Bush just called himself KING...

are you saying they both got pwnt - cause they both look like they will be in bad shape - ouch!

 

I've been the recipient of that award, and it's not nice

 

GTech was the 1965 Texas Atomic Sit-up champion.

 

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/atomicsitup.html

tee hee hee! Poor Gtech!

 

LMAO! Where in the hell did you come up with that? (man, I'm literally rolling right now!)

Pull my finger? I ate taco bell

 

That's even worse than I imagined! I never even heard of an atomic situp before, but the way rob said it made me laugh my ass off. Now that I know what it is...that's sick! Well, maybe not for some, but I don't swing that way!

OK, you got me rob

 

try not to decontextualise that bit of scripture I seriously doubt that it is referring to America in the slightest

 

Actually it is referring to all kingdoms earth wide. America is just one of them.

 

hmmmmm.... Id have to do a bit of research before I answered that, Im not all that clued up on the Book of Daniel

 

Aaaah! The book of Daniel. Just studied it in entirety recently. That verse is just a small part of the vision seen by King Nebuchednezzar. Daniel was called in by him to interpret that vision. I must say, the King was shocked when he heard that he was part of that interpretation and what lay in store for him. It's real invigorating stuff.

As part of my ministry, I offer a Bible study for free for anyone who is interested in finding out what the Bible really teaches. Feel free to ask more questions either publicly or privately.

Col

 

Nor did I. Thats why I looked up it. Now my head is filled with another piece of video that I really didn't need. Thanks Rob! *sighs* pool parties and atomic situps.

 

Anthony, I wish for just once you would have some support for your claims. It would really make me happy. Just post a couple of links or something to a LEGITIMATE news/public website proving your points. Also, how is the military going to turn against Bush? Are we going to have a military coup? Do you fail to realize that the military is where Bush has by far his strongest supporters? I really get tired of having to correct you.

You started a thread with untrue assumptions about what was said. You were corrected by less fanatical people who can look at situations with a touch of reasonableness. You are the one who should quit posting

 

I think I just vomited on myself. Weird.

 

Dude, it's the truth.

 

This guy was claiming he was 'king of the world,' so I think that trumps Bush.

 

Yup, and that idiot is on the bottom of the sea right?!

 

If it was me that b*tch would be an ice log....because I'm a romantic. ; )

 

Sorry guys but I couldn't let GTech's comments go without getting back to them.

When I came in to this thread GTech had called Kerry treasonous.

By the way. The government never took actions to prosecute Kerry. Why? Because it didn't see him as treasonous.

Free speech is one of the great values in America. Kerry joined the military went to Vietnam, fought in the war, was wounded, returned, and, based on his experiences and what he had learned felt that the war was wrong headed. He clearly was back then an ambitious guy. He not only joined groups that were against the war but became a leader and spokesperson for some of those groups.

That made him like a lot of Americans whose perspectives back then changed over time. They grew to feel that the war in Vietnam was bad for America.

He spoke his mind. He exercised his rights. Only those who are highly partisan and like to label others as cowards, traitors, cut and runners, etc. use terms like treason. Others view it as exercising his rights.

So I jumped in and contrasted Bush's actions at that time with Kerry's actions at that time. Bush never spoke out publicly for the war in Vietnam or against it. He took no overt loud public stances. Although he did work for a political candidate while he was in the National Guard.

(Imagine if the thousand's of National Guard troops now serving in Iraq all said they wanted to get transferred and work for political candidates.) LOL. Wouldn't happen.

I jumped in after Gtech's comments about Kerry being treasonous.

Having lived through that period I find it insulting to people who had the courage to directly join the military and fight in Vietnam. It is rediculous to make this claim when the persons directing the war in Iraq are of the same age and made definate decisions to avoid the same service.

Joining the National Guard at that time was dramatically different then it is today. It was primarily a way to avoid the possibility of going to Vietnam. (Where over 58,000 American serviceman died).

Thanks to Gtech's statistics I saw that in Vietnam less than 1% of the American military who died there were members of the Guard. In fact less than 2 tenths of 1% who were killed over there were members of the guard.

In fact, according to this site; http://icasualties.org/oif/Service.aspx 361 members of the guard (Army and Air Force) have (to date) died in this war. That is over 14% of total American military casualties.

The point is that considering the source of who brought us into the war (the Bush administration) and their actions at the time when they and their supporters do things like labeling Kerry as treasonous, it should be considered within the context of what they were doing at the same period of time.

Bush joined the National Guard. It was primarily used at that time as a way to avoid service in Vietnam. Conditions were very different then they are now.

All young American men were draft eligible. People could have been declared ineligible if they had physical or mental injuries. Attending college was a way to get a draft deferment. Attending some graduate school programs was a way to extend those deferments. (Not all graduate programs made that possible.)

People who didn't want to risk going to Vietnam used a variety of techniques to avoid service. As mentioned before; some became conscientious objectors, some left the nation, some extended their draft deferments by continuing to attend graduate programs that kept you out of the military, and some joined the National Guard.

In fact the National Guard was so popular at the time that there were waiting lists to get in. It has been reported that due to his family connections Bush was able to jump the waiting list and get in before others.

So when Kerry is labeled treasonous it is important to understand the differences. Kerry joined the military, went to Vietnam, was shot at and shot at the enemy, was injured, left the military and changed his perspective on the war and became a vocal leader against the war.

Bush and Cheney worked the system, (Bush probably used family connections) didn't serve in Vietnam, didn't shoot at the enemy or weren't shot at, didn't see their comrades die in action and used different methods to avoid that service.

Despite Gtech bringing up the terms honorable and dishonerable, I didn't take it there. It's too bad that people distort history and label those that disagree with them with phrases like treasonous. Consider the source. Referencing back to that period, when Gtech considers Kerry being treasonous and take a look at where Bush and Cheney were.

Going back to that period of time, what would you call Bush and Cheney, both of whom used different methods of avoiding service in Vietnam? I can suggest a lot of different phrases including some of the following:

Priveliged: Bush used his family connections to get into the National Guard thus avoiding service in Vietnam.

Hypocritical: Bush says he supported the Vietnam war at that time but took definitive actions that kept him out of the conflict.

Priveleged Chicken: While others were being sent to Vietnam Bush was in a priveliged position that allowed him to switch from the Texas to Louisiana National Guard so that while he was in service there he could work on behalf of a political campaign.

Imagine the thousands of National Guard troops in Iraq right now doing the same thing as Bush did back then.

That can't happen and it speaks to just how different National Guard service was then and now.

And what about Cheney? Somehow he obtained 6 student deferments. That is the most I'm aware of...but I didn't study that then. Maybe others did something like that but it would have taken a very focused individual who wanted to spend years and years and years of specific draft deferable education primarily focused on a narrow group of programs that would allow deferments for so much time.

If you are going to label Kerry as traiterous during that period you ought to look at what Bush and Cheney were doing during the same period.

When discussing this I described joining the National Guard as one of the many methods young men used to avoid direct service in the Military that might have sent them to Vietnam. I never described it as honorable or dishonorable.

When you start labeling people with all sorts of negative descriptions you ought to know a bit more about the times and the circumstances.

Finally thanks for the statistics. I didn't know that less than 2 tenths of 1% of fatalities in Vietnam came from the National Guard and over 14% of fatalities in the current war in Iraq are from members of the National Guard.

I'm sure that others that like to bring up serious points about the progress of this effort and its impact on America will make good use of the differences.

 

Earlpeal,

Thank you for continuing the debate. Your comments below offer me a unique opportunity to bring light to kerry and I welcome your comments.

I am unaware of any source that states the reason why they choose not to, is because they didn't see him as such. The activities he participated in, which I will note below, are not the activities of someone "just exercising free speech."

Many have called for an investigation into his activities and charges to be brought. One such petition exists online:

http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/

Kerry joined the Naval Reserves, after his application for a fifth deferment was declined, in order to avoid being drafted into the Amry. He did not join the Navy, but the Reserves.

Kerry's medals do not add up:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002273.php

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40149

These are not exercising rights:

http://www.nysun.com/article/3756

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200406\SPE20040604a.html

Still being in the inactive reserves at this time, Kerry was still an officer duly sworn in to protect and serve the United States. He was not authorized to meet and negotiate with enemies of our country. This is treason.


So was Kerry a war hero? Perhaps, but not for our side:

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040604194804799



http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=Benge01

But he did not meet with the enemy of our country to receive orders on how to wage an anti-war campaign nor negotiate with the enemy behind his governement's back, which is treason.

I welcome any documentation you have similar to that I've posted in regards to kerry. You are correct, let's compare their actions and what they were doing.

That is not accurate. Kerry joined the Naval reserves after his fifth deferment was declined. You seem to suggest that joining the reserves or guard was not honorable, yet Kerry did the very same thing. However, what kerry joined is not the basis of my claim. His actions afterwards are.

Speculative (family connections). Work with facts please.

This is because I do not lightly throw out the claim of treason because of deferments or joining the reserves or not joining the military at all. If I gave you the impression that I thought kerry was treasonous (as it appears) because he sought and received the same deferments that Cheney (minus one) did and that he joined the Naval Reserves as did Bush joined the Guard, I have failed in my communication. These are not issues of treason, they are issues that millions of men faced during a very bad time of history. Whatever they chose, has no bearing on the treason charge I and many others assert. I've documented my rationale for that and perhaps it will become more apparent now.

Cheney had five deferments, not six, one for each year of college as did kerry receive and one for being a new father which was a deferment reason/entitlement at the time. Kerry received four deferments. I'm sure there is a reason why Kerry's deferments were not noted, but since they were not, I think it's important to note them. Kerry applied for a fifth deferement, but upon learning it would not be approved, enlisted in the Navy Reserves (not the Navy and not "send me to Vietnam" as some try to suggest). 16 million other men also applied for deferments for college during the time, so it was not just something common to Cheney (and with my added info) or kerry.

I do not lable kerry traiterous for the period of time, for joining the Naval Reserves, for seeking deferments, for joining the naval reserves to avoid being drafted into the army or for any reason related to how he joined the service, his deferments, etc.

What I do label him a traitor for is noted above. Giving aid and comfort to our enemies. So much so, that he was thanked for doing such and imortalized in a museum by North Vietnam.

And as I pointed out, there were National Gaurd units deployed to Vietnam. I accept that you were not aware of that, and that not nearly as many were killed in Gaurd units, but what I was contesting was that none had been sent. Thus, it was not gauranteed that service in the National Guard would preclude service in Vietnam.

I believe I have exhibited that. Perhaps there are some things you were not aware of regarding kerry.

My pleasure. I would hate to think that someone from that time period would have gone around all these years arguing that the National Guard was never sent to Vietnam and that it was a sure fire method to avoid service there. As we see, that was not the case.

Some more information you might not be aware of. Kerry served from 1966-1970. However, his discharge was 1977. Why is this important?

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/markalexander/2004/10/23/13425.html

I could go on to cover how kerry's group, VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) went on to plan attacks on the Statue of Liberty and their meeting to discuss the assassination of US Senators, but I'll reserve that for later. Not sure if even this post will go through as it's so long.

 

Running out the door, so only have time to address the very first part of this atm...

While I know damn well you will try and reply with "I never said that", what you are implying is that there must be reasons for the government to not prosecute some who they find treasonous. Are these honorable reasons?

And this proves that he was treasonous how? There's petitions for Bush's impeachment, are they proof too?

-Michael