|
Post by RealistState on Mar 27, 2004 9:24:33 GMT -5
My dad is a Vietnam Vet and he as well as a lot of veterens he knows are questioning Kerry's three purple hearts. There are vets in hospitals with missing limbs that only have one purple heart. Yet Kerry has three for a minor injury that only kept him out for only a few days. I don't think its out of line or ridiculous to question his three purple hearts. Unless of course you hate Bush and want to make excuses for Kerry. From the web site http://www.purpleheart.org: "A wound which necessitates treatment by a medical officer and which is received in action with an enemy, may in the judgment of the commander authorized to make the award be construed as resulting from a singularly meritorious act of essential service." It's not a quesion of hating George Bush in as much as it is questioning the merits of who recieves a Purple Heart. If you feel that the definition needs to be changed retroactively, you're talking about hundreds of thousands of awards that would have to rescinded back to WW1.
|
|
|
Post by atomheart on Mar 27, 2004 10:01:34 GMT -5
Im not talking about taking any of those other awards away from Vets but don't you think it's odd that Kerry got three purple heart medals for much less than others that have just one?
Don't you think that kinda unfair to those vets in VA hospitals confined to a wheelchair for life with a single purple heart medal seeing this guy running for President with three??
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Mar 27, 2004 11:31:29 GMT -5
Im not talking about taking any of those other awards away from Vets but don't you think it's odd that Kerry got three purple heart medals for much less than others that have just one? Don't you think that kinda unfair to those vets in VA hospitals confined to a wheelchair for life with a single purple heart medal seeing this guy running for President with three?? my great uncle got one in WWII, he received it because he was killed in action. i think POSSIBLY in the WW's they were not given as easily as as in "nam. NOT that they were given willy-nilly all the time. however very possibly with the Vietnam era - they were trying to bolster the spirits of those in combat??
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Mar 27, 2004 12:41:21 GMT -5
I've been eager to find someone who actually supports Kerry for who he is and because they believe he will bring to the Presidency something that is good and necessary.
Realist, are you that person? Do you support Kerry because you like him? Or because you see him as the lesser of two evils.
Blessings, LJ
|
|
|
Post by atomheart on Mar 27, 2004 12:46:50 GMT -5
my great uncle got one in WWII, he received it because he was killed in action. i think POSSIBLY in the WW's they were not given as easily as as in "nam. NOT that they were given willy-nilly all the time. however very possibly with the Vietnam era - they were trying to bolster the spirits of those in combat?? Yeah, a lot of good that did Kerry. His actions after the war were disgusting. Going before Congress lying about atrocities US soliders did in Vietnam, using phony veterens as witnesses, claiming he threw his medals away when they weren't his but someone else's (Kerry's medals hang in his office). Attending a meeting where it was discussed that an assination attempt should be made on Senators that supported the Vietnam war. Yeah, I can see why someone would want to vote for this guy. And Im not even going to start with his bi-polar type stance on issues. He's for it one day and against it the next. My favorite Kerry quote, "I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars, before I voted against it." Wow, he's the Yogi Berra of politics.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Mar 27, 2004 13:35:25 GMT -5
Yeah, a lot of good that did Kerry. His actions after the war were disgusting. Going before Congress lying about atrocities US soliders did in Vietnam, using phony veterens as witnesses, claiming he threw his medals away when they weren't his but someone else's (Kerry's medals hang in his office). Attending a meeting where it was discussed that an assination attempt should be made on Senators that supported the Vietnam war. Yeah, I can see why someone would want to vote for this guy. And Im not even going to start with his bi-polar type stance on issues. He's for it one day and against it the next. My favorite Kerry quote, "I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars, before I voted against it." Wow, he's the Yogi Berra of politics. you know i didn't realize the connection with his wife -- heinz ketchup. heard on a radio show last night that somethibg like 3/4 of their product is produced -- outside of northern america. the question was put to the supporter - for someone who says we need more jobs in USA shouldn't he be leading by example??
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 27, 2004 23:27:18 GMT -5
Im not talking about taking any of those other awards away from Vets but don't you think it's odd that Kerry got three purple heart medals for much less than others that have just one? Don't you think that kinda unfair to those vets in VA hospitals confined to a wheelchair for life with a single purple heart medal seeing this guy running for President with three?? Again, the issue you have is with the Pentagon, and how Purple Hearts are awarded. They are not based on severity.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 27, 2004 23:33:30 GMT -5
my great uncle got one in WWII, he received it because he was killed in action. i think POSSIBLY in the WW's they were not given as easily as as in "nam. NOT that they were given willy-nilly all the time. however very possibly with the Vietnam era - they were trying to bolster the spirits of those in combat?? My father was in the South Pacific during WW2. He joined before the war at 17 and served for the duration. Fortunately he was never wounded (at least what we know of) that warranted a Purple Heart. Although he did mention that plenty of the boys were hoping for that "Million Dollar" wound....one that was not too severe, but one that would get them sent home. He was on Okinawa when they dropped the Bomb.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 27, 2004 23:41:30 GMT -5
I've been eager to find someone who actually supports Kerry for who he is and because they believe he will bring to the Presidency something that is good and necessary. Realist, are you that person? Do you support Kerry because you like him? Or because you see him as the lesser of two evils. Blessings, LJ I haven't quite made my mind up about Kerry. I think there is more going on there than folks are willing to give credit for. I did vote for John McCain in the 2000 primary over Bush before they unfairly enviserated John's war record. It almost seems like the same ploy. What I find interesting is how people look at his voting record, but do not look at the "riders" and "add-ons" that get put on a good bill. I mean how many more "highways to nowhere" do we need? Nothing like adding "pork" to defence spending bills.
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Mar 29, 2004 0:47:41 GMT -5
It shouldn't matter to you Dems since your hero Clinton didn't serve at all. He ran off to Europe avoiding the draft then writing a letter to the draft board saying that he "loathed the military". It doesn't matter to me. Bill Clinton not serving in the military didn't affect his ability to carry out the duties of the Presidency. I was expressing jy dislike of the double standard when it comes it questioning Bush's military record.
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Mar 29, 2004 0:56:40 GMT -5
My favorite Kerry quote, "I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars, before I voted against it." I don't see the problem you have with this statement. He voted "Yes" then he and Joe Biden decided to introduce and amendment that would roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans to pay for the 87 billion dollar price tag. The amendment was rejected on a party line vote then he changed his vote to "No". How is that wrong?
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 29, 2004 6:14:17 GMT -5
Does that really matter? Atleast, John Kerry served in Vietnam. I am getting really tired of people attacking John Kerry because they don't think he was in the worst combat situation the war had to offer...it happens. They did that to Al Gore last in the last election too. He too served in Vietnam. Those attacks are fine I supose, but saying something about GWB national guard service THAT KEPT IN THE U.S. THE WHOLE TIME is off limits I guess...what a sad world we live in. It matters because Kerry is parading around like some great war hero when all he was was one of thousands who served this country. The difference is he returned and became a traitor, a war protester who helped prolong the war and gave strength to the enemy, who admitted that they almost ready to give up until they saw the political tide turning in their favor. This gave them the strength to fight on and COST MANY MORE AMERICAN LIVES THAN OTHERWISE. I believe Kerry needs to apologize to the families of those he helped kill with his war protests. If there would have been no war protests, the war would have ended sooner and less american lives would have been lost. Algore verved in the rear area where he was assured of a soft tour.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 29, 2004 6:17:05 GMT -5
Again, the issue you have is with the Pentagon, and how Purple Hearts are awarded. They are not based on severity. Right. As long as one is in a combat zone and gets a scratch, one gets a purple heart. I could never allow anyone to build me up like Kerry does. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 29, 2004 6:21:55 GMT -5
It doesn't matter to me. Bill Clinton not serving in the military didn't affect his ability to carry out the duties of the Presidency. I was expressing jy dislike of the double standard when it comes it questioning Bush's military record. Did his organizing war protests against the USA on foreign soil bother you any? Did his visiting our enemy, the Soviet Union by their specific invitation at the height of the cold war bother you any?
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 29, 2004 6:26:01 GMT -5
I don't see the problem you have with this statement. He voted "Yes" then he and Joe Biden decided to introduce and amendment that would roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans to pay for the 87 billion dollar price tag. The amendment was rejected on a party line vote then he changed his vote to "No". How is that wrong? Then he should just admit that he DIDN'T support the soldiers in the field instead of lying about that support. He should just admit that he was more against tax cuts than getting them the money they needed to fight a war. This "tax cuts only for the rich" lie is getting old.
Kerry is a typical Democrat who can't stand on the truth or his record so he lies. [/color]
|
|