What is with the Democratic tactic of attackng McCains military service?

Started by Shakyamunison3 pages

Originally posted by BackFire
Oh.

Yes clearly he's a coward. My mistake. Traitor too. Possible murderer as well.

Who cares? They're his medals, he did courageous shit to earn them, to call him a coward because of what he did with HIS property, completely ignoring the heroism that he had to earn them is again, retarded to the point of being laughable.

Still don't see how that makes him a coward. He openly threw away his medals because he didn't agree with the war. That took guts and it's a much more powerful visual than him simply 'returning them'.

He didn't throw away his medals. He did a political show. He hedged his bet. If he had tuned in his medals, then that would have shown some courage. As it is now, he can always get them back, because he still has them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Anyone who would throw away his medals in a public way, should leave the country. Throwing your medals away is a cowardly act.

So then this doesn't apply to Kerry, as now you say he didn't throw away his medals.

Cool.

Originally posted by BackFire
So then this doesn't apply to Kerry, as now you say he didn't throw away his medals.

Cool.

So you have no problem with someone doing a very offensive act out of protest, but really not doing it. That was the part that got me. The fact that he fooled everyone, including the people who agreed with him. I guess we just don't agree.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So you have no problem with someone doing a very offensive act out of protest, but really not doing it. That was the part that got me. The fact that he fooled everyone, including the people who agreed with him. I guess we just don't agree.
It was really just a sign. Do you know whether he also privately sent them back?

Originally posted by Schecter
shhhhh you're not supposed to point out the blatant hypocrisy or you'll be accused of seeking revenge.
Man they're pathetic. Infact, the main reason I like the Democrats is because Republicans are so damn aweful.

Originally posted by Schecter
yes remember, the price of protesting a war after your service has concluded is to have your record slandered and be called a coward/fraud.

so that shrapnel he took...never happened. *poof*

Kerry was right anyway. Who the **** ridicules someone for being right?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So you have no problem with someone doing a very offensive act out of protest, but really not doing it. That was the part that got me. The fact that he fooled everyone, including the people who agreed with him. I guess we just don't agree.

He was doing it because he didn't agree with the war. Why is it offensive? What do you care what he does with HIS medals?

I don't give a shit about what he did with his medals. It's petty.

I don't get you. You're offended by something he did, but then you say he didn't really do it. So you're offended by something that he didn't actually do. Makes no sense.

Originally posted by BackFire
He was doing it because he didn't agree with the war. Why is it offensive? What do you care what he does with HIS medals?

I don't give a shit about what he did with his medals. It's petty.

I don't get you. You're offended by something he did, but then you say he didn't really do it. So you're offended by something that he didn't actually do. Makes no sense.

You are taking what I said out of context. Standing alone, I don't care ether. But the people who are attacking McCain, maybe doing it because of the attacks on Karry. I think there was some legitimacy to the attacks on Karry, but not on McCain. This legitimacy is what I was talking about.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Infact, the main reason I like the Democrats is because Republicans are so damn aweful.

This is what gives me headaches.

Que sera? sera?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you have a medal? However, this is off topic. So, maybe we should move it to PM's.

I have service medals from when I was in Bosnia. If I want to throw them in a river to make a personal statement against the govt, how would that make me a coward?

You don't know what the hell you're talking about, civilian.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are taking what I said out of context. Standing alone, I don't care ether. But the people who are attacking McCain, maybe doing it because of the attacks on Karry. I think there was some legitimacy to the attacks on Karry, but not on McCain. This legitimacy is what I was talking about.

there was no legitimacy to labeling him a coward during wartime. opinions based on his conduct after his tour was up is another issue, but to slander his service record is blatantly wrong and i find you a despicable person for trying to condone just that. you are clearly a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are taking what I said out of context. Standing alone, I don't care ether. But the people who are attacking McCain, maybe doing it because of the attacks on Karry. I think there was some legitimacy to the attacks on Karry, but not on McCain. This legitimacy is what I was talking about.

There are no attacks on McCain's record, or his military service.

Simply saying "Military service alone doesn't mean someone is inherently qualified to be president on that basis alone" is not an attack. Saying it is is not understanding the meaning of the word.

The legitimacy of the attacks on Kerry are fine, if the attacks were just "he threw away his medals, and we don't like that". Saying that he's a traitor and a coward because of that is foolish and not a valid attack because it's based on slander and falsehood.

I took nothing of yours out of context. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the people who are attacking McCain, maybe doing it because of the attacks on Karry.

Not to jump on the bandwagon, but you sure don't sound confident on this topic. You can't just match A to H because it feels right. This happens with anyone in the military. They questioned Bush.

Shrug, who cares? It's going to be seen as one way by each side. That's it. If you are not a hardball nut for one side, you will likely have a chance to catch utter BS.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are taking what I said out of context. Standing alone, I don't care ether. But the people who are attacking McCain, maybe doing it because of the attacks on Karry. I think there was some legitimacy to the attacks on Karry, but not on McCain. This legitimacy is what I was talking about.

Yet no one attacked McCain.

Very simple, do you think serving in the military means someone would be a 'good president'. Yes or No?

Originally posted by BackFire
There are no attacks on McCain's record, or his military service.

why is it that a lie repeated a few times becomes the truth, but the truth repeated ad nauseam remains ignored?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I have service medals from when I was in Bosnia. If I want to throw them in a river to make a personal statement against the govt, how would that make me a coward?

You don't know what the hell you're talking about, civilian.

I already explained that. You are not in a position to take advantage of the situation.

Originally posted by Schecter
there was no legitimacy to labeling him a coward during wartime. opinions based on his conduct after his tour was up is another issue, but to slander his service record is blatantly wrong and i find you a despicable person for trying to condone just that. you are clearly a hypocrite.

We simply disagree.

Originally posted by BackFire
There are no attacks on McCain's record, or his military service.

You are really not that naive?

Originally posted by BackFire
Simply saying "Military service alone doesn't mean someone is inherently qualified to be president on that basis alone" is not an attack. Saying it is is not understanding the meaning of the word.

And you think it wasn’t planed to look that way?

Originally posted by BackFire
The legitimacy of the attacks on Kerry are fine, if the attacks were just "he threw away his medals, and we don't like that". Saying that he's a traitor and a coward because of that is foolish and not a valid attack because it's based on slander and falsehood.

Are you putting words in my mouth?

Originally posted by BackFire
I took nothing of yours out of context. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

It made it seem like I really gave a damn beyond this debate. I really don’t care.

Originally posted by chithappens
Not to jump on the bandwagon, but you sure don't sound confident on this topic. You can't just match A to H because it feels right. This happens with anyone in the military. They questioned Bush.

Shrug, who cares? It's going to be seen as one way by each side. That's it. If you are not a hardball nut for one side, you will likely have a chance to catch utter BS.

I simply said that it was happening. Both parties do it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yet no one attacked McCain.

I do not believe as you do. I believe it is a well planed attack that is meant to have a way out in case it back fires.

Originally posted by Robtard
Very simple, do you think serving in the military means someone would be a 'good president'. Yes or No?

Irrelevant, and not what I was talking about.

It depends on the person and what they did during and after.

Originally posted by KidRock
First Wesley Clark now Jim Webb is doing it.

Anybody know the reason why or it it just typical political smearing?

Are you taking a quote out of context and using it to try and manipulate what was actually said in order to prove a point?

Also, didn't the Bush camp use smear tactics agains Kerry? Were you o.k. with that?

Also, Bush's Camp tore McCain a new one, though I am not a fan of the Blogger, this guy does sum it up pretty good:

"What Bush did to McCain in the 2000 S. C. primary"

FACT SHEET:

Bush Waged Nasty Smear Campaign Against McCain in 2000
Bush Supporters Called McCain “The *** Candidate.” In South Carolina, Bush supporters circulated church fliers that labeled McCain “the *** candidate.” Columnist Frank Rich noted that the fliers were distributed “even as Bush subtly reinforced that message by indicating he wouldn’t hire openly gay people for his administration.”

McCain Slurs Included Illegitimate Children, Homosexuality And A Drug-Addict Wife.
Among the rumors circulated against McCain in 2000 in South Carolina was that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually black, that McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife, and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict.”

Bush Campaign Used Code Words to Question McCain’s Temper.
“A smear campaign of the ugliest sort is now coursing through the contest for the presidency in 2000. Using the code word "temper," a group of Senate Republicans, and at least some outriders of the George W. Bush campaign, are spreading the word that John McCain is unstable. The subtext, also suggested in this whispering campaign, is that he returned from 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam with a loose screw. And it is bruited about that he shouldn't be entrusted with nuclear weapons.”

Bush Supporters Questioned McCain’s Sanity.
“Some of George W. Bush's supporters have questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's fitness for the White House, suggesting that his five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam drove him insane at the time.”

Bush Supporters Spread Racist Rumors About McCain’s Daughter.
Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had a “black child.” The McCains’ daughter, Bridget, was adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. In August 2000, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the McCains “are still seething about Bush supporters in South Carolina spreading word of their dark-skinned adopted daughter.”

Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute.
In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as “suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute,” according to the New Yorker.

After Rove Denied Role In McCain Whisper Campaign, Reporters Concluded He Was Behind It.
A December 1999 Dallas Morning News linked Rove to a series of campaign dirty tricks, including his College Republican efforts, allegedly starting a whisper campaign about Ann Richard being too gay-friendly, spreading stories about Jim Hightower’s involvement in a kickback scheme and leaking the educational history of Lena Guerrero. The article also outlined current dirty tricks and whisper campaigns against McCain in South Carolina, including that “McCain may be unstable as a result of being tortured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.” (DMN, 12/2/99) After the article was published, Rove blasted Slater in the Manchester, NH airport, “nose to nose” according to one witness, with Rove claiming Slater had “harmed his reputation,” Slater later noted. But according to one witness, “What was interesting then is that everyone on the campaign charter concluded that Rove was responsible for rumors about McCain.”

Rove Was In Close Touch With McConnell, McCain-Feingold’s Chief Opponent.
Senior White House adviser Karl Rove was in close contact with Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) during McConnell’s effort to fight the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill in the U.S. Senate. According to Newsweek, though Rove and Bush have publicly kept their distance from McConnell on the issue, “sources tell Newsweek that Rove is, in fact, in close touch with McConnell as GOP experts study the bill for hidden land mines.”

Bush Campaign Accused of Using Push Polls Against McCain.
College of Charleston student Suzette Latsko said she received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself as an employee of Voter/Consumer Research, and that the caller misrepresented McCain’s positions and asked if Latsko knew McCain had been reprimanded for interfering with federal regulators in the savings and loan scandal. Voter/Consumer Research is listed as a polling contractor on Bush’s Federal Election Commission filings; the Bush campaign has paid Voter/Consumer Research $93,000 through December 31, 1999. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer denied the call was a push poll, but said it was important that the Republican Party remember McCain’s role in the S&L crisis.

Bush Campaign Acknowledged Making Phone Calls.
Tucker Eskew, Bush’s South Carolina spokesman, acknowledged the Bush campaign made such calls, but claimed they were not “push polls.” Eskew added, “Show me a baseless comment in those questions.”

Bush Used Fringe Veterans Group to Attack McCain as “Manchurian Candidate.”
“In the case of Ted Sampley, the same guy who did Bush's dirty work in going after Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries is doing the job against Kerry this year. Sampley dared compare McCain, who spent five years as a Vietnam POW, with ‘the Manchurian Candidate.’”

Sampley Called McCain a “Coward” and a Traitor.
“Sampley… accused McCain of being a weak-minded coward who had escaped death by collaborating with the enemy. Sampley claimed that McCain had first been compromised by the Vietnamese, then recruited by the Soviets.”

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0821c.html

Of course, the Freepers will deny that any of this actually took place, the poor saps.


copied from :
http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=522

I used to like McCain, but since he threw in with Bush I lost repect for him.

Now Kidrock, how hypocritical is of you to criticise the Dems for a fictionalized attack on your Candidate and ignore the bullsh*t that Bush and his minions have shovelled onto his party members as well as Obama?

hahaha, moar.

Originally posted by KidRock
hahaha, moar.

The, both eloquent and insightful, response that I expected.

Way to not disappoint. 👆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are really not that naive?

What's naive? I'm simply recognizing the fact that nothing that was said was an actual attack. Regardless of the spin you wish to put on his comment, he made a fine and truthful point - that military service alone does not mean one is automatically qualified to be president. Not an attack; not a smear. Simply a reasonable point that you can agree or disagree with.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And you think it wasn’t planed to look that way?

No, I don't. If you have an evidence or reasoning to provide for me that would show me that he had some kind of nasty intent towards McCain, I'd love to hear it. But empty "you're naive if you don't think like me, despite my lack of reasoning or evidence to back up my claims" won't do.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you putting words in my mouth?

No, I was referring to the attacks that were made against Kerry. The attacks that the republicans made against Kerry were far more than simply saying "We didn't like that he tossed his medals". They attacked his character, his morals and his decency. They said that he was a traitor and a coward and even committed violence against fellow soldiers. THOSE kind of attacks have no legitimate basis, is all I'm saying.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It made it seem like I really gave a damn beyond this debate. I really don’t care.

Because you're saying what he did is offensive. Something being offensive is subjective and when you say that, it inherently sounds like you're speaking about your own feelings about the subject. You made it sound like you were offended by his actions. If you weren't offended by it, then don't use the word.

Originally posted by BackFire
What's naive? I'm simply recognizing the fact that nothing that was said was an actual attack. Regardless of the spin you wish to put on his comment, he made a fine and truthful point - that military service alone does not mean one is automatically qualified to be president. Not an attack; not a smear. Simply a reasonable point that you can agree or disagree with.

However, I listened to the interview, and what he said, gave me the impression that he was belittling what McCain had gone throw. If his tone had been different, I might have agreed with you.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, I don't. If you have an evidence or reasoning to provide for me that would show me that he had some kind of nasty intent towards McCain, I'd love to hear it. But empty "you're naive if you don't think like me, despite my lack of reasoning or evidence to back up my claims" won't do.

You can believe what you want, but I don’t trust ether party. The only thing worse then a Republican is a Democrat.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, I was referring to the attacks that were made against Kerry. The attacks that the republicans made against Kerry were far more than simply saying "We didn't like that he tossed his medals". They attacked his character, his morals and his decency. They said that he was a traitor and a coward and even committed violence against fellow soldiers. THOSE kind of attacks have no legitimate basis, is all I'm saying.

That’s fine. I’m not a Republican and I don’t respond or take credit for the things they do.

Originally posted by BackFire
Because you're saying what he did is offensive. Something being offensive is subjective and when you say that, it inherently sounds like you're speaking about your own feelings about the subject. You made it sound like you were offended by his actions. If you weren't offended by it, then don't use the word.

What you are reading is my lack of time and frustration.