You know, that's the worst assumption you can make, to say that something is common knowledge, and so it must be true. Nevermind that Kerry never called himself a war hero to begin with, he didn't really call "his fellow soldiers" war criminals. Here is the actual quote, since I'm assuming very few of us have actually read it to begin with:Warpstoner said:The starting line "I call myself a war hero...but i called my fellow soldiers war criminals"
We all know that's true, don't need to touch on that.
John Kerry said that the people who devised and ordered the inhumane acts that occurred sporadically throughout the Vietnam conflict are the war criminals. Nowhere does he implicate his fellow soldiers, however you look at it. Nowhere does he generalize that every veteran committed the war-time attrocities that he was ordered to, simply that they did happen.John Kerry said:There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
He did support further spending, though. Like I pointed out before, he proposed a version of the $87 billion budget himself, along with plans to pay for it. After his version was defeated, though, he didn't resign himself to signing a blank check with no real money behind it. If you want to blame somebody, you could just as easily blame the senators that voted against his bill. It certianly sounds like there were enough neigh votes to go around.Warpstoner said:"I voted for the war in Iraq...but i voted against the weapons to fight it."
Kerry voted yes on the authorizing use of military force against Iraq. He preferred diplomacy, but supported invading Iraq. I believe everyone even Bush himself preferred diplomacy, but do you really think that was an option? Kerry supported going into war, but didn't support more spending for the troops.
Pretty much. Kerry only professes to endorse the lower and middle-class tax cuts, and has generally voted accordingly.Warpstoner said:"I say i support most of the tax cuts...but i voted against all of them"
I'll let you have that one, because we all know he didn't vote against ALL of them, just 80%.
I can only assume you're going by the Center for Responsive Politics reports, which estimate $638,358 since 1989, and specify that he's taken more so-called "special interest" donations than any other senator in 15 years. Correct me if that's not your source. Since the CRP counts donations from any company employee under that company's name, (IE Joe Blow who works full time at Ameritech sends John Kerry $20, it gets recorded by the CRP as $20 from Ameritech, not Mr. Blow) it's hard to say where that money actually comes from. Typically, none of it comes out of some 'company vault' somewhere. Incidentally, $638,358 isn't too much more than Bush's top contribution count from employees of Morgan Stanley, weighing in at $551,625 for JUST THIS ELLECTION TERM. So no, $638,358 in 15 years is not a lot of money.Warpstoner said:" I say i stand up to special interests....but i never turn down their money."
John Kerry has taken more "special interests" money than any other senator in history!!! There isn't a half-truth/misconception there.
Eh, your business. I don't really know where these delusions like "liberals are liars and conservatives aren't" come from. Probably from the same people who coined the phrase "liberal media." I bet I can tell you how they vote, though. Straight ticket voters, liberal OR conservative, generally tend to be missinformed. They hear the things they want to hear, forget the things they don't like, and usually make up the rest. This isn't unique to liberals by any means, nor are there any real numbers behind it. People always assume that the "other side" has more liars, just because they never argue with their own- or worse, they define lies as something that contradicts a lie they've already heard from a party line cohort. Like the rest of the political propeganda we've been talking about: there's no particular truth or science to it at all.Warpstoner said:I don't like John Kerry, I don't really like the whole left wing of the hall either. They are generally filled with half-truths/lies. But i must appluad you Skytkicker, you are one of the very few that do their homework. I don't have a problem with other's opinions or people supporting the other canidate when they actually know what they are supporting. It's the people (both sides have them) that follow others, that don't think for themselves and try and do what is most popular. Maybe we could clear up a few more issues.
Due to time and the fact that i need to get up for work in a few hours i didn't touch on all the points.
When i posted above about the "me whole not caring much for the left wing" saying that they are generally liars; i meant to include that both sides are, not just liberals but conservatives too. Yes straight ticket voters, i brought that up a little in my other post but not to the extent of where i wanted; you finished that one off quite well though. Both sides have equal amounts of them, although from my position it seems theres more on the left then right but only due to the fact that i live in Washington and as you know its a very liberal state. No matter how easy the facts are laid out. No matter how clear the message is. There will always be people that twist the image into something it isn't. It goes for both sides. The hard part is getting to the point where you can understand and accept the truth. Like you said there's no truth or science to political propeganda; if there was, 90% of the population wouldn't get it.Shytkicker said:Eh, your business. I don't really know where these delusions like "liberals are liars and conservatives aren't" come from. Probably from the same people who coined the phrase "liberal media." I bet I can tell you how they vote, though. Straight ticket voters, liberal OR conservative, generally tend to be missinformed. They hear the things they want to hear, forget the things they don't like, and usually make up the rest. This isn't unique to liberals by any means, nor are there any real numbers behind it. People always assume that the "other side" has more liars, just because they never argue with their own- or worse, they define lies as something that contradicts a lie they've already heard from a party line cohort. Like the rest of the political propeganda we've been talking about: there's no particular truth or science to it at all.