On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:09:46 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


You are correct. But, Kerry should be ashamed for asking for purple hearts
for scratches.


As it is a two man race, it seems to me we should be comparing the two
candidates military records. I have found a site that does just that.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/21/19216/5237

The log book of the USS Gridely has been checked and it was in SEA for five
weeks during Kerry's 12 month tour on the ship. So, Kerry did not serve 16
monts in country.

Just goes to prove that if enough people repeat the same lies over and
over,
pretty soon a great number of folks begin to believethem.

It appears that you are falling into the repeating of lies.

Excuse me!

The ship was at sea for five weeks out of a 52-week year. So he was five weeks
short of 16 months.

So, let's test truth here. Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and the rest of your
cheerleaders all keep repeating "four months in Viet Nam!"

I said 16 months, as he was on duty on a ship that was patrolling the coast of
Viet Nam for (most of) 12-months.

Right Wing Hate Radio Version: "Four months in Viet Nam"

Gould's Version: Sixteen months.

If we pick nits and subtract the five weeks the ship was at sea, we are still
left with
14 months, 3 weeks.

Who is making a better effort to be accurate?

Why should we be comparing their military records?

John H

Because you guys claim Kerry's makes him unqualified to hold office. That's
why.

We said military service made Kerry unfit? No. He's a liar. Has nothing to do
with how he served.


There's a difference between somebody *claiming* you're a liar and being one.

If he were a liar, that would make him particularly qualified to be POTUS,
based on the last few examples- the last two in particular.

Not knowing the history, I'm wondering if Kerry didn't jump on McCain's band
wagon knowing a good, safe, thing when he saw it.

John H

Learn the history. It won't affect your vote in November, but you will have a
better understanding of just who you're voting against. As you are a Viet Nam
veteran, I'm slightly surprised you weren't aware of the Kerry/McCain efforts
to get a more thorough accounting of our POW's. There's a lot more to John
Kerry than Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh want you to know about.

None of us should ever fear the discovery of truth, even when it challenges
some of our preconceptions.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Not knowing the history, I'm wondering if Kerry didn't jump on McCain's
band
wagon knowing a good, safe, thing when he saw it.

John H

Learn the history. It won't affect your vote in November, but you will
have a
better understanding of just who you're voting against. As you are a Viet
Nam
veteran, I'm slightly surprised you weren't aware of the Kerry/McCain
efforts
to get a more thorough accounting of our POW's. There's a lot more to John
Kerry than Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh want you to know about.

If was all a whitewash, to put the issue behind us. There are numerous vets
that feel the McCain and Kerry sold us out.

None of us should ever fear the discovery of truth, even when it
challenges
some of our preconceptions.

You are the pot calling the kettle black, again.

Well, I did come across this article. Does it portray the facts as you know
them?

Good lord John. Do you sit and read hateful crap all day?

That "article" is a classic propaganda piece, and strictly an editorial. It has
distorted a group of selected factoids to express the writer's fu'd rage and
lead the reader to false conclusions.

********

Funny to watch how you process data.
First, you admit to being unfamiliar with Kerry's role in the POW/MIA affair,
and then you sort through everything you can find to discover the most
inflammatory item available to promote your main agenda- *despite* you
admitted lack of information on the topic.

There's almost no chance you'd care to read anything that isn't frothing with
anti-Kerry emotions and actually attempts to deal with fact, but just in
case........


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 06 Sep 2004 05:12:03 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Used to have a saying back on the farm, "Worthless as tits on a boar
hog."
Ring
any bells?

Yep. Sounds kinda lika edge-you-kationally challenged upbringin', if ya
asks
me.

People should not be encouraged to think in sound bytes, homilies, and
stereotypes.

Did you apply that to the post by Harry to which my comment was directed?
Or do
you actually approve of Harry's posts?

John, I am suprised that you haven't caught onto Chuckies MO yet. Chuckie
will not condem a fellow liberal/progressive, period. Chuckie will verbally
squirm, wiggle and turn to deflect the issue.

John, I am suprised that you haven't caught onto Chuckies MO yet. Chuckie
will not condem a fellow liberal/progressive, period. Chuckie will verbally
squirm, wiggle and turn to deflect the issue.


Chuckie makes a valid effort to stick to issues, nor personalities. Not 100%
successful all the time, but always trying.

I don't argue with Harry very often, because we are on the same side of many,
but not all, issues. Last time I blasted Harry was earlier today when he called
you guys "scumbags", and prior to that might have been when he was so gleeful
about the Michael Moore film's release.