2004 Presidential Election

[jeskibuff]

None of your stuff is backed up.

Sorry, but I write from the wealth of knowledge I have acquired. I just don't cut-and-paste from someone else's thoughts and think that because I provide a link, it's irrefutable!
If I had more time, I'd provide links to back up my assertions, but I don't, so I won't.

I spoke with a veteran on Friday who flew helicopters in Vietnam...When he received the Distinguished Flying Cross, he took no fire. But, he had to fly through a fog bank at low altitude and at a slow speed to reach a tank that had hit a mine.He was exposed to danger and was a sitting duck for enemy fire but took none.

Well, that was a heroic act. Kerry demanding that he receive a medal for a superficial self-inflicted scratch that required a band-aid was an arrogant manuever, consistent with the opportunist behavior that he exhibits today.

You know your point-by-point analysis of the factcheck.org article is, with all due respect, stupid.

I wouldn't say that. I would say that your support of a man with such little character that Kerry possesses is utterly stupid. Your inability to refute my points with something other than "you're stupid" just exhibits more of your stupidity.

The one that jumps out is your dismissing Rassman's account because he was holding his breath at the bottom of the river. Why do you think he was doing that?

Well, DUH...a boat was just blown up by a mine. They thought they were being ambushed. He fell into the water. There was gunfire. Boats were gunning their engines (Kerry high-tailed it out of there, the coward) I'd probably duck under the water, too. From the perspective of being in the water (ever take a swim in a lake?) you cannot adequately assess what's going on around you. But the fact that none of the boats was hit by gunfire indicates that either the enemy had EXTREMELY poor aim, the Swift Boats had their shields up or THERE WAS NO ENEMY GUNFIRE! Based on the testimony of the many Swiftees that had a better perspective, I'll believe them! Based on Kerry getting caught in many lies, I'll believe the Swiftees over lying Kerry ANY DAY!

Look, I was born in 1968.

That's a surprise. By your weak arguments, I would guess that you were born yesterday!

These attacks against the decisions young men made during that era (including those against Clinton, Bush and Kerry) will not sway my opinions.

Face the truth. Kerry could kill someone in public and you'd still vote for him. There's SO MUCH damning evidence against Kerry that you'd be a total fool to still vote for him. But you will, won't you?

I'm not defending Kerry with unsupported summaries of "what really happened."

That's good for Kerry. He can't seem to support his own summaries of what happened (again, refer to Christmas in Cambodia)

I do know that the swift boat ads came from heavy Bush supporters out of Texas and I do have experience with Karl Rove's tactics in my state. These ads have his signature.

Yet, you'll eat up all the Michael Mooron/Dan Rather/Al Franken /George Soros/Moveon/Kitty Kelley propaganda without batting an eyelash, won't you?

I'll cut you some slack if you're military (a "true soldier" to use your words) and I'll stop responding to your unsupported accusations. In other words, I'll even let you have the last say. But, until you step up, I'll keep calling you out.

Oh, what a drama queen you are. You've got a lame candidate that you blindly support. You're really quite pitiful.

His actual actions in Vietnam are not really provable. He did get the medals.

But if he signed that form 180 and released his records, we'd see who's doing the lying - the Swiftees or Kerry. Based on Kerry's track record, it's not really necessary. Kerry's nothing less than pathological.

...
Conclusion

The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.

The world, not to mention Americans, needs that result.

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/

October 11, 2004 | 6:20 PM ET

THE ELECTION MAY TURN ON THE ELECTIONS
In America, most pundits are still talking about Friday's debate between John Kerry and George W. Bush. But the real events of the weekend are elsewhere. In fact, they may be the elections that determine the election.

In Australia, pro-American and pro-Iraq war Prime Minister John Howard won a fourth term, and gained legislative seats, in an election that Australia's anti-war left did its best to turn into a referendum on the invasion of Iraq. And it looks as if they succeeded in that, to their detriment. As Australian journalist-blogger Tim Blair notes, candidates who tried to blame the terror-war for terrorism (in this case, the Bali bombing that killed so many Australians) didn't do especially well.

Howard's resounding victory hasn't gotten a lot of attention from the American press -- though you can bet that if he had lost we'd be hearing that it was a colossal defeat for Bush, evidence that standing alongside the United States is toxic worldwide, yada yada, yada. But since good news for Bush is unwelcome, at least until November 3rd, the reverse isn't being emphasized.

Here's hoping that tomorrow's election will produce similar results!