Reasons not to vote for John John.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 16 Aug 2004 21:11

Since Kerry has made Vietnam the central issue of his campaign, and reminds us every day about what a hero he was.

But some things about his service stink like BS.

He got 3 Purple Hearts in less than 4 months.

Wow, that's a lot of medals in a short period of time.

How bad were those injuries, on 3 separate occasions?

Has anyone else every received that many Purple Hearts so fast?

Apparently he never missed a day of duty because of those injuries.

Apparently he never spent a night in the hospital because of those injuries.

Kerry wont release his war medical records. Why?

If he was the Superman hero he claims to be, then he should release those records, so we can see if those medals were awarded for self inflicted scratches on his arm, or REAL wounds.

-----------------------

What's more creepy is the video footage that we see of Kerry. It's set up and staged by him.

After a battle would settle down and there were no hostiles, Kerry would set up the camera and film himself walking through the bush, looking tough, wearing infantry gear that naval guys never wore.

If you cut and pasted shred video of yourself to make an awesome routine, and tried to pass it off as you competing at Worlds, you would be a total phony.

Maybe it's a stretch, but every thing Kerry did up until after the war looks contrived to me.

--Enter the navy to emulate JFK

--Take staged videos of yourself to use for political gain later.

--Leave Vietnam as soon as you have enough video and medals.

--Slander and backstab your fellow soldiers once back home, so as to be loved by the peace crowd ,gaining political power.

-- Flip Flop later to say how great your Vietnam service and act like a hawk, tough on defense, for more political gain.

Phony, phony,phony

-n

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 16 Aug 2004 21:24

Hey Demonslayer,

Again, I don`t know what your sources are (assuming you aren`t just making shit up, which you have been known to do in the past), but even if everything you say is true...

...at least Kerry WAS in Vietnam.

Bush passes himself off as a `war President,` and dressed up in a flight suit and paraded around on an aircraft carrier with a huge `mission accomplished` banner in the background. But you know what? When he had a chance to fight for his country, he got his daddy to use his Senatorial influence and name to get him into the Texas Air National Guard, ahead of 500 people on the waiting list before him. And once Bush got in (which guaranteed he wouldn`t go to Vietnam and risk death), he didn`t even stay there the entire time! He went AWOL from one of the cushiest positions you could have in the military at the time.

Hell, other than Colin Powell, who in the Bush Administration served their country when they were called upon to do so? Cheney? Oh wait, he got FIVE deferments, and for no good reason.

Say what you will about Kerry and what he did in Vietnam, but you can`t take away the simple fact that he went there and risked his life. That alone gives him more credibility than Bush, when trying to portray himself as a military hero.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 17 Aug 2004 06:50

terrorist

You are correct Ken about Kerry being more of a military guy than Bush despite his filmings and protests, etc...

But does that really have anything to do with what his plans are if he were to be elected? We know what Bush's plans are, they have been in action the last 4 years.

I predict if Kerry is elected, you will see little to no change in government due to the fact that both houses are republican controlled. Unless ofcourse the democrats take over, in which case I will be wrong by default.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 17 Aug 2004 06:59

FlexThis wrote:But does that really have anything to do with what his plans are if he were to be elected? We know what Bush's plans are, they have been in action the last 4 years.

I predict if Kerry is elected, you will see little to no change in government due to the fact that both houses are republican controlled. Unless ofcourse the democrats take over, in which case I will be wrong by default.

I agree with Damon on this. I don't think it matters which president "served" for the country... everyone seems to be hyping this up when really, Damon's right - it's not going to affect the way they rule the country (It really doesn't represent very well the views they feel towards the military NOW, you know). Why glorify violence anymore than it needs to be? We all know neither of them were "defending" the country, if anything. I think they both suck. I don't think I could vote for Bush, but I know I can't vote for Kerry/Edwards either. I'll be doing something other than those two options (if I haven't already stated that here... I'll probably be saying it again too.)

ashleyd · Post by **ashleyd** » 17 Aug 2004 08:32

your right, we DO know what bushs plans are and bush is very upfront with things. Kerry is a flip flopper. But hey, if you feel that he has a strong agenda for america, and can really do something for the US in the next 4 years, then vote for him. I just dont see how he could do a better job at being president then Bush. How can he possibly do something that Bush wont do that is going to help America. And im not talking about the past, im saying what is this guy going to do to protect us. Thats my #1 concern. For me, I cant rely on him or belive what he says.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 Aug 2004 08:56

Ashleygrlshreder wrote:your right, we DO know what bushs plans are and bush is very upfront with things. Kerry is a flip flopper. But hey, if you feel that he has a strong agenda for america, and can really do something for the US in the next 4 years, then vote for him. I just dont see how he could do a better job at being president then Bush. How can he possibly do something that Bush wont do that is going to help America. And im not talking about the past, im saying what is this guy going to do to protect us. Thats my #1 concern. For me, I cant rely on him or belive what he says.

Kerry would protect us better than bush by implementing policies that would not increase terrorist recruitment. You can not make your country safe, it is an impossibility. The only way to be safe is to remove the reasons for attacking in the first place. I don't trust a leader who thinks we were attacked for our "freedom and democracy". I would rather have a leader who admits to reading newspapers, and following global politics. An ignorant leader can make you feel good, but he can't make you safe.

What type of cowards are they who would attack a man who served his country, while they made extenisive efforts not to serve. Who cares if he shot the guy in the back, he was still there holding the gun, not persuing "more pressing matters". Does it matter if he threw the medals or the ribbons ? He was awarded medals for his conduct in a combat environment, what he did with them after that is irrelevant. Does it matter if the shrapnel put a huge hole in his body, or a minor injury ? He still was injured while on tour. Bush and Co should be embarasased to attack a service mans record over such petty details, when the big picture is such a different story.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 17 Aug 2004 09:05

The greatest safety for a country in this time is not only a military force (which I don't support personally) but a strong international PR rating. Bush makes our country look like one big anus for the rest of the world to gangrape.

420FootBager · Post by **420FootBager** » 17 Aug 2004 09:40

no bush makles us look like pussies.... we should destroy anybody that fucks with us then rebuild um and make um apologize for makeing us angry.....

We are the most powerful nation in the world why do we consistently take shit from everyone. Those terrorist should have been way to scared to attack us....

I'm not saying that we be bullys and try to conquer the world but if we tell someone to stop making weapons or let us search for weapons and they refuse..... lets kill the muthas....

The government sure as hell wouldn't have a problem with breaking in my door and killing my family if I did something as minor as growing pot, but N. Korea can threaten us and build Nuclear weapons? WTF is that?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 Aug 2004 09:46

420FootBager wrote: stop making weapons or let us search for weapons and they refuse..... lets kill the muthas....

1) the UN was searching, but it was hard to produce the weapons

because

2) He had no weapons.

and

3) He had no facilities to produce weapons.

Ignorance will not make you safer, but it sure does feel better than the truth.

ashleyd · Post by **ashleyd** » 17 Aug 2004 09:57

Tsiangkun wrote: Kerry would protect us better than bush by implementing policies that would not increase terrorist recruitment. You can not make your country safe, it is an impossibility. The only way to be safe is to remove the reasons for attacking in the first place. I don't trust a leader who thinks we were attacked for our "freedom and democracy". I would rather have a leader who admits to reading newspapers, and following global politics. An ignorant leader can make you feel good, but he can't make you safe.

What type of cowards are they who would attack a man who served his country, while they made extenisive efforts not to serve. Who cares if he shot the guy in the back, he was still there holding the gun, not persuing "more pressing matters". Does it matter if he threw the medals or the ribbons ? He was awarded medals for his conduct in a combat environment, what he did with them after that is irrelevant. Does it matter if the shrapnel put a huge hole in his body, or a minor injury ? He still was injured while on tour. Bush and Co should be embarasased to attack a service mans record over such petty details, when the big picture is such a different story.

First of all what he did with his medals afterwards IS relevant ONLY because its a big thing that we all hear about. But if these 3 purple hearts were thrown over the white house fences, then why do we continually hear about them? He is using them only as a way to gain votes. But thats not a big issue with me.

And you dont think Bush is trying to remove the problems? Iraq needs us to be there to help them establish there own government so they can deal with the problems of Iraq. We are basically at war the people of Iraq. Not all of them I might add. Just the ones who want to see American buildings burn down because we have freedom of religion along with other things all Americans are intiteled to. How can we fix the problems if were not helping Iraq with there government. Iraq cant be America. They are there own country, and we are helping them with the people of there country untill they get the government figured out.

agian these are just my (strong) opinions and am not trying to say Im right and your wrong.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 Aug 2004 10:21

Ashleygrlshreder wrote:
And you dont think Bush is trying to remove the problems? Iraq needs us to be there to help
them establish there own government so they can deal with the problems of Iraq.

Iraq was already dealing with the problems of being iraq . . . with a stable givernment holding together a bunch of tribal societies.

We are basically at war the people of Iraq.

We shouldn't be. They never asked for this invasion... They never attacked us.

Not all of them I might add. Just the ones who want to see American buildings burn down because we have freedom of religion along with other things all Americans are intiteled to.

I don't believe terrorist groups attack us for our values. I believe this statement to be propaganda used to increase hatred of the enemy and alienate americans who oppose the war. I believe terrorist groups attack us because of actions we have taken, dictators we supported, and countries we ally ourselves with that commit attrocities in the arab world.
I don't believe there is a rabid hatred of "religous freedom" in the world, and that causes a human to become enraged and attack us.

How can we fix the problems if were not helping Iraq with there government.

Good question. First I would suggest not creating problems where one doesn't exists. Iraq didn't need to be invaded. The whole situation could have been handled through an international effort. "Fixing" other countries governments is a very touchy issue. Would you want your governments problems "fixed" by some other country ? Why is it so hard for americans to grasp this concept. Citizens don't want their problems fixed by another countries military.

Iraq cant be America. They are there own country, and we are helping them with the people of there country untill they get the government figured out.

A smart man would develop the government that they want, and then formulate a plan to get there from the state they are in. An idiot would destroy all structure in society, and then begin to think about the structure of the government they need to create. Guess which method Bush took.

ashleyd · Post by **ashleyd** » 17 Aug 2004 12:44

Tsiangkun wrote:
Iraq was already dealing with the problems of being iraq . . . with a stable givernment holding together a bunch of tribal societies.

We shouldn't be. They never asked for this invasion... They never attacked us.

We are not developing any their government. Iraq's doing that. Like I said they cant be America. So Bush isnt really taking any of those paths.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 17 Aug 2004 13:08

Ashleygrlshreder wrote: What attrocities? And since when can that justitfy to the killing of the people in the world trade center. It sounds like your saying they have a good reason to attack us.

Uhmm... last time I checked Iraq had nothing to do with World Trade Center attacks. None of the hijackers were from Iraq: 15 were from Saudi Arabia, 1 was from Egypt, 1 from Lebanon, and 2 from the United Arab Emirates. Saddam Hussein was a secularist -- far from Bin Laden's religious fundamentalism. Hussein did not possess the weapons of mass destruction that Bush said presented a danger to the United States.

ashleyd · Post by **ashleyd** » 17 Aug 2004 14:11

my bad. your absoulutly right

Whatsfootbag? · Post by **Whatsfootbag?** » 17 Aug 2004 15:04

wanted to add something about the purple hearts...i think i saw(not sure so dont flame or what not)on CNN that kerry actually only got 2 and both were miniscule shrapnel wounds..one was an extremely SMALL piece of shrapnell

i also love how he has no plans for Iraq cuase when he pulls out troops out if he gets elected,its just gonna be halarious to see all the people he will piss of doing that,along with the others that bush made mad when he went into iraq..at least bush was gonna stay tehre and help to fix things

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 17 Aug 2004 15:44

Whatsfootbag? wrote:wanted to add something about the purple hearts...i think i saw(not sure so dont flame or what not)on CNN that kerry actually only got 2 and both were miniscule shrapnel wounds..one was an extremely SMALL piece of shrapnell

If you don't think he should have received them, then you ought to be criticizing the Navy for giving them out.

Whatsfootbag? wrote:i also love how he has no plans for Iraq cuase when he pulls out troops out if he gets elected,its just gonna be halarious to see all the people he will piss of doing that,along with the others that bush made mad when he went into iraq..at least bush was gonna stay tehre and help to fix things

I also love how Kerry's "no plan" for Iraq involves pulling out. Last time I checked, he said that he would not remove troops until we are able "to measure the level of stability" in Iraq, "to measure the outlook for the stability to hold" and "to measure the ability ... of their security forces" to defend Iraq (WSJ). You do expect the US forces to leave Iraq at some point in time, don't you?

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 17 Aug 2004 16:00

I also love how Kerry's "no plan" for Iraq involves pulling out. Last time I checked, he said that he would not remove troops until we are able "to measure the level of stability" in Iraq, "to measure the outlook for the stability to hold" and "to measure the ability ... of their security forces" to defend Iraq (WSJ). You do expect the US forces to leave Iraq at some point in time, don't you?

Gee, that sounds just like some other guy we could vote for this November. And he's been saying it all along. [Kerry] Open mouth, insert Bush.

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 17 Aug 2004 16:46

I think this whole controversy is revolving around one man's inability to see his own faults (or his inability to accept his mistakes/failures) and to admit defeats and setbacks. Of course I'm talking about Bush. Everyone has a plan, and everyone's plan is different, and nobody can really say, now, that one plan will work better than another's plan because things NEVER go according to plan.

Bush's credibility suffers when he does not admit his own defeats. He won't back down . . .ever (my opinion) because he sees it as a personal failure. I want a president who can look past his own image and do what is actually best for the country.

Jeremy

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 17 Aug 2004 16:47

"Plan" was in reference to what to do with troops/rebuilding/etc in iraq

Whatsfootbag? · Post by **Whatsfootbag?** » 17 Aug 2004 17:11

lol i suck at politics thats why i usually dont get involved in convos that are about them cuase i make myself look stupid as above