Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 126 to 147 of 147
  1. #126
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    jes,

    Great post! I didn't know about the right and left wing thing.

    One thing that has bothered me about the Swift Boat vet ads - no one ever says they're not GOP ads, they're really military-backed, in response for Kerry basically, well, screwing the military after he came home.

    Which is an indisputable fact. And that won't matter as Commander-in-Chief??! I still don't understand how the Dems ended up running Kerry at such a nasty time in the world.

    Do you live in a swing state? The Clinton commercials are playing almost non-stop on the R&B stations here, talking about how the evil GOP has stopped them from voting all these years. They have a lawsuit hotline setup for those who feel disenfrancised by, say, not being registered or going to the wrong polling place. Oh and I've heard talk that a percentage of Blacks are breaking from the Dems and voting Bush 'cause of gay "marriage".

    We do not stand alone.

    Have you heard the ads with Ed Koch endorsing Bush? How about Arafat coming out for Kerry lol. That'll put him over the top from the bus-bombing vote!


    SRO,

    Kiltlifter lol.

    15 gallons? It's good you mentioned 14 guys!

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  2. #127
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by jeskibuff
    Darn...why do I get myself into things that I don't have time to respond to? :roll: dean_martin's pieced-together post demanded rebutting, but it's quite an effort to gather the information for a proper debunking, so that leads to further procrastination. Not to mention the fact that it was a discombobulated mish-mash of cut-and-paste operations. Anyway, I'll try to cover some lost ground here, but I'm posting this knowing that I left out a lot of what I wanted to put in:

    Maybe THIS explains it better:


    Vile and vulgar? Wow, if that ain't calling the kettle black! I've seen nothing but vile and vulgar out of the rabid left for 4 years now. Distortions and personal attacks? Sorry, but so far the Swiftees get the points for their veracity and Kerry suffers the consequences. Kerry's had to admit that his own words were untrue ("I was in Cambodia in Christmas 1968 when Nixon said we had no troops in Cambodia"). It appears that Kerry follows the example of Slick Willie, lie all you can until they've got you cornered. When the blue dress appears, just slither away. Your constituency will conveniently sweep the whole thing under the rug. Kerry's own accounts contradict his own accounts. The man tells so many lies it's impossible to keep track of them, but those details aren't important, are they? He's a DEMOCRAT and the end objective justifies the lies, doesn't it?? Vile and vulgar? There's nothing vile and vulgar about wanting to warn the country before it stupidly elects a fraud, liar and traitor to the Presidency. Don't shoot the messengers - shoot down the message, but you can't, can you? The evidence is just too damning.

    Well it only makes sense that if a group such as the Swiftees have a message that they feel needs to get out, they'll need funding to make it happen. Certainly the information is damaging to Kerry, so why would any Democrat who supports Kerry contribute to the effort? Naturally, most funding came from Republicans! That's one for the DUH files! It certainly doesn't mean the message is any less worthy of being heard.

    Well, the AAR (After Action Report) was written up by John Kerry, so has the "enemy fire" on a document. Thurlow accepted that award:
    Yeah, there's an inaccuracy in the report, caused by Kerry. Still, Thurlow performed an action that deserved his award. It was just glorified and "enhanced" by someone who wanted to create his own "war hero" fantasy, starring himself, John F'n Kerry.

    Who read it and assumed that it was true. Elliot wasn't there. He relied on the report from the Commander In Charge (Kerry). He later found out that actual events didn't jive with Kerry's report, so he later regretted signing the citation created from a falsified report.

    They didn't HAVE to be on Kerry's boat. The Swiftees operated in packs. Several boats would patrol together and coordinate their efforts. They would do many other things together when off the boats. It's like a team of fighter pilots. There may be only two men to a plane, but they know each other quite well, train together, and fight together.

    Not ALL who served under him. Kerry's accounts are even contrary to Kerry's accounts. As said before, so far Kerry's accounts are the only ones which have been thoroughly discredited. That's tough to do in this kind of "he said/she said" kind of account, especially given the 30-year span of time.

    There were 5 Swift boats that were involved in this incident. Only Kerry and Rassman say there was enemy fire, and Rassman by his own admission spent a lot of time holding his breath on the bottom of the river. That doesn't make him a very good eyewitness, does it?

    All of Elliott's "backpedalling" was because he initially trusted Kerry's report. As time passed, he was made aware of the events as they REALLY happened, which didn't correspond to Kerry's accounts. Yes, he may have awarded Kerry the Silver Star, but that was because Kerry did such a fine snow job on him.

    Try as they might to make this sound like Elliott "mischaracterizing" things, he is simply saying that he would not have awarded Kerry the medal for what ACTUALLY happened. It is the result of the typical liberal mind being unable to comprehend the written word. Also, Kerry's "decision to attack" was somewhat cowardly as well. He was in command of 3 Swift boats, and he was in the second boat to land. The crew of the first boat had the hardest task and faced the most danger. Kerry landed when their work was pretty much over with. He jumped out and pursued a scared and wounded teenager, shooting him in the back. There was no mention of the heroics of the crew of the first boat. After all, Kerry wrote the report.

    Incidentally, beaching the Swift Boats was NOT a recommended strategy. Their firepower was in the back of the boat and once beached they lost their advantage: their ability to quickly maneuver. Kerry's strategy was reckless endangerment of his crew.

    Quite simply, Elliott had no reason to doubt the lie that Kerry had spoonfed him 35 years ago. It wasn't until Kerry began campaigning for the Presidency that the Swiftees organized and Elliott found out the truth.

    This explanation is pretty laughable in its desperate attempt to salvage some credit for this "Purple Owie". So Kerry is either too weak or too stupid to put himself and crew at a proper distance before blowing up the rice bin. So even though HE threw the grenade, they try to claim it's a "friendly fire" incident? Gawd, that's a stretch! Then the wounds are treated with band-aids and he demands a Purple Heart. No sutures. No hospital stay! That should tell you something right there. True soldiers would wince at the thought of demanding medals of honor for superficial wounds.
    None of your stuff is backed up. I simply posted the article from www.factcheck.org which contains references to sources both official and personal.

    I spoke with a veteran on Friday who flew helicopters in Vietnam. He's a former judge and currently is one of the better mediators in my area. I asked him what his feelings were about Kerry and the attacks that have come against him by the "Swifties". He said they were doing a disservice to Kerry and others who served. He then began to relate the story of how he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for a risky mission. He also told of other missions which were more dangerous for which he received nothing. 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.

    You know your point-by-point analysis of the factcheck.org article is, with all due respect, stupid. 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? Regardless, he and Kerry both were exposed to danger. That says enough for me.

    Look, I was born in 1968. Obviously, I didn't serve in Vietnam. If you did, or even if you didn't but are in the military now, or have been, would you please say so. (If you already have I apologize for missing it.) These attacks against the decisions young men made during that era (including those against Clinton, Bush and Kerry) will not sway my opinions. In fact, I find them unseemly for many reasons. So, I'm not defending Kerry with unsupported summaries of "what really happened." I'm not criticizing Bush either. If the US military or guard was officially pleased with their service (when applicable) then I have no criticism. And, after talking to a vet, I think the swift boat ads may be backfiring with many veterans. Finally, 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.

    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.

    P.S. your implication that Kerry didn't deserve a Purple Heart for the grenade incident is contradicted by the refernece/link in the factcheck.org article that explains the requirements for the award. Just because some "true soldiers" wouldn't accept or apply for it doesn't mean he didn't qualify. You're imposing a higher standard than the one the military imposes. That's where all of these anti-Kerry and anti-Bush attacks on military service fall apart for me. They all seek to impose some superhuman, Rambo war hero standard on regular folks trying to survive a difficult era and perform their duties at the same time.

  3. #128
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Hate to butt in again , but...

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

    But his subsequent actions are a matter of public record. Is there a Vietnam vet here that will second his accusations? Did you'all really rape, kill, maim and torture innocent civilians as a matter of course?

    And WHY WON'T HE RELEASE HIS MILITARY RECORDS?! He MUST have something to hide.

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  4. #129
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Hope you're right about the outcome

    Quote Originally Posted by JOEBIALEK
    ...
    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.

    I'm Canadian but I don't pretend to be unbiased. As never before perhaps, Americans are deceived and self-deceived in this election race.

    The pathetic, ridiculous debate about whether Kerry flip-flopped on this or that issue, much less whether he was such a war hero as has been made out, is diversion. Yet I suppose many American see these non-issues as somehow important. Americans, see the big picture!

    Focus on the fundamental issue: do you want an America dedicated to the protection of narrow, short-term personal and corporate self-interest, (viz. greed), or to personal freedom and opportunity, and a better world.

    One of the more appalling aspects in this race is the polarization a long religious lines: "conservative Christian", (Catholic and Protestant), versus everything and everyone else. Again, I'm not unbiased: "Christian Right" is an oxymoron. Conservative Christianity in the US is Pharisaic, that is, like the self-centred, self-righteousness of the Biblical Pharisees whom Christ condemned. Were I not a religious sceptic, I'd greatly fear that they have not accepted Christ's true message and hence will go straight to hell. Won't they be surprised, though!

    On the Iraq issue, to be completely pragmatic, Bush made America and the World much less safe, rather more so. by the invasion. It's not just whether the money and lives would have been better spent on fighting Bin Laden.

  5. #130
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    I certainly respect you and your fellow Canadians, proven good friends of ours.

    But.



    Opinion! So:

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    The world, not to mention Americans, needs that result.
    The world needs leadership. Were are they going to get it? France?

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    I'm Canadian but I don't pretend to be unbiased. As never before perhaps, Americans are deceived and self-deceived in this election race.

    The pathetic, ridiculous debate about whether Kerry flip-flopped on this or that issue, much less whether he was such a war hero as has been made out, is diversion. Yet I suppose many American see these non-issues as somehow important. Americans, see the big picture!
    I appreciate your candor. Many now pass themselves off as independents.

    We heard about character being a non-issue before, and became the laughingstock of the world there for a while.

    Don't judge him by his RECORD, judge him by what he's saying now?

    Fight for a guy that called you a baby-killer, let alone respect him?

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Focus on the fundamental issue: do you want an America dedicated to the protection of narrow, short-term personal and corporate self-interest, (viz. greed), or to personal freedom and opportunity, and a better world..
    Then by all means vote in the super-rich, THEY'LL protect you from the merely wealthy!

    And Bush freed the Iraqis from the Butcher. No hollow talk, that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    One of the more appalling aspects in this race is the polarization a long religious lines: "conservative Christian", (Catholic and Protestant), versus everything and everyone else. Again, I'm not unbiased: "Christian Right" is an oxymoron. Conservative Christianity in the US is Pharisaic, that is, like the self-centred, self-righteousness of the Biblical Pharisees whom Christ condemned. Were I not a religious sceptic, I'd greatly fear that they have not accepted Christ's true message and hence will go straight to hell. Won't they be surprised, though!.
    Christians didn't just desert the Dems, they were thrown out. Search "christian" at www.democraticunderground.org to see what I mean.

    Jesus will vote for abortion on demand? Gay "marriages"? And our God does not shy away from terror nor condemn the soldier for doing his job.

    If you are not a Christian, how can you decide, with authority, who is?

    If I called you a hypocritical bigot, wouldn't you be offended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    On the Iraq issue, to be completely pragmatic, Bush made America and the World much less safe, rather more so. by the invasion. It's not just whether the money and lives would have been better spent on fighting Bin Laden.
    Big picture, or Bin Laden? Old Binnie has been holed up for years now, while we take out the Al Qida still operating, and tie up their resources in Iraq. It's been VERY successful - we haven't been hit again.

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  6. #131
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    The world needs leadership

    Indeed it does, piece-it. US-bashing happens in Canada, but deep down most Canadians have a profound respect for Americans and America. Canadians and people of many other nations would be glad if the US were providing that needed leadership.

    But there's a difference between leading and throwing your weight around. The US has forfeited the moral high ground. Arabs have believed this for years on account of US' unqualified support for Israel vs. Palestinians. The rest of the world is coming around to the same opinion, (Tony Blair excepted, of course).

    Though I'm a religious skeptic, I had a religious upbringing and understand Christian theology quite well for a layman. I am therefore as qualified as a pious person to hold an opinion regarding Christian ethics. Call me a hypocrite if you like, I'm not chagrined. Personally I think reasonable interpretation of the Bible does not supports Gay marriage nor abortion. But how great am I if I ban these things but leave people sick and starving in the streets: to me that's hypocracy.

  7. #132
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Though I'm a religious skeptic, I had a religious upbringing and understand Christian theology quite well for a layman. I am therefore as qualified as a pious person to hold an opinion regarding Christian ethics. Call me a hypocrite if you like, I'm not chagrined. Personally I think reasonable interpretation of the Bible does not supports Gay marriage nor abortion. But how great am I if I ban these things but leave people sick and starving in the streets: to me that's hypocracy.
    Feanor, with all due respect to a fellow christian brother, the bible mentions nothing about same sex marriage, nor abortion. The bible is VERY clear about what God doesn't like, but same sex marriage was not an issue in biblical times, this is a recent issue.

    I believe that God gives us choices. We have a choice to serve him, or not. Each choice has repercussions(good or bad). What we as man think is wrong, may not be wrong in Gods eyesight. Remember, as high as the heavens are from the earth, are his thought from ours. Men look on the outside, God searches the heart. We must be careful in our reasonable interpretation not to color/filter Gods word with our own prejudices.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  8. #133
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Nothing I can object to there, Sir T.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Feanor, with all due respect to a fellow christian brother, the bible mentions nothing about same sex marriage, nor abortion. The bible is VERY clear about what God doesn't like, but same sex marriage was not an issue in biblical times, this is a recent issue.

    I believe that God gives us choices. We have a choice to serve him, or not. Each choice has repercussions(good or bad). What we as man think is wrong, may not be wrong in Gods eyesight. Remember, as high as the heavens are from the earth, are his thought from ours. Men look on the outside, God searches the heart. We must be careful in our reasonable interpretation not to color/filter Gods word with our own prejudices.
    Amen to all of it.

  9. #134
    Forum Regular jeskibuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    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!
    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    Look, I was born in 1968.
    That's a surprise. By your weak arguments, I would guess that you were born yesterday!

    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    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)

    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Quote Originally Posted by JOEBIALEK
    ...
    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!
    Click here to see my system.

  10. #135
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by jeskibuff
    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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?

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

    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?

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

    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.



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


    Here's hoping that tomorrow's election will produce similar results!
    You know what? My point all along here has been that military service in Vietnam with respect to either candidate is not a controlling issue for me, even if Geo. Bush did hide out in the guard like a pussy (you asked for this - I've refrained until now from going after Bush). You've latched onto a single issue that has arisen from events occurring over 30 years ago.

    Your assessment of me is wrong (except for the drama queen part). I've tried to add a little neutrality to this issue to juxtapose the extremism. I think you've implicitly acknowledged by your statements regarding whom you believe that you're taking the side of people relating events for the first time that occurred over 30 years ago. There's something fishy about that when Kerry has been in public service for 20 years. In addition, recordings and statements that took place contemporaneously with the events are generally considered more reliable. Besides, if you have a problem with the facts I posted, then take that problem up with factcheck.org. I'm just the messenger.

    The reason you won't see the rest of Kerry's records is because AFTER his return to the states he was labelled a "demagogue like Ralph Nader" by the Nixon Adminstration and was targeted. This information is actually on the Nixon Tapes turned over during the Watergate Scandal. Of course Kerry began protesting when he got back but before he was discharged. The records will show the great lengths to which the Nixon Admin. went to discredit and destroy Kerry, so much so that his original discharge had to be reviewed by a board of officers and changed to honorable like it should have been in the first place.

    Again your assessment of me personally is incorrect. I haven't seen Farenheit 9-11 and I view Michael Moore as an entertainer not a poltical guru. I don't watch network news. I watch mostly MSNBC and Fox. BTW, I saw President Bush lie in his interview with Bill O'Reilly last night. I watch Al Franken when he happens to be on Saturday Night Live.

    See, you're the type of person who as Karl Rove has done in the past would attack someone on their sexual preference whether true or not to help your candidate. You're the type of person who as Karl Rove has done would start a rumour about the other candidate that he's a homosexual pedophile to make sure your candidate wins. You're the type of person who as Karl Rove has done would initiate a covert attack campaign against your own candidate on personal matters so that you could blame it on your opponent and turn the public against your opponent. I've got you pegged buddy and you've made my point by your personal attacks on me.

  11. #136
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    Hate to butt in again , but...

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

    But his subsequent actions are a matter of public record. Is there a Vietnam vet here that will second his accusations? Did you'all really rape, kill, maim and torture innocent civilians as a matter of course?

    And WHY WON'T HE RELEASE HIS MILITARY RECORDS?! He MUST have something to hide.

    Pete
    Pete, You're not "butting in". This is an open forum. But, since you spoke up - you let yourself off the hook with "...as a matter of course." The atrocities you listed whether rampant or not did occurr and have been confirmed. And, your call for seconds from veterans is getting the built-in response you desired - none. The tough questions are how we deal with and learn from those experiences. The most basic question is are atrocities committed during war time a natural product of war? IOTW, taken in context, are they really "atrocities". If they are, is punishment the right course of official action? This is an area that I really don't like to get into and I believe these are the questions underlying the attacks on Kerry. Let's learn, train field officers on these matters and get on with our lives.

    Why won't Kerry release his records? Those that have sided with the Swifties believe or theorize that they will somehow disparage his actual service in Vietnam. Let me give you my THEORY which is just as plausible, is backed by more FACTS and is more PROBABLE. (Hey, my theory is just as valid or invalid as anyone else's.) Let's start with the facts. When Kerry RETURNED from Vietnam he began protesting BEFORE he was officially discharged. The Nixon tapes turned over after Watergate reveal that Kerry was a target of the Nixon Admin. He was labelled a "demagogue" in the presence of Nixon and equated with "Ralph Nader." This all seems laughable now, but the Nixon Admin. went after Kerry rightly or wrongly. The next set of facts is that a board of officers reviewed Kerry's discharge and decided on the honorable status. Some say this was unusual and that they must have changed an original determination. The records will show the great lengths to which the Nixon Admin. went to discredit and destroy Kerry for his anti-war activities AFTER he returned from Vietnam. Of course if a board of officers to a man determined his discharge status as honorable, why even play with fire? Again, the military determined, in an unusually intense and scrutinizing manner, that his service was honorable. That's good enough for me. As for Bush, the Guard had no official criticism of his service and that's good enough for me too.

  12. #137
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin

    Why won't Kerry release his records? Those that have sided with the Swifties believe or theorize that they will somehow disparage his actual service in Vietnam. Let me give you my THEORY which is just as plausible, is backed by more FACTS and is more PROBABLE. (Hey, my theory is just as valid or invalid as anyone else's.) Let's start with the facts. When Kerry RETURNED from Vietnam he began protesting BEFORE he was officially discharged. The Nixon tapes turned over after Watergate reveal that Kerry was a target of the Nixon Admin. He was labelled a "demagogue" in the presence of Nixon and equated with "Ralph Nader." This all seems laughable now, but the Nixon Admin. went after Kerry rightly or wrongly. The next set of facts is that a board of officers reviewed Kerry's discharge and decided on the honorable status. Some say this was unusual and that they must have changed an original determination. The records will show the great lengths to which the Nixon Admin. went to discredit and destroy Kerry for his anti-war activities AFTER he returned from Vietnam. Of course if a board of officers to a man determined his discharge status as honorable, why even play with fire? Again, the military determined, in an unusually intense and scrutinizing manner, that his service was honorable. That's good enough for me. As for Bush, the Guard had no official criticism of his service and that's good enough for me too.
    Here is the posting I made in this thread in regards to his discharge being reviewed:

    2004 Presidential Election

    There are a couple reasons to wonder why his discharge might be less than honorable, one being that he met with the North Vietnamese twice in France while still a commissioned officer, which is a direct violation of Uniform Military Code. Honorable discharges are never reviewed.

    Of course, many probably also don't know that in 2001 he killed the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, HR2833 in his committee (that had already passed the house with 411 votes) that would have all but forced the N. Vietnamese to account for the remaining POWs, and oddly enough his cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO of Colliers International shortly thereafter received a HUGE contract to be the exclusive Real Estate representative in N. Vietnam. Coincidence, or collusion? (Right, so much for the Cheney-Halliburton connection)

    Then there is this gem I stumbled across today:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1248970/posts


    -Bruce

  13. #138
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Here is the posting I made in this thread in regards to his discharge being reviewed:

    2004 Presidential Election

    There are a couple reasons to wonder why his discharge might be less than honorable, one being that he met with the North Vietnamese twice in France while still a commissioned officer, which is a direct violation of Uniform Military Code. Honorable discharges are never reviewed.

    Of course, many probably also don't know that in 2001 he killed the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, HR2833 in his committee (that had already passed the house with 411 votes) that would have all but forced the N. Vietnamese to account for the remaining POWs, and oddly enough his cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO of Colliers International shortly thereafter received a HUGE contract to be the exclusive Real Estate representative in N. Vietnam. Coincidence, or collusion? (Right, so much for the Cheney-Halliburton connection)

    Then there is this gem I stumbled across today:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1248970/posts


    -Bruce
    I re-read your post on the discharge accusations and still believe that my theory/conclusion is just as valid. Are both rank speculation? Sure.

    Also, the video purportedly tying Kerry to Albanian terrorists is a hodge podge of images that don't yield the conclusion you've made. Anyhow, in post 9-11, how did terrorists get into our country or retain residences here? (If they are "terrorists" and if they did come here.) Doesn't that reflect badly on Bush's handling of the war on terror? Has Bush made exceptions for the top members of the Democratic Party? Does Bush simply not know about these alleged meetings in PUBLIC gatherings, particularly at fundraisers? Did the Republicans give Kerry a pass on accepting contributions from terrorists? OR, was the Bush campaign accepting money from terrorists too? That's where crap like this leads. It often backfires.

    As to your assertions regarding Kerry and the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, I'm not familiar with the bill, what committee it was before and why we're trying to pass laws with no effect on citizens of other countries. Just by the title you can tell that the Bill is dubious or that it makes some kind of statement without the effect of law. And, a lot of crap passes the House before being killed in the Senate. If that weren't the case, this country would be unrecognizable. I do know that Kerry is generally recognized as a leader in identifying POWs and MIAs in Vietnam.

    The internet, short wave radio and to a large extent FOX News are dangerous tools in the hands of some people. (I'm sorry, this is merely hyperbole.) But, I guess much of this is in direct response to the allegations against Bush regarding his ties to the Suadi Royal family and the bin Ladens. Interestingly though, we were actually attacked by Saudies and a bin Laden.

    Going a little off course here, I do get tapes, videos and transcripts generated from short wave radio shows and personalities from a friend of mine. The gerneral consensus is that there is no difference between Bush and Kerry when it comes to international manipulation, devious plots, etc. Apparently there is a brotherhood of int'l leaders and the citizens of individual countries are damned no matter who is elected. But, that's another topic.

    My main interest today is SANITY and seeing an election of a President, no matter who it is, that doesn't take a close election as a mandate to push the entire agenda of his party. Compromise in Washington is actually a good thing. Gridlock in Washington is actually a good thing. The less laws that are passed the better off we are. The more laws that are repealed the better off we are. If on the other hand if the candidate I didn't vote for is elected in a landslide then I'll find a way to deal with an agenda I don't agree with.

  14. #139
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    F,

    When I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete
    If I called you a hypocritical bigot, wouldn't you be offended?
    I was refering to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Conservative Christianity in the US is Pharisaic, that is, like the self-centred, self-righteousness of the Biblical Pharisees whom Christ condemned.
    where you compared me, an American conservative Christian, to a hypocrite, condemned by Christ.



    From this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Though I'm a religious skeptic, I had a religious upbringing and understand Christian theology quite well for a layman. I am therefore as qualified as a pious person to hold an opinion regarding Christian ethics.
    I got the impression that, although you grew up in a Christian atmosphere, you are not a born again Christian. Do I have this right?


    Anyway, thanks for: "deep down most Canadians have a profound respect for Americans and America.", I will say that my experiences with Canadians have been very good, I would be flattered if I was mistaken for a Canadian. May our historic border remain at peace though the ages!

    Now we have a Society of Mutual Admiration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    ...there's a difference between leading and throwing your weight around. The US has forfeited the moral high ground. Arabs have believed this for years on account of US' unqualified support for Israel vs. Palestinians. The rest of the world is coming around to the same opinion, (Tony Blair excepted, of course).
    No matter what, there will be those who say we're throwing our weight around. Sometimes they'll be right.

    But we're NOT effecting them, outside of keeping the economic system that contributes mightily to their prosperity running smoothy - with our boys' blood.

    We are the most friendly empire to ever walk the planet. Enlightened self interest - what a concept!

    I'm not on board with those who blow up buses of innocents. Isreal is our staunch ally.

    Blair, Blair, Blair. What should a conservative think? I used to call him "little clinton"!

    But thinking Americans will not forget, at least for a month or two, , our mother countries' help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Personally I think reasonable interpretation of the Bible does not supports Gay marriage nor abortion. But how great am I if I ban these things but leave people sick and starving in the streets: to me that's hypocracy.
    Thanks, I can't see how one can believe Jesus would support abortion. When He forgave Mary Magdelene he did NOT ok the sin.

    But as far as people sick and starving, then we by extention of that logic can or should do nothing. I will agree that everything man does is at least tinged with hypocracy.

    Anyway, shortly all this will be moot. Kerry or Bush, to many world wide will disappoint. Bush will of course continue his policies, and Kerry will follow the same basic foreign policy plan regardless of his words.

    Pete
    Last edited by piece-it pete; 11-02-2004 at 12:27 PM. Reason: formatting
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  15. #140
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838

    message to jes

    Quote Originally Posted by jeskibuff
    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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?

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

    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?

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

    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.



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


    Here's hoping that tomorrow's election will produce similar results!
    Sorry for calling your analysis stupid. And, sorry for categorizing/stereotyping you, too. It won't happen again.

  16. #141
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    I re-read your post on the discharge accusations and still believe that my theory/conclusion is just as valid. Are both rank speculation? Sure.
    Perhaps, but Kerry DID meet twice with the N. Vietnamese in France and this is a direct violation of the Uniform Military Code. One thing for sure, Kerry IS hiding something.

    Also, the video purportedly tying Kerry to Albanian terrorists is a hodge podge of images that don't yield the conclusion you've made.
    I made no conclusion whatsoever on this.

    Anyhow, in post 9-11, how did terrorists get into our country or retain residences here? (If they are "terrorists" and if they did come here.) Doesn't that reflect badly on Bush's handling of the war on terror?
    Wouldn't that reflect badly on the previous administration? Afterall, it is during the Clinton years they arrived. The same administration that saw previous attacks on the world trade centers, the attack on the USS Cole and in Africa. Also the same administration that had 3 opportunities to get Bin Laden and passed because he was afraid of International opinion. Kerry is of the same ilk.

    I do know that Kerry is generally recognized as a leader in identifying POWs and MIAs in Vietnam.
    By whom?

    The internet, short wave radio and to a large extent FOX News are dangerous tools in the hands of some people. (I'm sorry, this is merely hyperbole.)
    And what about CBS and Dan Rather then?

    -Bruce

  17. #142
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    The die is cast

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    F,
    ...
    Anyway, shortly all this will be moot. Kerry or Bush, to many world wide will disappoint. Bush will of course continue his policies, and Kerry will follow the same basic foreign policy plan regardless of his words.

    Pete
    As of this moment I guess most polls are closed, absentee and military ballots are in too. So we'll wait, (and wait, and maybe wait), to find out the winner.

    Yes, it's true, Kerry cannot and will not walk away from Iraq. The US has put itself in Iraq's debt and the tab will be paid.

    I'm sorry, I can't retract, qualify, or mitigate my statement that conservative Chrisitianity is Pharasaic. The Biblical Pharasees themselves did actually obey the law of Moses more precisely than most Jews of their time and felt themselves fully justified thereby. But Jesus condemned them ... Many, even most, Conservative Christians are genuinely moral people in terms of their personal obedience to the commandments, but, as for the Pharasees, it is not enough.

  18. #143
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Feanor, with all due respect to a fellow christian brother, the bible mentions nothing about same sex marriage, nor abortion. The bible is VERY clear about what God doesn't like, but same sex marriage was not an issue in biblical times, this is a recent issue.
    Just because there isn't an explicit mention doesn't mean it isn't covered.

    Was same sex marriage ever ordained by God? No. However, marriage between a man and woman was.

    I believe that God gives us choices. We have a choice to serve him, or not. Each choice has repercussions(good or bad).
    You start off by saying God gives us choices and then talk about choices man makes.

    The former is incorrect the latter correct.

    We have a choice and the free will to accept it, ot reject it.

    -Bruce
    Last edited by FLZapped; 11-03-2004 at 09:39 AM.

  19. #144
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    As of this moment I guess most polls are closed, absentee and military ballots are in too. So we'll wait, (and wait, and maybe wait), to find out the winner.

    Yes, it's true, Kerry cannot and will not walk away from Iraq. The US has put itself in Iraq's debt and the tab will be paid.

    I'm sorry, I can't retract, qualify, or mitigate my statement that conservative Chrisitianity is Pharasaic. The Biblical Pharasees themselves did actually obey the law of Moses more precisely than most Jews of their time and felt themselves fully justified thereby. But Jesus condemned them ... Many, even most, Conservative Christians are genuinely moral people in terms of their personal obedience to the commandments, but, as for the Pharasees, it is not enough.
    We are not in Iraqs' debt, it is the other way around.

    I am aware of the Pharisees, who killed Jesus as certainly as Pilate did. I find it interesting that an admitted skeptic is judging me, a Pharisee (or Conservative Christian, per above), not the other way around.

    BTW, Sir TT, here's a coupla quotes:

    "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22

    "If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." Lev. 20:13

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  20. #145
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    The Biblical Pharasees themselves did actually obey the law of Moses more precisely than most Jews of their time and felt themselves fully justified thereby.
    This is incorrect. They were entrusted to be the keepers of the law, yet they subplanted it with their own version of it in order to create themselves as a ruling class over the people. Their acts actually inhibited the people from true worship. They made their worship an incencere public display to prove their importance. What they had was self-righteousness, not true righteousness.

    -Bruce

    "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in." (Matthew 23:13 RSV).

    "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" (Matthew 23:23-24)

  21. #146
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Just because there isn't an explicit mention doesn't mean it isn't covered.
    You cannot assume that.

    Was same sex marriage ever ordained by God? No. However, marriage between a man and woman was.
    Forget the word marriage, that is unimportant. He mention nothing about same sex unions or convenants. The use of the word marriage unnecessary, equality is necessary. So call it a union, give it the same rights.

    You start off by saying God gives us choices and then talk about choices man makes.

    The former is incorrect the latter correct.

    We have a choice and the free will to accept it, ot reject it.

    -Bruce
    You can reject it personally if you desire, but your rejection shouldn't affect anothers acceptance. God does give us free will, with consequences.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  22. #147
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    BTW, Sir TT, here's a coupla quotes:

    "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22

    "If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." Lev. 20:13
    Sorry Pete, once again your lack of understanding of the original Hebrew text is causing you, and many other to make huge mistakes in interpretation. Had the writer intended to convey homosexuality being condemned here, he would have likely used the Hebrew word 'iysh, which means "man", or "male person". Instead, the author utilizes a much more complicated Hebrew word, zakar, which literally translated means "a person worthy of recognition".

    Taking Leviticus 18: 22 into proper context, then, one looks at the preceding verse 21: "And you must not allow the devoting of any of your offspring to Molech". What we see here in actuality are warnings to the Israelites not to engage in the fertility rituals of the worshippers of Molech, which often required the granting of sexual favors to the priest. Had this been a mere condemnation of homosexuals, the writer would have used clearer language.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. OK guys...help me find some rock from 2004...
    By nobody in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 06:14 PM
  2. Let's do a "Favorites of 2004 So Far" thread!
    By DariusNYC in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-04-2004, 10:39 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-07-2004, 10:31 AM
  4. Check out the bands at San Francisco's Noise Pop 2004!
    By Finch Platte in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-26-2004, 03:17 AM
  5. Ces 2004
    By TinHere in forum General Audio
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-16-2004, 08:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •