Of course you skipped the part of Kerrys career post Vietnam where he testified before the Senate committee about the atrocities he had observed his fellow comrades committing and that he had also committed. Did he do these things or was he lying?? and if he was lying, why????? Honorable, moral character, I think Kerry has neither

Sure, I skipped a lot of stuff, like Bush’s drug use, lying about his criminal record, most of his TANG escapades, the specifics of his financial lawbreaking, business failures, and buddy-buddy past with the Saudis, not to mention everything he’s done as president.

But if you want to talk about Kerry speaking his conscience before congress, telling them what other soldiers told him and what he saw for himself, telling the nation the truth about the conflict–I’d be glad to add that to the list. What is it with Republicans today who seem to think nothing bad ever happened in Vietnam? Talk about living in denial. Guess what: Vietnam was a mistake, and the prolonged war, the very inhumane nature of the conflict drove many of our good young men to do things any of us today would consider barbaric. Deny that, you deny the truth. kerry had the courage to tell people the truth back then, just as people like you seem to be determined to whitewash the truth today.

How do you know what I think. I vote for a candidate and not a party, I don’t have a party line or grudge to bear as evidentally you do. You still haven’t answered the question was Kerry lying to the comittee and to the nation or did he observe and do the things he testified too?

Kerry is less than honorable. Bush scored higher on his officer exam than Kerry. Kerry is a war criminal who has not released his military records because he was initially discharged as less than honorable delaying his entrance into law school until Jimmy Carter granted amnesty. Note on his website that the date of his honorable discharge was not when he was originally discharged. He had his earlier record expunged via Jimmy Carter. We need not get into his Senate record, because even he doesn’t want to go there. I am from Massachusetts and have had a birdseye view of Kerry from the start. He’s a disgrace to Americans.

View the film that he prevented many Americans from seeing.
It marks how he used the Viet Nam veterans to launch his political career. Kerry is so transparent. Too bad so many people have vision problems.

Take a close up look at his Vietnam antics through this free online webcast of STOLEN HONOR.

http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/watch-video.asp

You still haven’t answered the question was Kerry lying to the comittee and to the nation or did he observe and do the things he testified too?No, you’re wrong, I did. I wrote:…Kerry speaking his conscience before congress, telling them what other soldiers told him and what he saw for himself, …The GOP lie has been that he saw or did all the things he spoke about, when it was always crystal clear that his testimony was also comprised of what others told him they said and did. But you don’t care much about such details in truth, do you? Otherwise you would have done the two minutes of research and found it out for yourself. All you would have to do is a Google search for “Kerry ‘testimony before Congress'” and you would find the text of his testimony, and right there at the beginning of his speech to Congress he said:I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of a group of 1,000, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table, they would be here and have the same kind of testimony. I would simply like to speak in general terms. …

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit–the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.Go ahead, read the actual testimony, not the bastardized, out-of-context Republican clips and their distorting “interpretations” of what he said or meant. That Kerry was speaking for others who had testified to the things Kerry reported, that Kerry was there as a representative and not as an individual, was the most glaringly clear aspect of his testimony, and that you believe otherwise is simply plain evidence that you are not the non-partisan person you claim to be, but rather use only the right-wing vitriol as your news source.

Have you sobered up yet after Kerry’s loss?

Sobered up? Not likely. Have you looked at his “Best Of”? Most of them contain his rant without anyone debating him. The only way a liberal college professor can win an arguement I guess. No, I wouldn’t count on sobriety. Makes reality all too difficult to ignore, and liberal ideology nearly impossible to accept as logical. His “Best of” ought to be under Rants, since they rarely engage in quality debate. I guess he didn’t win the ones he dabated and couldn’t place them under a “Best of” category. But I should be careful, before our “tolerant” host bans me from further entry into the debate.

Then try debating them yourself. The comments are still open, no one is barred or prohibited, so go for it. Why didn’t you when you read them?

The reason there is little debate is the same reason they’re also “best of”–they are very difficult, if not impossible to refute. How can you defend Bush’s DUI with his underage sister in the car, or his threatening, obscene rant at a news editor in a family restaurant in front of the man’s small child? Read the “Bush and Character” series, or the “Outrage Overload” series and rebut them if you can.

I find it extremely common that when there is no way to argue the conservative side, conservatives will simply turn a blind eye to it. Like you are apparently, reading those posts and not commenting–instead coming to a different post and taking pot shots and doing name-calling.

Just like a right-winger to try to blame someone else for his own failings. If there is no debate, it’s your fault, not mine.

As for being banned, you only get that if you violate the rules, and if you bother to peruse the political categories, you’ll see a great number of right-wingers coming to debate, and I engage them in debate sometimes at great length. Not counting commercial spammers, I have banned only two people that I can recall, and one was a liberal, and both were banned for blatantly violating the clearly posted rules.

Your conclusions here are, if you will forgive the phrase, complete unsupported and are equivalent to speaking from your posterior–in short, you’re making it up. Nothing new with conservative comment makers.

So go ahead. Debate. The real reason you’re not is that you can’t.

I just did some checking on IP addresses in comments, and it appears that you are probably the same “Matt” that commented in the Hattori post about a month back.

If so, then you’ve got quite a set of stones to come in here and make arrogant claims about my not being able to debate and that I ban people for citing opposing views, after I spent fully 230 column inches debating the Hattori case with you, tore your claims to shreds, and did not even come close to banning you despite quite fierce opposition. I even let you have the last word after the debate got repetitive and stopped being meningful.

If you are the same “Matt,” then your post here is not only unsupported and arrogant, it is massively contradictory to your own posting experience here, and as such, is tantamount to a knowing lie.

The real reason I’m not is that your blog is sooooo far left you make Kerry look conservative. Your blog is shock value, that’s about it. You are out there with Al Franken and Michael Moore. You ought to go through your own “Best of” and check them against recent news releases. Your “Bush” facts were the same spin you so easily swallow from the left that you complain about conservatives believing from the right. Unfortunately, you are so self righteous you can’t see the spin from your own camp. That’s when being an idealogue is dangerous, when you can’t tell that your own side is spinning YOU.

Spending several hours tracking down news clippings to post on your site would accomplish nothing as I have read your blogs, and short of a video clip proving you wrong you are incapable of acknowledging you yourself talk out of your “posterior”, as you put it. I visit your site because I get a kick out of seeing someone so far off the deep end they have lost site of shore. But I am not so far right that I can’t admit conservatives play dirty as well. Unfortunately, you are so far left you see no wrong on the left, and absolute evil on the right. It’s too bad. Your blog has turned into a freakshow of Michael Moore type rants.

I won’t waste my time debating with you because you’re not worth it. I won’t get anything out of it; and every concession I make will never be returned no matter how strong the evidence. You are truly an amazing individual. Even the politicians and their mainstream supportors have to admit they are wrong on some things. But true left wing liberal idealogues, or right wing conservatives, never. I hate it when conservatives do it, and I hate it when libs do it. You are a lib. No debate will ever result in a concession on your part because your belief is so strong and deep you can’t conceive you might be wrong. I guess there is something honorable in that passion. But while I will waste a few minutes on this before putting away my office work, I won’t waste my time looking up facts for you. It’s too bad, your site could be so much more. If people felt they could engage with an open minded, rational debater of the opposite political persuasion we would all benefit. But debating with you is like entering into a debate about greenhouse gases with some guy torching an SUV dealership. The passion is so deep there is no reasonable exchange. There is an exchange, but there is nothing in it for either party. It is really a waste of time. But I do enjoy reading your rants.
And one more thing Luis, you should consider the possibility that the failure of many of your entries to generate a debate isn’t a sign of your superior intellect; as you suggested previously. In my case, and likely for many middle of the road people, it is a reflection of their disdain for your arrogance. I don’t mean to be harsh, but you are. It isn’t a coincidence that a sense of arrogance and superiority likely turned away the voters Kerry needed to win. It also turns away readers who might otherwise engage you in a fruitful discussion. “Difficult, if not impossible to refute”. Please, you have got to be kidding. That statement says it all. Arrogance is where you falter. You have just raised your debate skills above those of every politician in America; including Kerry. Your ideology, it seems cannot be refuted. I have news for you. It has been refuted all across America by everyday Americans for many years. Even Clinton needed to tame it to get elected. With all Kerry’s skill, and he is a master politician, he couldn’t defeat Bush solidly enough on ideology to turn the votes. And Bush barely pulled it off. That should tell you most people are in the middle. It’s interesting that the 20% at the extreme left and right are so arrogant, they assume the 80% of the country that doesn’t agree with them must be wrong, or stupid, or both.

Have a good night Luis. And I mean that. I will continue to log onto your site intermittently to see how you are doing, and perhaps I will engage you if the mood strikes. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

I am one and the same. Never tried to conceal that.

“to come in here and make arrogant claims about my not being able to debate and that I ban people for citing opposing views”

Show me, Luis, where I arrogantly said you can’t debate. I stated they rarely engaged in a debate, or didn’t have a quality one. I never said you couldn’t debate. In fact I beilieve I stated in the Hattori series that you could quite well. However, the quality of the exchange is in the eye of your readers. I didn’t think many of them were good exchanges.

I also mention the banning because of warnings you have entered to those posting in other series. Having a little fun with some rhetoric Luis, settle down.

“tore your claims to shreds”

I doubt it very much Luis, but if you sleep better at night then……
You were right about one thing in the Hattori series though Luis, Ressler is arrogant. Seems to be going around. And as I stated I think you’re arrogant. Is it possible we perceive anyone who viscerally disagrees with us as arrogant? Perhaps, in which case we both must be.

I see your debating skills have remained unchanged: dismiss points without evidence, make baseless assumptions, play with language until it dies a strangled death, ignore cogent points that you can’t argue off, and leap to conclusions despite giving no support.I won’t waste my time debating with you because you’re not worth it. I won’t get anything out of it; and every concession I make will never be returned no matter how strong the evidence.Bull. In our Hattori debate, you conceded that once in the carport, anybody in Peairs’ situation could have decided that shooting was necessary, and I conceded that Peairs’ decision to leave his house and confront the strangers was a grievous error and made Peairs responsible for the whole tragedy. If I don’t concede to most of your points, it’s because your points don’t hold water.

Take the fact that you repeatedly claimed that I called Peairs’ actions “justified.” How many times did I have to point out, again and again, that I never said that, and show quotes that I had, in fact, said the exact reverse, with you continuing to claim I’d said something I hadn’t after my showing you to be false, before finally you made a small note that “apparently” I was right. For you to be so obstinate in the face of clear evidence right under your nose before you make a wishy-washy “apparently you didn’t say that” concession, you have no right to demand concessions from me after your debate was so poorly executed. Show me evidence that I’m wrong and I’ll concede. You don’t even come close. Your fault.Show me, Luis, where I arrogantly said you can’t debate. I stated they rarely engaged in a debate, or didn’t have a quality one. I never said you couldn’t debate.Sorry, but that’s being mealy-mouthed, and you know it. If I say that a person “can’t drive” because they cause automobile accidents every few weeks, obviously they can “drive” in the technical sense. You said that I could not engage in “quality debate,” which means I cannot debate well. That can very easily be called a claim that I “can’t debate.” Same thing. Typical of you to come up with such a weak-ass argument.

The rest of your rants here is similarly unsupported. And you say I’m not worth your time? Don’t make me laugh.

So much for the idea that I’m the one who never makes concessions. See this post, and it’s follow-up. It’s the right-wingers who never make concessions no matter how wrong they are.

Bush’s motto should echo the Clash’s song: “Straight to Hell”, since that’s where he’s been taking everyone but the rich.

Anyone who thinks the outing of Wilson’s CIA wife was ANYTHING but payback is either stupid or as corrupt as King Bush and his henchmen.

Really, does this country EVERY go around outing ANY CIA operatives for any reason? NO! But BUSH, ROVE & CHENEY did, and for WHAT, because the operative’s husband DARED TO DISAGREE with “their ‘little plan'”! (That is: find an excuse, no matter what, for invading Iraq!).

I am CONTINUOUSLY amazed by the idiocy, gullibility and lack of understanding and/or lack of information of those who support what Hunter Thompson called the “Half-bright child” (he was being REEEALLY generous!); aka; Dubya.

People who DO understand know EXACTLY what I mean: the support of the same “military-industrial complex” that Eisenhower warned us against. The rest of the flag-waving, gullible, American dupes will scorn people like me as “unpatriotic”, especially now…when in truth…NOTHING could be further from reality.