A question for Kerry supporters

[rarnom]

He's a democrat. Does that surprise you? Multipak reminds me a lot of Moore. He doesn't "lie" in his arguements, he just tries to mislead the readers into thinking something else is the real truth.

I think it is a shame that as a Democrat he shows such poor judgement when he sets up his arguments. I would really like to have an intelligent debate, but he is grasping for anything now and it is really easy for me to show the error of his arguments against me.

Also funny to me was something I noticed in the 'over there' thread: I can guess one reason why he is so mad at Bush. It is probably because he only saved "50 cents" with the tax cuts. Unfortunately it doesn't help his argument when I praise Bush because I am a middle class person who actually got a LOT of money back from the tax cuts and I got all the stuff Bush promised me. Maybe that is why he was so eager to jump in out of nowhere and call me 'narrow-minded' because I enjoyed getting more of my money back. :p

[kakomu]

as it turns out, Bin Laden doesn't concern Bush.

Click on the link titled: "George Bush: Still Misleading America"
http://www.moveonpac.org/

[multipak]

I don't think he was speaking against the POWs for their point of view.

Correct.

To say that one has a valid view point but not the other is hypocritical.

Exactly my point.

[multipak]

Looks like he's still trying to get a reply from me still.

What are you talking about? I don?t care whether you reply to my posts or not. There are a plenty of other people who read. If you want your opponents to take your posts more seriously, you need to put up better ideas. I?ll give you some examples.

-I don't want a radical freak like Kerry in the White House.
-Bastard supports the war when it makes him look good
-Kerry is a POS. Most of his supporters know it.
-The man has absolutely no morals whatsoever
-Anyone else think Kerry was a retard for his comment in the debates
-What an ass.
-Kerry is full of shit. He's a LIAR and he knows it.
-I'd call you a traitor to our country, same as I call Kerry a traitor.
-What a whacko.
-he intentionally lies to deceive stupid people

You called Kerry ?radical freak,? ?bastard,? ?piece of shit,? ?retard,? ?ass,? ?full of shit,? ?traitor,? and ?whacko? among other things. I hate Bush as a politician, and the worst thing I would call him is something like ?right wing extremist.? It?s almost as if you have a personal grudge against Kerry. Read your own words. Do they sound rational ?

If you want rational responses, you have to place rational arguments supported by facts. Don?t make wild-guess claims like ?Reagan is liked by everybody including Democrats? or ?Lieberman can win this election easily? You can?t back those up.

[multipak]

It is probably because he only saved "50 cents" Unfortunately it doesn't help his argument when I praise Bush because I am a middle class person who actually got a LOT of money back from the tax cuts and I got all the stuff Bush promised me. Maybe that is why he was so eager to jump in out of nowhere and call me 'narrow-minded' because I enjoyed getting more of my money back.

haha rarnom. To borrow your words, you are doing a very good job twisting my words. That 50cents is from special tax cuts on CAPITAL GAINS and DIVIDENDS, which I specified clearly. Who is grasping for anything? Why don?t you tell us how much you saved from that cut? Let me guess. I think I know??. As for your petty claim (your attempt to put me down) about who saved more from overall tax cut, let me just say you teach grade school and I teach college, and let's guess whose cut will be greater.

O.k., you are really eager to call me a hypocrite,

I didn?t have to do anything. You proved it yourself.

but you missed the point of my post. I am not calling Kerry anything, I was pointing out that it doesn't matter what I think about Kerry, but there are people who are very entitled to think he is a hypocrite.

That is so typical of your way of denial. If I quote another?s words against Bush, I will admit that it is obviously my attempt to discredit Bush. You put up an article against Kerry, and you say it?s for academic purpose. Yes, sure. Whatever.

I think that any POW who was in Vietnam and suffered that much can call Kerry a traitor. I am in no position to call Kerry a traitor. I think that what he did was weak.

I think NOT. They have no right to call anybody traitor without undeniable evidence. That?s not how our court of law works. You don?t accuse anyone without proof. We call that libel. If you allow people to make accusations without definite evidence, how is US better than any of other totalitarian regime?

What do we know about these POW? They consented to appear in right wing propaganda film to attack Kerry. Are they partisan? Very likely. Are they credible? Not in the least.

you were utterly confusing, trying to show that I said I was 'non-partisian

You want to go to that topic again? I thought I said enough on that, so I didn?t bother to reply further. You want it, you got it.

What the difference seems to be is that you are "anyone but Bush", and I am "anyone but Kerry"

When I say 'anyone but Kerry' it doesn't mean I am a wildly open minded 'non-partisian', it just means that I am voting for Bush.

The definition of ?anyone but Kerry? voter means you would be willing to vote for anyone other than Kerry. Somehow, you are attempting to change the definition of it to ?Bush voter? to suit your needs. You twisted not only words, but definition itself.

If it continues to irk you, then um, go smoke or something?
You need to lighten up man. I can call Michael Moore a hypocrite all I want.

Haha. Sounds like someone?s getting upset. You can say whatever you want. But when you are asked questions about it, you go roundabout way to deny it. I guess that?s fine. That?s the ultimate politics in a nutshell.

[Zagatto]

And no, Michael Moore intentionally tried to lead his viewers to believe something that isn't true. The POW's are stating what they EXPERIENCED as prisoners of war WHILE Kerry was making these accusations. These men are speaking from what they experienced, Moore is talking out of his ass. I see a huge difference. Now, I havn't seen ferenhype yet, but from what i've read i'll agree it too is at least close to as biased as Moores film. I will not agree these POWs are speaking out of bias other than what they experienced. Out of any people in the U.S. that have a right to speak up about the things Kerry has done, these men have the right.

What proof do you have that Michael Moore is trying to lead his viewers to an untruth? He is reporting what he believes to be true based on the extensive research he has done.

On the other hand, POWs experienced a very small and very negative part of war. I'm sure that would colour any judgments they may make as well.

So on one hand you have someone that has never been over seas but spends most of his time researching politicians, reviewing laws, and looking at the world around him while on the other had you have a group of people who have experienced the hardships of war on a ground level but haven't demonstrated any form of education regarding world politics beyond that. Which is more valuable, education and research or an experience based on the worst that war has to offer? I'm sure that both will colour a persons judgement but I tend to find an opinion formed from asking questions of the world around you to be more beneficial than one built solely on experience.

[Schultz]

The only thing i gotta say about that Zagatto is there is a fine line between that.. Because a person can turn his research into what he wants it to be. So if he wants it to be this way. Then everything he can find and everything he researches he can manipulate into what he wants. So sometimes you really can't find the truth in that either. But also a person's experiance is sound and you can't change that but sometimes you get to much emotion involved and that clouds what people say because of the hardships that they have faced.. So my only suggestion would be to research it on your own and find your own conclusion. its just like religion in an aspect everyone has turned what has happened into how they wanted it to mean.. So really there is no one church that is right. but there is also almost no one church that is completely wrong.. But i will stop on that as this isn't a Religious debate..

[Zagatto]

Schultz, I agree with you entirely.
This is why I like researching my facts from reputable sources and trying to find both sides of a story before I make my conclusions.

[rarnom]

haha rarnom. To borrow your words, you are doing a very good job twisting my words. That 50cents is from special tax cuts on CAPITAL GAINS and DIVIDENDS,

Hey cool! I am glad to admit I misread what you posted. I read that thread quickly and I just saw you complaining about how you saved only '50 cents', so if Bush saved you more money then that is awesome!!!

let me just say you teach grade school and I teach college, and let's guess whose cut will be greater.

So, where do you teach college? What do you teach? Are you a professor or something?

I think NOT. They have no right to call anybody traitor without undeniable evidence. That’s not how our court of law works. You don’t accuse anyone without proof. We call that libel. If you allow people to make accusations without definite evidence, how is US better than any of other totalitarian regime?

What do we know about these POW? They consented to appear in right wing propaganda film to attack Kerry. Are they partisan? Very likely. Are they credible? Not in the least.

Well, I was impressed by their story. I really have no personal opinion about Kerry being a 'traitor'. For me as a voter, whether or not he was a traitor was irrelevant. I care more about his senate record and what he says during the election.

The definition of “anyone but Kerry” voter means you would be willing to vote for anyone other than Kerry. Somehow, you are attempting to change the definition of it to “Bush voter” to suit your needs. You twisted not only words, but definition itself.

I guess you kind of got me in your mind. But, you could have done so with a much better example. So, according to mr. multipak I did say once something that was interpreted by him as being 'non-partisian'. What does that mean now? I wonder if anyone thinks that in the context of all of my comments that I am a 'non-partisian' person. If I hadn't been talking all about how much I like Bush and said 'anyone but Kerry', then you would have a stronger case. But given everything I have said, a comment like 'anyone but Kerry' doesn't instantly make me claim to be 'non-partisian'.

That is so typical of your way of denial. If I quote another’s words against Bush, I will admit that it is obviously my attempt to discredit Bush. You put up an article against Kerry, and you say it’s for academic purpose. Yes, sure. Whatever.

Well, if you read the way this thread started I wanted to know how a Kerry supporter felt about the national security promise he made on TV. It wasn't MY words. I am putting Kerry's words out there and I am asking Kerry supporters to comment.

I don't remember, have you already said what you think about Kerry making the promise he did on the Today show?
Regardless of if you have or haven't told us already, could you please enlighten all of us as to your feelings regarding Kerry's claims about national security? (You can check the first page of this thread for quotes and links to the transcript of the interview if you want).

Please don't dodge this question like you dodged my question about if you think Moore's film is 100% accurate.

[rarnom]

and in regards to this:

You need to lighten up man. I can call Michael Moore a hypocrite all I want.

and this:

Haha. Sounds like someone’s getting upset. You can say whatever you want. But when you are asked questions about it, you go roundabout way to deny it. I guess that’s fine. That’s the ultimate politics in a nutshell.

I am not upset with you. I rather enjoy having this debate.

Now I am upset with Michael Moore and I have plenty of personal reason to be upset. When he came to my town in 2002 riding on the coattails of Borders books with his 'Stupid White Men' tour, it was a slap in the face to those of us who worked at the locally owned bookstores. I was even working at a new age/esoteric bookstore, just the kind of place Moore should have visited to do a signing or something. I do think it was cool of him to speak for free and that wasn't my issue, but it was just so much against everything he had ever written (I did read his books when I worked at the bookstore, because they were entertaining) to come with all the Borders ads and advertisement. That event was what really soured me to Moore and I have thought very little of him ever since.

[multipak]

Please don't dodge this question like you dodged my question about if you think Moore's film is 100% accurate.

I didn?t dodge any question. I am going to reply only to questions that I see as needed to be answered. What about Moore?s film? I quoted your comment about Moore and Moore?s film to prove that you were condemning propaganda stuff. I made no judgement on film?s merit whatsoever. At any rate, I previously classified Moore in same category as Hannity and O?Reilly. That should answer your question.

Well, if you read the way this thread started I wanted to know how a Kerry supporter felt about the national security promise he made on TV. It wasn't MY words. I am putting Kerry's words out there and I am asking Kerry supporters to comment.

Surely, you wouldn?t claim that you picked out such interesting stories as traitor accusation, and they happen to be against Kerry, would you? It doesn?t change the fact that your underline motive was to discredit Kerry.

could you please enlighten all of us as to your feelings regarding Kerry's claims about national security?

I stated that I am ?anyone but Bush? voter. What Kerry does or doesn?t is irrelevant to many people. It doesn?t matter how much Bush supporters tried to bash Kerry, it doesn?t change the fact that he is an unknown commodity and deserve a chance. With Bush, we got 4 more years of the same old hatred and a divided country. I don?t remember any time in recent history that the country was so sharply divided by hatred. That has nothing to do with Kerry. It?s one of the Bush?s accomplishments. Not any less significant is the worst environmental policy in the US history. We are breathing more mercury in the air than we did 4 years ago. When people get sick, that?s something we can?t easily quantify.

Usually, when you have a sitting president running for re-election, the election is about the incumbent. Instead of focusing on Bush?s accomplishment, Bush supporters are concentrating on bashing the challenger in a highly unusual move in re-election year. That tells something, don?t you think? Bush is rather skimpy on his undisputable accomplishments.

I wonder if anyone thinks that in the context of all of my comments that I am a 'non-partisian' person. //??.//But given everything I have said, a comment like 'anyone but Kerry' doesn't instantly make me claim to be 'non-partisian'.

I claimed I was anyone but Bush voter. You surely can be anyone but Kerry voter. If you are anyone but someone voter, it shows your willingness to vote for other party, that is by definition, ?non-partisan.?

Hay Cool!//???//if Bush saved you more money then that is awesome!!!

Eh??. I rather have that money used to pay for the deficit. Maybe even shore up social security. How can you say it?s cool when it?s borrowed money we are getting? There is no other way to look at it. You will be paying for it in the future. Worse yet, your kids could be paying for it.

[rarnom]

Fair enough. If you want to call me 'non-partisian' then I'll accept that. I personally don't think I am very 'non-partisian'. I obviously misspoke when I said 'anyone but Kerry' in your opinion. I am a Bush supporter and I don't trust Kerry.

I was attempting to discredit Kerry because Kerry said something outrageous. He made a completely irresponsible claim. I wanted to know how someone could support a candidate who made claims like that. Yes. I freely admit I am trying to point out something negative about Kerry. But, it was all based on Kerry's words. Plenty of people read what he said and have decided for themselves.

I would like to comment on what you said here:

What Kerry does or doesn’t is irrelevant to many people.

This kind of mentality is what really scares me. People have reasons for hating Bush and I accept that. There are issues that I disagree with the president on, but they are by no means 'irrelevant'. To give another candidate a free ride is a double standard. Every voter should be concerned with the candidate they vote for. I will again give you credit for your feelings that Kerry should be 'given a chance', I think that is a good reason to vote for someone, but to act like Kerry can do or say anything and still be o.k. is troubling to me at least.

The country is divided, but I feel that the Democrats have a lot to own up for as well. This hatred is not ALL Bush's fault.

The taxes comment was a joke. I know you aren't supportive of his cuts.

I still am really curious to find out more about you being a teacher at a college...
What do you teach?
What college do you teach at?
In what capacity do you teach?

[Cidien]

The Constitution of the United States, Article 3, Section 3.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

"The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

Theodore Roosevelt famously stated, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

So, by that definition, "giving aid and comfort," John Kerry committed treason on national TV on July 22, 1971, when he asked Pres. Nixon to accept Le Duc Tho's 7-point plan for withdrawal from Vietnam, which Mme. Nguyen Binh had relayed to Mr. Kerry in Paris three weeks earlier.

[Ryo of Inferno]

Ryo of Inferno, I realize that multipak's statements may have been offensive but he was smart enough to keep the whole thing as observations and not make any overt claims.

On the other hand, you called him a buttmunch outright.
Three day ban.

So thats what happened. I tought I was kicked off the forum altogether. I'm sorry if the

word I used was offensive to some but i was brought to believe that this word is basically

the same as jerk. I'm sorry for using that word and for this one if iit offends anyone

which i hope it doesn't. I would first like to apoligize to you Zagatto, then to Multipak and

lastly to the rest of the forum. as for calling him that outright i only said if he didn't

apologize then he would be that. Again i apologize to all of you and am sorry about the

whole situation. I will try to avoid this mistake in the future thank you very much.

Sincerly,

Ryo of Inferno

P.S. as a sign of my goodwill I will edit the word out in the post that I placed.

[Cidien]

See, Ryo can't be the same person. I'd never appologize for the post that got me banned. =P

Also, I told ya Ryo wouldn't know what was going on. Would be nice if there was some way to let them know if you are going to continue banning people.