| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2004/4/23-9/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:13359 Activity:kinda low |
9/9 http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com \_ republicans critisizing kerry for his war record is pretty funny, it makes them seem cranky insane and stupid, keep up the good work! \_ Go figure. It's registered to some douche bag from Texas. \_ agreed. \_ It seems JK has gotten many medals in Vietnam, while Bush can't even seem to make himself show up in the National Guard. I mean what else do you people need?? On one hand, you have this rich boy who manages to fuck up everything he gets his hands on, and on the other hand you have this dude who actually was in the military and has gotten some medals. I don't know about you, that is enough for me. \_ As the John Kerry camp says every time JK is critized for his service: We'll put JK's service record up against the other parties' existant or non-existant service records ... \_ Bush: hmm, now that I've gotten elected, let's find a good enemy to spend all those surplus on. Let's see, China!! the perfect target! Until Bin-ladin shitted on his face. You don't hear so much about the China threat theory now a days do you? Despite being the 'free' media we are led to believe, the government can influence what we \_ Taiwan and Iraq are not equivalent at all \_ Because WE CAN, so bite me!! \_ formatting to fix please, how to set 80 cols? \_ Oh the horror... the Bush campaign advertising that Kerry is unprincipled and the most liberal Senator in Congress. How about this part of his 'heroic' record that the media seems to ignore: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry \_ Most liberal? You make it sound like proposing health care reform is worse than being talked into preemptive war, or cutting taxes and then telling soldiers that they'll have to take up the slack by cutting benefits. Oh yeah, and if you get wasted over \_ He is rated the most liberal by a number of sources, here is but one: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm \_ He serves a very liberal area as a senator. A senator's responsibilities are very different from a president's. I'm more concerned whether he means what he says. That he will be up front about where things stand. That he will work with the government rather than try to sell them/us a bill of goods. That he won't stifle or simply ignore dissent. \_ Well obviously he doesn't mean what he says given he takes every position he can on the same issue. He has espoused leftist beliefs his entire life - predating any political office. there in the desert, we'll make it policy to keep the public from seeing your coffin, because we want them to support the war that killed you. Or perhaps we'll just talk about the "patriot" act, \_ This has been military policy for decades, nothing to do with Bush. \_ It had to do with _a_ Bush. Policy was set in '91. Hardly "decades". --scotsman \_ Moreover, it was not enforced until 2000. \_ You mistyped 2001. the religious dichotomy we've set up, where you're either with us or with the terrorists. How about "free speech zones"? How about DOJ that thinks porn is somehow a priority? Kerry fought with bravery, and yes, heroism, and he came back and was principled enough to tell the entire nation that the war he fought was a mistake. Meanwhile, you see fit to assert that war crimes weren't happening, that little kids weren't going nuts and killing women and children. Bravo. \_ You lost me here. I reject the structure of your argument. If Kerry wants to wrap himself in the mantle of Vietnam 'heroism' you can't be selective. He should commended for going. That said receiving a purple heart for a bruise and another for an injury that required what was effectively neosporin is suspicious. As discussed \_ Um. Soldiers don't request purple hearts. The military give medals along their own guidelines. Try to talk away a silver star. --scotsman \_ This is besides the point, it is what he did when returned that is the subject of the site. You can read the purple heart forms, one is for a contusion = bruise, the other required topical treatment of an ointment = neosporin. on the site linked his subsequent actions were borderline traitorous and perpetuated numerous myths about the war in Vietnam, some you apparently still buy into. South Vietnam was free and democratic after WWII and after the Treaty of Paris. I'm not interested in liberal platitudes but would be happy to debate factual statements. BTW, Bush's circumstance is different as he has never portrayed himself as a hero, but simply as a member of the Air National Guard. \_ This was already answered yesterday, but someone deleted the whole thread soon after the reply. \_ And I actually answered it again, and it was deleted again. \_ And since when do libs care about the military. Clinton, the prototype liberal today, wrote how he 'loathed' the military and everything it stood for. Why the vacillation? \_ go the the FAQ, and scroll down to his excerpted hate mail. funny. It makes the motd look pretty high class. |
| 5/24 |
|
| ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry -> ice.he.net/%7Efreepnet/kerry/ During the next three days, more than 100 Vietnam veterans and 16 civilians gave anguished, emotional testimony describing hundreds of atrocities against innocent civilians in South Vietnam, including rape, arson, torture, murder, and the shelling or napalming of entire villages. The witnesses stated that these acts were being committed casually and routinely, under orders, as a matter of policy. At the height of it, spokesman John Kerry went before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to accuse the United States military of committing massive numbers of war crimes in Vietnam. The charges he made shocked and sickened a nation, changed the course of a war and stained the reputation of the American military for decades. But the mass murder of civilians was never American policy in Vietnam. And the Winter Soldier tribunal itself - which John Kerry had helped moderate - turned out to be, in the words of historian Guenter Lewy, packed with pretenders and liars. Massachusetts elected John Kerry to the United States Senate in 1984. Our newest topic is a time line that lays out many of the events of the international war crimes propaganda effort. If you packed a lunch, consider taking a crack at the entire 32-page transcript of John Kerrys testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Check out our unique and growing collection of documents, clips and more . Or save yourself a few hundred bucks, and dig into John Kerrys The New Soldier . If youve been here before, Whats New lists and links our recent updates. In-depth essays are available in Special Features , along with some deeply disturbing early samples of Garry Trudeaus Doonesbury. Several tons of additional information on the war crimes propaganda effort and its relation to the 2004 campaign can be found in our news articles . |
| www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm National Journal s vote ratings rank members of Congress on how they vote relative to each other on a conservative-to-liberal scale in each chamber. The scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. The scores are determined by a computer-assisted calculation that ranks members from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other, based on key votes - 62 in the Senate in 2003 - selected by National Journal reporters and editors. The fact that Kerry and Edwards had such similar scores in 2003 is striking, because during the course of their Senate careers, their ratings have often placed them in different wings of their party. After winning election to the Senate in 1984, he ranked among the most-liberal senators during three years of his first term, according to National Journal s vote ratings. In those years - 1986, 1988, and 1990 - Kerry did not vote with Senate conservatives a single time out of the total of 138 votes used to prepare those ratings. Edwards, on the other hand, had a moderate voting record during the first four years following his election to the Senate in 1998. The results positioned Edwards comfortably apart from Senate liberals, but not so far to the right that he locked arms with centrist Republicans. His consistent moderation placed Edwards among the center-right of Senate Democrats. But once Edwards decided to run for president and abandoned his bid for a second Senate term, his record moved dramatically to the left in 2003. Last year, Kerry, Edwards, and other congressional Democrats who were seeking the presidency, including Sen. To qualify for a score in National Journals vote ratings, members must participate in at least half of the votes in an issue category. Of the 62 Senate votes used to compute the 2003 ratings, Kerry was absent for 37 votes and Edwards missed 22. As a result, in the 2003 vote ratings, Kerry received a rating only in the economic policy category, earning a perfect liberal score. Edwards received ratings in the categories of economic and social issues, also putting up perfect liberal scores. A separate analysis showed that of the votes that Kerry cast in the two categories in which he did not receive scores in 2003 - social policy and foreign policy - he consistently took the liberal view within the Senate. As shown in the accompanying chart, Kerry had a perfect liberal rating on social issues during 10 of the 18 years in which he received a score, meaning that he did not side with conservatives on a single vote in those years. That included his 1996 vote, with 13 other Senate Democrats, against the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of states same-sex marriage laws. Along the campaign trail, Republicans likely will remind voters of Kerrys stance on that issue. But interestingly, during Kerrys second term, from 1991 to 1996, he dropped back into the pack of Democratic senators and voted more moderately. In those years, he earned composite liberal scores in National Journal s vote ratings ranging from 782 to 858 Kerry was especially moderate in his second term when it came to foreign-policy issues. He opposed the liberal position in key Senate showdowns on missile-defense and intelligence spending in 1993, and on procurement of additional F-18 Navy fighters in 1996. Such votes could provide Kerry with some useful talking points for his presidential campaign. Kerry also voted with President Clinton and congressional Republicans, but against many liberals, in favor of welfare reform in 1996, and he occasionally split from organized labor on workplace issues. Meanwhile, Edwards, the son of a textile worker, has frequently pointed to trade issues as one of the key differences between him and his opponent. He has criticized Kerrys support for the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 and for other international trade deals during the Clinton presidency. While Edwards did not serve in the Senate during much of that time, news reports confirm that he opposed NAFTA during his 1998 campaign, although it was not a major campaign issue. This helps to explain why organized labor backed other Democratic candidates in the early presidential caucuses and primaries. Edwards voted with Kerry in 2000 to establish trade relations with China, and in 2002 to extend presidential trade-negotiating authority. Also in 2000, Edwards split from Kerry by opposing legislation to drop United States trade barriers with Africa and the Caribbean. That vote was excluded from National Journal s Senate vote ratings because it did not correlate statistically. In July 2003, Edwards opposed free-trade agreements with Chile and Singapore, each of which passed the Senate handily, despite mostly Democratic opposition. |