Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

John Forbes Kerry – Domestic Terrorist
PipeLineNews.org ^ | March 19, 2004 | William A. Mayer

Posted on 03/20/2004 9:29:25 AM PST by johnqueuepublic

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last
To: syriacus
Let's not abandon the children of Iraq the way John Kerry pressured us to abandon the children of Southeast Asia.

This is the reason Kerry must NOT become President.

I was at the evacuation of Saigon and witnessed firsthand the enormous desertion we foisted upon the people of RVN. We must never allow that to happen again.

61 posted on 03/20/2004 10:01:29 PM PST by GunnyB (Once a Marine, Always a Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: johnqueuepublic
Set against the realities of the war on terror, if holding a leadership position in the VVAW and his participation in discussions about assassinating United States Senators is not grounds for barring John Forbes Kerry from ever seeking elective office, we can’t imagine what is.

Even more frightening is that he just could win thanks to the lies he and the party are getting away with thanks to a compliant media.

The left is evil, and this proves it beyond all doubt.

62 posted on 03/20/2004 10:08:46 PM PST by ladyinred (democrats have blood on their hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnqueuepublic
you offer 3 preposterous statments by DU types that have no basis in fact from the left as evidence of...what?

You are really getting tiresome. This is my last post to you, because although you seem to grasp the language, you totally fail to comprehend what I am saying.

Let me be frank and blunt and cut out the niceties:

The DU people make asinine statements, w/o basis of fact, then they make slanderous allegations against Republicans, thus making themselves look like morons.

When we copy their tactics, by making outlandish statements like "Kerry is a domestic terrorist" then we begin to look like the idiots that they are.

It has become tiresome to try to explain to you my point, since your lack of comprehension knows no bounds.

I will instead revert to an old cliche:

"Never argue with a fool, some people will not be able to tell the difference."

63 posted on 03/20/2004 11:08:59 PM PST by Michael.SF. (One Clinton in politics is 'probably more then enough'- b. clinton" (for once, I agree with him))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
Look you brought this up and I merely suggested that we fully explore your thoughts on this.

I do indeed have a grasp of English and I do understand what your argument is.

Let me restate it for you.

You feel that this type of piece is merely aping what goes on at DU, that it is stooping to name calling.

The difference however is that nothing in the piece is untrue, it is not the same as Terry McAuliffe saying on nationa television that Bush was AWOL.

If you want to quibble about how the information is couched then in my opinion that is quibbling.

What people like you need to understand and internalize is that the left needs to be more than reasoned with, that in most cases is an impossibility. What our side needs to do is drive over them and leave tank tracks accross their backs, that is the ONLY damn thing that they understand and respect.

If you want to break off the discussion, that is certainly your perogative.
64 posted on 03/21/2004 6:31:33 AM PST by johnqueuepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
"Even more frightening is that he just could win thanks to the lies he and the party are getting away with thanks to a compliant media"

I worry exactly about this as well.

65 posted on 03/21/2004 6:47:06 AM PST by Scarfo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: GunnyB
I was at the evacuation of Saigon and witnessed firsthand the enormous desertion we foisted upon the people of RVN. We must never allow that to happen again.

It must have been heart-rending.

66 posted on 03/21/2004 9:40:52 AM PST by syriacus (Kerry abandoned the children of Southeast Asia. HE made it seem our GIs died in vain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: johnqueuepublic
"... that his candidacy should be rejected outright. If it proceeds it will be the final nail in the coffin of the Democrat Party, a party that will be crushed at the polls on November 2. .."

No it won't. He's the perfect "Clinton" candidate - flawed enough to be easily turned upon by his own party. Like the Senators turned upon Ceasar centuries ago, the ruthless demonRats will devour him - and claim they do it "for the good of the country"; claiming also remorse because the vetting process that is the primaries failed to discover his treachery, and thus weed him out.

But that still leaves the "party of the People" in dire straits - and in need of rescueing... enter stage-right, Hillary mounted upon her white charger to the rescue. Oh, as for herself being (or not, in this scenario) "vetted"??? An insignificant detail that would pale in comparison to her being percieved as the noble candidate who would risk all, even political defeat in the midst of the now-flailing-blindly peoples party, in order to take up the banner of righteousness against the evil, "President-SELECT Bush" (she has been quoted as using this exact same phrase to describe our President).

As for a crushing defeat come November 2nd? I doubt it; at least a third of registered voters subscribe to the persona that is the modern day (Stalinist, Hitlerite, Fascist, Marxist, Socialist...) Democrat. They will turn out to vote - hate is a powerful motivator.

CGVet58

67 posted on 03/21/2004 12:06:40 PM PST by CGVet58 (God has granted us liberty, and we owe Him courage in return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CGVet58
"They will turn out to vote - hate is a powerful motivator."

Actually, the opposite is true. People turn out "for" things. Hate/anger yields hopelessness, lack of faith in the system, feelings that it won't make a difference.

Anger is volatile, it could easily be turned against Kerry. Especially because there is no real unifying idea(s) on the other side, more a loose coalition of single gripes. If Kerry doesn't tow the specific lines, they won't show up.

The anti-war crowd is really feeling out of the loop right now. Kerry is really stuck here, because that angy base is due mainly to Iraq.

Kerry will not just say, pull the US out. Instead he will wobble towards some vague "let the UN take over".

This really pisses off the anti war crowd, the Deaniacs, activists etc. They will be swayed by Nader's "there is no difference" posture.

So I am optimistic. I think there is good reason to be.
68 posted on 03/21/2004 1:20:51 PM PST by pending
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
The difference is that the DU statements you quoted -aren't- supportable with the facts. You claim they are "to some degree", but frankly, they're just not. They're complete fabrications.

But let me try and see it from your perspective. Even if we go with your thesis, at the VERY minimum, the DU charges require incredibly loose definitions of terms like "war criminal" and "AWOL" in order to stick, definitions that the vast majority of people would not accept.

However, I'd be very interested to hear -anyone- who would claim that the definition of "domestic terrorism" would not, absolutely and without caveat, include conspiring to assassinate U.S. Senators in a time of war.

There's a difference between "shocking" and "outlandish". Yes, the charge is shocking, but it is not outlandish, there is a great deal of evidence to support it, far far more than the flip side from DU you are trying to present.

Reading your arguments, the only thing I can glean is that if it's too shocking, it's out of political bounds. Sometimes the truth really is shocking. What do you suggest then - ignore the truth, or cover it up?

Qwinn

69 posted on 03/21/2004 1:35:38 PM PST by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
Dramatic come ons get the clicks...
Q, why not post, something related to the reality,
was "Kerry Involved with a group planning assasinations"
for example.
It is factual, and by being direct or even understated, it will be better received.
I can see your point, but you must certainly see where this would be turned into
"freepers compare kerry to osama", or some such.

Also, I think certain words should not be devalued. I was never comfortable with Rush's feminazi, for example. Nazi to me is a historical reference, a standard of horror that merits being a group of one.

Similarly, we are in a war on Terror, against militant religious zealots.

Equating kerry with this is , first, not at all appropriate, and second a degradation of the power of the word.

70 posted on 03/21/2004 1:45:20 PM PST by pending
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: pending
Okay - so let me ask you this. Is it inappropriate to call ELF (Earth Liberation Front) a terrorist organization?

If you think it is inappropriate, I think you would find yourself in the minority.

If it is not inappropriate, then what has ELF done that compares to plotting to assassinate U.S. Senators?

Qwinn
71 posted on 03/21/2004 1:52:57 PM PST by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: pending
"...Actually, the opposite is true. People turn out "for" things. Hate/anger yields hopelessness, lack of faith in the system, feelings that it won't make a difference..."

Precisely the feelings of impotence that affect people who believe in hope, who have faith, and who can feel a sense of impotence when faced with undertaking the salient issue of our time, which is taking back our country from the leftward lurching fifth column amongst us that conspire to whittle away at our strengths in conjunction with the terrorist assault from without. Generally, my experience in dealing with the great majority of leftists (I live in CT, work in NYC area - I'm surrounded by them) continually reiterates the following 2 empirical truths: (1) they are "LEFTISTS", not Liberals - we are the modern day liberals; and (2) the qualities you subscribe, which I quote above, are generally held by conservative folks.

You may be right - and a part of me hopes so - but I believe there are enough people in this country who hate this country enough to see it crippled, if not destroyed. Have you visited the democratic underground website lately? How about the datalounge website, which was running a thread where posters were boasting of being make-believe freepers to "insinuate" themselves into our confidence while sowing seeds of doubt regarding the homosexual agenda? ( http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/forums/index.html?thread=2924542&stack=2%2C1%2C1%3Athread&continuebutton=Not+Now ) click "not now" to see the thread.

There's plenty of modern-day Tories in our country, ace... I am aware of the historical significance of that pejorative, and use it deliberately.

CGVet58
72 posted on 03/21/2004 1:57:38 PM PST by CGVet58 (God has granted us liberty, and we owe Him courage in return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
ELF refers to themselves as a terrorist group, I think?

I would be more comfortable with another word, another layer of evil. Burning down fancy new unoccupied homes is more of an "insurance irritation group", (and a convenient cover for an over extended contractor...)
Should ELF be considered comparable to AQ?
No.

I lived in Ma for a long time, I have lots of reasons, verified over the long term to not care for Kerry,
and the Big D in general...

So dont get me wrong, I just think that by using such powerful and vitriolic language one would be "preaching to the choir", dismissed by the others.

Technically you can say "terrorist" in this context, yes. I am arguing that it would not be effective.

Glance over to DU, one can read through the entire thing
quickly by skipping over those that begin with the familiar littany of Nazi/vulgarity/tinfoil conspiracy theory etc.

It is not persuasive, the words lose thier power. The result is persistant flameouts. This is amoungst folks who fundamentally agree on things...

It is understandable to wish to pay them back in kind, especially with this factual story. Thier tirades are tiring, to an extreme. Thier entire tone is fatiguing.
Folks will get tired of it, and vote accordingly.

The goal should be to persuade folks on the edge, to pull the one's over who are learning about the Senator from Mass.

This is a very serious subject. Did Kerry stay allied with this group after hearing of these assasination plans...

Was kerry part of a group planning to assasinate senators? is plenty powerful enough, and it is factual.

By creating associations to Right wing tin foil hatters (is there such a beast?) we give the opposition an easy out.
"Clinton Hater" became the generic put down to all the critiques...right? The same has occured in reverse with the Bush haters.

This important issue could be lost in that fog.

Jim


73 posted on 03/21/2004 2:21:50 PM PST by pending
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: CGVet58
I admit to shaking my head at times, but lets look at this thing.

We have rational, thought out perspectives based on a wary consciousness of history, and a strong base of faith. there is a clear delineation for us, right and wrong. It is in a lot of ways very simple.
The depth of this is not comprehendable to the opposition.
In fact, this is mistaken for a lack of depth.

But it is not us who will wither when tested, is it?

I do worry about short term glitches...gas hitting 3 bux per in september...aaarg.
But in the long run, it really is no contest. They will move to the latest fad cause, we will still be here, growing stronger.

It has been some time since 1979, you recall, I am sure.

Flash back to that, then '69... The expansion to cable and the internet has favored this side. Folks in charge of thier own input are abandoning the old elites.

This side of the table has never been so strong really. It is by no means over, but the progress is clear, and steady.

Bang em with the truth, the folks will see it.

74 posted on 03/21/2004 2:48:37 PM PST by pending
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
Without entering the fray of calling Kerry a domestic terrorist, I will say you are flat out wrong to say that calling Bush a deserter can be argued by anybody based on anything.

Coming up with a charge pulled straight out of Michael Moore's hat does not belong on your little list.

And before you tell me some nut could argue the case--which was your point, evidently--you are wrong. No, they could not.
75 posted on 03/21/2004 2:50:02 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
The difference is that the DU statements you quoted -aren't- supportable with the facts. You claim they are "to some degree", but frankly, they're just not. They're complete fabrications.

I want to emphasize this because I plucked out the "deserter" charge as the MOST outrageous and baseless of a baseless lot, but that one is the one that has absolutely not one scintilla of evidence supporting it. But you are right to say the other points on the stupid list are also false and I didn't want to leave the notion that I thought they had any factual support.

The fact is that the VVAW did engage in a type of domestic terrorism (this "seizing" the Statue of Liberty, that Kerry did not participate in), but I would say it is going a step too far to call him a terrorist. But it certainly is a more sustainable charge than these other idiotic allegations.

76 posted on 03/21/2004 3:00:59 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: pending
I welcome your PoV - it is refreshing, optimistic and powerful for it's clarity.

Which - by comparison to mine own comments - shows me to be a bit more pugnacious (poster raises hand towards monitor screen unabashedly).

Best part of this, Jim, is that you're on my side - I, on yours... and we both along with tens of thousands other freepers, completely love our country.

This is a great place - and i'm damned glad to meet and exchange thoughts with you.

Juan
77 posted on 03/21/2004 3:06:26 PM PST by CGVet58 (God has granted us liberty, and we owe Him courage in return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
And before you tell me some nut could argue the case--which was your point, evidently--you are wrong. No, they could not.

This is so exasperating. That was not my point at all. My point was: That for someone to say:

"Kerry is a terrorist"

Is as wrong and as stupid as saying: "Bush was AWOL"

Since when did an argument, wholly lacking in merit, ever stop a Democrat from making it?

78 posted on 03/21/2004 10:11:39 PM PST by Michael.SF. (One Clinton in politics is 'probably more then enough'- b. clinton" (for once, I agree with him))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
Reading your arguments, the only thing I can glean is that if it's too shocking, it's out of political bounds. Sometimes the truth really is shocking. What do you suggest then - ignore the truth, or cover it up?

I am suggesting a middle ground actually. Had the original headline read:

"Did Kerry advocate 'Domestic terrorism'?

I would have had no problem. But the headline states, as fact that Kerry is a domestic terrorist. I contend that the statement does not square with the facts.

'Our man in Washington' spells out a much more reasonable scenario, then to make outlandish statements, ones which only serve to make Freepers out to be extremists.

I think overall, we are much more intelligent and reasonable then to make unfounded accusations.

However, judging from some of the responses I am getting (not yours), I am begining to question ny assesment of some of the people here.

79 posted on 03/21/2004 10:20:10 PM PST by Michael.SF. (One Clinton in politics is 'probably more then enough'- b. clinton" (for once, I agree with him))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
"I am suggesting a middle ground actually. Had the original headline read: "Did Kerry advocate 'Domestic terrorism'?" I would have had no problem. But the headline states, as fact that Kerry is a domestic terrorist. I contend that the statement does not square with the facts.

If someone advocates segregation, are they not a segregationist?

If someone advocates conservativism, are they not a conservative?

If someone advocates liberalism, are they not a liberal?

If someone advocates domestic terrorism, are they not a domestic terrorist?

Sometimes you just gotta call a spade a spade, man. Especially when it's something this serious. I'm wondering if we're just not at odds on definitions, here.

Qwinn
80 posted on 03/21/2004 10:34:07 PM PST by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson