MLK, Jr assassinated. . . Where's Waldo?

[Superman]

OK. Understood. I'd also agree that some of the who gave money to who stretches a bit thin. On the other hand, the connections between these nonprofits and the candidates themselves can be interesting, and relevant.

I just wish the voter could sort all this out before casting votes. Unfortunately, the damage is done well before that happens. If someone accused Dubya of sleeping with lambs, and if the issue were in the news for three months prior to November, then the truth would not matter.

[island911]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
His special dish was humble pie

LOL!

[island911]

Originally posted by Superman
OK. Understood. I'd also agree that some of the who gave money to who stretches a bit thin. On the other hand, the connections between these nonprofits and the candidates themselves can be interesting, and relevant.. . .

Indeed it can be relevant! If Bush or Kerry were caught supporting or directing any of these 527 groups that would be relevant. . .big-time. (breaking laws is never good for the guy looking to head the executive branch.)

Bush has been outspoken about these groups. . .arguabley because teh group supporting him is getting out-spent 15-1. . by moveon.org types (not to mention Michael Moore).

I'll add tho', silencing the 527s is one place where I think Bush's desire is dangerous. It would effectively silence anyone not running for president.

So I heard a few insinuations that Bush was behind SBVfT . . .doesn't seem to pass the pale.

Now, what about Kerry and Moveon.org? MUHAHAhahahahahahaha . . ...

[Moneyguy1]

Island

It is true that the President disavows any direct control over outside goups but in all honesty, I do not see how any rational person could state with certainty that there was no cooperation between the 527s and the candidate's staffs. It streches credibility far beyond the breaking point.

And, also incredible, I agree with you. The 527s should not be eliminated but should be responsible for proving whatever allegation they make. There should be room for different points of view, but those should be provable or at least defensible.

[CamB]

Originally posted by techweenie
On an earlier tour in Vietnam, one of my gallant soldiers, a draftee named Don Wallace, picked up seven Purple Hearts in less than a year without ever being hospitalized. Most of "Ole Magnet Butt's" wounds were easily patched up by "Doc" Holley, our battalion surgeon. But any one of them could have shut off his lights forever.

In this vein... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30290-2004Aug24.html

[island911]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
. .
It is true that the President disavows any direct control over outside goups but in all honesty, .. .

What are you saying? . .. the President disavows, but the Senator has direct control. (?)

Or are you just trying to suggest that our President is -in- on some seriously illegal activity . . .but hiding behind "disavowing it"?

I think it is ABUNDANTLY clear, that John Oneil is pushing that cart all on his own.

You can't so easily say that about moveon, Kerry, and the DNC.

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by island911
I think it is ABUNDANTLY clear, that John Oneil is pushing that cart all on his own.

You can't so easily say that about moveon, Kerry, and the DNC.

"We endorse nobody at all for president," O'Neill said. "We're unified on absolutely nothing, except one thing: John Kerry is not a fit commander-in-chief based on our experience with him."

Kerry/Gore/Dean are directly affiliated with Moveon.org....Bush has absolutely no relationship with the Swift Boats, other than they both oppose Kerry, and the Swift Boat Vets are gaining nothing except false charges and fascistic attacks for expressing their right to free speech.

Let's see Moveon distance themselves from Kerry (aint gonna happen)
Let's see Kerry disavow Moveon (aint gonna happen).

This upside down duplicity can only work if the media willingly carries water for the Democrats agenda.

[Mulholland]

[tabs]

Originally posted by techweenie
Very lame....... it was what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin that got us officially at war with North Vietnam

Ohhhh Techie....U fked up......The Gulf of Tonkin was a fabricated incident by the Johnson adminiistration to get the American people behind a war in Vietnam. Read that as a DEMOCRAT Administrations ploy ..... so if Bushy was being deceptive about Irwreck he was only taking lessons from the masters themselves in deception....the Liberal Democrats...

[jm951]

It was also the LBJ administration that issued targeting data from the White House rather than letting the generals run the war. It was LBJ that dramatically increased our involvement in SV. It was also the LBJ administration that attempted to micro manage a "limited war" with measured blows to coerce the NV to do things. News flash to liberals- war is a "digital" situation 1-win 0-lose.

[911pcars]

"...so if Bushy was being deceptive about Irwreck he was only taking lessons from the masters themselves in deception....the Liberal Democrats..."

Republicans taking lessons from Democrats? Okay.

But if you remember, Johnson was also heavily criticized by all, Democrats included, for his war decisions and supported by many, Republicans included. In a democracy, people have to remember to stay loyal to the country, NOT to a person, a political party or to the current administration, something many folks in this forum/country seem to forget or ignore. It's like supporting your favorite team in a game of "who can survive a nuclear war?"

Sherwood

[tabs]

You took the very words outa my mouth Sherwood...

[rcecale]

Originally posted by Superman
The focus should stay on the guy who actually fought a war, and who actually served throughout his military commitment. Carry on.....

Right, Supe, all 4 months and 12 days of "combat" duty. I wasn't serving then, but it seems to me that "1 year" was the typical tour of duty. But then again, he did have all THREE of those Purple Hearts...

He also served until his discharge on February 16,1978. This means Kerry was accusing Americans up and down the chain of command with war crimes while he was still in the service. It also means that he was in the service when he went to Paris in 1970 to meet with North Vietnamese officials, an act which has been described as illegal. Presumably that's because it would violate the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens from involving themselves in foreign policy or negotiating with foreign powers on behalf of the U.S or perhaps more specifically Title 18 Section 953.

The discharge date of February 16, 1978 can be seen on his summary of Naval service, and July 13, 1978 can be seen on Kerry's acceptance of discharge from the Naval Reserve. Both files are availale on John Kerry's official campaign Web site.

Indeed, let us ALL keep the focus on Mr. Kerry!

Randy

[fintstone]

[Seahawk]

In defense of navy cooks:

Even on today's modern warships, all shipboard personnel have vital roles protecting/sustaining their ship during, "General Quarters" (GQ), or battle stations.
On some ships they man topside small arms stations; on virtually all others they man fire-fighting teams, battle damage repair teams, etc. Think about the USS Cole, the USS Princeton and the USS Tripoli: The amphibious assault ship Tripoli, based in Long Beach, Calif., was serving as the mother ship for mine hunters when it tripped a 300-pound mine. Four sailors were injured. Three hours later and 10 miles away, the Aegis guided missile cruiser Princeton, also based in Long Beach, was hit by two mines. Three men were injured.
In the mining case, both ships were out of action for the remainder of the conflict but were no doubt saved by the actions of ordinary sailors in extraordinary circumstances.
There are other examples, but I don't want to be too big a prig about this!