Talk:John Kerry

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

  • First one google finds: "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)


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...

yes. we must also find a picture (and it shouldn't be TOO HARD) OF this pinko performing an abortion. Manifestdestiny 18:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

"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)
So you're basically argueing the defunct WP:Verifiabilty policy -- so long as a lie originates, or is repeated in a "reliable" source, it's a valid inclusion, nevermind the fact it can be proven false, invalid, obsolete, or irrelevent. And I think the claim that the "official account (the one that went largely unchallenged these 35+ years)" can also be proven to be without foundation. RobS 17:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
...I'm sorry, apparently I think I'm saying one thing and you're managing to hear it coming out as the exact opposite. I'm arguing that, since the bulk of the claims by the SBVT have been challeneged publically and rebuffed by many on both sides of the political arena, that treating their evaluation as empirical proof and making statements as fact whose truth is depentant on the veracity of those SBVT claims, is ridiculous. In this way I'm trying to argue the exact opposite of that same defunct WP policy, and that the Swifties claims should not be treated as inherently valid for myriad reasons, not least of which is that they go against the official record. They are the ones making the remarkable claims that go against current perceptions. The onus is on them to provide proof, and in their book, by and large, they provide none, but rather a great deal of conspiracy-theory speculation (Kerry wrote his own commendation, got them to be accepted as fact, was awarded purple hearts for razor burns, etc). They have, in what I would hope is any professional's view, a long way to go to have their claims be taken seriously, and to repeat their unfounded claims as though it were a matter of undisputed record is reckless and irresponsible.
And of course its the official account, otherwise Kerry wouldn't have gotten the medals, and of course it hadn't been challenged before or more hay would've been made of it.--RexMundane 18:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
  • since the bulk of the claims by the SBVT have been challeneged publically and rebuffed by many on both sides of the political arena
  • I reject the validity of this assertion.
You dont think ABC News using air time to explain that they're distorting things counts as them being challenges in the public sphere? You dont think John McCain (R-AZ) and John Murtha (D-I forget) constitute bipartisan rebuffment?--RexMundane 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
McCain did not challenge the veracity of the claims, McCain challenged the appropriateness of their motives in the political process vs a consensus of national healing and reconciliation over issues that divided the country. RobS 17:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  • treating their evaluation as empirical proof
  • What's been proposed above is to deteremine "exactly what... [the]... claims are" as "the first line of investigation".
  • Swifties claims should not be treated as inherently valid
  • This would be analyized after "the first line of investigation" is complete, i.e. determining what are the Swifties claims.
I have not been arguing either way on this, and I'm not sure why you are, but I'm just saying that since their claims are in dispute, for the article on Kerry, in its current form, to impart the perception of this group as objective act is fallacious. You actually agreed to this above when you were talking about "verifiability" and I'm not sure why you dont recognize it coming from the other side.--RexMundane 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
  • since their claims are in dispute
  • There is only one who can dispute their claims, John Kerry. Kerry can bring forword eyewitnesses to support his position, eyewitnesses who's own credibility must be examined. ABC News cannot dispute the claims; they can investigate, however primea facia evidence shows ABC News investigation to be skewed. Now, if you make reference to ABC News, et al, as "disputing claims", that is a reflection of a flawed methodological approach. So one needs to be cautious here in discussing how we are to go about conducting our own investigation. RobS 17:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

  • current perceptions
  • General statement without foundation.
It meant "what the, as of then unchallenged, record had shown at that point." I rather think that would have been obvious from the context but if you needed it explained to you then you only needed to ask.--RexMundane 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
  • in their book
Faulty premise and statement; "their book" presumably refers to O'Niell's book. O'Niell is singular and distinct from the SBVT, so a determination has to be made of what relationship, if any, exists between SBVT and the publication of the O'Neills book.
Except he's the public face of the group and as such, presumably, speaks for them not simply in television interviews, but also his published works. To argue that the book has nothing to do with the group when they share the same arguments and ideology as well as the same membership is lunacy.--RexMundane 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
  • We cannot presume a connection without investigating it first. That there has been a coordinated effort to discredit both there is no denying, but we cannot begin an investigation based upon what may be a deliberate, and flawed presumption and prejudice. RobS 17:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  • They have... a long way to go to have their claims be taken seriously
  • Indeed by the Mosaic covenant, we will determine, "by the testimony of two witness, a matter is established". So we need to examine the credibility of all witnesses present, including Mr. John Kerry. (evidence such as, "I voted for it before I voted against it", or beating up on Mary Cheney before 80 million viewers to further his own career needs to be examined to determine the character of this witness). RobS 20:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
And this is just plain classy. You're trying to steer the argument away from anything I was trying to say into your own agenda to get these guys more attention, and use two non sequitur attacks on Kerry to do so. Yeah, he "beat up on Mary Cheney" when he said his father loves her. Yeah, you can vote for the same exact Senate bill two different times in the Senate in two different ways. Spot on. Good for you. Have a cookie.--RexMundane 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
  • So would you agree determining exactly what the claims stated by O'Neill and the SBVT is the first line of investigation? RobS 13:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

...dear lord you're actually so intent on keeping the phrasing such as it is that you're proposing an investigation into the group and Oneill specifically just so you can justify using it. Yeah, lets give unsubstantiated claims that contradict the official record, made by a man with a political axe to grind, even more publicity. What better way to get to the bottom of things than that particular waste of time? "There is only one who can dispute their claims, John Kerry. Kerry can bring forword eyewitnesses to support his position, eyewitnesses who's own credibility must be examined." Why is Kerry automatically the one who has to justify himself? Why are you treating ONeill's claims as inherently truthful, claims that are refuted by the official record, and the personal testimony of the people serving on Kerry's boat (a relevant point too is that the SwiftVets never served alongside Kerry in this capacity, their testimony is not that of "witnesses")? Look, here's a corrolary. I accuse you of being a witch. It would be asanine of me to demand you to provide proof that you're not when my claim, which has no evidence behind it, is almost entirely self-evidently false. The burden of proof is not on Kerry and the people he served with, its on ONeill and the SwiftVets, and given how self-contradictory their claims are and how politically motivated their operation seems to be, why should their criticisms be given more credibility than the official military record, one that, with regards to Kerry's service, had not gone challenged for decades until such time as was politically opportune.

All this though is tangential to my point. Saying Kerry went to great lengths to get his purple hearts is merely an opinion, a gossipy one at that, and one which is at odds with the established military record, and I'm more inclined to trust the United States Military over two people with an axe to grind. I'm pretty sure one of the commandments is about gossip and opinions being used in place of fact. he "has been accsed of it" perhaps, but stating it as objectively true is outright wrong. And characterizing the detractors, who did not serve with Kerry in any real capacity, his "fellow soldiers" is a misleading claim.--RexMundane 22:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

  • a man with a political axe to grind
  • What does this mean? a candidate nominated by an opposition party to run against an incumbant cannot be described as "a man with a poltical axe to grind"?
  • What better way to get to the bottom of things than that particular waste of time?
  • So rubber stamping biased media reports is valid historical writing, but an independent investigation into the facts is a "waste of time"?
  • Why is Kerry automatically the one who has to justify himself?
  • Under this methodology, ABC News becomes an eyewitness to any investigation, perhaps how ABC reported the Virgina Tech massacre is admissible evidence, nevermind the fact they didn't have camera's or reporters in classrooms where and when the incident occurred? Does this sort of methodological research and reporting even need commenting on?
  • Why are you treating ONeill's claims as inherently truthful...the SwiftVets never served alongside Kerry in this capacity, their testimony is not that of "witnesses")?
  • If you read what is outlined above, it lays out the proper method to proceed. That O'Neil & SBVT made charges is not in dispute; that the characterization of those charges in so-called "mainstream media" has been distorted we already have evidence; that John Kerry's character as a credible witness needs close scrutiny, because that is the basic charge of Unfit for Command (obvious in the title of the book); that there is evidence to suspect Kerry's character and crediblibly there is ample evidence now, the question is was it questionable 30 years ago; that Kerry may have witnesses to vouch for his tale has been established, and we need to examine their credibility, not accept ABC News reports asssement of their credibility at face value. And there are other issues to be examined as well.
  • The burden of proof is not on Kerry
  • To use a Perotism, Kerry had a job application before the American people, the job he applied for was Commander in Chief. A background check, with references, is standard and routine. A previous associate said he was unfit for the job; yes, examining the credibility of that associate is in order. But it's not simply a "he said/she said". Kerry's credibiblty was already in question. Obviously, the inability to repair Kerry's reputation would lead to a strategy of slander and defamation of his detractors if specific claims could not be refuted. Ultimatley, this is exactly what happened. Let's investigate all of it.
  • given how self-contradictory their claims are
  • Yet to be established.
  • their claims are and how politically motivated their operation seems to be
  • See above burden of proof; yes indeed, efforts to slander & defame the Swifities by Kerry, the DNC, and media toadies does appear politically motivated.
  • had not gone challenged for decades
  • See above reference to Perotism; Kerry had not applied for the job of Commander-in-Chief til 2004. And this may be a false premise, some of the claims may have arisen in previous Senate campaigns.
  • Saying Kerry went to great lengths to get his purple hearts is merely an opinion
  • The issue is larger than that; the basic idea is Kerry followed JFK's footsteps. Like JFK, a PT boat commander, Kerry went to Vietnam looking to build a "warhero" image with the intent to return to Massachusetts as JFK did, run for Senate, and like JKF, become President someday. Big difference here between JFK & JFK (John Forbes Kerry), however; the first JFK got his warhero status in service to his country; the second JFK of Massachusetts got his warhero status awarded to himself by himself in service to himself and his own ambitions. RobS 14:26, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Another point-by-point. Ooh and this one has even more bullets than your previous one which dissected my statement in so many ways I couldnt possibly address them all to anybody's satisfaction. Congratulations on intentionally obfuscating the issue so you never have to address it head on.

Okay, so I accuse you of unnecessary deconstruction and straying off topic, and you respond with unnecessary deconstruction and straying even further off topic. I imagine your next post will involve the potato famine and the film "Heat" in some arbitrary way that I cant wait to read.--RexMundane 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

So, we've got unnecessary dissection, we've got you hearing me saying things that aren't even near the point I'm explicitly making, we've got diversion onto Mary Cheney, Kerry's "flip-flopping" (I'm surprised you dont actually use that word for it, we both know you must derive immense pleasure from as much) and adding to the pile of logic and reason not only do we get JFK in on this discussion, but you decide this is the time and place to come down on ABC for some percieved slight dealing with the Virginia Tech Massacre. If I were a more hostile and arrogant man than I am, I would cal it such a lucky thing for you that happened this week, otherwise you'd actually have had to think a bit before trying to derail the argument again.

  • The Mary Cheney business is worth investigating; as I recall, what a person does in their private sex life is no bodies business, and Senator Kerry voted to uphold that sacred principal in the Clinton Impeachment Trial. Why he decided to expose Mary Cheney's sex life to 80 million viewers, there is only one possible explanation for this 'flip-flop' of moral principal, and it coincidentally parellels the charges made by Swift Boat Vets -- to further his own career. RobS 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Mary Cheney had been, prior to that, public about her sexual orientation. When John Edwards mentioned Ms. Cheney's sexuality at the VP debate, Chaney thanked him for the kind words. Stating publically available information is not "exposing" anybody, nor, if it was, would it indicate Kerry is of week morals, nor, if it did, would it connect to the swifties at all because the theoretical moral issue is about privacy and not deception, as the Swifties accuse. Honestly, do you even understand a single thing that you've been talking about here? How can you confuse exposing facts with concealing facts? --RexMundane 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, so we can investigate the claims of Mary Cheney being "open'; that still doesn't justify what he did in that forum, (twice), nor a flip flop on invading somebodies privacy over their sexuality, nor publicly outing someone while at the sametime claiming a criminal act -- perjury -- is justifiable if somebody lied about their sex life. RobS 18:03, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The points I'm making, yet again, are as follows: A- Calling the Swifties "Kerry's Fellow Soldier's" is mislabeling them as, although they all did serve in Vietnam, none of them actually served with Kerry, which in addition to making anything they claim to have "witnessed" severely suspect (though not, of course, in your eyes), makes that label severely disengenuous. B- Saying Kerry went to great lengths to get his purple hearts, a statement which is not reflected in the official record, is unfounded gossip, and has no place being stated as though it were any sort of official assesment or objective fact.

  • Ok, we'll lool at these specific claims. RobS 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Feel free to. Mean time, stating them as outright fact is unjustified, no? --RexMundane 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

In all the text you supply to try and derail the argument and argue that before any mere rephrasing of a sentence is made a full investigation must be conducted by the high-minded, independent scholars here at the conservapedia, you never so much as disagree with my assessments, much less contradict them. I am forced to assume that you concede my point, and I will be correcting the article shortly to reflect your unacknowledged agreement with me.--RexMundane 10:44, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

  • you never so much as disagree with my assessments, much less contradict them
Why would I? That would be prejudicial and flawed research methodology. RobS 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Marvelous. So you have no problem with the edit. Lord knows why it took you a few days to say as much, or why you felt the need to drag Noam Chomsky, Virginia Tech, and Mary Cheney into it, but thats as may be and I suppose its my fault for not predicting this kind of behavior here. I'll be making the change later. when I have more time. --RexMundane 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Go ahead and edit the article; it still remains subject to review for the veractiy of any claims. RobS 18:03, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Going to change it

First, I'm going to disagree with RexMundane's beliefs on Kerry. I don't think Rex was ever in uniform in the service of his country at all, and if he was, he would know the basic difference between "soldiers" and "sailors", of which Kerry was one. Second, he has no idea of the basic requirements for the awarding of the Purple Heart Medal, and he has tended to ignore the fact that Kerry's military documentation on this medal was the very ones he attempted to hide from the general public. A Purple Heart is not a prize to be won at the fair; it is the only military decoration that NO ONE WANTS TO GET, and John Kerry is the only man on record in the history of the Armed Forces to have actively campaigned to get one.

Then there's the third reason. In one of the Swift Boat adds against Kerry there is shown everyone involved; many of them are highly-decorated, and one wears the Medal of Honor. Are they to be maligned simply because they have had an experience with an incompetant man and did not want him leading the military as Commander-in-Chief? One of these individuals is retired Captain George M. Elliot, who not only was Kerry's commanding officer at PCB-11, but was my commanding officer onboard USS Samuel Gompers, and I know him personally. I will take Elliot's word over Kerry's any day.

And yes, I'm going to change this article. Karajou 01:21, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

"commandeering a Fast Patrol Craft" are you saying he took it over like a pirate?? Nestormakhno 13:11, 7 August 2007 (EDT)