The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It's a simple choice this time, who do you want as the next president of the U.S.A. ?
For those not familiar with the format, you make your choice and it's put beside your name, the votes will be counted up at a later date, 5 spaces have been left for those that want to vote but aren't on the list.
Bush or Kerry ?
32 votes
Bush - 8
Kerry - 24
Bush
Ashley - Bush
Chad Niga - Bush
Mattribute - Bush
Notorious Biggles - Bush
Archangel - Bush
Kr - Bush
Johnson - Bush
Belldandy - Bush
Kerry
Cong woman - Kerry
Dakarus Joe - Kerry
Flock - Kerry
Forest Fan - Kerry
Grix Thraves - Kerry
Light - Kerry
Lipe - Kerry
Mumbai Duck - Kerry
Rickoss - Kerry
RoJ - Kerry
Sheepy - Kerry
Silent Thunder - Kerry
Strafio - Kerry
Trish - Kerry
Very Metal - Kerry
Whitestripes DX - Kerry
Ultima Weapon - Kerry
Astoria - Kerry
Innuendo - Kerry
Yuri Fan Kerry
The Ghost - Kerry
Gamesfreak - Kerry
LSD - Kerry
Grebo - Kerry
For those not familiar with the format, you make your choice and it's put beside your name, the votes will be counted up at a later date, 5 spaces have been left for those that want to vote but aren't on the list.
Bush or Kerry ?
32 votes
Bush - 8
Kerry - 24
Bush
Ashley - Bush
Chad Niga - Bush
Mattribute - Bush
Notorious Biggles - Bush
Archangel - Bush
Kr - Bush
Johnson - Bush
Belldandy - Bush
Kerry
Cong woman - Kerry
Dakarus Joe - Kerry
Flock - Kerry
Forest Fan - Kerry
Grix Thraves - Kerry
Light - Kerry
Lipe - Kerry
Mumbai Duck - Kerry
Rickoss - Kerry
RoJ - Kerry
Sheepy - Kerry
Silent Thunder - Kerry
Strafio - Kerry
Trish - Kerry
Very Metal - Kerry
Whitestripes DX - Kerry
Ultima Weapon - Kerry
Astoria - Kerry
Innuendo - Kerry
Yuri Fan Kerry
The Ghost - Kerry
Gamesfreak - Kerry
LSD - Kerry
Grebo - Kerry
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> I also never said those sites discredited Kerry! You seem to be
> slipping into Light's ploy of twisting words around... they were
> simply sites about it. I specifically chose the less extreme and more
> fair(ish) minded ones.
Heh. However, in the same post you did say;
> Your choice, but it seems Kerry has a major honesty problem, at least >with
> his past.
Which sort of indicates that you believed those sites, does it not?
> I also never said those sites discredited Kerry! You seem to be
> slipping into Light's ploy of twisting words around... they were
> simply sites about it. I specifically chose the less extreme and more
> fair(ish) minded ones.
Heh. However, in the same post you did say;
> Your choice, but it seems Kerry has a major honesty problem, at least >with
> his past.
Which sort of indicates that you believed those sites, does it not?
Belldandy wrote:
> Both Cambodia, how'd you miss them?
Heh, the last 2 of the 5, under the heading 'about the purple hearts thing' :^)
(I read the first 3 and felt I'd seen enough on the purple hearts).
It's intersting, Kerry claims that while in Cambodia
"the President of the United States [was] telling the American people that I was not there".
Further (second site):
"By Christmas 1968, part of Kerry's patrol extended across the border of South Vietnam into Cambodia. 'We were told, "Just go up there and do your patrol." Everybody was over there (in Cambodia). Nobody thought twice about it,' Kerry said."
It sounds like he wasn't 'officially' in Cambodia, presumably because of all the diplomatic problems that'd entail, but the US forces needed to patrol those areas, so troops were instructed to do so regardless.
That doesn't seem particularly hard to believe, and would explain why everyone else was unwilling to say they'd been in the country - partly because they'd 'only just' been in the country, and partly because they knew they 'shouldn't' have been.
I really didn't set out to defend Kerry, and I'm sure he has his own special ways in which he's a deceitful cheapting cockwasp (ie, a regular politician), but on this issue, while it's not watertight either way, there's really not much here to base any aspertions on.
Belldandy wrote:
> I also never said those sites discredited Kerry! You seem to be
> slipping into Light's ploy of twisting words around... they were
> simply sites about it.
The whole point of the purple heart argument was to suggest Kerry didn't deserve his awards, and lied about them, ie) to discredit him.
Plus, the very first link was to a page on the site vietnamveteransagainstkerry.com ! Not designed to discredit Kerry?!
However, part of it was that I had the impression you were looking to discredit Kerry and so promote Bush, and so expected you to bring up links which aimed to discredit Kerry, rather than 'neutral' ones.
So yeah, sorry if I was wrong about that.
> Both Cambodia, how'd you miss them?
Heh, the last 2 of the 5, under the heading 'about the purple hearts thing' :^)
(I read the first 3 and felt I'd seen enough on the purple hearts).
It's intersting, Kerry claims that while in Cambodia
"the President of the United States [was] telling the American people that I was not there".
Further (second site):
"By Christmas 1968, part of Kerry's patrol extended across the border of South Vietnam into Cambodia. 'We were told, "Just go up there and do your patrol." Everybody was over there (in Cambodia). Nobody thought twice about it,' Kerry said."
It sounds like he wasn't 'officially' in Cambodia, presumably because of all the diplomatic problems that'd entail, but the US forces needed to patrol those areas, so troops were instructed to do so regardless.
That doesn't seem particularly hard to believe, and would explain why everyone else was unwilling to say they'd been in the country - partly because they'd 'only just' been in the country, and partly because they knew they 'shouldn't' have been.
I really didn't set out to defend Kerry, and I'm sure he has his own special ways in which he's a deceitful cheapting cockwasp (ie, a regular politician), but on this issue, while it's not watertight either way, there's really not much here to base any aspertions on.
Belldandy wrote:
> I also never said those sites discredited Kerry! You seem to be
> slipping into Light's ploy of twisting words around... they were
> simply sites about it.
The whole point of the purple heart argument was to suggest Kerry didn't deserve his awards, and lied about them, ie) to discredit him.
Plus, the very first link was to a page on the site vietnamveteransagainstkerry.com ! Not designed to discredit Kerry?!
However, part of it was that I had the impression you were looking to discredit Kerry and so promote Bush, and so expected you to bring up links which aimed to discredit Kerry, rather than 'neutral' ones.
So yeah, sorry if I was wrong about that.
Belldandy wrote:
> Well I made it clear those sites were just about the thing, not any
> particular viewpoint, and there were Cambodia ones mixed in, I'll
> double check them but I am sure at least two mention it.
Heh. Trying to avoid addressing the fact that your lie has been taken apart then?
Incidentally, this article;
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1282583,00.html[/URL]
would seem to indicate that the Cambodia stories are more of the smears and lies that Dubya specialises in. Well, when you have no achievements of your own to point to, I suppose one has to...
> Well I made it clear those sites were just about the thing, not any
> particular viewpoint, and there were Cambodia ones mixed in, I'll
> double check them but I am sure at least two mention it.
Heh. Trying to avoid addressing the fact that your lie has been taken apart then?
Incidentally, this article;
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1282583,00.html[/URL]
would seem to indicate that the Cambodia stories are more of the smears and lies that Dubya specialises in. Well, when you have no achievements of your own to point to, I suppose one has to...
> [URL]http://instapundit.com/archives/017068.php[/URL]
>
> [URL]http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040809-090612-9480r.htm[/URL]
Both Cambodia, how'd you miss them?
>
> [URL]http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040809-090612-9480r.htm[/URL]
Both Cambodia, how'd you miss them?
Well I made it clear those sites were just about the thing, not any particular viewpoint, and there were Cambodia ones mixed in, I'll double check them but I am sure at least two mention it.
Personally I think there is legitimate doubt about honesty over Cambodia, possibly the purple heart, if you actually read what I typed I didn't comment as to whether Kerry deserved them, just what I had seen on an interview etc
I also never said those sites discredited Kerry! You seem to be slipping into Light's ploy of twisting words around... they were simply sites about it. I specifically chose the less extreme and more fair(ish) minded ones. And with Kerry's campaign finance then it's rather a mute point to haul out the Republicans over corporate funding, 'cause Kerry's had the same help from others with a vested interest in seeing him in the White House.
Maybe what is needed is a way for a non-rich person to stand a chance at the Presidency, or a woman.
Meh, Hilary Clinton should be the one running, not Kerry.
Personally I think there is legitimate doubt about honesty over Cambodia, possibly the purple heart, if you actually read what I typed I didn't comment as to whether Kerry deserved them, just what I had seen on an interview etc
I also never said those sites discredited Kerry! You seem to be slipping into Light's ploy of twisting words around... they were simply sites about it. I specifically chose the less extreme and more fair(ish) minded ones. And with Kerry's campaign finance then it's rather a mute point to haul out the Republicans over corporate funding, 'cause Kerry's had the same help from others with a vested interest in seeing him in the White House.
Maybe what is needed is a way for a non-rich person to stand a chance at the Presidency, or a woman.
Meh, Hilary Clinton should be the one running, not Kerry.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> I'm very shocked that the sites you list to discredit Kerry actually
> seem to largely affirm his reputation.
Heh. You'll get used to it; Bell has a habit of posting links to sites that actually undermine his argument. Not sure why; I'm guessing it's because;
A - He never reads anything in full, just scans it and his eyes only pick out the bits that he wants to see
B - He's just not that bright and doesn't understand how to debate.
I'm guessing it's a little from column A and a little from column B.
> It's a shame that we'll never see a frank, open discussion of these
> issues, but because of Bush's service-dodging, the republicans can
> only take 'unofficial' pot shots at Kerry (the notable advertising
> campaign was carried out by a republican corporate sponsor).
Mm, true enough. I mean, maybe Kerry is a lying toad about parts of his service record. But because he actually has a service record, that immediately puts him ahead of Dubya in terms of military service.
>
>
> Anway, anything about that Cambodia thing?
Fat chance; Bell will almost certainly follow standard Belldandy procedure and try and avoid that point altogether now.
Nice post though.
Oh, Biggles; with regard to the point about Dubya spending more on the military. Not as such he doesn't; he's passed laws to cut military personnel's pay, reduce their pension rights, and reduce their family entitlements. He HAS spent more money on the weapons manufactured by the Carlyle Group, on who's board sits...George Bush Snr. Funny that...
> I'm very shocked that the sites you list to discredit Kerry actually
> seem to largely affirm his reputation.
Heh. You'll get used to it; Bell has a habit of posting links to sites that actually undermine his argument. Not sure why; I'm guessing it's because;
A - He never reads anything in full, just scans it and his eyes only pick out the bits that he wants to see
B - He's just not that bright and doesn't understand how to debate.
I'm guessing it's a little from column A and a little from column B.
> It's a shame that we'll never see a frank, open discussion of these
> issues, but because of Bush's service-dodging, the republicans can
> only take 'unofficial' pot shots at Kerry (the notable advertising
> campaign was carried out by a republican corporate sponsor).
Mm, true enough. I mean, maybe Kerry is a lying toad about parts of his service record. But because he actually has a service record, that immediately puts him ahead of Dubya in terms of military service.
>
>
> Anway, anything about that Cambodia thing?
Fat chance; Bell will almost certainly follow standard Belldandy procedure and try and avoid that point altogether now.
Nice post though.
Oh, Biggles; with regard to the point about Dubya spending more on the military. Not as such he doesn't; he's passed laws to cut military personnel's pay, reduce their pension rights, and reduce their family entitlements. He HAS spent more money on the weapons manufactured by the Carlyle Group, on who's board sits...George Bush Snr. Funny that...
Belldandy wrote:
> There are many many links, here are a few with varying takes on the
> story about the purple hearts;
>
> .....
Links about the Cambodia thing though?
I've read the first 3 of the Purple Heart links, and I have to say, if that's all the anti-Kerry argument has, on this point, it looks very feeble.
The first page details the 3 purple hearts:
1. Criticism: It was a fairly minor would, and they claim Kerry lied about where it cam from.
2. Criticism: Kerry engaged the enemy in an environment where some people think it would have been best not to.
That's a pretty feeble basis for an attack on his character, 'we think that in this situation he should have let the enemy go'.
3. Criticism: None. Even this specifically anti-Kerry site gives him credit for bravery.
The second site again claims the injury in the first purple heart was very minor.
The third site, however:
-"There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts--from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades,"
Okay, so it's legitimate for purple hearts to be given from shrapnel.
-"Kerry has also said he didn't know where the shrapnel came from."
And he hasn't lied about it.
So he's been given the purple heart for minor injuries, but the purple heart is intended for people with minor injuries. And he hasn't lied.
And if we consider all purple hearts to be legitimate, you can't really criticise him for taking the option given to him to leave the war.
Maybe you don't think the wounds were enough for him to be 'allowed out', but the people who made the policy decided that it was. And that's all that really matters.
Also, while the sites try to discredit him for receiving purple hearts for only minor injuries, there is scant mention of his (legitimately earned) Silver star and Bronze star, seemingly hoping they'd slip past peoples' notice so the sites could make people think Kerry hadn't actually carried out those acts of bravery.
I'm very shocked that the sites you list to discredit Kerry actually seem to largely affirm his reputation.
It's a shame that we'll never see a frank, open discussion of these issues, but because of Bush's service-dodging, the republicans can only take 'unofficial' pot shots at Kerry (the notable advertising campaign was carried out by a republican corporate sponsor).
Anway, anything about that Cambodia thing?
> There are many many links, here are a few with varying takes on the
> story about the purple hearts;
>
> .....
Links about the Cambodia thing though?
I've read the first 3 of the Purple Heart links, and I have to say, if that's all the anti-Kerry argument has, on this point, it looks very feeble.
The first page details the 3 purple hearts:
1. Criticism: It was a fairly minor would, and they claim Kerry lied about where it cam from.
2. Criticism: Kerry engaged the enemy in an environment where some people think it would have been best not to.
That's a pretty feeble basis for an attack on his character, 'we think that in this situation he should have let the enemy go'.
3. Criticism: None. Even this specifically anti-Kerry site gives him credit for bravery.
The second site again claims the injury in the first purple heart was very minor.
The third site, however:
-"There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts--from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades,"
Okay, so it's legitimate for purple hearts to be given from shrapnel.
-"Kerry has also said he didn't know where the shrapnel came from."
And he hasn't lied about it.
So he's been given the purple heart for minor injuries, but the purple heart is intended for people with minor injuries. And he hasn't lied.
And if we consider all purple hearts to be legitimate, you can't really criticise him for taking the option given to him to leave the war.
Maybe you don't think the wounds were enough for him to be 'allowed out', but the people who made the policy decided that it was. And that's all that really matters.
Also, while the sites try to discredit him for receiving purple hearts for only minor injuries, there is scant mention of his (legitimately earned) Silver star and Bronze star, seemingly hoping they'd slip past peoples' notice so the sites could make people think Kerry hadn't actually carried out those acts of bravery.
I'm very shocked that the sites you list to discredit Kerry actually seem to largely affirm his reputation.
It's a shame that we'll never see a frank, open discussion of these issues, but because of Bush's service-dodging, the republicans can only take 'unofficial' pot shots at Kerry (the notable advertising campaign was carried out by a republican corporate sponsor).
Anway, anything about that Cambodia thing?
Belldandy wrote:
> I've given a whole load down, nice to see someone who wants Kerry and
> actually knows something about him though.
Yup, and you've also had 'em fairly thoroughly discredited. Face facts dear boy; you're only a supporter of Bush cos it marks you out as different.
>
> EDIT: And Cheney is right, there's no negotiation possible when the
> other side's objective is total destruction.
True. Shame that Kerry wasn't talking about negotiation with terrorists. He's talking about negotiation with allies. Y'know, those people who Dubya rode roughshod over and ignored?
> I've given a whole load down, nice to see someone who wants Kerry and
> actually knows something about him though.
Yup, and you've also had 'em fairly thoroughly discredited. Face facts dear boy; you're only a supporter of Bush cos it marks you out as different.
>
> EDIT: And Cheney is right, there's no negotiation possible when the
> other side's objective is total destruction.
True. Shame that Kerry wasn't talking about negotiation with terrorists. He's talking about negotiation with allies. Y'know, those people who Dubya rode roughshod over and ignored?
I've given a whole load down, nice to see someone who wants Kerry and actually knows something about him though.
EDIT: And Cheney is right, there's no negotiation possible when the other side's objective is total destruction.
EDIT: And Cheney is right, there's no negotiation possible when the other side's objective is total destruction.
"Senator Kerry has . . . said that if he were in charge, he would fight a 'more sensitive' war on terror. America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive," Cheney told a cheering crowd at the Dayton Convention Center in Ohio yesterday. "Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed."
*shudder*
Anyway...
I was in Boston during the Democratic National Convention, and it was an interesting experience, one of the most highly charged political cities I've been to. There were about 7 or 8 protests on abortion leading up to it, anti-war demos, banners everywhere, Kerry and Bush rosettes being handed out, and it seemed to be on everyone's mind.
The main reason I would vote for Kerry is the abortion thing. I can't understand how a modern day person cannot accept abortion, even in cases of rape etc.
Has anyone given a reason to supporting Bush other than I'm not going with the crowd, I support Bush because other people don't?
*shudder*
Anyway...
I was in Boston during the Democratic National Convention, and it was an interesting experience, one of the most highly charged political cities I've been to. There were about 7 or 8 protests on abortion leading up to it, anti-war demos, banners everywhere, Kerry and Bush rosettes being handed out, and it seemed to be on everyone's mind.
The main reason I would vote for Kerry is the abortion thing. I can't understand how a modern day person cannot accept abortion, even in cases of rape etc.
Has anyone given a reason to supporting Bush other than I'm not going with the crowd, I support Bush because other people don't?
Page: