After some thought, I’ve decided the Fonz is the ideal presidential Candidate for 2008. Since the country has effectively Jumped the Shark with the election just past, there’s no one more appropriate.
I’ve even got the slogan: “Putting the ‘Aaaaay!’ in Aaaaay-merica.”
PAD
• 
You do know that the fact that many gay couples utilize a surrogate and artificial insemination to produce offspring renders your argument moot, right?
Um, wrong. Many? No, few actually. Is this free? No. Then there’s that whole artificial thing, once again, a man and woman have a natural potential to have children. No test tubes, extra cash or scientist need for that basic relationship to potentially have children. If you do not see this difference in a relationship with a man and a woman than a man and a man or woman and woman, you need more help than you’re going to get here.
I like the suggestions for Power Rangers as presidents. Though Tommy and Kimberly are interesting choices, I’d have to go with David Yost, also known as Billy. It has to be the later Billy, though. The early Billy doesn’t have enough confidence, plus no one would understand a word he was saying in his speeches (which isn’t that different from some politicians, I suppose).
The problem with electing a Power Ranger president is that whenever a PR leader makes a command, the people around him have this tendency of shouting “Right!” in unison. That gives off this weird cult mentality vibe that could make the American people uneasy.
However, the most important question is this: if a Power Ranger were president, would he wear a red, white and blue ranger suit?
David,
Sorry if I was unduly harsh in my reply to you. The negativity here was bringing me down. You seem like a good enough guy.
Stick around for when we get back to talking about TV shows and comics and stuff. Lots more fun.
You do know that the fact that many gay couples utilize a surrogate and artificial insemination to produce offspring renders your argument moot, right?
Um, wrong.
No, right.
You REALLY ought to get off your duff and get to know some people who are homosexual.
He meant that he still would have supported the notion of not curtailing the authority of a sitting President in terms of dealing with the global community. But that was far too nuanced a position for Hank Hill or whomever to wrap themselves around.
Now I’m going to call bûllšhìŧ. Kerry has talked about the UN and the need for a “global community” for most of his career since Vietnam. But, if Kerry were so pricipled about the global community then why did he vote against Presidential authority in the Gulf War in the 1990s? It met every criteria for his “global test” except one: the war was opposed by his base.
THAT was the reason Kerry couldn’t sell the “support the President’s authority” with the moderates. Anyone with even half a brain could see that his war votes had more to do with political expediency than principle.
PAD, Thanks for giving a couple reasons why you think Kerry lost the election. I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around it the last couple of days and just can’t figure out why so many Americans gave the thumbs-up to four more years.
A few of mine own:
One, I don’t think Kerry attacked Bush enough. I’ve listened to a lot of liberal voices during the debates (Al Franken and Bill Maher come to mind) literally begging for Kerry to get after it. If Kerry could’ve said, “The next time Al-Queda attacks us, maybe we should invade (cover your eyes and point to a spot on the map) France! They didn’t have anything to do with 9/11 either, but at least we KNOW they have WMDs!” Or, “It is well-documented that in his first nine months on the job, George W. Bush spent more time on vacation than any other newly-elected President. So it should come as no surprise when there was a real crisis, in the form of 9/11, he didn’t know how to do anything but sit on his ášš for nine minutes.”
Two, despite the fact that Kerry served in the military while Bush “played around” with the national guard, the GOP got a lot of people to questions Kerry’s war record, while every attempt to expose Bush’s record fizzled. How much time was wasted during an important stretch of the campaign discussing the swiftboat crap? Too much, my friends.
In the end, I think Democrats thought this election could be won without getting their hands dirty, because Bush’s terrible record in his first four years should’ve spoke for itself. A few potshots about the record spending and tax cuts for the rich weren’t enough to get the blood pumping.
I also think there was a backlash by what was perceived as anti-American sentiment (you know, the whole attacking a president in a time of war … even if it was a war he started). I also think that Bush’s handlers have done a great job of painting W. as a John Wayne-type cowboy, šhìŧ-kicking the rest of the world into submission because America IS THE BEST!! Some people want to ride that bandwagon forever instead of maybe looking at the facts and discovering that maybe America isn’t the best, anymore. It’s like Yankee fans who puff up their chests and talk about all the World Series titles in their trophy case, just after they were spanked hard in 2004.
That’s enough for now. Hulkeye out.
THAT was the reason Kerry couldn’t sell the “support the President’s authority” with the moderates. Anyone with even half a brain could see that his war votes had more to do with political expediency than principle.
I’m afraid that I completely disagree with this. Kerry’s vote against the first Gulf War had to do with his deep reluctance to send send Americans into the type of Hellhole that he endured when he was in Viet Nam. It’s also evident from speeches that he gave at the time that he didn’t realize just how completely we would own the Iraqi armed forces in any type of stand-up fight. Since we didn’t try to set up shop, we didn’t have to deal with the horrible insurgencies problems that we’re dealing with now.
You REALLY ought to get off your duff and get to know some people who are homosexual.
Still wrong, and I had a gay roommate for two years. What, knowing a homosexual couple is going to make them produce children naturally? Go back and read the post again…slowly, they aren’t the same relationships saying they are isn’t going to make it so.
Eric!:
>>You REALLY ought to get off your duff and get to know some people who are homosexual.
Still wrong, and I had a gay roommate for two years. What, knowing a homosexual couple is going to make them produce children naturally? Go back and read the post again…slowly, they aren’t the same relationships saying they are isn’t going to make it so.
True. Much in the same way that attempting to justify banning gay marriage by stating that the government wants a couple to produce children together naturally, which was the original point of the post, as a truth isn’t going to make it so.
I’m afraid that I completely disagree with this. Kerry’s vote against the first Gulf War had to do with his deep reluctance to send send Americans into the type of Hellhole that he endured when he was in Viet Nam.
So, when we had a coalition and passed his global test, he didn’t authorize it because of the troops? Sorry, that doesn’t cut it when you look at his SECOND vote. He knew we were going in to oust Saddam the second time and likely would have to occupy. Yet he still voted for “Presidential authority” rather than “the troops” or the “global test”. What changed that Presidential authority somehow became his paramount concern – over that of the troops you say he was most concerned about before or the global community which he had always espoused generally?
You can tap dance all you want, but from my seat Kerry looks like he only wanted to appease his critics, not take a fundamental stand.
Eric!:
>>You do know that the fact that many gay couples utilize a surrogate and artificial insemination to produce offspring renders your argument moot, right?
>Um, wrong. Many? No, few actually. Is this free? No.
Actually, it is many. As far as cost, it doesn’t cost the government a thing for gay couples to do this. If it were few, that would only weaken your argument against allowing it, since gay couple would adopt and take a financial burden off of public programs with every unwated child that they take in.
>Then there’s that whole artificial thing, once again, a man and woman have a natural potential to have children. No test tubes, extra cash or scientist need for that basic relationship to potentially have children. If you do not see this difference in a relationship with a man and a woman than a man and a man or woman and woman, you need more help than you’re going to get here.
Since when does the government concern itself with artificial vs natural events made by private citizens that don’t negatively affect others?
No help needed, but thanks.
True. Much in the same way that attempting to justify banning gay marriage by stating that the government wants a couple to produce children together naturally, which was the original point of the post, as a truth isn’t going to make it so.
What is Gov’t interest in a Gay relationship? Why would Gov’t want to support this?
Eric!:
>True. Much in the same way that attempting to justify banning gay marriage by stating that the government wants a couple to produce children together naturally, which was the original point of the post, as a truth isn’t going to make it so.
>What is Gov’t interest in a Gay relationship? Why would Gov’t want to support this?
See, I think that this is where the discussion divides. Allowing gay marriage isn’t supporting it in any way, while amending the Constitution to ban it is limiting an individual’s freedom of choice, expression, etc.
Actually, it is many. As far as cost, it doesn’t cost the government a thing for gay couples to do this. If it were few, that would only weaken your argument against allowing it, since gay couple would adopt and take a financial burden off of public programs with every unwated child that they take in.
Since many is subjective, how about majority? Do the majority of Gay couples adopt? Artificial insemination? These still cost money (not from the Gov’t, but the couples). Heterosexual couples produce children at no cost to Gov’t or be concerned that the couple has funds for adoption or insemination. Children are possible to the majority of heterosexual couples the same can’t be said of gay couples.
Since when does the government concern itself with artificial vs natural events made by private citizens that don’t negatively affect others?
When those artificial events aren’t available to everyone. The majority of men and women can have children with no outside help. See you did need help.
Eric!:
>>Actually, it is many. As far as cost, it doesn’t cost the government a thing for gay couples to do this. If it were few, that would only weaken your argument against allowing it, since gay couple would adopt and take a financial burden off of public programs with every unwated child that they take in.
>Since many is subjective, how about majority? Do the majority of Gay couples adopt? Artificial insemination? These still cost money (not from the Gov’t, but the couples).
Comics cost me money. If my desire to have comics cost the government money, it would be a governmental issue. Cost to couples is a private matter and to use it as a rationale for banning gay marriage is a straw argument at best.
>>Since when does the government concern itself with artificial vs natural events made by private citizens that don’t negatively affect others?
>When those artificial events aren’t available to everyone. The majority of men and women can have children with no outside help. See you did need help.
Artificial means are available to everyone. A man and woman who have intimacy issues, arousal dysfunction, etc can utilize this method of producing a child. Not everyone needs to utilize them.
Nope, no help needed here. 😉
Again, I understand human anatomy. I also understand your point. I love the former, but disagree with the basis of the latter.
Fred
Interesting that Saskatchewan has just become the seventh Canadian province to make gay marriage legal (well, technically the sixth, since Yukon is a territory).
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=1&u=/cpress/20041105/ca_pr_on_na/sask_gay_marriage
In a five-page ruling, Justice Donna Wilson sided with courts in five other provinces and one territory, saying existing marriage laws discriminate against gay couples.
“The common-law definition of marriage for civil purposes is declared to be ‘the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others,’ ” Wilson wrote.
Courts in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, the Yukon, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have already ruled in the same way Justice Wilson did. In fact, every recent challenge of marriage laws made has ended up winning, either at the introductory or appeal court level.
I guess the midwest can just chalk it up to one of our crazy ideas like universal health care and gun control.
Posted by AdamYJ at November 5, 2004 11:04 AM
I like the suggestions for Power Rangers as presidents. Though Tommy and Kimberly are interesting choices, I’d have to go with David Yost, also known as Billy. It has to be the later Billy, though. The early Billy doesn’t have enough confidence, plus no one would understand a word he was saying in his speeches (which isn’t that different from some politicians, I suppose).
The problem with electing a Power Ranger president is that whenever a PR leader makes a command, the people around him have this tendency of shouting “Right!” in unison. That gives off this weird cult mentality vibe that could make the American people uneasy.
However, the most important question is this: if a Power Ranger were president, would he wear a red, white and blue ranger suit?
***
Billy’s not elligible. He moved to Aquitar.
And as for a Red, white, and blue Ranger… Well, it would be a tad hard on the eyes if not done right. And what would be the morph call? “Freedom Strike, Power Spike”?
Luigi, I tried reading Kerry’s testimony before Congress again so I could cut/paste the blatant lies he told for your benefit and it made me so upset I almost puked. Please read his testimony if you haven’t. Thank God that man is not our Commander in Chief.
Suffice it to say, what he did to our POWs that were still in the concentration camps and veterans of all wars by his treasonous testminoy was a disgrace. He and the rest of his cohorts who gave him that testimony should have been prosecuted for war crimes. Instead, he gets elected to Congress. I can’t believe that Massachusetts elected him.
See now Craig, you said “Kerry should have won.“
I appoligized for nothing. Why did you say you didn’t say what I thought you said when you felt that way anyways. Sheesh!!
A lot of this reminds me of a few things. First and foremost, with all the talk about gays, it reminds me of the fact that several good friends of mine are MISERABLE because they don’t have anyone to share their life with like I do. Some are gay, some are not (I won’t use straight because I don’t really think gays are bent) And all this talk about liberals and conservatives and who’s right and who’s not–conservative wisdom has been around a loooooooong time. Some of it is pretty good–don’t kick a bee’s nest, that kinda thing. But conservative wisdom also held that the planet was flat and that we are the center of the universe. To quote a wise man, D’oh! As I see it, liberals think they’re right about everything. So do conservatives. Trouble is that when conservatives are shown evidence of the opposite, they STILL don’t buy it. And comparing homosexuality with incest…HOOO-boy. For everyone that’s hitched their post to that bandwagon, come out to Philly some time, I’ll getcha a cheesesteak, and talk to my wife about incest. She was molested by her grandfather and raped by her father. And lastly, as for homosexuality being a choice, with the possible exception of a few friends who dabbled in bisexual stuff in college, it ain’t a choice. You are what you are. Plain and simple. Gays are this generation’s blacks, jut like the last generations women or Irish or Jews or whatever. Whatever scapegoat is convenient. Everyone should just pray that whatever group they’re in isn’t next week’s villain-of-choice.
Originally posted by Aaron Thall:
“Billy’s not elligible. He moved to Aquitar.
And as for a Red, white, and blue Ranger… Well, it would be a tad hard on the eyes if not done right. And what would be the morph call? “Freedom Strike, Power Spike”?”
Hmm, I just got this weird feeling that people were talking about serious political views in-between all the Power Ranger president stuff. Oh well, it’ll pass.
I know Billy moved to Aquitar, but I never liked that development for him. By the time Zeo came around, Billy was probably as capable a leader as Tommy. Compared to how he started out, it was really something. He probably underwent one of the most complete character arcs of any Power Ranger. Unfortunately, that was around the same time that he started living in Zordon’s basement or something.
You’re right about a red, white and blue ranger being a bit hard on the eyes. Also, he’d probably have to fly around in some sort of star-spangled eagle zord or something. As for morph calls: DinoThunder has proven that it doesn’t have to be clever in order to work. Freedom Strike sounds like a Megazord attack or something, though.
For fun, let’s run down some of the other possible candidates from the early days:
Zach Taylor: Charismatic, but maybe just a little too free spirited for politics
Jason Lee: A good field leader, but possibly too hotheaded sometimes.
Trini Kwan: This character would be good, but the actress who played her is dead. Don’t know how that would work out.
Bulk: Already has a running mate picked out in the form of Eugene Skulivitch, but he probably would run things into the ground. Also, I doubt his personality would appeal to voters.
He and the rest of his cohorts who gave him that testimony should have been prosecuted for war crimes.
So, which higher-ups in our military should be tried for war crimes surrounding all that prison abuse stuff in Iraq?
Personally, it should go all the way to the source: our Commander in Chief.
He’s the one that put our military there, and yet that smegging wáņkër won’t take any responsibility for what has happened.
PAD,
RE: The Election, Gay Marriage and Future of the Nation. You don’t usually respond to anything I have to say, but I really hope you respond to this, because I’m really concerned.
I can understand your being upset about the election, but to have such a pessimistic view of this nation and it’s future and to be so angry.
Well, it saddens me.
Why? Because i grew up in a family and a small town that discouraged people from having expectations. It’s always easy to find reasons you can’t do something than to actually believe in and achieve things.
In short, I have always been an optimist. Because you really do have to believe it before you can achieve it.
Because it’s easy to find fault with lawyers, politicians, pro athletes or any other group of people. It is harder to view them as people and see the good they do.
I grew up with a ridiculously conservative point of view. In college, I was eager to soak up knowledge and became a bit liberal. I am still the only person I know you was President of his College Republican and Founded an Environmental Group at the same time.
Every day, I feel I grow. Every day, I feel I learn. And what I have learned the most are two things:
1.) You Tend To View Groups Of People Differently When You Interact With People From That Group
To be frank, most of the people in my hometown think like Jim regarding gays. I do not. I do not feel marriage is about procreation. If you find somebody you love, great. Children are not a necessary outcome of marriage. Regarding sodomy, I agree with conservatives like Bill Kristol, who basically feel that if they are not hurting anyone then we don’t care what they do in their bedrooms.
A huge part of the reason I feel this way is that I have gotten to know many gays and lesbians. Interaction with others breaks down barriers. Of course, living in a city like Philadelphia for 7 years tends to help in that regard.
But, and here’s the big one, I think there is a big reason why there was SUCH a backlash against gay marriage this year. It’s because there was a sense that THE COURTS WERE SHOVING THIS DOWN PEOPLE”S THROATS whether they liked it or not.
Which brings up
2.) IT”S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A DIALOGUE ABOUT THESE THINGS
See, what really pìššëš people off is the idea that they are being told what’s best for them and if they don’t agree they are a bunch of uneducated, Hank Hill hick types.
That does not enlighten or inspire anyone.
But instead of allowing the country to have a debate on this and work through the democratic process, the Massachusetts Supreme Court and certain mayors basically told people who don’t believe in gay marriage to go screw themselves. They were going to do what they wanted. You may say they were protecting a minority group’s rights, but the message when you do that is, “We know what’s best for you, and since you won’t do the right thing on your own, we’re going to do it for you.” It really is an elitist, arrogant and condescending attitude, which you only reinforce by calling those who don’t agree with you on this or other issues idiots. How is that constructive?
Many people, when engaged in a true discussion, tend to modify their positions. I feel if you and others insist on being so strident and unyielding in what is basically an issue of semantics, there WILL continue to be a backlash and you will lose ground.
Even a lot of those who oppose gay marriage have no problem with civil unions, granting same-sex partner benefits, etc. Think about that. Even a growing people around here – you know, those you feel are a bunch of idiot hicks – are increasingly open to gay rights.
It is the word MARRIAGE, which is both a cultural and a RELIGIOUS institution that people are not going to change their views on overnight.
They may or may not eventually. If they do, and eventually, as you say, we look back on this the way we look at views on interracial marriage as recently as 40 years ago and say, “Boy, what were we thinking.”
But that won’t happen if people see gays as the “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re in your face crowd” instead of the “Will and Grace” crowd.
It won’t happen if the courts decide things and make a true national dialogue on the issue irrelevant.
It won’t happen if creative, passionate people like yourself continue to see those who hold an opposing viewpoints as “bigots” or “idiots”.
As a great man once said, “True victory can only be achieved when you convince your opponent how wrong he was to oppose you in the first place.”
Martin Luther King, Jr. and others have done this, even if the fruits of their labors did not fully blossom until years after their seeds of hope were planted.
Think about it.
I had a lot more to say, but that’s enough for now.
Craig said “So, which higher-ups in our military should be tried for war crimes surrounding all that prison abuse stuff in Iraq?“
You know what? You’ll try and find anythin whatsoever you can find and try to peg it on Bush. Get over it already. He’s not responsible for what happened there. It’s the commander on the ground who couldn’t keep his troops in line. You obviously know nothing about the military.
I wouldn’t doubt it if you and Peter had a dart board with Bush’s picture on it that you use every day to make you feel better.
Eric: Wow, talking about going out of your way to miss a point. So the Gov’t gives breaks to married couples to make them happy?? C’mon, the Gov’t makes an investment via breaks to married couples for the possibility to produce more taxpayers down the road.
Luigi Novi: The government should not be in the business of investing in anything. It should stick to its designated purpose. It should not be trying to make
Luigi Novi: The government should not be in the business of investing in anything. It should stick to its designated purpose. It should not be trying to make
Luigi, you said “Funny how telling the truth to Congress about what you witnessed is treason or a war crime, but what happened in Abu Gharib wasn
Eric: Well where does the Gov’t get money to run? Why do they build parks, stadiums, make cities safe?
Luigi Novi: It gets money from taxpayers. What does this have to do with anything? If the government doesn
Again, I tell you to read his speech to Congress and tell me which part of it wasn’t lies? Our POW’s were tortured by his statements for years. That to me means he was a traitor.
He also met with the Communist regime before meeting with Congress and gave Congress their promise to release POW’s after America pulled out of Vietnam.
Hmmm, that doesn’t sound like treason does it? Yeah, let’s go and have a secret meeting with the enemy and then accuse our troops of things that he couldn’t prove. Yeah, that’s a great idea. I’m glad you agree with him.
I think Jay Leno said it best when he said Kerry conferred with France, Germany, and Russia before deciding to concede the election. It was really funny and untrue, but you know what, it made a lot of sense based on past performance of Kerry.
I wonder which enemy Kerry would have conferred with and promised to pull out of Iraq if their concessions were met. Thank goodness, we don’t have to find out.
Now, Kerry can go back to Congress and ‘report for duty’ for a change.
Jerome,
After days now of reading people’s reactions to the election it is obvious that there are those who would rather have terrible things happen in the next four years just so they can have the dubious comfort of having been proven right–or perhaps, more importantly, having the other guy proven wrong. I’m reminded of a cartoon by that old right winger Feiffer where a character says something tot he effect of “I don’t mind being wrong. I mind that the other guy was right.”
Amateur psychoanalysis doesn’t interest me much so I have no idea how people get this way but given the fact that one will see about as many defeats as victories in one’s life, it seems to me to be a guarantee of a great deal of unhappiness.
As regards the accusation of “treason” tossed out so casually above:
One of the definitions of “treason” is “providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war”.
War was never, in fact, declared in Vietnam.
Merely being in a state of armed hostility doesn’t qualify. If it did, Hollywood would have to be arrested en masse today.
(I’m not even going to touch the [rather silly] assertion that the words of one retired lesser officer could have somehow prolonged or worsened the conflict, especially in the pre-CNN era…)
Novafan: Again, I tell you to read his speech to Congress and tell me which part of it wasn’t lies?
Luigi Novi: And again, I tell you to provide examples, because it is you who are making the accusation, and therefore it is you who has the burden of proving it. Why do you refuse to provide examples? I don
Sorry, my response to the second quote above should read, “you instead blame the guy who spoke out about abuses on the part of his country’s military.
Bill Mulligan: After days now of reading people’s reactions to the election it is obvious that there are those who would rather have terrible things happen in the next four years just so they can have the dubious comfort of having been proven right–or perhaps, more importantly, having the other guy proven wrong.
Luigi Novi: No one has said that.
I wasn’t talking about here (though “God curse Amaerica!” comes close). Lurk around Democratunderground and you’ll see plenty of what I’m talking about. like this posting; “I really don’t care what happens anymore. From here on out, we get exactly what we deserve whether it’s a fiscal depression,increased poverty, return to witchhunts, terror attacks, whatever. I don’t blame the rest of the world for hating us. I hate us too.”
Even at a more sane site like Salon.com you might run across the following; “But like many liberals I’m betting on the Armageddon theory of politics. Bush and the GOP majorities in the House and Senate will make things so bad in the next four years that the country will never elect a Republican ever again. So here’s hoping things get much, much worse!”
Note that I never said that this was the opinion of MOST or even MANY liberals. Just “there are those”. Pretty hard to deny. You could argue that they are a tiny minority within a minority and I’d tend to agree, though if sane democrats don’t speak up soon they will begin to be perceived as the voice of the party.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I just want to make it clear that, should I ever decide to move overseas, it won’t be just because of Bush.
It will also be because of the 58 million, and the comments of those like Novafan, as well.
This country is just reveling in ignorance right now.
Bill Mulligan wrote…
You could argue that they are a tiny minority within a minority and I’d tend to agree, though if sane democrats don’t speak up soon they will begin to be perceived as the voice of the party.
Understandable. By the same token, it’s easy to start thinking of Republicans as the hate-spewing jáçkáššëš so commonly found on public radio.
Kooks are the minority on both sides, but they also tend to be the loudest.
To address the “we deserve it” comments, I could see that applying to any economic or political consequences of the election. After all, the majority of the population endorsed these policies. However, while the Administration’s policies could well lead to another terrorist attack (or not), it would be very unfair to say that any victims of such an attack “deserved it.”
Craig said, “I just want to make it clear that, should I ever decide to move overseas, it won’t be just because of Bush. It will also be because of the 58 million, and the comments of those like Novafan, as well.This country is just reveling in ignorance right now.“
Wow, I must be pretty important. I’m actually causing someone to want to move out of the country. Thanks for hanging that one on me partner. You might as well ask me to come and help you pack your bags while you’re at it.
Ok, so maybe treason isn’t a word liked by you. How about Kerry betrayed his country by going and talking to the enemy and then giving Congress the enemies requirements in order for them to return POWs. Does that sound better?
Ok, you asked for some evidence that Kerry lied Luigi, here it is (taken from factcheck.org ~ maybe you’ll say it’s not a lie, would you agree to an exageration especially considering that some of the people were discredited who fed him the information):
“And earlier this year, Kerry was again pressed on his 1971 antiwar views, and responded to some of the same points now being raised anew in the Swift Boat Veterans ad. He said his 1971 words were “honest” but “a little bit over the top.”
Q: You committed atrocities?
Kerry (Meet the Press Apr. 18, 2004:) Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That’s a big question for me. You know, I thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word. I think it’s an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.
Q:You used the word “war criminals.”
Kerry: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don’t like it when I hear it today. I don’t like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn’t talking about the soldiers and the soldiers’ blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier–I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them. But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top. And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled that, so I’m not going to walk away from that. But I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.
Q: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony…
Kerry: Actually, a lot of them have been documented.
Q: So you stand by that?
Kerry: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that’s not where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you’re angry about something and you’re young, you know, you’re perfectly capable of not–I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I’d have framed some of that differently. Needless to say, I’m proud that I stood up. I don’t want anybody to think twice about it. I’m proud that I took the position that I took to oppose it. I think we saved lives, and I’m proud that I stood up at a time when it was important to stand up, but I’m not going to quibble, you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more artfully at times.”
The following research was conducted by another Blogger Luigi (since he was a member of the Armed forces when he met with the enemy, he should have been prosecuted ~ so the question should be why wasn’t he):
“COMPLETE TESTIMONY OF LT. JOHN KERRY TO SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE 1 of 40 From the Congressional Record (92nd Congress, 1st Session) for Thursday, April 22, 1971, pages 179-210.
Mr. KERRY. My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don t mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh s points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
Here is where the UCMJ falls into place, there is no denying that at the time Kerry went to Paris he was still a member of the Armed forces.
Kerry discharge
Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 104; part 904
904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who–
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”
Luigi said, “Luigi Novi: Why do you keep bringing up our POWs being tortured for his testimony? What does that have to do with a lie? Some moral armpit of a society tortures its POW
Oh, btw, I stumbled upon this today (they wanted to stop the war at any cost huh?):
“November 7, 1971 — John Kerry tells the Sunday Oklahoman that the political power structure within the United States can and must change if the nation is to avoid violent efforts to seize power, saying, “If it (the government) doesn’t change we are asking for trouble. If it is not done, those who are talking about seizing it will have every right to go after it.” [see page 251 of Section 10 of the VVAW FBI files] November 12 – 15, 1971 — the VVAW leadership meets in Kansas City. Fearing surveillance by authorities, the group relocates the meeting to another building. They debate, then vote down a plan to assassinate several pro-war U.S. Senators. Despite John Kerry’s claim to have left the VVAW before this event, several witnesses, meeting minutes and FBI records eventually place Kerry at the Kansas City meeting.
“
Kerry even said himself that he committed war crimes. This doesn’t bother you at all?
“MR. KERRY: Thank you. Yes, we did participate in war crimes in Coastal Division 11 because as I said earlier, we took part in free fire zones, harassment, interdiction fire, and search-and-destroy missions. The concept of operations, I gather, changed somewhat from the time when I was there and the time when you were there later on. And I believe that we moved into operations called Silver Mace II and some others in which we were not quite involved in as”
Wow, I must be pretty important. I’m actually causing someone to want to move out of the country. Thanks for hanging that one on me partner. You might as well ask me to come and help you pack your bags while you’re at it.
No. Thankfully, you’re a nobody.
Instead of helping me move, you can dig your own grave, because that’s what you’ll get with Bush.
But, hey, 58 million stupid nobodies can’t be wrong, right?
This country isn’t worth the bûllšhìŧ.
And when Bush’s agenda is to make “liberal” one of those dirty words you can’t say on television, why should anybody bother to put up with it?
Novafan: Wow, I must be pretty important. I’m actually causing someone to want to move out of the country.
Luigi Novi: Craig never said he was moving out of the country. Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. Try reading what he actually said.
Novafan: Ok, so maybe treason isn’t a word liked by you.
Luigi Novi: I didn
Luigi Novi: I think it
Since I’m not the prime military age, and have publicly criticized him, I doubt he’d want me. And that’s just fine with me.
Luigi, I can read very well. “Craig said, “I just want to make it clear that, should I ever decide to move overseas, it won’t be just because of Bush. It will also be because of the 58 million, and the comments of those like Novafan, as well.“
Luigi, you sound pretty intelligent. It’s sad you have to result to insults to get your point across. Luigi Novi: Craig never said he was moving out of the country. Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. Try reading what he actually said.
He said if he moved, he would blame it on the 58 million and me, not just Bush. I never said he was moving, I said he was trying to hang it on me. Maybe reading comprehension isn’t your strong point either.
Oh, btw. Active duty isn’t over after 4 years. You’re still obligated to 8 years of total service, 4 of those years being inactive reserve. And, you are still bound by the UCMJ during those 4 years. If you don’t believe me, look it up.