Kerry makes sense here

[Kennedy 0]

My point was that FDR was drawing the US into the war on the side of the brits. He was attacking Germany in a non military fashion.

As for trading with a people at war, why should I care? He was a business man. Like the dems like to cheer [everytime there's an incumbent R] "It's the economy, stupid."

Yes, I said I do not fault Americans for trading with a nation at war, provided that nation has not threatened the US. We've provided arms and support to far worse than the Nazis.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[gary350 0]

Quote

So give him an "F" for plagarism, and an "A" for content (Ron)

Quote

We should judge things based upon what is said, not based upon who said it.

I don't care who said it. Trying to justify the invasion of Iraq by claiming "they started it" and comparing it to the radically different situations of WWII, Korea, etc. is total drivel. It is such a desperate stretch, trying to cover for the lies of the Bush administration, I find it hard to believe that even you good dittoheads are not embarrassed to make it.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

The part about Roosevelt and Germany was untrue.

The War Resolution

You're calling it "untrue" based upon semantics.

The fact is, Roosevelt called for war against Germany, and Congress passed a resolution declaring it.

The implication you're trying to suggest that the U.S. fought WWII against Germany without ever being officially "at war", is ludicrous.

It just shows the ridiculous lengths to which you will go to to disagree with people. These tactics, revealed as they are here, only prove to reduce your own credibility.

Germany declared war on the USA. That's the way it was.

But since you bring up being "officially at war", I don;t recall a formal declaration for the "war on terrorism" or the war in Iraq.

We infer from your unattributed quote that you somehow think it venal for Roosevelt to have prosecuted a war on Germany when Germany hadn't attacked first although Hitler HAD declared war, but you don't have a problem with Dubya's undeclared war on Iraq, a country that had not attacked and had no means to attack the USA. Explain to us how Roosevelt is the antichrist and Bush is a hero.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

We infer from your unattributed quote that you somehow think it venal for Roosevelt to have prosecuted a war on Germany when Germany hadn't attacked first although Hitler HAD declared war, but you don't have a problem with Dubya's undeclared war on Iraq, a country that had not attacked and had no means to attack the USA. Explain to us how Roosevelt is the antichrist and Bush is a hero.

wow, you got that one 180 degrees wrong. it was in response to a poster commenting on the 500 dead in Iraq. It was a comparison stating that there are far fewer dead in this conflict. It point to liberal presidents by and large because liberals tend to bitch about this conflict. [go figure, we have a republican president]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rehmwa 2]

<>

<>

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[panzwami 0]

Quote

Could be that he just didn't know that the intelligence being presented by the administration was wrong, and possibly was fabricated at the administration's request

Classic liberal response. Anyone dares make a statement that is not glowingly positive, respond by making an extremely inflammitory, yet unsubstantiated, accusation aimed at pointing the spotlight (read: liberal media) anywhere else.

Matt
-----

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The part about Roosevelt and Germany was untrue.

The War Resolution

You're calling it "untrue" based upon semantics.

The fact is, Roosevelt called for war against Germany, and Congress passed a resolution declaring it.

The implication you're trying to suggest that the U.S. fought WWII against Germany without ever being officially "at war", is ludicrous.

It just shows the ridiculous lengths to which you will go to to disagree with people. These tactics, revealed as they are here, only prove to reduce your own credibility.

Germany declared war on the USA. That's the way it was.

Thank you for reinforcing my point about how you're just playing games with semantics.

Yes, Germany declared war on us first. Then we responded by declaring war on them. The fact that they did it first, does not mean that Roosevelt and our Congress never declared war in return. There is no worldwide rule that says that only the first war declaration is the one that counts, and all others are null and void.

The fact that you continue with this charade of yours, just weakens further your own argument. Feel free to continue.

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Personally, I would perceive a declaration of war as an attack. But that's just me.

If you qualify that as an attack, what do you think of shipping war materiel to the enemy? Propagandizing for the enemy? Refusal of trade offers while supplying the enemy? Demanding safe passage of all ships, even those carry supplies to the enemy? Are those not attacks in the sense you are talking about?

If they are, then we still attacked Germany first.

What you you think of Prescott Bush's trading with the Nazis? Does that constitute an attack on Britain?

"The business of America is business"

Exit, stage left Kallend?

never pull low......unless you are

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

Could be that he just didn't know that the intelligence being presented by the administration was wrong, and possibly was fabricated at the administration's request

Classic liberal response. Anyone dares make a statement that is not glowingly positive, respond by making an extremely inflammitory, yet unsubstantiated, accusation aimed at pointing the spotlight (read: liberal media) anywhere else.

Matt
-----

And the suggestion that Kerry is orchestrating the "war hero" stuff is substantiated? I don't see that any more substantiated than the comments of Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, formerly of the Office of Special Planning, on the massaging of intel for Bush/Cheney.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Personally, I would perceive a declaration of war as an attack. But that's just me.

If you qualify that as an attack, what do you think of shipping war materiel to the enemy? Propagandizing for the enemy? Refusal of trade offers while supplying the enemy? Demanding safe passage of all ships, even those carry supplies to the enemy? Are those not attacks in the sense you are talking about?

If they are, then we still attacked Germany first.

What you you think of Prescott Bush's trading with the Nazis? Does that constitute an attack on Britain?

"The business of America is business"

Exit, stage left Kallend?

The suggestion was made that dealing with Britain constituted an attack on Germany. I was just wondering if the converse was the case. Prescott Bush, GWB's grandfather, traded with the Nazis. Did that constitute an attack on Britain?

You know, sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander.

It's such a simple question. Don't you like to acknowledge the nastier parts of the First Family's history.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkydiverRick 0]

Don't you like to acknowledge the nastier parts of the First Family's history.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

It's the "he did it first" defense that I'm objecting to. Someone brings up a valid point and your answer is a question about something else.

I almost just choked. How do you think I feel everytime someone brings up Clinton to defend Bush? Kind of like you...

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=920650;search_string=clinton;#920650

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=878936;search_string=clinton;#878936

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=858146;search_string=clinton;#858146

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=653068;search_string=clinton;#653068

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=731765;search_string=clinton;#731765

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=832957;search_string=clinton;#832957

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=820705;search_string=clinton;#820705

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=676033;search_string=clinton;#676033

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=709645;search_string=clinton;#709645

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=692274;search_string=clinton;#692274

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Quote

It's the "he did it first" defense that I'm objecting to. Someone brings up a valid point and your answer is a question about something else.

I almost just choked. How do you think I feel everytime someone brings up Clinton to defend Bush?

There it is again.

edited to add: I agree that the tactic is used by both sides.

never pull low......unless you are

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Don't you like to acknowledge the nastier parts of the First Family's history.

It's the "he did it first" defense that I'm objecting to. Someone brings up a valid point and your answer is a question about something else. You don't seem to give the straight answers that you demand from others.

[Michele 1]

Quote

I don't subscribe to the "he did it first" defense at all

Kallend, he's not the first to plagiarize.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The suggestion was made that dealing with Britain constituted an attack on Germany. I was just wondering if the converse was the case. Prescott Bush, GWB's grandfather, traded with the Nazis. Did that constitute an attack on Britain?

My point was in response to phillykev saying a declaration of war was equivalent to an attack. I never said it qualified as an attack. I asked him if he thought it did. I finished with "if you measure equally, the US made an enemy of Germany first."

I also see a difference between a country demanding rights while shipping supplies and a business doing business with a waring country. Do you not see that difference?

Do I think Bush of WWII times' dealings with the Nazis were an attack on Britain? No. I think they are on a completely separate level. Business' actions are judged by entirely different sets than actions of a country.

Do you think all commerical business with a waring country is an attack on their enemy?

Even if they did constitute an attack on Britian, who cares? What's so nasty about making your business successful in whatever circumstances you find yourself?

see first reply here

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkydiverRick 0]

I don't subscribe to the "he did it first" defense at all. As I have frequently stated, I believe that both Clinton AND Bush are proven liars, just like Johnson and Nixon before them.

[Ron 7]

Quote

It's not hard to admit it at all. I just haven't heard him once say anything about being a war hero. I asked for anyone to show me where he did, and then you posted a report. In that report, that you posted, it said that he reluctantly talked about being in the war after having avoided the subject in previous interviews. Are you following me? Let me break it down for you.

No wonder you like this guy...You talk just like him.

You said "show me where he plays the war hero"...and I did.

Then you said "Well only after he was pushed into it.".....Which may be true...Or it could also be he set the whole thing up to make him look humble AND a war hero.

But him being humnble was NOT the issue...

You said "Show me him playing the war hero"...and I did...

Instead of saying "Yep, I guess he did"...You decided to negate it by trying to spin it that they made him....

Here is a simple fact. No one has to pull out anything from a briefcase. If he was really humble..He could have just said no.

Is it so hard to just stick to ONE topic without trying to spin it?

You said "show me him playing the war hero"...And I did.

You want to talk humble we can do that on the next set of posts.

Did you find it at all funny that it talked about him flying a plane in that post?

That whole artical was a campain ad.

I don't have an issue with that....It's legal. And it was a good artical if you like him.

It was not an objectional artical, it was very Pro Kerry.

So maybe he is modest...Or maybe he is just really good at projectiing an image.

His whole life has been about image....He has a good image.

But he can't stay on one side of a topic. And thats bad.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

There's no suggestion that Kerry fabricated intelligence for Bush

I never said that. I said that you seem to think its OK for Kerry to get bad intel and make a bad choice. But its not OK for Bush to do the same thing...When Bush does it he lied.

Quote

The part about Roosevelt and Germany was untrue

And the rest of it?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

Now you're claiming that he spit on war heros. I'd like to see evidence of that as well

How about the part where he said our heros were killing women and children for no reason. While it may not be actually spitting on them...He did slander them all. And his testimony at "winter Solider" was good enough for the vietcong to use it to tourture other heros.

Oh but not HIM of course only the other guys killed the wrong folks.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

It's such a simple question. Don't you like to acknowledge the nastier parts of the First Family's history.

You want to go there?

How about the Dems vavorite son...JFK.

Insider trading:

Quote

"Joseph P. Kennedy had made his first big killing in the winter of 1923. For an outlay of only $24,000---on credit---he'd used insider information given him by Galen Stone and had reaped a profit of more than a half a million dollars---$675,000---in fact---on Pond Creek Coal Company shares. [...] Sitting in his office, [...] Joe Kennedy now indulged in financial larceny on vast an unseen scale, manipulating share pricess with other hands in secret stock pools designed specifically to hoodwink investors. His growing expertise neeted him a second fortune in the spring of 1924..." [p.51]

How about this:

Quote

Kennedy may also have traded in illegal booze, although the evidence is circumstantial. His father had been in the liquor business before Prohibition, and Joe himself got into it (publicly, that is) immediately after repeal. Some believe the family business simply went underground during the dry years. He may have been strictly a nickel-and-dimer; Harvard classmates say he supplied the illicit booze for alumni events.

But there might have been more to it than that. In 1973 mob boss Frank Costello said he and Kennedy had benn bootlegging partners. Other underworld figures have also claimed Joe was in pretty deep. At least one write (John Davis, 1984) thinks bootlegging enabled Joe to earn his initial financial stake,

And this:

Quote

"On June 28, 1934, President Roosevelt finally rewarded Kennedy for his work in the 1932 election campaign. Countering all objections with the words "it takes a thief to catch a thief," he appointed Joeseph P. Kennedy the first chairman of a new regulatory agency to tidy up the nation's stock market: the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. To the consternation of all, the notorious stock-market swindler Joeseph P. Kennedy would become stock-market reformer."

Ya know what they say about family history....You pay good money to find it out...And even more to hide it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

There's no suggestion that Kerry fabricated intelligence for Bush

I never said that. I said that you seem to think its OK for Kerry to get bad intel and make a bad choice. But its not OK for Bush to do the same thing...When Bush does it he lied.

And the rest of it?

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

It's such a simple question. Don't you like to acknowledge the nastier parts of the First Family's history.

You want to go there?

How about the Dems vaorite son...JFK.

.

Last time I heard, he was not running for president in 2004. Maybe you heard differently.

Old Joe Kennedy was a traitor, IMO.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

Quote

A recently retired Lt. Col from the Pentagon says that her office (OSP) was set up by Cheney/Rummy to massage the intel to the liking of Rummy/Cheney/Bush and go around the usual checks of CIA analysis.

I noticed the first part said set up by

Quote

Cheney/Rummy

I didn't see Bush listed there.

But you DID list him as a recipient of this info. Even you are saying that he didn't set up the office.

Also got a link?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

Last time I heard, he was not running for president in 2004. Maybe you heard differently.

Old Joe Kennedy was a traitor, IMO.

Last I heard...Prescott Bush was not running either.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=940606#940606

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334