Does he even matter?

[Rekaar.]

This is a hypothetical. For the sake of argument, let's say it was unequivocally proven his medals were all obtained under false pretenses and he was tried and found guilty in a war crimes court.

Would you change your vote even then?

I suspect Kerry himself doesn't matter in the least when casting your vote. I also suspect his service is equally unimportant to most of you.

[Akaran_D]

I would still vote the same, most likely because I don't imagine I'll be voting for him.

[Winnow]

It would make a difference. For the Silver Star, there are several versions out there. One is where the tub gunner shot the lone advesary man that had the rocketlauncher in the leg dropping him. The man then got up and was running/limping away after which Kerry then chases him and shoots him down in the back.

If that is true, Kerry first disobeyed procedure by leaving his boat (which is not in question and he could have been court martialed for that instead of being given a medal) and then could be tried as a war criminal for killing a wounded man limping away.

If that turned out to be true, I'd say it would matter to open minded people that take everything into account.

[VariaVespasa]

Winnow- Kerry's medals are on snopes, go read what they have to say on them.

*Hugs*
Varia

[Winnow]

Winnow- Kerry's medals are on snopes, go read what they have to say on them.

*Hugs*
Varia

I have. You believe everything on snopes? I'm surprised that people take everything on snopes as 100 percent true. I've seen some pretty lame responses termed as "snoped" when they are just opinons.

I'm going to start up my own snope type website and dupe everyone. OMG it's on ASSPHINCTERSAYSWHAT, it's got to be fake/true/whatever.

[Forthe]

Winnow- Kerry's medals are on snopes, go read what they have to say on them.

*Hugs*
Varia

I have. You believe everything on snopes? I'm surprised that people take everything on snopes as 100 percent true. I've seen some pretty lame responses termed as "snoped" when they are just opinons.

I'm going to start up my own snope type website and dupe everyone. OMG it's on ASSPHINCTERSAYSWHAT, it's got to be fake/true/whatever.

You had no problem believing "The bandit". I wouldn't be mocking other people for gullibility if I was you.

[Winnow]

Winnow- Kerry's medals are on snopes, go read what they have to say on them.

*Hugs*
Varia

I have. You believe everything on snopes? I'm surprised that people take everything on snopes as 100 percent true. I've seen some pretty lame responses termed as "snoped" when they are just opinons.

I'm going to start up my own snope type website and dupe everyone. OMG it's on ASSPHINCTERSAYSWHAT, it's got to be fake/true/whatever.

You had no problem believing "The bandit". I wouldn't be mocking other people for gullibility if I was you.

People assume a lot around here. Where did I say that I believed him?

[Zaelath]

I'm curious, is the question "If you had to choose between two war criminals would you vote for Bush now?"

Might be better if you differentiated the candidates more, like, "If John Kerry raped your cat, would you still vote for him?"

[Forthe]

Winnow- Kerry's medals are on snopes, go read what they have to say on them.

*Hugs*
Varia

I have. You believe everything on snopes? I'm surprised that people take everything on snopes as 100 percent true. I've seen some pretty lame responses termed as "snoped" when they are just opinons.

I'm going to start up my own snope type website and dupe everyone. OMG it's on ASSPHINCTERSAYSWHAT, it's got to be fake/true/whatever.

You had no problem believing "The bandit". I wouldn't be mocking other people for gullibility if I was you.

People assume a lot around here. Where did I say that I believed him?

You quoted him as a source for your argument.

[Winnow]

Winnow- Kerry's medals are on snopes, go read what they have to say on them.

*Hugs*
Varia

I have. You believe everything on snopes? I'm surprised that people take everything on snopes as 100 percent true. I've seen some pretty lame responses termed as "snoped" when they are just opinons.

I'm going to start up my own snope type website and dupe everyone. OMG it's on ASSPHINCTERSAYSWHAT, it's got to be fake/true/whatever.

You had no problem believing "The bandit". I wouldn't be mocking other people for gullibility if I was you.

People assume a lot around here. Where did I say that I believed him?

You quoted him as a source for your argument.

and? A source doesn't mean it's fact. It's a possibility.

[Dregor Thule]

and? A source doesn't mean it's fact. It's a possibility.

So you quoted it as a source to support your argument, but you don't actually believe it to be true? Maybe you should vote Kerry, you're flip-flopping all over the place here.

[Voronwë]

retard rickshaw here we come!!

[Winnow]

and? A source doesn't mean it's fact. It's a possibility.

So you quoted it as a source to support your argument, but you don't actually believe it to be true? Maybe you should vote Kerry, you're flip-flopping all over the place here.

There are conflicting versions of what happened. I don't believe any single one atm. I'm not alowed to quote one of the many versions? Don't be a retard.

I don't see anywhere in the definition of source that says it has to be absolute fact. I even used "suggests" in my original post.

Source:

1. The place where something begins, where it springs into being
2. A person who supplies information
3. A publication (or a passage from a publication) that is referred to
4. A document (or organization) from which information is obtained
5. A facility where something is available
6. Anything that provides inspiration for later work
7. Someone who originates or causes or initiates something

[Voronwë]

bullshit (n.)

1. a pile of shit coming out of a bull
2. any post made by "The Bandit"

[Winnow]

bullshit (n.)

1. a pile of shit coming out of a bull
2. any post made by "The Bandit"

Quote your source on that definition!

[Kelshara]

and? A source doesn't mean it's fact. It's a possibility.

And you wondered why I compared you to certain other people.. perfect example here of one of several reasons.

[Thess]

Voro should only quote his source when you quote your source for the definition of congressman

[Winnow]

Voro should only quote his source when you quote your source for the definition of congressman

You still upset over that? My post was fine. You were harrassing me!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=congressmen

Edit

Try this one out as well

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... d+senators

[Winnow]

and? A source doesn't mean it's fact. It's a possibility.

And you wondered why I compared you to certain other people.. perfect example here of one of several reasons.

What the hell are you talking about? Define your version of a source before you hop on the clueless bandwagon.

You can argue quality of a source but otherwise stfu. You keep chiming in on threads cheerleading without saying anything.

"You see! You see!1!!1"

[Dregor Thule]

You keep chiming in on threads cheerleading without saying anything.

Oh the motherfucking irony of it all.

[Winnow]

You keep chiming in on threads cheerleading without saying anything.

Oh the motherfucking irony of it all.

tee hee

[Thess]

Congressman: A member of the United States House of Representatives

I meant the source for that definition

[Winnow]

Congressman: A member of the United States House of Representatives

I meant the source for that definition

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl? ... ongressman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressman

Original quote of mine that you commented on:

The president is supposed to know every person on both sides who are running for office? It's hard enough to keep track of the combined hundreds of congressmen and senators that are currently in office.

[Knibble]

You forgot the option of Kerry is a big nosed grey haired asshole and I still wouldn't vote for him!

[VariaVespasa]

Winnow- Kerry's medals are on snopes, go read what they have to say on them.

*Hugs*
Varia

I have. You believe everything on snopes? I'm surprised that people take everything on snopes as 100 percent true. I've seen some pretty lame responses termed as "snoped" when they are just opinons.

I'm going to start up my own snope type website and dupe everyone. OMG it's on ASSPHINCTERSAYSWHAT, it's got to be fake/true/whatever.

I just said go read it, you know, for information? I didnt express an opinion on it. I'll thank you not to make snotty remarks to me based on assumptions you wrongly jumped to.

That said however, so far I havent seen anything on Snopes that I think is erroneous, albeit with limited independant checking. An example or two of "lame responses", or "just opinions" would be good.

As an aside, actually I believe its perfectly legal to shoot a wounded enemy combatant who is limping away, because he's obviously not incapacitated and is trying to flee, possibly to shoot at you from a better position. Legally I think it only becomes an issue if theyre, incapacitated, or trying to surrender, or if you believe you can safely request a surrender. I'm not sure exactly what the rules are on what, if any, conditions require you to offer the enemy a chance to surrender, but I'm pretty sure you dont have to do so at risk of your own life (or if you reasonably believe your life is still in danger).

*Hugs*
Varia

[Winnow]

That said however, so far I havent seen anything on Snopes that I think is erroneous, albeit with limited independant checking. An example or two of "lame responses", or "just opinions" would be good.

*Hugs*
Varia

Here you go:

But the biggest criticism Snopes has attracted for defending the Clintons involves Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and the Black Panthers. Differing sharply from news and historical accounts, and even from another urban-legends Website, TruthOrFiction.com, Snopes maintains that it is false that "Hillary Clinton played a significant role in defending Black Panthers accused of torturing and murdering Alex Rackley."

The Mikkelsons call a 2000 Insight piece by John Elvin detailing Clinton's role as a Yale law student in supporting the Black Panthers on trial for brutally murdering Rackley, a fellow Panther (see "Hillary Hides Her Panther Fling," July 31, 2000), a "woefully bad piece of 'journalism.'" According to Snopes, "the sum total of her involvement in the trial was that she assisted the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] in monitoring the trial for civil-rights violations."

In the interview with Insight, Mikkelson wonders how anyone could object to Hillary's effort on behalf of the Panthers. "She was working with the ACLU, which is what any smart law student would do," she says. When Insight points out to her that many believe some elements of the ACLU have a left-wing agenda, she replies, "There are some people who disagree with the Easter Bunny, too."

Shaky analogies aside, Hillary did more than simply compile reports. According to The First Partner, the authoritative biography by Joyce Milton, Hillary organized the students monitoring the trial, and the students "worked closely with the Panthers' lead attorney, Charles Garry." Based on the students' observations, Garry "raised a multitude of issues about the allegedly unfair treatment of his clients, which ranged from the trivial to the bizarre," Milton wrote. This strategy was ultimately successful in keeping two of the Panthers from being convicted.

Clinton later interned in Oakland for Panther lawyer Robert Treuhaft, an avowed Communist. "Anybody who leaves you with the impression that Hillary did not participate in support of the Black Panthers at the trial is not presenting an accurate impression," says Rich Buhler, operator of TruthOrFiction.com.

But Clinton was not just involved in the Panthers' legal defense. She was serving as a key editor of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action when the review published its fall 1970 issue defending the Panthers. Included in the issue were drawings of policemen as pigs, with one pig decapitated and the accompanying caption, "Seize the time." Again, the Mikkelsons put the best spin on this, writing that "no one has demonstrated that she approved (or even knew) of it." Besides, Mikkelson tells Insight, depicting the police as pigs is no big deal. "Were policemen never referred to as pigs before at colleges?" she asks.

Insight's Elvin laughs that those interested in separating rumor from fact must be at least as skeptical of Snopes as they are of urban legends in circulating e-mails. "It's obvious that they're agenda-driven," Elvin says. "The credibility that they've established is based on the laziness of reporters who have used them as a source." The NLPC's Flaherty, who also researched the Panther story when writing his biography of Hillary Clinton, The First Lady, reaches a similar conclusion. "It sounds to me like they're starting their own urban legends," he says.

Snopes also classifies as false the claim that "monies given to the September 11 Fund are being used to defend suspected terrorists." That is not actually what critics of the fund, such as the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), have said. They objected to a $171,000 grant the September 11 Fund gave to the New York Legal Aid Society, which defended eight detainees rounded up for visa violations in connection with the terrorist attacks. Snopes calls the NLPC's objections "foolheaded," and cites the legal-aid society's statement in a press release that none of the grant money was used to defend terrorist suspects.

"The money was used for civil legal assistance for families affected by the tragedy who needed help getting access to wills, bank accounts and insurance," the Mikkelsons wrote.

But NLPC President Peter Flaherty says Snopes should know very well that such money is fungible. "They use the same office space. They use the same phones. They use the same staff," Flaherty tells Insight. "It is by no means an urban legend; it's a serious issue." Flaherty says that most people who contributed to benefit the families of victims do not want funds going to agencies that might be defending the perpetrators. "This group obviously has a political, left-wing, anti-American agenda. What is the September 11 Fund doing providing assistance to them for any purpose?" he asks.

[kyoukan]

You forgot the option of Kerry is a big nosed grey haired asshole and I still wouldn't vote for him!

LOL ROFL HE'S GOT A BIG NOSE AND GRAY HAIR THAT'S GREAT REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE LOLLROFLFFOFLE TOM CRUISE FOR PRESIDENT AM I RITE?

thank god people like you are generally too stupid to find polling stations.

[Thess]

I really fail to understand why looks have anything to do with Kerry getting nominated. Maybe when I am looking at male models - looks mean something to me - but say I'm looking for some kind of doctor - I look for the most qualified, not who is the cutest.

[Winnow]

Maybe when I am looking at male models - looks mean something to me - but say I'm looking for some kind of doctor - I look for the most qualified, not who is the cutest.

Yeah, Kerry picked Edwards for his vast experience and qualifications, not his pretty boy looks.

[Kaldaur]

That's it. We've finally found out why John Kerry picked John Edwards as his running mate. Ignore the fact that he relates well to people and has enthusiasm and projects a message of positive politics. Ignore the fact that he was raised in an environment that many other Americans can relate to. Ignore the fact that he is a walking success story, coming from very little to making a good life for himself here, something all Americans who start in the lower and middle classes strive for everyday. He was picked because he looks good in a picture, damnit.

Sorry, this isn't high school.

[Karae]

Ignore the fact he finished second in the primaries too.

If John Kerry were found to be a war criminal...I dunno how I'd choose between two war criminals. I guess I'd still vote for Kerry because of his stances on gay rights, abortion, and stem cell research. I'd be distressed about where this country was going - it's bad enough that we already have a war criminal in the White House, but to have both candidates?

I don't know why you would expect it to change our vote, when Bush's being a war criminal hasn't changed yours. I guess I'll take it as a compliment that you assume we have more integrity than you do yourself.

I guess the poll is irrelevant as a whole. John Kerry isn't a war criminal, George Bush is and it doesn't seem to be changing many votes. Probably because most Bush supporters are so stupid that they can't read through the Geneva Convention, look at the actions of the Bush administration, and make the appropriate and obvious conclusion. They held prisoners, for over two years, without charge, trial, or appeal. That is a war crime. Not only should Bush be impeached, he should be in the cell next to Slobodan Milosevic.

[Thess]

Rekaar. - did you happen to see a movie to come up with the idea for this poll?

[Karae]

It would make a difference. For the Silver Star, there are several versions out there. One is where the tub gunner shot the lone advesary man that had the rocketlauncher in the leg dropping him. The man then got up and was running/limping away after which Kerry then chases him and shoots him down in the back.

If that is true, Kerry first disobeyed procedure by leaving his boat (which is not in question and he could have been court martialed for that instead of being given a medal) and then could be tried as a war criminal for killing a wounded man limping away.

If that turned out to be true, I'd say it would matter to open minded people that take everything into account.

Even if this account were true, though I doubt it since the overwhelming majority of accounts refute the above account, Kerry would not be a war criminal. There is nothing in the Geneva Convention against shooting retreating troops - they are still considered combatants - injured or not. Only shooting surrendering troops is considered a war crime.

Read it for yourself. Here's the link.

[Spang]

it depends on the rules of engagement. those vary from operation to operation.

[VariaVespasa]

No, it doesnt depend on the rules of engagement. You can always kill enemy combatants, provided that theyre not trying to surrender or known to be incapacitated. You can kill them if theyre shooting at you. You can kill them if theyre wounded (but not known to be incapacitated). You can kill them if theyre running away. You can kill them before they even know youre there. You can kill them if theyre on the toilet or having sex. You can kill them if theyre dead drunk and asleep.

The rules of engagement are what your orders are, and whether you should be trying to kill enemy combatants on your current mission or not, and if so, under what circumstances. It in no way affects your legal right to kill enemy combatants in terms of the rules of war. Now, whether or not you'll get court-martialled for disobeying orders is another matter entirely...

*Hugs*
Varia

[murr]

Might be better if you differentiated the candidates more, like, "If John Kerry raped your cat, would you still vote for him?"

Yes.

[Voronwë]

if i come up with a lot of fictional propaganda against John Kerry will you still vote for him?

[Karae]

it depends on the rules of engagement. those vary from operation to operation.

That's wrong. I'd post a reply but Varia already did an admirable job.

[Hesten]

Hell, i cant even vote in the us, but if i could i dont even see a choice. The way Bush are doing, i would most likely vote on a potted plant instead of him if one were available.

[Chidoro]

The way Bush are doing, i would most likely vote on a potted plant instead of him if one were available.

No fucking kidding. What amazes me is the utter misunderstanding of the issues which are at stake here.

There are folks that will benfit from fucking over our future due to environmental de-regulations.
There are folks that will benefit from the massive tax cuts to captital gains.
There are folks that agree, wholeheartedly, that anti-abortion is a paramount issue and it needs to be re-instated at all costs.

I have no problem with these folks woting for Bush as he, clearly, is representing their chief concerns/issues.

What's awful is that people think by defending Bush, they're safer or that he has our best interests at heart (mind you, no politician worth his/her salt does, but still). They do not benefit from the tax breaks, they do not benefit from the environmental contracts that reverse the direction of issues, and they are not particularly religious so they don't truly care about abortion per se. They would be better off under an admin that really effects their concerns, but happen to think that they are in the line of fire from terrorist attacks. I'm willing to bet that, both, my wife and I were effected by the "hightened" alert 1,000 fold from these people, yet we go to work, and others that click in their card at the mill in Iowa feel that by not staying home and duct-taping their windows ad-nauseum, they are somehow being "vigilant". Fucking fools

[*~*stragi*~*]

I'm still down for selling my vote!

[Spang]

Varia's reply was inaccurate.

was a nice reply, but it wasn't true.

in Bosnia you could only fire back at the enemy if they fired at you AND made contact.

that means the enemy had to fire their weapon at you and actually hit you before you could fire back at them.

that was the rules of engagement for Bosnia.

a small portion of it anyways.

[Karae]

Varia's reply was inaccurate.

was a nice reply, but it wasn't true.

in Bosnia you could only fire back at the enemy if they fired at you AND made contact.

that means the enemy had to fire their weapon at you and actually hit you before you could fire back at them.

that was the rules of engagement for Bosnia.

a small portion of it anyways.

Rules of engagement are specific to the military action, yes, but they have nothing to do with war crimes. They are guidelines used by command to control the actions, behavior, and decision-making of those serving under them, not a legal code.

The Geneva Convention specificies what is and is not a war crime and it is static from action to action. It is completely independent from rules of engagement. It is an internationally enforceable law dictating the proper conduct in military action.

Now, please let rules of engagement drop. You are 100% wrong.

[Trek]

I'm still down for selling my vote!

Actually this works for me as well

[VariaVespasa]

Varia's reply was inaccurate.

was a nice reply, but it wasn't true.

in Bosnia you could only fire back at the enemy if they fired at you AND made contact.

that means the enemy had to fire their weapon at you and actually hit you before you could fire back at them.

that was the rules of engagement for Bosnia.

a small portion of it anyways.

That's wrong. I'd post a reply but Karae already did an admirable job.

[Spang]

Rules of engagement are specific to the military action, yes, but they have nothing to do with war crimes. They are guidelines used by command to control the actions, behavior, and decision-making of those serving under them, not a legal code.

The Geneva Convention specificies what is and is not a war crime and it is static from action to action. It is completely independent from rules of engagement. It is an internationally enforceable law dictating the proper conduct in military action.

Now, please let rules of engagement drop. You are 100% wrong.

you misunderstood me then. i wasn't talking about war crimes. i brought up rules of engagement to say that you can't just go into a country and start killing everyone just because they're the enemy. you have to follow the rules of engagement.

[Kelshara]

Nice backpedaling there. This is your original post:

it depends on the rules of engagement. those vary from operation to operation.

That came in a response to this post by Karae:

ven if this account were true, though I doubt it since the overwhelming majority of accounts refute the above account, Kerry would not be a war criminal. There is nothing in the Geneva Convention against shooting retreating troops - they are still considered combatants - injured or not. Only shooting surrendering troops is considered a war crime.

It is pretty obvious that you commented against what Karae said and that it had nothing to do with "rules of engagement" and you were wrong.

[Spang]

yea, it depends on the rules of engagement if you can shoot somebody and when you can shoot them. i'm not talking about war crimes.

[Voronwë]

i think this poll is about war crimes though

[Thess]

i think this poll is about war crimes though

This poll is about Rekaar. seeing The Manchurian Candidate.