lol, fair point. I was using the plural you, democrats as a whole. Generally dems don't vote and reps do, if "you" lose... that will be why.
Well to put it bluntly the majority of Americans don't vote. That should explain why we have problems in a nut shell.
50 for Kerry 23 for Bush Now in the real world there'd be another 20 to 30 Bush voters. They're not here because they don't read too well and think science is just a theory.
BS. I'm plenty scientifically minded and as right wing as they come. Still, there is some truth to what you say. It's because our college campuses are left wing re-education camps. See the info below from http://www.ncpa.org/iss/gov/2002/pd090502c.html: A recent survey issued by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and the American Enterprise Institute reveals that the overwhelming majority of college professors are registered Democrats, and that they teach in disciplines where politics matters the most. It has prompted considerable comment. It found that: More that 90 percent of professors who work in the arts and sciences departments at leading colleges and universities belong to either Democrat, Green or Working Class parties -- with very few registered as either Republican or Libertarian. Among history professors at the University of Colorado at Boulder, only one out of 29 was a registered Republican -- and among 19 political science professors only two Republicans could be found. At the University of Texas at Austin, of the 109 professors whose political affiliation was identified, 94 were Democrats and 15 were Republicans. At Brown University, 54 professors whose political affiliations were recorded in primary registrations last year were Democrats, compared with three Republicans. Comments on the imbalance range from "worrisome" to "a national outrage." Said one critic, "Faculties that won't brook intellectual dissent in their own ranks feel more comfortable indoctrinating students than educating them..." To emerge from this kind of indoctrination as anything but a leftist takes some effort. The path of least resistance is to tell the profs what they what to hear. And if you say it enough times, you start to believe it.
Bush will lead america back to the stone age.........At least with Kerry, you can count on america attacking fewer countries worldwide! Yob Atta
madanthonywayne, I said tend to be liberal as a average statistic, we have done polls on this forum before and a large majority are liberal, sure we have many conservatives here but they are outnumber. But I have never felt pressured by professors to believe in there same political ideologies. For example I had a rather nazi like professor I did research for, I managed to get along with him despite his wise cracks about Hispanics (me) and Jews (my mother). I would say that in critical reasoning class I left with a particular ability to see through all the fallacies of Rush limbaugh arguments, but that was something of my own testing. But if it is so that liberalism in collage comes from a vast majority of liberal professors in universities, then that would mean PHDs in general are liberal (unless you can show that in industry most professors are conservative, that those equal their academic imbalance) and as such a chicken and the egg complex arises, which came first liberalism inducing liberalism or they being liberal to begin with. For liberalism to induce liberalism that would me professors had to start out liberal at some time to induce all future generations.
I've had a question about something ever since they trotted out Kerry's Viet Nam service to prove he was a "true blue American" (at least that was the gist I got). How come the liberals aren't stomping around calling him a "baby killer" like they did pretty much every other Viet Nam vet? (I'm probably going to regret sticking my nose in here. I'm just hoping to find an answer, not prove a point.)
There is hypocrisy when one applies a certain standard to one side and not the other but trying to stretch it over a 35 year gap is kind of silly in my opinion. I think that might have been a valid point if, last election for example, the had liberals called mccain a baby-killer but they didn't because that was a non-issue before I was even born. You're kinda reaching with that one.
Not necessarily reaching, just asking. You're right, 35 years is a long time to hold a grudge (although my sister-in-law can do it standing on her head...). Being interested in ancient history (and being 37!) I guess I didn't consider 35 years to be that big a stretch. Thanks!
I just meant if they'd been calling republican vietnam vets baby killers last year (or even 5 or 10 years ago) and then pulled out a vet of their own as a prez candidate I'd say you had a point. I mean Rice is black and a woman but I didn't hear much rumbling from liberals saying "how dare you! only 40 years ago you were against both blacks and women holding office", I'm not saying 35 years is a magic number but passed time has to count for something at some point.
The people who called the Vets baby killers, and the people Kerry is trying to impress with his Vietnamn Vet status are different people. Kerry wants to have it both ways. He wants the psycho left to support him because HE was one of the guys defaming the Vietnamn Vets. He also thought that no one could question his national defense credentials since he served in Vietnamn. Unfortunately (for him) his fellow Swift Vote Vets torpedoed that idea.
well, actually I'd argue that if anyone had the right at the time to rally against the war it would have been the returning vets. I could be wrong but suspect kerry was against the war itself and not the soldiers since, of course, he was one. so yes, he can have it both ways. I don't see any conflict if someone was similtaneously both a soldier and against the war.
And yet the period before the Civil War isn't too far back for some people (thankfully not many) to insist that white people in America owe black people reparations for slavery. Hopefully I'm not wandering too far off topic,your bringing up Condoleeza Rice brought this to mind. I found it laughable that some people actually referred to Colin Powell as a "house nigger", citing policies and prejudices from as recently as the 60's. Maybe for some the passage of time is relative to the cause.
definitely Kerry, because he's not Bush, and that's good enough for me but poor Kerry, Bush has just had a great week of national convention and the unemployment rates are at lowest since October 2001, but Clinton just got a heart problem and must undergo surgery, estimated time of recovery is about a month, great timing, people. and now Bush has led for the first time a double-digit lead over Kerry. Hope he doesn't let Bush get another 4 years...
If Kerry had simply questioned the domino theory logic behind the war, or questioned the tactics, or said that it was an unwinable war what you said might be true. But he didn't. He accused the military of commiting atrocities on a daily basis and said that all levels of command were aware of this. He questioned the honor and sanity of his fellow veterans and of men still fighting the war. I doubt you have been to this site yourself, so here's a quote from http://www2.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=WarCrimes I know you'll question the accuracy of the info from this site, but rest assured, the left wing media will nail them on any incorrect facts. So far, it's been Kerry who's had to change his story on several issues when confronted with facts set forth on this site (i.e. the Christmas in Cambodia story) As a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, telling the Senators and a national audience that American troops "...had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, ******** food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..." and accused the U.S. military of committing war crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Kerry's charges were based on a VVAW conference called the "Winter Soldier Investigation" -- a leftist propaganda event funded primarily by Jane Fonda. None of the Winter Soldier "witnesses" Kerry cited were willing to sign affadavits, and their gruesome stories lacked the names, dates and places that would allow their claims to be tested. Few were willing to cooperate with military investigators. The Naval Investigative Service found that several of the veterans said to have given statements at Winter Soldier were in fact imposters using the name of real veterans. False testimony and exaggerations were primary characteristics of the war crimes disinformation campaign, and also of the VVAW itself. Executive Secretary Al Hubbard, for example, claimed to have been an Air Force Captain wounded in Vietnam piloting a transport plane. In fact, Hubbard had been a staff sergeant who was not a pilot and who was never assigned to Vietnam. John Kerry and the VVAW worked closely with America's wartime enemies, arranged multiple meetings with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong leadership, and consistently supported their positions. Kerry and his radical comrades also played a key role in defining the false, damaging image of Vietnam veterans as psychologically disabled alcoholics and addicts, haunted by the crimes they had been forced to commit in a "racist" war. Detailed information about the anti-war activities of John Kerry and the VVAW can be found at WinterSoldier.com.
It's the same thing in my opinion. If anyone can speak to so called atrocities in a war it's a guy that was there. You can hate his view, you can claim he's wrong but you can't call him a hypocrite because unlike most of us (especially those in power) he was actually there. There are thousands of vets that make the same claims. Personally, I'd love to believe that it was a perfectly just and clean war with no atrocities committed but I WASN'T THERE. His being there is what gives him the right. If a doctor or a priest (for example) says his colleague is a psychopathic monster it has no bearing on his profession, he's just saying there are some crazy people that are doing very bad things. If you want to understand whats wrong in medicine... ask a doctor, if you want to know the problems in the priesthood... ask a priest. I really don't understand this avenue of attack on kerry, I'm sure he (like everyone else) has many flaws but this is one area that very few americans can truly respond to without making it look like a strictly partisan attack.
What about his fellow veterans? They were also there. They're the ones who made this an issue because they believe Kerry falsely accused them of war crimes. If his charges are false, he is unfit for command. If true, than by his own admission he's a war criminal.
