Of course you didnt state that you speak for ALL WOMEN. Because ART DID. Yet another typical STRAWMAN ARGUMENT from the master of Strawmen. Get used to it. Art SPEAKS in fallacious tongues frequently. He can never win a debate on merit so he must constantly resort to fallacious reasoning peace axeman
Yet ANOTHER example of fallacious ART logic. This guy is so incredibly logically impaired its hilarious!! Women ARE emotion? Then men ARE reason. That would make you, a woman, lacking in reason. This DUMBASS argument breaks down to: if A == B then C == D -------------------- A, therefore: not D HUH?!?!?! Are you really THIS stupid ART? Why would you make such an incredibly idiotic blatant logical error? Care to explain? I really want to know what area of your ass you pulled this NON-logic out of LMAOOOOOOOOOO..... you truly are braindead. peace axeman Is that really what you are trying to say? That because you are a woman, you are emotional and unreasonable? What you are saying is just pue baseless sexism, and perpetuates and aides in the advancement of stereotypes. It is that kind of thinking that retards the advancement of women in society. You continue to argue from your own personal experiences to a general conclusion, where I can easily find a woman to counter your experience with an opposite conclusion, thereby negating your argument...assuming there is some reasonable position you are taking, and not just an emotionally based argument. [/B][/QUOTE]
It's not a question of "disapproving" of the war. It's how he went about it. First, as a serving Naval officer, he should have been courtmartialed for organizing demonstrations. As in so many other aspects of his charmed military career, eg plum assignments, medals awarded for routine duty, allowed to come home after four months, plum assignment inhis hometown, then allowed to leave service 6 months early, he managed to take advantage of incredible allowances others did not get. He used his notoriety as a war veteran and "hero" to get publicity for and give credence to Jane Fonda and her crowd of pro-Hanoi agitators. Were they disloyal? In a word, yes. How can you have any doubts when she sat on an AA gun that shot down American fliers and praised our enemy, then caused POW's to receive vicious beatings for failing to meet with her. Did Kerry ever do anything to disassociate himself from this? No. He gave highly dubious testimony to Congress that "other" veterans were war criminals. This was while the guys who didn't get sweetheart deals to come home early were under fire and while POW's were being held in inhuman conditions and subjected to horrific torture. How could this not encourage the enemy, drag out the war and make things tougher and more dangerous for the guys still fighting? He didn't give a damn, all he cared about was using this hobbyhorse to get elected in anti-war Massachusetts. For all his chestpounding lately, his record has been a tired litany of anti-defense, anti-CIA, pro-paciifism, pro-communism. He undermined our negotiating position re POW's withthe Vietnamese, he fought against anti-communist freedom fighters in latin america, he was a supporter of the dopey nuclear freeze movement and he has consistently voted against the very weapons platforms that made our forces so invincible. Time for a "change"? Not if it means changing a decent President for a guy with a demonstrated record of bad judgment, waffling, opportunism and support for America's enemies. We had an election in 1976 that involved a Republican incumbent that no one was very enthusiastic about, Jerry Ford, and a naive man with a Navy background, a commitment to human rights and a sincere desire to apologize to every enemy of this ocuntry. His name was Jimmy Carter, and we are still trying to clean up the mess he made. Let's not make the same mistake again.
Waggie everyone has the right to oppose a war. HOW they go about opposing it is the determining factor. Hanoi Jane was a big movie star. If that didn't give her credibility, it certainly gave her notoriety. John Kerry was a "war hero" which gave him credibility. Together they fueled the flames until it became an inferno. Demonstrations nation wide. I was at the Kent State University for a training seminar 2 weeks after that deadly demonstration. Their purpose wasn't just to oppose the war, their objective was to incite the public. Of course the North Vietnamese loved this. It strengthened their will and their cause. With renewed determination they attacked our boys. POW's, already suffering in inhumane conditions, received harsher treatment. Is it any wonder the mention of John Kerry's name raises the hackles of Viet Nam vets. Yes I know you can find some that support him, but you'll find many many more that don't. Ask the THOUSANDS who live in the hills today how they feel about John Kerry. That is if you can find them. They want nothing to do with America. They feel betrayed. Go into the hills. You won't see them, but they see you. Twice a year the Veterans Administration holds week long rendezvous in the hills, trying to get our boys to come in for free clothes, medical checkups, counseling, and all the food they can pack off. Some come in cautiously, most don't come at all. With the public in an uproar and testimony that our boys had committed horrible crimes against civilians, returning vets were spat on, called names and beaten. They weren't in Nam because they wanted to be, yet instead of receiving some degree of honor for at least serving at the bequest of their country, they became war criminals. For years afterward, these guys refused to admit they were Nam vets. Why? Were they ashamed? No, its because they didn't want to relive the scorn leveled against them when they returned the first time. Were they "war criminals", no. Very very few ever committed the kind of crimes Kerry led everyone to assume were common place. If you knew enough about that era. what went on and what was said, you'd understand why I call him a traitor. The turmoil he created is almost beyond description. Opposition to the war in Iraq is a cake walk compared to the opposition we experienced then. And to add insult to injury, Kerry was a family friend of the Kennedy's. He used then and uses now his military experience for personal gain. When he had a chance to help get unaccounted for POW's or MIA's back onto American soil, the hearings came to an abrupt halt and the findings were that none had been left behind. That was BS and EVERYONE knew it. Could they pin any inappropriate conduct on him? They certainly could have had his ole buddy Ted Kennedy not come to his rescue. I'll second AAA's remarks. Kerry has done everything he could to undermine this country. Hand him the reins to our future? You've got to be kidding.
I don't doubt that you believe your vision of what is RIGHT for America. Just like I don't doubt fundamentalist Christians like Pat Robertson believe their vision of what the Bible means is RIGHT. Kerry's opposition to the war, or Jane Fonda's for that matter were and are their constitutional right. Many in the 60's and early 70's were labeled subversives, traitors, etc. Just because they were labeled as such by the right wingers, did that make them subversives and traitors trying to destroy America? Or did they just have a different vision of what America should be doing? Fundamentalism sucks, and is typically born of fear, ignorance, and self righteousness. The tired old arguments we heard from the right wingers in the 60's are alive and well today. Their positions and claims of being RIGHT were false then, they are false now. Just opinions of fundamentalists, nothing more.
Their positions were false then, they are false now. Just opinions of fundamentalists, nothing more. LOL. ART, buddy you need to cut your losses. How can an opinion be false?!?!?!?!?! If it's an opinion then it is neither true or false, hence an opinion! You have really lost it ART.
For something to be true, it must be necessarily true. For those who claim their position to be true necessarily, yet their position is nothing but an opinion, their claim of truth is a false claim. There position may be true, it may be false, but when they claim it to be true on the basis of opinion, that conclusion of truth is a false conclusion....as it lacks the foundation of a truth, i.e. devoid of opinion. Take a perfect calculator. Add a group of numbers. The sum of the numbers is a true sum of numbers. However, does the true sum reflect the truth of an accounting task? If the person entering in the numbers on the calculator transposed a set of numbers during his addition, is the sum true or false? It is a true sum based on the numbers entered, yet a false result as the data entered was false and not an accurate accounting of the intended numbers. So, when people spout opinions as truth, they are making false claims. It is just an opinion. When fundamentalist claim truth founded in opinion, they are false.