Difference between revisions of "Talk:John Kerry"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
("Kerry's fellow soldiers": grammar)
("Kerry's fellow soldiers")
Line 36: Line 36:
  
 
:::Ok, so this should be the first line of investigation, i.e. determining ''exactly'' what SBVT (and by extension, John O'Neill in ''Unfit for Command'') claims are regarding Kerry.  ''ABC News'' would have us believe the dispute concerns things such as who was standing where at the time of gunfire, etc.  If the dispute is primarily over the veracity of documents, would you agree ABC has pretty much disqualified itself as a credible source?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:50, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:::Ok, so this should be the first line of investigation, i.e. determining ''exactly'' what SBVT (and by extension, John O'Neill in ''Unfit for Command'') claims are regarding Kerry.  ''ABC News'' would have us believe the dispute concerns things such as who was standing where at the time of gunfire, etc.  If the dispute is primarily over the veracity of documents, would you agree ABC has pretty much disqualified itself as a credible source?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:50, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
::I just said their time was wasted, not that they're discredible for it.  Further, since the ABC investigation goes some way to provide some evidence that bolsters the official account (the one that went largely unchallenged these 35+ years) and by extension refuted the claims in "Unfit" its still fairly relevant to my initial point, that these people have already been challanged in the press.  I could gripe about how it took so long for the MSM to start examining what they were saying to see if it were true at all before giving them a platform to speak almost unchallenged and accuse a Presidential candidate of, essentially, desertion and treason, but my main point remains, that the CPedia article currently treats such allegations as fact, that he "went to unusual lengths" and "his wounds were self-inflicted."  Such statements are based, almost exclusively, on opinions and contradict the official record which, in spite of SBVT's publicity and bluster, remains unchanged today.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:12, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 21:12, April 20, 2007

Citation needed relative to liberal voting record, shouldn't be too hard to find.

  • First one google finds: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60419-2004Jul18.html "Americans for Democratic Action, or ADA, which wants senators to earn a high rating, has a more straightforward ranking system. Each year the group identifies 20 important votes and assigns five points each time a senator votes the way ADA advocates. Kerry has a lifetime average of 92. As Republicans note, this is two points higher than Democrat Walter F. Mondale's lifetime ADA average. Mondale, the 1984 presidential nominee, is regarded as the most emphatic old-style liberal offered by Democrats in recent decades." Bwilliston 22:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Here is a Youtube video about Kerry's voting record. Some claim he does not have that liberal a voting record. His voting record can be seen here and here is another reference to his voting record. You should be able to look at these sources as more reliable than that Youtube video. --Orion Blastar 12:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)
  • According to the National Journal (which was a big source for the 3 year old Washington post article) John Kerry ranks as the 12th most liberal and the 87th most conservative. I'm reverting the "most liberal" language to "one of the most liberal, with cites. Crackertalk 12:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is probably mostly stolen.

I just reinstated a lot of content because someone cited "article too long" as a reason for removal, which is silly. However, I suspect that the majority of the content on this page is stolen and probably does need to be dealt with in a more responsible manner. --BillOReillyFan 20:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Recommend

Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/PoliticiansMyk 02:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Nice work with the Zeig-Heil photo

Though for completeness I think you need to also include one of him in the pink jumpsuit. What better way to visually convey the conservapedia's disdain for John Kerry, Democrats in General, the state of Massachusetts, and balance in general. That'll teach him to... you know, wave and have his picture taken from an odd angle and... wear the same cleansuit as everyone else...

"Kerry's fellow soldiers"

This article seems to take the accusations of the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" at face value, for instance saying that he "went to great lengths" to be given his purple hearts, which is not simply editorializing but specifically repeating a charge by the group, who has themselves been rebuffed publically on many of their claims. Also, the phrasing "Kerry's Fellow Soldiers" is rather misleading, as while all these people were in the same military at the same time as Kerry, none of the "Swifties" actually served with Kerry. Its true, but leaves a deliberately incorrect impression. Its rather like saying "Some of Kerry's fellow Americans have accused him of being 'French-Looking.'"--RexMundane 14:00, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

  • themselves been rebuffed publically on many of their claims
Name one. RobS 14:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
...good lord are you actually serious? Um, okay then I'd like to introduce you to an obscure little program called NightLine for starters (the site is over the top, but links to the relevant video, which I implore you to give a watch). Other news reports exist but I'm having a challenge finding them online at the moment, but the point is that basically that part where they claim Kerry got the silver star for tearing the heart out of a 2-year old child and eating it to fuel his satanic powers? Yeah, thats basically a lie. The only things they are semi-right about is whether Kerry was "wounded enough" for some of his purple hearts, and when he claimed to be in Cambodia he was merely near it and not actually within it. My point is that treating the group as arbiters of objective fact by repeating their charge unquestioningly is just... well flat out silly.--RexMundane 15:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
I got a dead link on the video; in good faith, I'll work with you on this, let me warn you however, most of this is easily debunkable. And let's begin with the ABC [1] piece which uses this terminology, "official account", "According to the military citation", "According to Kerry's medal citation", "According to the Navy's official report", and still a few other references to the same, the Swift Boat Vets contention is John Kerry wrote all this. So ABC News is being a little disengenous here, if not outright deceptive, in not even addressing the fundemental issues under contention. RobS 15:49, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Firstly, as I understand it, even in the unlikely though somewhat plausible case of Kerry writing all the pertinent documents that would later become the official record off which his commendations were based, these same documents also have to undergo review to be considered as much. It was, in fact, reviewed by two of the SWVTs themselves, Captains George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale. From the New York Times
But Mr. Elliott and Mr. Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line for recognition, have previously said that a medal would be awarded only if there was corroboration from others and that they had thoroughly corroborated the accounts.
"Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were reviewed," Mr. Lonsdale said at the 1996 news conference, adding, "It was a very complete and carefully orchestrated procedure." In his statements Mr. Elliott described the action that day as "intense" and "unusual."
For these two men who reviewed the record and recommendation for citation to come out 35 years later and say they were fabricated is flatout ridiculous. Likewise, for John O'Neil, Head-Swiftie, to come out and challenge the official record decades after the war with accusations and allegations and no real evidence outside of the testimony of a group of politically-minded veterans is equally ridiculous.
You know what though, yes, I agree that ABC would have better spent their time pointing out how little evidence there is to support the Swift Boat's claims and showing how members of the group are responsible for the construction of the "official record" that they claim was falsified. However, that doesnt make the Swifties any more truthful.--RexMundane 16:22, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, so this should be the first line of investigation, i.e. determining exactly what SBVT (and by extension, John O'Neill in Unfit for Command) claims are regarding Kerry. ABC News would have us believe the dispute concerns things such as who was standing where at the time of gunfire, etc. If the dispute is primarily over the veracity of documents, would you agree ABC has pretty much disqualified itself as a credible source? RobS 16:50, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
I just said their time was wasted, not that they're discredible for it. Further, since the ABC investigation goes some way to provide some evidence that bolsters the official account (the one that went largely unchallenged these 35+ years) and by extension refuted the claims in "Unfit" its still fairly relevant to my initial point, that these people have already been challanged in the press. I could gripe about how it took so long for the MSM to start examining what they were saying to see if it were true at all before giving them a platform to speak almost unchallenged and accuse a Presidential candidate of, essentially, desertion and treason, but my main point remains, that the CPedia article currently treats such allegations as fact, that he "went to unusual lengths" and "his wounds were self-inflicted." Such statements are based, almost exclusively, on opinions and contradict the official record which, in spite of SBVT's publicity and bluster, remains unchanged today.--RexMundane 17:12, 20 April 2007 (EDT)