Kerry demands equal time on Sinclair broadcast

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro+Oct 17 2004, 11:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheCommodoreAfro @ Oct 17 2004, 11:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 17 2004, 02:17 PM
I thought I made it perfectly clear.

Nothing I have heard Kerry admit to....or that I have heard him accused of.....is an 'attrocity' by my defninition.

My question is what did Kerry do?

The word atrocity used in this case is a sweeping generalization. It makes me think of Darfur.

By saying he committed attrocities by his own definition, what is it - as you asked? Were they atrocities to him because he doesn't want to take a stranger's life? Or did he and his swiftboat crew go Mai Lai on someone?

Labels in this instance don't help get dialog anywhere closer to the truth. 'Attrocities' is one of those words that needs to be defined in concrete terms. That was my point.

We could easily just dismiss GW as a crackhead in the same manner. [/b][/quote]
What is wrong with you?

Did you not read the transcript from the Cavett show in which John Kerry describes exactly what he DID do?

Why are you attacking me? I haven't extrapolated ANY meaning from anything Kerry said, I simply brought it to light.

Unbelievable.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 17 2004, 05:27 PM
Yes Kerry did come back and admit what happened in Vietnam. And as far as i know he admitted himself to commiting those atrocities yet when he confessed before Congress he diverted the guilt upon those still in Vietnam.

Thats probably why everyone serving in Vietnam is so mad at him because they know he did the same things but of course he was never accused of them.

I don't think that's it at all.

I think that his description of what was going on while Americans were still being held in POW camps in Vietnam, Laos and other nations was perceived by soldiers to put those POW's in further danger. I can understand that point of view.

I don't think Kerry's comments came off as self-righteous at all. Especially when he admitted to doing some things that crossed the line himself.....and had FRIENDS who were admitting to worse.

I don't think Kerry bailed on his fellow soldiers. Though the timing of the comments with relation to those still interred in camps was not welcome..

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 17 2004, 12:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 17 2004, 12:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 17 2004, 05:27 PM
Yes Kerry did come back and admit what happened in Vietnam. And as far as i know he admitted himself to commiting those atrocities yet when he confessed before Congress he diverted the guilt upon those still in Vietnam.

Thats probably why everyone serving in Vietnam is so mad at him because they know he did the same things but of course he was never accused of them.

I don't think that's it at all.

I think that his description of what was going on while Americans were still being held in POW camps in Vietnam, Laos and other nations was perceived by soldiers to put those POW's in further danger. I can understand that point of view.

[/b][/quote]
Precisely, and reading some POW's story's, they have said that Kerry's confession or whatever you want to call it was read before them while they were in POW camps.

What would thier captors then do with them if they heard what Kerry said?

Regardless of what he did and in what manner he was talking to Congress, he was betraying his fellow soliders in Vietnam.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 17 2004, 12:46 PM
Okay now I get it.

John Kerry was not on trial when he went before the Senate. He was not up there accusing anyone in particular. He wasn't testifying against anyone. You are intimating that he was some sort of witness in a criminal trial. He wasn't He was a spokesman for a rather large group of gentleman collectively called "Viet Nam Veterans Against the War".

He was in Viet Nam. He was telling America what was happening in the Viet Nam war. Why? Maybe because he was there and he wanted it to end.

As far as I can tell, he's got two other options when he returns.

1. He can ignore it all, go to law school and pretend nothing was happening and Americans were killing and being killed for no reason.

2. Lie.

Which option is better? Which one makes him more "Presidential"?

Or he can tell America about the war without accusing those in Vietnam fighting, of the war.

The War was started by the US Government, he should have accused them more.

War is where people get killed, and without clear evidence i'll say IMO thats the only thing that happened in Vietnam and i won't accuse those that served there of all the atrocities that Kerry said they carried out. Kerry came back and gave the People against Vietnam a fuel to start the fire.

Kerry could have easily lied in front of Congress like many have said he has. And whose to say he hasn't?

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 17 2004, 12:46 PM


As far as I can tell, he's got two other options when he returns.

1. He can ignore it all, go to law school and pretend nothing was happening and Americans were killing and being killed for no reason.

2. Lie.

Which option is better? Which one makes him more "Presidential"?

Neither does, Kerry's past as we are talking about it doesn't make him more Presidential at all.

But people can change and i hope Kerry has changed if he becomes President.

He says he has faith now and believes in God as a supreme power, i hope that he does.

He says he respects the Catholic faith very much and follows it to the best of his ablility, i hope that he does.

You see if Kerry becomes President i hope he has the wisdom to lead to most powerful nation in the world in a time of war, yes i hope he can.

I'm thinking of enlisting into the US Navy when i finish school and i don't want a leader that leads his country the same way he lead those anti-war protests.

The US is a war nation, protecting all our ass's whether we like it or not and i hope Kerry realizes that.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 17 2004, 03:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 17 2004, 03:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 17 2004, 12:46 PM
Okay now I get it.

John Kerry was not on trial when he went before the Senate. He was not up there accusing anyone in particular. He wasn't testifying against anyone. You are intimating that he was some sort of witness in a criminal trial. He wasn't He was a spokesman for a rather large group of gentleman collectively called "Viet Nam Veterans Against the War".

He was in Viet Nam. He was telling America what was happening in the Viet Nam war. Why? Maybe because he was there and he wanted it to end.

As far as I can tell, he's got two other options when he returns.

1. He can ignore it all, go to law school and pretend nothing was happening and Americans were killing and being killed for no reason.

2. Lie.

Which option is better? Which one makes him more "Presidential"?

Or he can tell America about the war without accusing those in Vietnam fighting, of the war.

The War was started by the US Government, he should have accused them more.

War is where people get killed, and without clear evidence i'll say IMO thats the only thing that happened in Vietnam and i won't accuse those that served there of all the atrocities that Kerry said they carried out. Kerry came back and gave the People against Vietnam a fuel to start the fire.

Kerry could have easily lied in front of Congress like many have said he has. And whose to say he hasn't? [/b][/quote]
The War was started by the US Government, he should have accused them more.

That was the point of the whole exercise. He didn't got there for the purposes of bashing his fellow soldiers.

War is where people get killed, and without clear evidence i'll say IMO thats the only thing that happened in Vietnam and i won't accuse those that served there of all the atrocities that Kerry said they carried out.

There is pretty clear evidence that terrible things were happening. He even said he took part. You still seem to be coming at this as though he were trying to weasel out of something and he was passing the blame onto the other soldiers. He wasn't. Agree or disagree with his methods, he was trying to get an end to the war.

Kerry came back and gave the People against Vietnam a fuel to start the fire.

Funny thing -- that's America. You are allowed to speak your mind.

[sjwalter]

And if he said he took part why would we want him President? He's trying to enforce his past on everyone by challenging everyone who says anything about his record but never once will he go back and admit what he say before Congress.

But you are right, thats America for you democracy enforced.

But i still can't stand it when i hear about an anti-war protest.

:unsure:

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 17 2004, 03:26 PM
And if he said he took part why would we want him President? He's trying to enforce his past on everyone by challenging everyone who says anything about his record but never once will he go back and admit what he say before Congress.

But you are right, thats America for you democracy enforced.

But i still can't stand it when i hear about an anti-war protest.

:unsure:

You really are a confusing lad.

How exactly do you "enforce your past" on someone?

He won't admit what he said before congress? It's on film for crying out loud. What does he have to admit? Are you saying he's denied what he said? That's like denying that it got dark last night.

Can't stand it when you hear about an anti-war protest? Why? Are you into fascism or something? Or do you believe that all war is just, regardless of the circumstances?

[sjwalter]

First of all, Kerry has never once went back to what he said before Congress in his campaign, so IMO he is denying it because the American people want to know what he thinks of it.

The Videos are irelevant now to me because like we all know he can change in the 30 years till now, but i wonder why he can't come out and say something about the incident and stop going to back "to his record."

And about the anti-war thing, i wonder what happened to the people actually thinking that we need to help others have the same freedom as we do, like during World War 1 and 2 when both Canada and US had the majority of the support from the people to go to war.

Have we become so self centered that we have stopped caring about the other people in this world, have we started to take our freedom for granted?

IMO this is what is happening to the people having the anti-war rally's, they for some reason fail to realize how much better off the people of Iraq are now after Saddam is gone regardless if we found WMD.

And more people would have been killed if the US wouldn't have gone in then there were when they did because the people of Iraq would have eventually became p*ssed off and started a revolution and we know Saddam never liked revolutions he just killed those who started them.

Keep asking, we'll get this sorted out eventually, love the debate.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 17 2004, 02:41 PM
How exactly do you "enforce your past" on someone?

I'm assuming you follow the election, and if you do you would know that Kerry has challenged everyone who has asked about his record, hence the trying to enforce it on everyone.

He has challenged Bush himself even after Bush said he had no problem with Kerry's military record.

Even Clinton had to call from Hospital to tell Kerry to get off of his record and start talking about other issues.

IMO thats trying to enforce it on other people.

What do you think?

[RougeUnderoos]

It's kind of hard to respond because it's kind of hard to figure out what you said.

Re: his testimony before Congress -- it's out there. It's on tape. There is no question as to what was said. If someone wants to question him on it, it's pretty easy. I'm sure he still believes the same things, so he has nothing to explain to anybody. He said that atrocities were being committed and the Viet Nam war was a bad idea. Both of those things are pretty much universally accepted today. Why would he go back and say "I was wrong" when everyone now knows he was right?

It is entirely possible and arguable that it was bad timing and it might have been detrimental to the troops (not true, IMO) but I don't know what else you want. What could he say on this issue that would please you?

Have we become so self centered that we have stopped caring about the other people in this world, have we started to take our freedom for granted?

This is so ridiculous I am speechless.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 17 2004, 06:38 PM
IMO thats trying to enforce it on other people.

What do you think?

I think you need to buy a dictionary.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 17 2004, 05:56 PM
It's kind of hard to respond because it's kind of hard to figure out what you said.

Re: his testimony before Congress -- it's out there. It's on tape. There is no question as to what was said. If someone wants to question him on it, it's pretty easy. I'm sure he still believes the same things, so he has nothing to explain to anybody. He said that atrocities were being committed and the Viet Nam war was a bad idea. Both of those things are pretty much universally accepted today. Why would he go back and say "I was wrong" when everyone now knows he was right?

It is entirely possible and arguable that it was bad timing and it might have been detrimental to the troops (not true, IMO) but I don't know what else you want. What could he say on this issue that would please you?

Have we become so self centered that we have stopped caring about the other people in this world, have we started to take our freedom for granted?

This is so ridiculous I am speechless.

What i really want is for him to apologize for demoralizing the troops like he did, since he could have picked a better time to say it, even Jane Fonda apologized for her words, why can't he?

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

Thats Janes story, and if Kerry has to do with a bitch that says that POW are being treated humanly and then later backs off and calls the POW liers, he doesn't deserve to be President.

Also he has been accused of lying, and if he didn't lie why doesn't he talk about the issue?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...erry.military/

As the article states, like those troops in Iraq refused to carry out orders if they knew something was wrong why didn't Kerry report the incidents and refuse to do them himself if they were so wrong and if he isn't lying.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 17 2004, 07:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 17 2004, 07:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 17 2004, 05:56 PM
It's kind of hard to respond because it's kind of hard to figure out what you said.

Re: his testimony before Congress -- it's out there. It's on tape. There is no question as to what was said. If someone wants to question him on it, it's pretty easy. I'm sure he still believes the same things, so he has nothing to explain to anybody. He said that atrocities were being committed and the Viet Nam war was a bad idea. Both of those things are pretty much universally accepted today. Why would he go back and say "I was wrong" when everyone now knows he was right?

It is entirely possible and arguable that it was bad timing and it might have been detrimental to the troops (not true, IMO) but I don't know what else you want. What could he say on this issue that would please you?

Have we become so self centered that we have stopped caring about the other people in this world, have we started to take our freedom for granted?

This is so ridiculous I am speechless.

What i really want is for him to apologize for demoralizing the troops like he did, since he could have picked a better time to say it, even Jane Fonda apologized for her words, why can't he?

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

Thats Janes story, and if Kerry has to do with a bitch that says that POW are being treated humanly and then later backs off and calls the POW liers, he doesn't deserve to be President.

Also he has been accused of lying, and if he didn't lie why doesn't he talk about the issue?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...erry.military/

As the article states, like those troops in Iraq refused to carry out orders if they knew something was wrong why didn't Kerry report the incidents and refuse to do them himself if they were so wrong and if he isn't lying. [/b][/quote]
You want him to apologize for demoralizing the troops?

Maybe the troops were demoralized about the war itself? Ever think of that? Christ, if the guy was half as influential as you seem to think he was he'd have been President 20 years ago.

Thats Janes story, and if Kerry has to do with a bitch that says that POW are being treated humanly and then later backs off and calls the POW liers, he doesn't deserve to be President.

What the hell does Jane Fonda have to do with John Kerry? I don't know if this is a ham-fisted attempt to connect the two or just old-fashioned foolishness.

The rest of your post -- I can't make heads or tails out of most of it. Could you be a little more clear?

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 17 2004, 07:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 17 2004, 07:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

What i really want is for him to apologize for demoralizing the troops like he did, since he could have picked a better time to say it, even Jane Fonda apologized for her words, why can't he?

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

Thats Janes story, and if Kerry has to do with a bitch that says that POW are being treated humanly and then later backs off and calls the POW liers, he doesn't deserve to be President.

Also he has been accused of lying, and if he didn't lie why doesn't he talk about the issue?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...erry.military/

As the article states, like those troops in Iraq refused to carry out orders if they knew something was wrong why didn't Kerry report the incidents and refuse to do them himself if they were so wrong and if he isn't lying.

You want him to apologize for demoralizing the troops?

Maybe the troops were demoralized about the war itself? Ever think of that? Christ, if the guy was half as influential as you seem to think he was he'd have been President 20 years ago.

Thats Janes story, and if Kerry has to do with a bitch that says that POW are being treated humanly and then later backs off and calls the POW liers, he doesn't deserve to be President.

What the hell does Jane Fonda have to do with John Kerry? I don't know if this is a ham-fisted attempt to connect the two or just old-fashioned foolishness.

The rest of your post -- I can't make heads or tails out of most of it. Could you be a little more clear? [/b][/quote]
Jane Fonda and John Kerry worked together in the Rally's against the Vietnam War.

And if the troops were demoralized about the war they took it in stride, nobody made their opinion about the war as public as Kerry did, he is half the man they are because of it.

The article from CNN states that Kerry lied about the atrocities that he said those troops in Vietnam were commiting, i won't take a stand on either side but whose to say he didn't lie?

It also states that if Kerry thought the atrocitites were so wrong, why didn't he do something about it in Vietnam like the 18 soliders Lanny just posted about did. Instead he came home and demoralized them. A person can infer so many bad things about Kerry just from his record, thats why he is down in the polls, if a person looks at the polls.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 17 2004, 09:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 17 2004, 09:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You want him to apologize for demoralizing the troops?

Maybe the troops were demoralized about the war itself? Ever think of that? Christ, if the guy was half as influential as you seem to think he was he'd have been President 20 years ago.

Thats Janes story, and if Kerry has to do with a bitch that says that POW are being treated humanly and then later backs off and calls the POW liers, he doesn't deserve to be President.

What the hell does Jane Fonda have to do with John Kerry? I don't know if this is a ham-fisted attempt to connect the two or just old-fashioned foolishness.

The rest of your post -- I can't make heads or tails out of most of it. Could you be a little more clear?

Jane Fonda and John Kerry worked together in the Rally's against the Vietnam War.

And if the troops were demoralized about the war they took it in stride, nobody made their opinion about the war as public as Kerry did, he is half the man they are because of it.

The article from CNN states that Kerry lied about the atrocities that he said those troops in Vietnam were commiting, i won't take a stand on either side but whose to say he didn't lie?

It also states that if Kerry thought the atrocitites were so wrong, why didn't he do something about it in Vietnam like the 18 soliders Lanny just posted about did. Instead he came home and demoralized them. A person can infer so many bad things about Kerry just from his record, thats why he is down in the polls, if a person looks at the polls. [/b][/quote]
Kerry and Jane Fonda worked together, did they? That's a hell of a scoop. I wonder why the Republicans haven't picked up on that.

The article from CNN states that Kerry lied about the atrocities that he said those troops in Vietnam were commiting, i won't take a stand on either side but whose to say he didn't lie?

The guy they are interviewing states that, and it's his opinion. CNN didn't state it.

And again with the "he demoralized them" business. Common sense tells me that they were demoralized about the war, not what Kerry said. You are trying to make it out that everything was going swimmingly, but then Kerry went and said those things and everything fell apart. It's nonsense.

At least he had the balls to say what he felt, right or wrong. Bush and Cheney were both obviously very strongly against the war but because they stayed nice and quiet they are great and Kerry is a traitor.

[CaramonLS]

Kerry and Fonda worked together? You mean when those Photoshopped pics of Kerry were being circled around with him and Fonda?

Wow. Someone has bit the republican line very hard.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 17 2004, 08:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 17 2004, 08:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Jane Fonda and John Kerry worked together in the Rally's against the Vietnam War.

And if the troops were demoralized about the war they took it in stride, nobody made their opinion about the war as public as Kerry did, he is half the man they are because of it.

The article from CNN states that Kerry lied about the atrocities that he said those troops in Vietnam were commiting, i won't take a stand on either side but whose to say he didn't lie?

It also states that if Kerry thought the atrocitites were so wrong, why didn't he do something about it in Vietnam like the 18 soliders Lanny just posted about did. Instead he came home and demoralized them. A person can infer so many bad things about Kerry just from his record, thats why he is down in the polls, if a person looks at the polls.

Kerry and Jane Fonda worked together, did they? That's a hell of a scoop. I wonder why the Republicans haven't picked up on that.

The article from CNN states that Kerry lied about the atrocities that he said those troops in Vietnam were commiting, i won't take a stand on either side but whose to say he didn't lie?

The guy they are interviewing states that, and it's his opinion. CNN didn't state it.

And again with the "he demoralized them" business. Common sense tells me that they were demoralized about the war, not what Kerry said. You are trying to make it out that everything was going swimmingly, but then Kerry went and said those things and everything fell apart. It's nonsense.

At least he had the balls to say what he felt, right or wrong. Bush and Cheney were both obviously very strongly against the war but because they stayed nice and quiet they are great and Kerry is a traitor. [/b][/quote]
They were anti-war protesters together.

Rogue,
I mentioned wrong, i meant to say that it was O'Neils opinion instead of CNN.

I wasn't even alive during the Vietnam War but i still believe that from what i have read that Kerry demoralized the troops even more because at home yes of course the country was against the war, but when someone that has been there comes home and gives evidence ( or lies) of what is happening that, to me strikes at the moral of the troops even more.

And if he had the balls to do it, why didn't he do it where it really counted, in Vietnam, why come home where he knows he'll get full support?

Yes it takes a man to stand up and do what he did, but he wasn't man enough to do it himself.

And i never said anything about Bush or Cheney so i don't know where you're getting that from.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 17 2004, 10:25 PM
They were anti-war protesters together.

Rogue,
I mentioned wrong, i meant to say that it was O'Neils opinion instead of CNN.

I wasn't even alive during the Vietnam War but i still believe that from what i have read that Kerry demoralized the troops even more because at home yes of course the country was against the war, but when someone that has been there comes home and gives evidence ( or lies) of what is happening that, to me strikes at the moral of the troops even more.

And if he had the balls to do it, why didn't he do it where it really counted, in Vietnam, why come home where he knows he'll get full support?

Yes it takes a man to stand up and do what he did, but he wasn't man enough to do it himself.

And i never said anything about Bush or Cheney so i don't know where you're getting that from.

Millions of people were anti-war protesters. Jane Fonda included.

Tens of thousands of veterans spoke out against the war.

He was a regular veteran with an opinion. It seems that he was a little too articulate and people actually listened to him.

And if he had the balls to do it, why didn't he do it where it really counted, in Vietnam, why come home where he knows he'll get full support?

Full support? Learn a little man. I wasn't alive at the time either but sheesh, don't you know anything about it? Go to your library or at least get a free membership to Blockbuster.

Yes it takes a man to stand up and do what he did, but he wasn't man enough to do it himself.

Interesting argument. So he was man enough to voice his opinion, but not man enough to voice his opinion? Okay. In other news, it's snowing outside, but it's not snowing.

And i never said anything about Bush or Cheney so i don't know where you're getting that from.

Fair enough. It is obvious you don't think Kerry is fit to be President and I assumed you feel George Bush is. I was wrong. Why do you like Nader?

[Cowperson]

The business impact on Sinclair since it announced its plans for the Kerry broadcast.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/18/news/midca...kerry/index.htm

A more detailed story is in the New York Times this morning.

Cowperson