the public. I would rather not have our enemey know our every plan.
As for keeping things secret, what about Kerry not releasing his military papers, much like Bush did.

QUOTE
11. Since he couldn't get a judge on the bench through the conventional way like going through the house and congress, he decided to wait till recess and then appoint him that way. I sure do like judges who think homosexuality is akin to beastiality and rape.

To the victor goes the spoils, aka Spoils system, look it up.

Sorry for the long ass post, but it was calling out my name tongue.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 20, 2004, 02:10:00 PM
cool.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: The unProfessional on October 20, 2004, 02:10:00 PM
I have a new goal in life.  Go to medical school, win the lottery, and turn my house into a hospital.  That way, I can provide health care to family and friends since whether they live in Canada or the US, they're @*#ked.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 20, 2004, 03:14:00 PM
Even Canada's health care system sounds bad, US's health care system is much much worse.  If you are affected with a medical problem which is going to cost you, and you don't have insurance, you're basically screwed of your money.  To make it worse, for the people who has no insurance and cannot pay for the bill, the hospital can't recover the money from them, so they have to pass along the cost to people who can pay.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: gainpresence on October 20, 2004, 03:36:00 PM
I know this thread has gone far from the topic.. But it's not Stolen Honor that's airing on Sinclair Networks, it's a news report called 'A POW Story' that addresses issues brought up in Stolen Honor. Sinclair says it will be fair to both sides, and that John Kerry was even invited on for the whole 90 minutes to respond. Who knows how it will turn out.

The funny thing is, Democrats are already threatening Sinclair before anyone's even seen the report (from what I hear, it hasn't even been made yet).
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 20, 2004, 04:40:00 PM
QUOTE
The funny thing is, Democrats are already threatening Sinclair before anyone's even seen the report (from what I hear, it hasn't even been made yet).


gainpresence, the doc was actually made, you can view it online and it is downloadable in the newsgroups.

Sinclair just shifted yesterday toward this "POW Story" thing as opposed to airing the documentary in its entirety.  wink.gif

So yeah, no one can complain now, we don't know what this report will be, we just hope it is fair.

And about Kerry going on the program... Would you expect Bush to go on the panel if this was about Fahrenheit 911? I wouldn't...
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: brandogg on October 20, 2004, 09:18:00 PM
I've always heard that it was a story that featured parts and possibly all of Stolen Honor, from teh first day this was announced. A hotel near me showed it yesterday, and apparently everyone who saw it now hates John Kerry. I didn't see it, but I'm gonna try to find it somewhere.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 24, 2004, 01:22:00 AM
I finally had some time to watch it.  All the former POW's in this so called 'documentry' blamed on Kerry for why they remain a POW for so long.  They don't have any solid proof of why Kerry and other peace activists remained as a POW.  

The only people who can negotiate for the POW's release is by the Vietnamese and US govt, not Kerry and their peace activists.  I feel sorry for these former POW's but they just blamed on Kerry for nothing.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: feflicker on October 24, 2004, 03:44:00 AM
QUOTE
I feel sorry for these former POW's but they just blamed on Kerry for nothing.


I agree.

The whole notion that the Vets who returned and voiced their outrage at the way the troops were behaving (and were being ordered to behave) in Vietnam somehow adversely affected the troops is ridiculous to me.

What are we going to do? Track down everyone who said anything at the time that could have negatively impacted the troops? Well, if we are talking about Vietnam we better get some pencils and paper because if I am not mistaken, that war was heavily protested against by the U.S. and other nations!

I say "bravo" to Kerry and the other troops that returned and reported the problems over there. Remember, the President at the time wouldn't listen to anybody about how bad things were going, somebody had to step in front of Congress and say something, sound familiar?  dry.gif
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 24, 2004, 11:33:00 AM
QUOTE
“I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command..." – John Kerry [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 4/22/71]


QUOTE
“The historical record shows that atrocities did occur in Vietnam, as in the My Lai massacre or the so-called Tiger Force activities that were recently uncovered.” [Newsday, 2/22/04]


QUOTE
“Stanley Karnow, author of ‘Vietnam: A History,’ said there is no question that atrocities occurred on both sides in the Vietnam War. [Boston Globe, 5/13/04]


QUOTE
Gen. Tommy Franks: Certain That Atrocities in Vietnam Did Take Place. “I think we had a lot of problems in Vietnam. One was the lack of leadership of young people like in - - in John Kerry's position. He was a young officer over there, and I'm not sure that -- that activities like that didn't take place. In fact, quite the contrary. I'm sure that they did. ...I wouldn't say that the things that Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in Vietnam. I think that things didn't go right in Vietnam.” [Hannity and Colmes, 8/3/04]


It is probably similar to the things happening today at Abu Ghraib.  I'm pretty sure that their superiors ordered the soldiers to do this kind of stuff.

While an estimated 55k US soldiers died and 300k us soldiers injured, there were about an estimated 3 million Vietnamese people died.  Do you think all of these 3 million Vietnamese are soldiers or perhaps there are a good number of them are women and children?
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: Ween311 on October 24, 2004, 12:34:00 PM
If that's true, then should somebody who admitted to taking part of those atrocities be allowed to be President?
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 24, 2004, 12:43:00 PM
QUOTE (Ween311 @ Oct 24 2004, 06:37 PM)
If that's true, then should somebody who admitted to taking part of those atrocities be allowed to be President?

And you have some proof that he took part of those atrocities.

And heres a link of what he said in the senate hearings was true...

http://www.villagevo.../0438/turse.php
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: Ween311 on October 24, 2004, 01:38:00 PM
QUOTE
(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End audiotape)



So he admitted it, its true.  He should not be allowed to be President?
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 24, 2004, 05:34:00 PM
This is his response on a show on Meet the press a few years back.

http://hnn.us/articles/3552.html

I think the commanders are responsible for this because they are ordered to do it.  But he didn't do any indecent things like genocide.  

Besides Bush wasn't exactly an Saint either when he was young.  Should we allow a president elected when he was arrested before?
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: Ween311 on October 24, 2004, 06:37:00 PM
Depends on the crime.  Personally, I think war crimes like burning down villages is much worse than a DUI.  What do you think?
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 24, 2004, 06:56:00 PM
He said that he was ordered to do it.  He could refuse or get court marshalled.  

For Bush, I don't know if he was ordered to drive while drunk.
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: Ween311 on October 24, 2004, 07:07:00 PM
So by that logic, if your boss told you to do something illegal, and you did it, then it wouldn't be your fault?

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not trying to defend any wrongdoings by anyone.  Just pointing out the fact of why these POW's and Swiftboat people might have something against Kerry.  He said they all commited atrocities, including him.  Imagine for a moment, that your captors are trying to get you to admit to something that you did not do.  When they think you are lying to them, they beat and torture you.  You keep denying that you did anything that they accused you of.  Then, all the sudden, they come in with recordings of your fellow countrymen, already home from the war testifying to the world that American soldiers all did this.  

If I were in that position, when I got home from the war, I would probably feel a lot of animosity and hatred for the person who did that.  It's pretty justifiable from their end and I think that they should be allowed to speak their mind.  Especially when the person who did that is now running for the President of the country that they live in.  Does it make anybody right?  I don't believe so.  There will always be discrepencies in everyone's recollections.  It was 30 years ago.  Should they have to keep quiet on their feelings about Kerry?
Title: Stolen Honor
Post by: pug_ster on October 24, 2004, 09:13:00 PM
Like I said, these POW's have been pissed off for the wrong guy.  Unfortunately, the US at that time was fighting a very ill-effective war.  Just because they suspect if one enemy is in a village, the US was ordered to burn down the whole village.  Do you think that's fair?  

And the people protesting this was blamed when the commanders who told these soldiers to burn down the village should be responsible for this action.

Kerry is blamed twice, once for following orders from his superiors and again when he fight against them.  It is easy to blame on people like Kerry because he has a face, while the faceless beaurcrats at washington for dragging this war to this.