Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (64801)	8/27/2004 12:20:36 PM
From: Captain Jack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793804

<<"I disagree with your assessment of Kerry">> It is your right to disagree with the facts even after being aware Kerry has not disputed any charge. Many people for reasons that are not obvious are supporting a cowardly liar without honor. These same people are supporting him knowing he is responsible for many injuries and deaths to our military men and women,, not to mention his absurd treatment of the POW/MIAs. I have asked many why and have not heard an answer that is logical yet. Hopefully you can shed some light with a logical reason.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (64801)	8/27/2004 1:11:48 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793804

Everything about Kerry is a little bit deceptive. johnkerry.com At the end of that link you will read the words, "April 29, 1970 Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service." That is pure hokem. What does that mean? What do you think it means? Does it mean Kerry had fulfilled his service obligation? Does it mean he was discharged from the Navy? The answer is no and no. On April 30th, he was still an officer in the US Navy. It only meant that he was no longer eligible for the draft. But even that is not completely true because in a national mobilization he would be eligible for recall. In fact as a reserve officer he would be called first. I believe the reason for that entry is to hide the fact that Kerry was still a reserve officer when he negotiated with the the NVA in Paris and when he gave his Senate testimony. Let's look at these 2 lines... February 18, 1966 Kerry formally enlists in the U.S. Navy<< December 16, 1966 Kerry receives commission as an Ensign<< On Feb 18 when Kerry enlisted in the Navy as a Seaman, he incurred a 4 year active duty obligation and a six year total service obligation. On Dec 16 he was discharged to accept a reserve officer commission. I can tell you with absolute certainty it was a reserve commission because you could not and still cannot get a regular commission right out of OCS. So Kerry got out of the regular Navy as a Seaman after 10 months to join the Navy Reserves as an Ensign. Kerry was a reservist. GWB was a National Guardsman. No difference. After release from active duty Kerry was reassigned back to a Navy reserve unit. Notice please, that he does not list his discharge date. That is because he wants to hide it. We need look at Kerry's reserve attendance records! CB...Thanks for the tip. uw

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (64801)	8/27/2004 1:13:33 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793804

Lookit, Mary. Last year Kerry told a Washington Post reporter that he has a lucky hat he carries in a secret compartment of his briefcase, which was given to him by a CIA agent whom he brought into Cambodia in his SwiftBoat. He showed her the hat, he put it on, and then he formed his fingers into a gun shape and said "pow!" Now Steve Gardner, who served ON Kerry's boat WITH Kerry AT THE SAME TIME that Kerry said he was going into Cambodia, says it's a baldfaced lie. Do you want a man with an imaginary "lucky hat" as President of the United States? Do you want that man with his finger on the nuclear trigger?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (64801)	8/27/2004 3:17:01 PM
From: MrLucky	Respond to of 793804

However, I am torn. I wish this discussion was not going on in the way it is. Mary, You posts indicate to me that you are a nice and caring person. You obviously believe in kerry. Of course, it is your choice. I wish to offer one point for you to consider before casting your vote. It is this: Forget about Vietnam for the moment and answer this question for yourself. Since the period that GWB has been President has he turned his back on the troops? I believe you will find the answer to be NO. He has been a strong supporter of the military. Now, ask the same question about kerry. Has he turned his back on the troops? The answer is a definite YES. He voted to send them to battle and then voted against providing them with equipment they needed. He and Edwards. That alone, should be enough to convince a reasonably thinking voter. I hope it helps you. If you add kerry's behavior post Vietnam it is abundantly clear that he has no respect for the military. Not to mention his early exit from Vietnam. He fled before finishing a normal tour, instead of supporting the men in his unit. This is yet, another example of someone who will not support the military. IMHO, kerry is nothing but a "me, me person". Period. I won't get into his Senate record. We can always discuss that later. Thank you for "listening". <g>