aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Heh, another good reason to vote Democrat this year Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Soft Skills this week in the Jobs Discussion forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Reply locked New topic
Author

Heh, another good reason to vote Democrat this year

Jason Cox
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 287
Do you even want to take the CHANCE of Hillary Clinton running in 2008 and possibly winning?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
I could never vote for a man who spoke at the same anti-war rally as Jane Fonda. So if Kerry wins the Dem nomination, for me at least it would pretty much limit my choices.
Yuriy Grechukhin
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 16, 2004
Posts: 41
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I could never vote for a man who spoke at the same anti-war rally as Jane Fonda. So if Kerry wins the Dem nomination, for me at least it would pretty much limit my choices.

I don't know much about that anti-war rally, can anyone tell me why this is so outrageous?
P.S. I've heared that the picture was fake anyway.
P.P.S. What's wrong with Hillary?
[ February 20, 2004: Message edited by: Yuriy Grechukhin ]

The sword of destiny has two blades, one of them is you.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
I don't know about the photograph one way or the other. All I know is that he appeared at anti-war rallies with Jane Fonda.
John Kerry: A Peacenik for President?
Read the above and tell me that picturing him in the White House as the Commander-in-Chief of the US military isn't a frightening prospect. Hell, if he had his way we'd probably run the "UN Flag" up the poll in front of the White House. That man's activities after Vietnam only indicate that he lacks the necessary qualities to be President. I doubt that something like that would actually scare away Democrats however.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
from Jason's link above
John Kerry, the candidate for president that we see today, appears in his thinking to be very much like the John Kerry who first showed himself nationally as an angry Vietnam veteran of the 1970's. But he is smoother and slicker, much smarter, more sophisticated, and experienced in Congress where he fine-tuned his hypocritical tendencies and developed his political skills.

Bush was fine tuning his skills while Kerry was lugging a pack and an M-16 through SE Asia. Bush's military service record vs. Kerry's clearly illustrates Edward's concept of two Americas.
Sadanand Murthy
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 26, 2003
Posts: 382
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I could never vote for a man who spoke at the same anti-war rally as Jane Fonda. So if Kerry wins the Dem nomination, for me at least it would pretty much limit my choices.

As I didn't grow up in US during the Nam war so I have these questions to Americans who did and whose lives were changed/impacted in some form or the other:
  • I can understand the visceral antipathy towards what Jane Fonda did then and towards JF herself for having done that. But does everyone who shares these sentiments expressed in Jason's post believe that one cannot be redeemed? That Jane Fonda herself may have changed since then, has come to regret what she did then, that she wished she had never done it? Is there no redemption for her in your eyes? If that is the case, then wouldn't that be totally un-christian (assuming that some of you are indeed christians or subscribe to Christ's teachings)?
  • Are one's attitude towards the Vietnam war, the belief about its rightness/wrongness, the serving in military/National Guard or dodging the draft the litmus test for US presidency now? Should these be? I don't suppose that the children of the baby boomers feel that way.
  • Can someone who didn't serve in the Vietnam war not be an effective president? Is it not possible for someone to believe that Vietnam war was not a righteous war and yet believe in a strong military & in righteous wars? I'm not saying that Kerry is that person. I want to know if anyone believes so.

  • I hope this doesn't stir up a hornet's nest.


    Ever Existing, Ever Conscious, Ever-new Bliss
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff

    Joined: Nov 09, 2000
    Posts: 6450
    Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
    Bush was fine tuning his skills while Kerry was lugging a pack and an M-16 through SE Asia.

    My guess would be that Kerry let the boat he rode around in carry his pack for him. I believe he spent roughly five months on a river patrol boat and the rest of the time on an offshore support ship.
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:
    But does everyone who shares these sentiments expressed in Jason's post believe that one cannot be redeemed?
    I think something that happened more than 30 years ago is irrelevant. That is why I don't care about Kerry being a war hero or Bush being in the National Guard. Who cares?


    Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
    Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
    Sadanand Murthy
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Nov 26, 2003
    Posts: 382
    I remember that during Clinton's re-election campaign (or was it the 1st time), John Kerry had said something to effect that we should not inject Vietnam into the presidential campaigns, that we shouldn't ask who did what during the Nam war and that we should let it go. Now, he himself appears to be making this a plank for his election bid - boasting about his service, cavorting with Nam vets and questioning GWB's National Guard record.
    I personally think that who did what during the Vietnam war should be a non-issue now and that the candidates post-Nam-war record is more important.
    This election will be very interesting, to say the least. On the one hand we have a republican incumbent who is strong militarily but appears to support off-shoring of tech jobs which is also hurting his constituencies and on the other hand we have democrat challenger (as things stand, it appears that Kerry will be the dem nominee) who has a record of pacifism in his career as a senator but is very vocal about protecting these jobs (will he deliver on these?).
    Does anyone think that GWB will pull out of Iraq if it will help his re-election bid? Whether one agrees with this Iraq war or not the fact of the matter is we are in Iraq now. Abandoning Iraq now (especially for political reasons) will probably the worst thing that the administration can do. As it is, the southern Iraqis don't trust US much because of the '91 Gulf war legacy when Bush Sr. didn't support the shiite resistance in '91.
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff

    Joined: Nov 09, 2000
    Posts: 6450
    I can understand the visceral antipathy towards what Jane Fonda did then and towards JF herself for having done that. But does everyone who shares these sentiments expressed in Jason's post believe that one cannot be redeemed? That Jane Fonda herself may have changed since then, has come to regret what she did then, that she wished she had never done it? Is there no redemption for her in your eyes?
    There is very little room for redemption for her. Vietnamese Generals have since claimed that her actions inspired them to continue fighting when they probably wouldn't have, thereby leading to the deaths of more Americans. Her acts were treasonous, clear and simple. Anybody who supported her actions shares culpability. And to think the legacy of her and her compatriots inspired like-minded people during the Iraqi War. If it weren't for those people showing support for Saddam in this country and in Europe, he may have been persuaded to take another course of action. These people disgust me to the core.
    If that is the case, then wouldn't that be totally un-christian (assuming that some of you are indeed christians or subscribe to Christ's teachings)?
    Forgiveness and redemption are two different things as I see it. People may be forgiven, but that doesn't mean they are redeemed.
    Are one's attitude towards the Vietnam war, the belief about its rightness/wrongness, the serving in military/National Guard or dodging the draft the litmus test for US presidency now? Should these be?
    If one is to be the Commander-in-Chief of the strongest military on the face of the planet, then yes, these are very vital issues. A fervent anti-war activist has no business leading the US military.
    I don't suppose that the children of the baby boomers feel that way.
    Then if this is the case, in my opinion they are not thinking about what is best for the country. The President must have the ability to act decisively with the full might of the US military.
    Can someone who didn't serve in the Vietnam war not be an effective president? Is it not possible for someone to believe that Vietnam war was not a righteous war and yet believe in a strong military & in righteous wars?
    Yes, I think this is entirely possible.
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    I will let you in on a little secret. I am old. My brother was in Vietnam in 1969-70 and I was protesting the war (I was 12). In fact, I got in trouble for wearing a peace sign to school.
    The issue is not what John Kerry did when he got home from Vietnam. The issue is what kind of commander in chief will he be today.
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff

    Joined: Nov 09, 2000
    Posts: 6450
    I personally think that who did what during the Vietnam war should be a non-issue now and that the candidates post-Nam-war record is more important.
    I would agree to some point, unless it has an impact on their job as President. If somebody is a pacifist then that is a very relevant issue that the voters should consider.
    On the one hand we have a republican incumbent who is strong militarily but appears to support off-shoring of tech jobs which is also hurting his constituencies and on the other hand we have democrat challenger (as things stand, it appears that Kerry will be the dem nominee) who has a record of pacifism in his career as a senator but is very vocal about protecting these jobs (will he deliver on these?).
    Now if we could only have a candidate wh owas both strong on defense and strong on jobs. If forced between the two, then I must pick defense over jobs unfortunately. On top of it, few of the candidates are refering to the IT sector when they talk about wanting to stem overseas job losses. They are speaking of manufacturing jobs, which will win them the support of the big unions. I suspect that the Dems merely sense that this is an area which they can exploit in the upcoming election, but I don't see anything actually changing regardless of who is in the White House.
    Does anyone think that GWB will pull out of Iraq if it will help his re-election bid? Whether one agrees with this Iraq war or not the fact of the matter is we are in Iraq now. Abandoning Iraq now (especially for political reasons) will probably the worst thing that the administration can do.
    I don't see this happening.
    Rufus BugleWeed
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 22, 2002
    Posts: 1551
    A guy who serves in the guard so he can get out of military service has no right to boast a glorious military record. No doubt it's better than running off to Canada. But the government training him to be a pilot so that he does not have to go in harms, because he was the son of a Congressman is the two Americas.
    George Bush is strong on defense. Strong on sending the brothers to die, so the Bechtels and the Hallibutons can fleece the taxpayers.
    Jason is there any chance you are employed in the military-industrial complex?
    Matthew Phillips
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Mar 09, 2001
    Posts: 2676
    Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
    A guy who serves in the guard so he can get out of military service has no right to boast a glorious military record. No doubt it's better than running off to Canada. But the government training him to be a pilot so that he does not have to go in harms, because he was the son of a Congressman is the two Americas.
    George Bush is strong on defense. Strong on sending the brothers to die, so the Bechtels and the Hallibutons can fleece the taxpayers.
    Jason is there any chance you are employed in the military-industrial complex?


    First and foremost, service in the National Guard is military service. The National Guard gets called up for foreign wars. Unless they have come back recently, there are currently National Guard units in Iraq. Second, Bush hasn't boasted of his "glorious military service". He has defended himself against false charges that he went AWOL during his service.


    Matthew Phillips
    Sadanand Murthy
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Nov 26, 2003
    Posts: 382
    Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
    A guy who serves in the guard so he can get out of military service has no right to boast a glorious military record. No doubt it's better than running off to Canada. But the government training him to be a pilot so that he does not have to go in harms, because he was the son of a Congressman is the two Americas.

    But it is just fine to elect someone who had dodged the draft and actually protested against the war, not in the US but in England. And then have him lob a couple of cruise (or were they tomahawks?) missiles at an aspirin factory.
    People change. And 30 years is a long time. People change radically, dramatically in 30 years. Bush used to be an alcoholic. He certainly changed. My point is just because someone did something or didn't do something 30 years ago is to a large extent irrelevant. However, what is eminently more germane is what would that person do when faced with certain issues/events now, not 30 years ago.
    <disclaimer>
    I am not trying to campaign for Bush, (though some of my posts may seem to be doing just that ).
    </disclaimer>
    Joe Pluta
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 23, 2003
    Posts: 1376
    One man's opinion:
    If things stay as they are today (no perceptable movement in Iraqi self-determinance, bin Laden still on the loose, a continued "jobless" recovery), it's my belief that the President will not be re-elected. In most elections, it's neither the straight-line Republicans or the straight-line Democrats that win the election, it's the swing vote, and I believe the swing vote is very much at risk here.
    Let's take me. I am as staunch a supporter of this administration as any, so let's put me on the extreme Bush side of the swing voters. As much as I feel this country needs strong foreign policy, I am having problems with the domestic issues. If Kerry weren't so suspect on foreign policy, it would be a very difficult decision for me.
    However, others who until now have been pro-Bush, but for whom jobs are even more important than terrorism, are already beginning to waver. And in the meantime, other than the foreign poilcy fiasco, there's really no momentum building against Kerry.
    Every day people continue to be out of work, every time an adminstration idjut talks about "global economies", every day the occupation continues in Iraq, all of these are constant drags on the administration. And unless something dramatic happens, the President is in real trouble.
    What could happen? Here are some things:
    1. The President announces a sweeping jobs bill that end visas and sharply curtails outsourcing. Unlikely, because it would put every Republican in Congress in a bad position.
    2. Osama is caught. I personally love the conspiracy theories that say bin Laden actually being kept prisoner in a hut somewhere in Afghanistan and that we're going to "find" him in October.
    3. Iraq announces a Democratic government and American troops are able to pull out without the country collapsing into civil war.
    There are other scenarios, but they are increasingly remote possibilities (Pakistan voluntarily shutting down its nuke program, soemthing like that). But to this observer, it's beginning to look a lot like a single term for the President.
    Joe
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff

    Joined: Nov 09, 2000
    Posts: 6450
    Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:
    People change. And 30 years is a long time. People change radically, dramatically in 30 years. Bush used to be an alcoholic. He certainly changed. My point is just because someone did something or didn't do something 30 years ago is to a large extent irrelevant. However, what is eminently more germane is what would that person do when faced with certain issues/events now, not 30 years ago.

    You are absolutely correct. In the case of Kerry however, his voting record indicates that he votes against defense programs quite often. Although that in itself doesn't mean all that much, when looking at his history it makes me as a voter wonder if that is an extension of his anti-war activities. It should be noted though that he did vote in favor of action in Iraq this time around, although he voted against the first time. So it's hard to say with him. How does a voter know?
    I should note that I am, like most people, a moderate. I am not at this stage committing my vote to any particular candidate. Until I actually started to do some research on Kerry, I thought there was a possibility that he was as deserving of my vote as Bush or anyone else running. The more I find out though, the less I like the guy.
    [ February 20, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
    JiaPei Jen
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Nov 19, 2000
    Posts: 1309
    I saw the news just now that Nader is considering to run.
    Sadanand Murthy
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Nov 26, 2003
    Posts: 382
    Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
    However, others who until now have been pro-Bush, but for whom jobs are even more important than terrorism, are already beginning to waver. And in the meantime, other than the foreign poilcy fiasco, there's really no momentum building against Kerry.
    Every day people continue to be out of work, every time an adminstration idjut talks about "global economies", every day the occupation continues in Iraq, all of these are constant drags on the administration. And unless something dramatic happens, the President is in real trouble.
    Joe

    That is why I wondered if Bush will pull out of Iraq altogether before the nov elections. Even some conservative talk show hosts have started thinking/believing that staying in Iraq is just not worth the toll on American lives & economy.
    Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
    3. Iraq announces a Democratic government and American troops are able to pull out without the country collapsing into civil war.

    Highly unlikely. Saw this piece today.
    Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
    (Pakistan voluntarily shutting down its nuke program, soemthing like that).
    Joe

    Even more unlikely (than US being able to pull out of Iraq in the next 3 years in the event of Bush getting reelected).
    Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
    But to this observer, it's beginning to look a lot like a single term for the President.
    Joe

    It certainly appears like that. I heard somewhere (I think it was some talk radio that quoted Barbara Bush) that GWB was actually pushed into running for presidency in 2000 by his parents.
    [Fixed broken link and misquote - Jim]
    [ February 20, 2004: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
    Rufus BugleWeed
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 22, 2002
    Posts: 1551
    Let's not forget the mood of this nation was anti-war in the seventies. Goldwater got his but kicked in the 60's. Kerry served his time; came home and exercised his free speech. Bush doesn't seem to believe in free speech or the other freedoms in the Bill of Rights.
    Sadanand Murthy
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Nov 26, 2003
    Posts: 382
    Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
    Kerry served his time; came home and exercised his free speech.

    True. What he experienced there during the war could very likely have made him a pacifist. Perhaps the way the war was conducted, as he saw it as a soldier, made him see the whole war as pointles.
    Now it is upto the voters to decide whether they agree with him, his change of heart and pacifism and his views about where this country is headed, where it should be headed and how it should get there. That is what is so great about a democracy.
    Paul McKenna
    Ugly Redneck
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jul 08, 2000
    Posts: 1006
    Originally posted by Jason Menard:
    when looking at his history it makes me as a voter wonder if that is an extension of his anti-war activities. It should be noted though that he did vote in favor of action in Iraq this time around, although he voted against the first time. So it's hard to say with him. How does a voter know?

    Ok, I have no vote in the election but I can still post Here is my analysis of the Kerry.
    Kerry -
    To me the more I hear about him the more he appears to be a "phony". He has backed away from everything he has done. He voted against the "defense of marriage act" and now he says he doesnt believe in gay marriage. He spoke openly against death penalty for terrorists and now backs away from it. He voted for the war in Iraq and is now crying out against it. He fought in the war in Vietnam and then did a 180 about turn on it. He argued against the use of war records in an election campaign in 92 and now he is using his own war records in his election campaign.
    To put it in the words of "Maha Rushie", he is not the "right guy", he seems to be more like the "right now guy". He is always taking that side on issues that are of use to him at that moment.
    He could go down big time like Michael Dukakis. Bush Senior's campaign ran an ad on TV accusing Dukakis on being lenient on criminals in Massachussets and that proved to be very effective. If Bush Junior's campaign runs an ad talking about the Gay Marriage issue and activist judges in Massachussets, Kerry could be in big doo doo.
    [ February 20, 2004: Message edited by: Paul McKenna ]

    Commentary From the Sidelines of history
    Frank Silbermann
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 06, 2002
    Posts: 1390
    I heard that Bush joined the National Guard after we stopped sending soldiers to Vietnam. If that's true, he didn't avoid anything by going; but by becoming a pilot he took on duty that is dangerous even in peacetime.
    As for Jane Fonda, she apologized for having been "insensitive" towards the American soldiers and their families, but she never apologized for having favored a communist victory over our forces, or for advocating communism in those days.
    As for Kerry's leadership in the anti-war movement, I don't hold it against him that he wanted America to get out. Once it became clear that we weren't fighting to win, it was time to cut our losses. Also, some resented the government forcing Americans to risk their lives (via the draft) to protect the freedom of mere foreigners. However, his group included people who lied about their service and about the atrocities they supposedly witnessed, thereby slandering this country and the reputation of our military. I don't think he's ever answered for it.
    Jason Cox
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jan 21, 2004
    Posts: 287
    Sheesh, a tongue-in-cheek comment turned into a full blown political debate.
    Relax a little guys. I'm going to stay the hell away from this place in November!
    Matt Cao
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Apr 03, 2003
    Posts: 715
    Hi,
    I have no idea why and what compelle that Ralph Nader intentionally to run for the highest office in the land again. He is so uncharismatic. Is he going to party pooper so Bush going to win again? Damn all to those liberal craps.
    Regards,
    MCao
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
    I heard that Bush joined the National Guard after we stopped sending soldiers to Vietnam. If that's true, he didn't avoid anything by going; but by becoming a pilot he took on duty that is dangerous even in peacetime.
    You heard incorrectly. Bush joined the National Guard in 1968. My brother was drafted in 1968 and sent to Vietnam in 1969. Bush and my brother actually got out of college and were eligible for the draft at the same time.
    Jason, everyone knew the National Guard service was safe. There was zero chance that the Guard would be called up for service in Vietnam. Not a single member of the Guard was called up for active duty in Vietnam during the war.
    Let's be 100% clear about this. Bush used his political connections to get a cushy spot in the Guard to avoid going to Vietnam. Because of scum like him, others (like my brother) had to go. It was a slimy way to avoid the draft. But it happened 36 years ago. Time to move on.
    Joe Pluta
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 23, 2003
    Posts: 1376
    Thomas, I'm not sure where you get your information, but if what I read is correct, you might want to rethink your position.
    According to the Air National Guard, thousands of Air Guardsmen were mobilized, and they flew an enormous number of combat hours: 24,124 sorties and 38,614 combat hours (not including regular Air Force units that were staffed with Guardsmen).
    I'll note that the Texas ANG didn't figure very prominently, and that might very well have been political considering where LBJ hailed from, but to say that joining the Guard "was a slimy way to avoid the draft" looks to be a little harsh.
    Joe
    Howard Kushner
    author
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Sep 19, 2003
    Posts: 361
    Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
    I think something that happened more than 30 years ago is irrelevant. That is why I don't care about Kerry being a war hero or Bush being in the National Guard. Who cares?

    Interesting...
  • The Bible was written over 30 years ago
  • The Declaration of Independence was written over 30 years ago
  • I was born over 30 years ago
  • Etc, etc, etc


  • Which has a direct bearing on relevance?!?
    This who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
    -George Santayana
    Pardon the out of me! (rant, rant, rant)


    Howard Kushner<br />IBM Certified Enterprise Developer - WebSphere Studio Application Developer V5.0<br />IBM Certified Advanced System Administrator - WebSphere Application Server V5.0<br />IBM Certified Solution Developer - Web Services with WebSphere Studio V5.1<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1931182108/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Developing J2EE Applications with WebSphere Studio</a> my Certification Study Guide for IBM Test 287
    Howard Kushner
    author
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Sep 19, 2003
    Posts: 361
    Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:

    People change. And 30 years is a long time. People change radically, dramatically in 30 years. Bush used to be an alcoholic. He certainly changed. My point is just because someone did something or didn't do something 30 years ago is to a large extent irrelevant. However, what is eminently more germane is what would that person do when faced with certain issues/events now, not 30 years ago.

    I apologize but I must take exception to your remarks. I remember the 60's vivdly, and that was over 30 years ago. George Bush is just carrying on an old family tradition. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I think his mother (a fine woman I might add) should be ashamed.
    Joe Pluta
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 23, 2003
    Posts: 1376
    I'll note that the Texas ANG didn't figure very prominently
    But a little more research indicates that the TANG had other priorities:
    "In August 1960 the unit became one of the first to transition to the F-102A all-weather fighter interceptor and began a 24-hour alert to guard the Texas Gulf coast. By January 1970 the wing was starting a new mission: training all F-102 pilots in the United States for the Air National Guard."
    Joe
    michael bradly
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 06, 2000
    Posts: 112
    Originally posted by Jason Menard:
    I don't know about the photograph one way or the other. All I know is that he appeared at anti-war rallies with Jane Fonda.
    John Kerry: A Peacenik for President?

    First, the photograph mentioned in that article is a fake. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/20/MNG4S54RGO1.DTL
    Second, inspecting the quote...

    Much has been made of a possible connection between Kerry and Jane Fonda after recent widespread publication of a picture of him sitting behind Fonda at an anti-war rally on Labor Day, 1971, in Valley Forge Pennsylvania.� Kerry, then a head of the radical anti-war group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, allegedly worked closely with Fonda on two war protests:� the September 1970 rally in Valley Forge where Fonda and Kerry spoke from the back of the same pickup truck, and a January 1971 protest in Detroit which they called the ''Winter Soldier Investigation.

    ... there is quite a bit of vagueness in the language used. Terms such as "a possible connection" and "alledgedly worked closely" have given this journalist quite a bit of leeway in his interpetation of the events. Taking into consideration that the photgraph is a forgery and he's making assesments based upon it, how much of what he said can truly be relied upon?
    Joe Pluta
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 23, 2003
    Posts: 1376
    First, the photograph mentioned in that article is a fake.
    Actually, no, the picture mentioned (Kerry sitting behing Fonda at a rally) is real. The faked picture shows Kerry at a lectern next to Fonda as she speaks.
    http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp
    http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry2.asp

    Taking into consideration that the photgraph is a forgery and he's making assesments based upon it, how much of what he said can truly be relied upon?
    Following this logic, since the picture in question is not a fake, then the article must be reliable.
    Joe
    Jason Cox
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jan 21, 2004
    Posts: 287
    It's interesting to note that the picture in question was taken before Fonda became known as "Hanoi Jane". If you read the article linked above, it sheds quite a bit of light on the whole situation.
    I find that rather interesting, that Kerry is being demonized because he couldn't see into the future and discern what a horrible thing Jane Fonda was about to do. That horrible man!
    I really don't know who I plan to vote for yet in the next election, but let's not jump to conclusions until we have all the facts.
    [ February 21, 2004: Message edited by: Rob Aught ]
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff

    Joined: Nov 09, 2000
    Posts: 6450
    Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
    Jason, everyone knew the National Guard service was safe. There was zero chance that the Guard would be called up for service in Vietnam. Not a single member of the Guard was called up for active duty in Vietnam during the war.

    This is completely incorrect.
    On May 13, 1968, 12,234 Army National Guardsmen in 20 units from 17 states were mobilized for service during the Vietnam War. Eight units deployed to Vietnam and over 7,000 Army Guardsmen served in the war zone. (source)

    The 120th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Colorado Air National Guard, arrived at Phan Rang Air Base, South Vietnam, during the concluding days of the second Viet Cong offensive of 1968. The squadron was ordered into active federal service as a result of the Pueblo incident in January 1968, along with three other F-100 tactical fighter squadrons: 136th Tactical Fighter Squadron, New York, 174th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Iowa, 188th Tactical Fighter Squadron, New Mexico. (source)

    A little more info about the Air National Guard in Vietnam.
    Even in units that were not called up, many members of those units volunteered for active duty.
    I repeat an earlier assertion that i made that condemning people who served their country by joining the National Guard and who happened to not be called up for that particular conflict is near equivalent to condemning people who joined the active duty military and were not sent to participate in that conflict. Large scale military conflicts are a total force operation. Not all units are directly involved in combat. Nearly every unit supports the war effort in one way or another, be it a crucial link in the supply chain, guardsmen and reservists filling active duty billets at the bases of deployed active duty servicemen, or merely conducting training of personnel, guarding US airspace, or whatever a unit's primary mission is, it all contributes. The whole cannot succeed unless each part is doing their job.
    [ February 21, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
    Joe Pluta
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 23, 2003
    Posts: 1376
    RA: I find that rather interesting, that Kerry is being demonized because he couldn't see into the future and discern what a horrible thing Jane Fonda was about to do. That horrible man!
    Some may be; those are the straight-line Republicans pretty much returning the fire that the straight-line Democrats are launching against the President's military service.
    However, I think those of us on the swing (even people like me) don't really care about the association with Jane Fonda. Personally, I'm more worried about his association with VVAW. Did you know, for instance, that the VVAW vocally supported amnesty for draft resisters and even deserters? Seems to me that Senator Kerry has completely flip-flopped on that particular issue if he's giving the President grief for joinnig the Guard.
    And that's perhaps my biggest problem with Senator Kerry. It seems right now that the Senator is somewhat opportunistic in his positions. It's difficult to identify what he really believes. As someone else said, rather than Mr. Right, Senator Kerry appears to be Mr. Right Now. At least with the President, it's usually pretty clear where he stands on the issues.
    Now I seem to recall that the President has also changed his mind on some key points, but I can't remember specifically. I'd love to compare examples of position inconsistencies on both sides of the campaign. Let's dig into these guys a little more, eh?
    Joe
    [ February 21, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]
    michael bradly
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 06, 2000
    Posts: 112
    Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

    Following this logic, since the picture in question is not a fake, then the article must be reliable.
    Joe

    Accepted, it is not the same picture I brought up. However in looking upon that picture the date it was taken was 1970- yet the date mentioned in refering to it was 1971. "...widespread publication of a picture of him sitting behind Fonda at an anti-war rally on Labor Day, 1971, in Valley Forge Pennsylvania". So while I was incorrect on the details of the photo, my questioning the accuracy of the journalist seems to hold up since he is referering to a different picture taken in 1971, not the picture from 1970.
    Joe Pluta
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 23, 2003
    Posts: 1376
    Accepted, it is not the same picture I brought up. However in looking upon that picture the date it was taken was 1970- yet the date mentioned in refering to it was 1971. "...widespread publication of a picture of him sitting behind Fonda at an anti-war rally on Labor Day, 1971, in Valley Forge Pennsylvania". So while I was incorrect on the details of the photo, my questioning the accuracy of the journalist seems to hold up since he is referering to a different picture taken in 1971, not the picture from 1970.
    Oh please. It's a typo. In the very next sentence the writer refers to "the September 1970 rally in Valley Forge". Your statement was far more inaccurate than the writer's.
    In any event, your statement does nothing to distance Senator Kerry from the VVAW, which as I said is more disturbing than any casual relationship with Jane Fonda.
    Joe
    michael bradly
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 06, 2000
    Posts: 112
    Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
    [b]
    Oh please. It's a typo. In the very next sentence the writer refers to "the September 1970 rally in Valley Forge". Your statement was far more inaccurate than the writer's.
    In any event, your statement does nothing to distance Senator Kerry from the VVAW, which as I said is more disturbing than any casual relationship with Jane Fonda.
    Joe

    Yes, I considered the possibility that it might be a typo, but doesn't that validate my concerns about the accuracy of the information given? If the writer is going to infer events based upon an image and then be careless in proofreading and editing the piece, making inconsistent statements within the same paragraph as to the dates of which an event occurred, I don't find it unreasonable to question the accuracy of the events as written by him, particularly since he is using such vague language. It allows for much easier retractions when a writer can say, "I didn't say it did happen. I said it allegedly happened... I said there was a possibility it happened this way, but I never said it did. When I said closely, I meant in proximity, not relationship."
    Additionally, I didn't make a comment about the possibility of the typo in my last post, for who am I to validate the accuracy of that. It could be a typo or it could be intentional- it's not up to me to speak for him. I could just as easily make the same statement that I made a typo as well and if we are going to selectively choose who we offer that blanket of protection to, then I should be granted the liberty to edit my post and make amendments or dismiss any post that I don't agree with by saying I made typos, hence your argument doesn't count.
    And while it is true that I was inaccurate about the photo being discussed, I am hard pressed to find where I am more inaccurate than the writer. I simply questioned the accuracy of what he says. Considering that he, his proofreader or his editor were so careless as to overlook the dates and considering this is an occupation for him while posting here for me is a past time, he should be held up to a much higher standard than myself. Again, I did make mention more than once that I was incorrect on the picture yet I haven't seen any changes to the article refered to correcting their error.
    As far as the VVAW, I'd rather not get off topic within my response since that breaks the continuity of what we've been discussing.
    Joe Pluta
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 23, 2003
    Posts: 1376
    but doesn't that validate my concerns about the accuracy of the information given?
    No.
    Joe
    Paul McKenna
    Ugly Redneck
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jul 08, 2000
    Posts: 1006
    Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
    In any event, your statement does nothing to distance Senator Kerry from the VVAW, which as I said is more disturbing than any casual relationship with Jane Fonda.
    Joe[/QB]

    Most voters I spoke to think an association with Jane Fonda is more damaging than VVAW. Its all depends upon the person, I dont think one can say with any certainity which will be more important during the elections because that depends on each individuals perspective.
     
    I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
     
    subject: Heh, another good reason to vote Democrat this year