October 25, 2004

• got props from BloggingForBush for "being informed of the issues" based, i guess, on the comments i left on his blogs. i'm pasting one of those comments here (with some additions) since they concern topics i've been wanting to write about but was never strongly compelled to do until i had to reply to someone:

  
  

  psykomeyeko: why are we talking about vietnam again? why not ask john kerry? wasn't he the one who made it the central theme of his campaign?

  
  

  citations with several signatures? yeah, right. secretary of the navy lehman said that he did not write any citation.

  
  

  i wouldn't trust the john kerry site to be a source of truth. if it is, then i would have believed it when they said (i guess, in their desperation to make john kerry look strong on anti-terrorism) that he served as vice-chairman of the senate intelligence committee when, in fact, it was not him but  sen. bob kerrey. (and i have a screen capture of that! hahaha! thinking about this still makes me laugh .. )

  
  

  here is a man who wants to be president yet, he is absent from work most of the time (86%), so much so, that he didn't even know he was not the vice-chairman of the committee!    no wonder he decided to run on his vietnam record.

  
  

  i can go on and on and deal with details (ie inconsistencies in his own book, his war hero status among the north vietnamese, his work to get POWs out of vietnam which ended with a lucrative business contract with the north vietnamese for his cousin) but the bottomline for me is:

  
  

  a man who threw away his war medals, declaring that they are not something to be proud of, and years later runs for president because he is war hero with medals to prove it is just like a dog lapping up its own puke. if you want to believe in a man like that, fine. get licked!

  
  

  oh, but of course, he later revealed that the medals he threw were not really his (since his medals are on display in his office). it was all a show. and the vvaw officer he followed? not even a vietnam veteran. and some of the testimonies? coerced.

  
  

  did it matter to john kerry that he was still a naval reserve officer when he met with the north vietnamese? did it matter that he made it look as if committing atrocities was the norm at that time and true of all vietnam war vets, so much so that they were treated like pariahs when they got back home? if jane fonda has apologized for her activities during that time, why hasn't john kerry? doesn't it matter to him that there were people who suffered because of what he did?

  
  

  do you think it will matter to john kerry if he gives all the promises that he can now and not make good on them if he gets elected?

  
  

  does character matter to you?

  
  

  insomnos: i admire you for being proud to be a liberal. i personally don't think that it's something to be ashamed of. that's why i don't understand why john kerry (and his campaign) behaves like it's synonymous to another  'L' word -- LOSER.

  
  

  liberals believe in civil rights and equality.
  even conservatives do. that is basic. it will boil down to: what are those rights? when does pushing for someone's right becomes stepping on somebody else's right?

  
  

  ...abortion
  this is not just about the right to bear a child or not. this is about the right to life vs the right to kill.

  
  

  if life begins at conception then there is no justification for abortion. if you don't believe that life begins at conception then i can understand why you don't think abortion should be banned.

  
  

  john kerry, though, says that he believes that life begins at conception yet he does not work to prevent abortion, saying that he cannot legislate based on his faith. which faith was he referring to? his catholicism? hipprocates (who made the original hippocratic oath which has been revised by the american medical association) was not a christian (i think they were pagans at that time) but he was against abortion.

  
  

  so john kerry's statement is just another way of saying: i believe in something but i will not make a stand on it nor fight for it. (that, i think, is what you'd call a hypocritic oath.)

  
  

  abortion is against the core beliefs of his religion -- his faith -- but banning it will work against his ambition. in the case of john kerry, ambition wins.

  
  

  here is a man who would say what is politically expedient. a man who is driven, not  by conviction but by ambition. a man like that can be bought.

  
  

  with george soros spending so much of his money for bush's defeat, doesn't it make you wonder what he has to gain from a kerry presidency?
  
  -----
  
  my previous question about plants being living things was, in part, to answer the question: does life begin at conception? what does science really say about this? does a fetus pass the criteria of a 'living' thing according to science?

  
  

   

  • 5:20 pm
  • 4 Comments