McCain: Hanoi Hilton Guards Taunted POWs With Kerry's Testimony

[Grantref]

Originally posted by Pyrosama
I agree.



You could always vote for Ralph Nader. He's announced that he'll be running as an independent. I hear most democrats are pissed at him for pulling some votes away from the democratic nominee. Oh well...such is politics.

The problem with voting for an independent instead of a 3rd party candidate (as Ralph was in 2000 with the Greens -- and the Greens are a whole other issue I intend to pick apart one of these days) is that independents are purely vanity candidates. 3rd party candidates are at least promoting their party, making it known that there are other organizations out there. And if they manage to get 5% of the vote they'll get more funds next go-round which can be used to build grass-roots support and get candidates elected in local positions which is the real way to build support and eventually maybe offer a real alternative.

The two party system we're in is very detrimental, in my opinion. I suspect that a system with more parties where the leader needs to build a coalition would be better. However, lots of countries have that too and I don't know for certain that they do better than we do.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Jabriol
Well if my vote mattered I know who I'd vote for. I can't imagine any way that Kerry could be worse than 4 more years of Shrub. Note the damning with faint praise.

Well I can imagine a few ways.

1) Raising taxes

2) Being less aggressive in fighting terrorism.

Remember, Kerry is on record saying that terrorism is a "law enforcement action" and not a "war."

Honestly, there is nothing worse than raising taxes. Stealing from the people is unacceptable.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Jabriol

The two party system we're in is very detrimental, in my opinion. I suspect that a system with more parties where the leader needs to build a coalition would be better. However, lots of countries have that too and I don't know for certain that they do better than we do.

I agree.

The two party system also makes it a lot easier for groups like the pharmaceutical industry to buy 100% of the politicians.

If you had to buy 3, 4, or even 5 parties it would be a lot harder.

[Lokrian]

Our system HAS more than two parties, it's just that all of you seem convinced your extreme left of extreme right wing splinter groups somehow represent a broad set of disenfranchised voters. They do not. People want a moderate but effective government regulation of the economy, AND effective defense of our national interests abroad. Unfortunately, no one has made a new party that unites those two moderate goals, and the two major parties have split those two issues between themselves.

I doubt that a large third party will be necessary. Sooner or later the political liability of the extreme groups is going to force one or both of our major parties to abandon its "base" and make a mad dash for that rich and fertile middle ground that they always try to get back to after they are done whipping up their "base" in primary season.

[Grantref]

Originally posted by Lokrian
What moral relativism has to do with it is that it was never any real mystery which of the two dominant world governments during the cold war was more humane, but it took the lesson of the hostage crisis and seeing a gentle heart like Carter getting older by the day, completely unable to deal with the situation, to get Americans back in the mode to vote for someone who would take the ongoing strategy of resistance against the Soviet Union to the next level

The next level being the spending race, of course.

Your paragraph makes sense except for the first clause. "What moral relativism has to do with it is that..." What does moral relativism have to do with the rest of what you're saying here? If you start your sentence "It was never any real mystery" and continue from there what you're saying is fairly accurate. But it's a real mystery how it relates to moral relativism.

[Aristotle]

Some interesting light is being shed on John Kerry's organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW).

http://www.wintersoldier.com

and

John Kerry's Radical Past


One of the more interesting documents at wintersoldier.com is the minutes of a VVAW executive meeting where members decided to take down American flags from all VVAW offices.

The VVAW was more about anti-Americanism than being anti-Viet Nam War.

On January 31, 1971, members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) met in a Detroit hotel to document war crimes that they had participated in or witnessed during their combat tours in Vietnam. During the next three days, more than 100 Vietnam veterans and 16 civilians gave anguished, emotional testimony describing hundreds of atrocities against innocent civilians in South Vietnam, including rape, arson, torture, murder, and the shelling or napalming of entire villages. The witnesses stated that these acts were being committed casually and routinely, under orders, as a matter of policy.

This is called the Winter Soldier Investigation. At this 3 day conference, "one of the most shocking quotes comes from Kerry himself, claiming that he had committed war crimes in Vietnam, then suggested he was merely following orders. "

A tale that does not get enough coverage in the media:

It appears that Kerry was also something of an impostor. During a massive rally in front of the U.S. Capitol, a number of veterans threw their medals over a high-wire fence. One was Kerry. Or at least so it appeared.

The section “Busted by the historians” contains an excerpt from Stolen Valor by B. G. Burkett, Glenna Whitley. The key quote: “But years later, after his election to the Senate, Kerry’s medals turned up on the wall of his Capitol Hill office. When a reporter noticed them, Kerry admitted that the medals he had thrown that day were not his.”

[Grantref]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Well I can imagine a few ways.

1) Raising taxes

2) Being less aggressive in fighting terrorism.

Remember, Kerry is on record saying that terrorism is a "law enforcement action" and not a "war."

Honestly, there is nothing worse than raising taxes. Stealing from the people is unacceptable.

As opposed to running up a tremendous deficit that the people will have to pay down with interest? Or the government will have to repudiate? Which is worse?

Calling taxes 'stealing' is empty rhetoric unless you argue that the government has no right to collect taxes at all. If you concede that our elected representatives have the right to tax us, then you can only argue about what level of taxation is most effective. This doesn't mean that I don't agree with you that taxes are too high. But calling it stealing is erroneous, particularly if you only consider *raising* taxes to be stealing.

I don't think Kerry would be likely to raise taxes, especially considering he'll most likely still have to contend with a republican congress.

As for being less agressive in fighting terrorism, he may end up inheriting an untenable situation from Bush: a reorganized, decentralized Al-Qeada, combined with a morass in Iraq that requires continual presence of the best and brightest of western experts in the middle east, drawing them away from the *actual* war on terrorism.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Jabriol
As opposed to running up a tremendous deficit that the people will have to pay down with interest? Or the government will have to repudiate? Which is worse?

What is worse? That is an easy one. Raising taxes.

Believe me, I hate, hate, hate the way Bush is over spending. It pisses me off. Fortunately, since I did not vote for him I don't share the blame.

But raising taxes is the absolute worst thing because Americans already pay way too much in taxes. Raising taxes is absolutely horrendous for the economy in addition to being exceptionally unfair.

We need to cut spending, not raise taxes.

Originally posted by Jabriol
I don't think Kerry would be likely to raise taxes

Follow the news much? He says he will *start* by repealling the tax cuts. That means taxes get raised.

Originally posted by Jabriol
As for being less agressive in fighting terrorism, he may end up inheriting an untenable situation from Bush: a reorganized, decentralized Al-Qeada, combined with a morass in Iraq that requires continual presence of the best and brightest of western experts in the middle east, drawing them away from the *actual* war on terrorism.

There is nobody to blame for terrorism other than the terrorists themselves.

I'm sick of people blaming Clinton- even though new reports come out every few weeks about opportunities he ignored to capture critical Al Qeada terrorists (including Bin laden). Yes it was a bad decision on Clinton's part to slash the CIA, to cut back on the number of operatives, and to make the executive order that outlawed paying informants that MIGHT also be felons (good lord, how many traitorous informants AREN'T felons). But regardless of that bad decision, it is still the terrorists who are to blame.

I am sick of people blaming Bush (either one)- both of them worked hard to catch terrorists and shut down terrorist networks.

I do, however, blame both Bushes for being far too cozy with the Saudis who are a major component to the evil force of radical islam.

The people to blame here are the terrorists and the radical islamicists. Period.

The fact that Kerry considers terrorism a "law enforcement" issue rather than a "war" absolutely horrifies me.

The fact that he actually CARES what our non-allies in Europe think makes me sick.

As Charles De Gaulle said, there are no allies there are only interests. Europe (with the exception of Great Britain) doesn't give a damn about the US any more. We need to stop giving a rip what they think because they do not have our interests in mind.

Our allies in the next century will come from Great Britain, Australia, and Asia.

Mainland Europe no longer fears Russia/USSR and has gone back to their jealous hatred of the USA.

It was a nice run, but they simply don't care about us any more. So let 'em rot and stop caring what they think.

[Solmyr]

Originally posted by Jabriol
The two party system we're in is very detrimental, in my opinion. I suspect that a system with more parties where the leader needs to build a coalition would be better. However, lots of countries have that too and I don't know for certain that they do better than we do.

The problem with coalition governments (which most European countries have) is that the parties in them often have to bargain away too many of their principles in order to be included, which means that they won't be able to do what they promised in the elections.

[Graeblyn]

Originally posted by Solmyr
The problem with coalition governments (which most European countries have) is that the parties in them often have to bargain away too many of their principles in order to be included, which means that they won't be able to do what they promised in the elections.

The parties aren't able to do what they promise during elections in the two-party system we have here in the U.S. either, (even when one party controls all three branches of government and both Houses of Congress, as is the case now) so I don't agree that this a "problem with coalition governments" but is rather a problem associated with any government where decisions are made via a political process. That is to say, the only time a party could fulfil its campaign promises is if it put into office an honest dictator.