Rick Reuben wrote:

Lonesome Bulldog wrote:

Just confirm for me that you will never name the bankers as the owners of the country. That's all I want to know.

I don't know if I understand the question. I won't acknowledge them as my masters, that's for fucking sure. Non Serviam!

Well to quote Bill Clinton, "define what is is."

You take preaching to the converted to a new level. I guess it would have to be called "abusively berating the converted while having no idea they know this shit already." I've known the Federal reserve was a scam since I was a kid and had to write a paper on Alexander Hamilton. Once I did the research I learned how some founding fathers were molesting the nation.

You're jousting at your own fucking windmill. My clintonized answer means, the country is "owned" by the bankers and their InJustice League, but you can't own anything, you can only use or abuse it.

They don't own my mind either, nor that of those I'd call my peers, no matter how much you try to belittle everyone. Shame on you, you big fat meanie.

Ty Webb wrote:I don't know why Kerry handled it so poorly, Rick. But the investigations done by multiple media outlets show that it's simply untrue to imply that the Swift Boaters were largely correct or that the meat of their claims had not been discredited.

Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry is a pretty good antidote to the Swiftboating horseshit.

Rick Reuben wrote:One thing I know for sure- Ty Webb will never independently investigate a single allegation in the Corsi book.

I've read several of Corsi's claims/pseudo-claims ("DID it have something to do with Sharia law, hmmmmmmm?"). Which one do you find particularly damaging/interesting?

Rick Reuben wrote:So you think everyone who contributed their war memories to that book just made it all up?

I put more stock in the testimony of the handful of dudes who were actually ON the swiftboat with Kerry. You know, like, the guys whose lives he saved, the ones whom you can see praising him in...Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry. To say "I smell a right-wing hitjob" is an understatement. More like "I can trace the right-wing hitjob for you, plain as day." The parts that weren't outright, partisan-funded lies were simply the result of a lot of vets (whose actual combat service was, with one exception, periphreal to Kerry's) who felt demonized by Kerry's testimony and actions after he got home. I'm pretty sympathetic to those feelings, but not when they lead you to join a rightwing hatchet organization based on horseshit, distortions, and lies.

Excuse the wikipeding:

Several of those who joined SBVT during the 2004 campaign were officers who had previously praised Kerry's conduct during the Vietnam War. These included Division Commander Grant Hibbard, who wrote positive evaluations of Kerry, and Commander George Elliott, who submitted Kerry for a Silver Star. [...] Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT. He was not present on any of the occasions when Kerry won his medals, including his Purple Hearts. Gardner appeared in two of the group's television advertisements.

Swift boat patrols...scary shit! Your whole job is to motor around and draw enemy fire so that command can zero in on their location. That explains the 75%+ casualty rates.

Rick Reuben wrote:Let me ask you this, Connor: Do you believe Kerry distorted what went on in Vietnam in his testimony and in his book?

Sure. I don't think he lied, but his testimony was "politicized," sure. He had a moral objection to the Vietnam war and thus spoke with politicians to bring an end to it. It just so happens that I agree with the political goal in question: ending the Vietnam war.

Rick Reuben wrote:I'm still not sure what your answer is- are you saying that every negative recollection of Kerry in that book was a fiction made up to punish him?

I'm saying this:

connor wrote:The parts that weren't outright, partisan-funded lies were simply the result of a lot of vets (whose actual combat service was, with one exception, periphereal to Kerry's) who felt demonized by Kerry's testimony and actions after he got home. I'm pretty sympathetic to those feelings, but not when they lead you to join a rightwing hatchet organization based on horseshit, distortions, and lies.

Throw in a crew of powerful, right-wing pols and billionaires (ole T. Boone!) all too eager to exploit those emotions so as to elect Bush and...well, there ya go.

You quoted the testimony of Captain Elliott. He's the guy that submitted Kerry for the Silver Star.

Rick Reuben wrote:Let me ask you this, Connor: Do you believe Kerry distorted what went on in Vietnam in his testimony and in his book?

Sure. I don't think he lied, but his testimony was "politicized," sure. He had a moral objection to the Vietnam war and thus spoke with politicians to bring an end to it. It just so happens that I agree with the political goal in question: ending the Vietnam war.

Rick Reuben wrote:I'm still not sure what your answer is- are you saying that every negative recollection of Kerry in that book was a fiction made up to punish him?

I'm saying this:

connor wrote:The parts that weren't outright, partisan-funded lies were simply the result of a lot of vets (whose actual combat service was, with one exception, periphereal to Kerry's) who felt demonized by Kerry's testimony and actions after he got home. I'm pretty sympathetic to those feelings, but not when they lead you to join a rightwing hatchet organization based on horseshit, distortions, and lies.

Throw in a crew of powerful, right-wing pols and billionaires (ole T. Boone!) all too eager to exploit those emotions so as to elect Bush and...well, there ya go.

You quoted the testimony of Captain Elliott. He's the guy that submitted Kerry for the Silver Star.

Rick Reuben wrote:

connor wrote:It just so happens that I agree with the political goal in question: ending the Vietnam war.

So you agree that distorting the truth is acceptable for political gain- if it's a cause that you agree with.

I should have been clearer: I think that distortion is nearly inevitable when it comes to something like political testimony; when someone is asking you for your subjective opinion on a highly-politicized matter (something like "so what was, you know, Vietnam LIKE?") or even personal experience. Other than that, the objective facts of American involvement in Vietnam drive me to Kerry's camp. Do I think official American policy in Vietnam was heinous, gruesome and criminal and thus led to American soldiers committing heinous and gruesome acts? Yes. That's how I'd characterize a "free-fire zone."

How does the Swift Boat book earn your criticism then?

Because it was used by right-wing shits to elect Bush and to smear someone whom I consider to be an honorable public servant.

And, as I've said, because I've listened to the testimony of the men who actually served on the swift boat with John Kerry.

Rick Reuben wrote:The fact that he went anywhere near a psychotic occult society like Skull and Bones is appalling. The fact that he thinks it's a big joke is disgusting. No real liberal would go near an American Nazi club for elites.

I agree with that.

Kennedy gave a great speech on the evils of Secret Societies...