Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Need help w/ answering a freepers question regarding John Kerry's record

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Pachamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-04 09:22 AM
Original message
Need help w/ answering a freepers question regarding John Kerry's record
Any DUers that can help me provide facts and answers on John Kerry's Vietnam record, Senate record (and years as a Prosecutor) and on safety and the draft are much appreciated. I normally wouldn't bother, but this person keeps asking these questions in front of undecided moderates in an email forum...I want to be able to answer him with facts, not just my emotions....thanks....
_______________________________________________________________
First, how can you support a candidate w/the safety of your daughters, if in a five minute span he contradicted himself on the most important issue in this election? He stated that, "all along he has said that Saddam was a major threat", and then in the next question on Iran, he said, "GW took his eye off of Iran, and focused on Iraq, which was not a threat". He is insulting our intelligence w/this bullshit.

Understand that your daughters and your friends five kids will need to be drafted, and will be more susceptible to Beslan like sieges w/Kerry in power. There are very few people that would be inspired to volunteer for our armed forces, or very few parents that would want their children to fight for Kerry. He lied about his service in Nam, he returned and slandered his own comrades, and now he claims that this war is a "grand diversion", or the "wrong war, at the the wrong time".

Secondly, how can you have faith in Kerry's plan for Iraq? He doesn't talk about winning the war, rather he talks about withdrawal timelines, bringing in the UN, and creating a stronger coalition. Summits and meetings w/France have never won a war, and this conflict will only be successful if we win. The UN and Kerry's allies have openly worked against our country's interest, and in essence greatly affected our national security for the negative. In a throwback to people like you and all the loser anti-nuke protesters of the '80's he has even spoken about canceling the bunker buster low yield nuke program. Where does he think that Iran is hiding its nukes, and where are terrorists generally hiding other than underground?

Your man Kerry is a loser, who didn't sponsor one bill in 20 years that protected your daughters. And in the past three years since 9/11, there has not been one successful attack on the US, despite many attempts. You talk about your kids being safer w/Kerry as Pres, but what are you basing that on? It can't possibly be Kerry's record or his plans for the War on Terror. I need you to think about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-04 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. good grief . . . you need to do some homework . . .
Edited on Tue Oct-12-04 09:25 AM by TaleWgnDg
for starters, here: http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103

. . . . . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-04 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. Go watch this ad on the Kerry website, and then spit the facts back at yr
Freeper. . .esp the part about Geo Bush saying we can't afford to inspect container shipments or keep our borders secure.

Click on the ad "Can't Win."

http://www.johnkerry.com/tv/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-04 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. screw that guy--make him show you how he knows
about Kerry's record--make him prove that he didn't sponsor even one bill and still can be called the "most liberal." Ask him why he got re-elected over and over and over after doing nothing. Nothing is NOT LIBERAL, it is NOTHING.

They throw a bunch of lies and then demand YOU prove them wrong??? Make him PROVE HIS STUPID POINT!!! Why should you do all the work for a liar like that? And Rush Limbaugh is not a source! If he doesn't want to check his own facts, (and he doesn't) then you are OBLIGED to call him a liar and leave it at that!
(BTW, Kerry sponsored 58 bills that passed)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-04 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. That's how they wear you down.
Every Freep-head I've spoken to pulls this tactic. Throw all the talking points out there, then make you do the leg work to find all possible references to what you're saying, and then they say that it's all librul media bull. You just can't win with these guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-04 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. I second that
Ask for a link to a FULL QUOTE for each of those accusations. The rightwing are masters of misleading editing.

Don't tell the Freepers they've been duped; tell them to find the quotes, and they'll discover for themselves that they're talking out of their asses. (Most won't admit it, of course.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-04 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
4. Your freeper friend might be interested in this link too
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0410/S00132.htm

Under Cheney, Halliburton Helped Saddam Hussein Siphon Billions from UN Oil-for-Food Program

<snip>

But the one company that helped Saddam exploit the oil-for-food program in the mid-1990s that wasn't identified in Duelfer's report was Halliburton, and the person at the helm of Halliburton at the time of the scheme was Vice President Dick Cheney. Halliburton and its subsidiaries were one of several American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000 by skirting U.S. laws and selling Iraq spare parts so it could repair its oil fields and pump more oil. Since the oil-for-food program began, Iraq has sold $40 billion worth of oil. U.S. and European officials have long argued that the increase in Iraq's oil production also expanded Saddam's ability to use some of that money for weapons, luxury goods and palaces. Security Council diplomats estimate that Iraq was skimming off as much as 10 percent of the proceeds from the oil-for-food program thanks to companies like Halliburton and former executives such as Cheney.

U.N. documents show that Halliburton's affiliates have had controversial dealings with the Iraqi regime during Cheney's tenure at the company and played a part in helping Saddam Hussein illegally pocket billions of dollars under the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. The Clinton administration blocked one deal Halliburton was trying to push through sale because it was "not authorized under the oil-for-food deal," according to U.N. documents. That deal, between Halliburton subsidiary Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. and Iraq, included agreements by the firm to sell nearly $1 million in spare parts, compressors and firefighting equipment to refurbish an offshore oil terminal, Khor al Amaya. Still, Halliburton used one of foreign subsidiaries to sell Iraq the equipment it needed so the country could pump more oil, according to a report in the Washington Post in June 2001.

The Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad through French affiliates from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, U.N. records show. Ingersoll Dresser Pump also signed contracts -- later blocked by the United States -- according to the Post, to help repair an Iraqi oil terminal that U.S.-led military forces destroyed in the Gulf War years earlier.

Cheney's hard-line stance against Iraq on the campaign trail is hypocritical considering that during his tenure as chief executive of Halliburton, Cheney pushed the U.N. Security Council, after he became CEO to end an 11-year embargo on sales of civilian goods, including oil related equipment, to Iraq. Cheney has said sanctions against countries like Iraq unfairly punish U.S. companies.

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-04 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. you can't talk sense to a pinhead, but let's see
Saddam was contained, posed no direct threat to the US, and had no WMDs.

Kerry was a war hero who served honorably, won medals, was wounded, and possessed the moral conviction to speak out afterwards about what he saw firsthand to be a troubling war. Which we all know he was right about. Bush won't even own up to the special treatment that got him placed in the National Guard so he could avoid going to Nam. And then he didn't even complete his service.

Bush has no plan to "win" in Iraq, and can't even define what winning would mean. He's stirred up a hornet's nest over there, getting US warfighters killed for no valid reason, and taking his focus off of Al Qaeda and Osama.

BUT...Halliburton is making alot of money, so who cares, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardson08 Donating Member (472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-04 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
8. You really need help responding to them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-04 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
9. Ask that moron to highlight bush's record
Edited on Tue Oct-12-04 10:13 AM by nu_duer
He failed to protect us on 9*11.

Said we'd get osama dead or alive, then said he was irrelevent.

Who's more prone to begin a draft - a man who goes to war as a first resort, or a man who goes to war as a last resort?

Who's more prone to inspire volunteer soldiers, a coward who refused to fight for his country when he had the chance, and who sent kids to fight and die in an unjustified and unnecessary war, or a man who's seen combat, and who can say to the soldiers (and their families) that they'll be put in harm's way only when absolutely necessry?

We've seen the results of the bush plan for Iraq - our soldiers, our country, and the Iraqis need to be rescued from bush's plan. Success it aint. I believe if you (freeper) were in Iraq taking fire, you'd appreciate some help from the other nations. What has the bush plan for Iraq given us? Instead of isolating the terrorists, bush has isolated America.

Do you think hatred for America has lessened since he invaded Iraq, or increased? Do you think Iraq being overrun with terrorists today is a good thing for America? Do you think weakened alliances and loss of respect for America is a good thing. Do you think this all makes us safer?

And where is osama? Where is omar? Where is the anthrax terrorist? And where was bush on 9*11, or better yet, where was before 9*11? You (freepers) act like he prevented 9*11 - he didn't, he failed. And since...

How has bush made us safer? What has he done?

Talk about Kerry's record and plans, but force that freeper to defend bush's record and plans too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 20th 2014, 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC