Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Clown really should have stayed with SNL writing their jokes. Instead, the dumbed down in MN voting him in to make policy. A great nation on its way down, when this kind of loon is allowed in an esteemed position.
It was the lesser of the evils candidate, believe me. No need to insult the Minnesotans when they know what Coleman is like firsthand. I've explained his sleaze, lack of integrity and corruption before on posts. Yeah, I'll take the lesser one.
"according to a source ............it was this..........it was that"
Even though I like Boone on his latest efforts, he sponsored one of the worst episodes in presidential political history and it is nice to see some folks haven't forgotten. At least one guy had the guts to stand up for his party. John Kerry stayed away, and thats too bad.
Funny how some want to forget 5 years ago, when they will go back 30 years to bring out the dead.
Maybe if our senators got into heated arguments, on the floor, they would be forced to know what they are talking about, instead of talking in bullet-points and campaign slogans. (I'm talking BOTH parties here). You'd quickly know which ones are talking out of their asses.
Going back 5 years or 30 years is irrelevant because that's neither the time, place or the people to be doing it.....he's there to talk about alternative fuel and not have a argument about the 2004 election with a private citizen....it's counter product. Congress has trouble getting anything accomplished dealing with current issues. Even when one party has total control, like the Democrats have now (even a filibuster proof Senate), it's difficult enough to get things passed.
If you want to talk about the past (because we can here), I'm not a Bush fan but, I'm even less of a Gore or Kerry fan. Election have become so dirty now, it's insane....as far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be any campaign advertising allowed any where except by the two candidates running (and their party)....the inaccurate and biased news reporting is bad enough.
The swift boat ads were only one side of the story....George Soros and MoveOn.org was the other side. Taken directly from wikipedia (with a link below the quotes):
In an interview with The Washington Post on November 11, 2003, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death." He said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat President Bush, "if someone guaranteed it."
and another......
Soros was not a large donor to US political causes until the U.S. presidential election, 2004, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003-2004 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 groups dedicated to defeating President Bush.
MoveOn.org spared no one in their goal to stop Bush from getting re-elected. In my opinion, Bush finally got on the right track with the Iraq war after getting rid of Rumsfeld and putting Gen. Petraeus (who replaced Gen. Casey) in charge of the surge. Under Petraeus's command we saw the start of the decline in U.S. casualties but, without even giving him a chance, it was MoveOn.org that ran the "General Betray Us" ad just before his first report to congress. The ad was directed at Petraeus and judged his performance prematurely and in many cases, before the fact. The ad claimed, "Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed."
The last line in the ad states, "Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."
MoveOn.org has tried to justify running the ad, explaining their thinking behind it and that their facts were correct but, the fact is there was no need to make an issue of Petraeus and at the time they did (shortly before the 2004 elections), other than to further their goal of impacting Bush's re-election. Taken from wikipedia:
On September 20, 2007, the Senate passed an amendment by Republican John Cornyn III of Texas designed to "strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus". All forty-nine Republican Senators, as well as twenty-two Democratic Senators, voted in support. The House passed a similar resolution by a 341-79 vote on September 26, 2007.
Looooong sigh.... Franken is miffed over an ad that had nothing to do with him, from over five years ago and rather than use the time wisely to discuss nation wide energy solutions, he went on an ego driven rant about said ad.
Can you expalin how Frankens behaviour is purposeful to the needs of his constituents and country?
How could Franken go on an "ego driven rant" about "an ad that had nothing to do with him" ????
He did.
Maybe you could read an article about it or inform yourself?
Hope that helps.
I read it. This is it:
Quote:
Franken, who was seated talking to someone else, did not stand when Pickens said hello. Instead, Franken began to berate him about the billionaire’s financing of the Swift Boat ads in 2004.
According to a source, the confrontation grew heated.
Franken feuds with T. Boone Pickens - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090731/pl_politico/25667 - broken link)
I believe Pickens had it coming!!!!!! Good for Franken!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
SBVT was formed in 2004. Membership was initially limited to veterans of the Vietnam War who at some point served in a Swift boat unit, as did Kerry.
Of the 3,500 Swift boat sailors who served in Vietnam, the names of some 250 appeared on the group's statement against Kerry; most did not serve at the same time or in the same place as Kerry.[8][9][10] Founding members of SBVT include Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (retired), a former commander of Swift boat forces; Houston attorney John O'Neill, an officer who became commander of Swift Boat PCF 94 several months after Kerry's departure in 1969 and who appeared opposite Kerry in a televised 1971 debate between them on The Dick Cavett Show; and 13 other named veterans. Several of those who joined SBVT during the 2004 campaign were officers who had previously praised Kerry's conduct during the Vietnam War. These included Division Commander Grant Hibbard, who wrote positive evaluations of Kerry, and Commander George Elliott, who submitted Kerry for a Silver Star. SBVT counts, in total, 16 officers who served with Kerry in Coastal Division 11 as members.[11] Despite SBVT's statements that Kerry's "entire chain of command" belonged to the group,[12] Joseph Streuli, former commander of Coastal Division 13, Charles Horne, former commander of Coastal Squadron 1, and Art Price, former commander CTF 116 who is described in "Unfit for Command" as part of Kerry's chain of command, are not affiliated with the group.
The group's initial letter against Kerry stated "It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us). Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war."[13] However, Kerry had posted over 100 pages of his military records at his website nearly two weeks before the issuance of the SBVT letter, and had also made his military medical records available for inspection by reporters (and provided a summary from his doctor).[14][15][16]
Not all SBVT members said that they were signing the letter for the same reason. For example, from an interview published the day before the letter was made public: "'[Kerry] earned his medals, he did what he was supposed to do in Vietnam,' said retired Coast Guard Captain Adrian Lonsdale, who was in the chain of command above Kerry and oversaw various operations dealing with Navy swift boats of the type Kerry commanded. 'But I was very disappointed in his statements after he got out of the Navy.' "[17]
Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT.[18] He was not present on any of the occasions when Kerry won his medals, including his Purple Hearts. Gardner appeared in two of the group's television advertisements.
All other living members of Kerry's crew supported his presidential bid, and some frequently campaigned with him as his self-described "band of brothers". Kerry crew members have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations: "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky).[19][20][21]
No members of SBVT were aboard Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated. The only member of SBVT who was present at the Silver Star incident, Rood's crew member Larry Clayton Lee, praised Kerry's tactics and stated that he earned his Silver Star. However, he stated that based on discussions with other SBVT members, he came to question whether Kerry deserved other medals for incidents at which he was not present.[22][23]
On September 29, 2004, SBVT announced that it was joining forces with a group of American prisoners of war who were held captive by the North Vietnamese during the war to form the new group, "Swift Vets and POWs For Truth".[24]
[edit] Media activities
SBVT produced several television advertisements created by Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm attacking Kerry's actions both in and after Vietnam. For a detailed discussion of SBVT's allegations about Kerry's service in Vietnam, see John Kerry military service controversy.
[edit] First television advertisement
SBVT first went public with a May 4, 2004, press conference declaring opposition to Kerry. When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization produced television advertisements. On August 5, 2004, SBVT began airing a one-minute television spot[25][26] in three hotly contested states in the ongoing presidential election. The advertisement, entitled "Any Questions?", was a collage of short clips of 13 SBVT members, many who stated they "served with John Kerry" or had direct contact with Kerry during his service in Vietnam. The veterans appearing in the ad said Kerry was dishonest, unreliable, unfit to lead, and had dishonored his country and fellow veterans. Only one of the men in the advertisement (Steve Gardner) served under Kerry, but some sailed alongside Kerry's Swift boat on multi-boat patrols.
Among the first to question the first ad was Republican Senator John McCain, a Bush supporter, Vietnam veteran, and former POW. He said, "I condemn the [SBVT] ad. It is dishonest and dishonorable. I think it is very, very wrong".[27]
Nothing wrong with Franken standing up to TBP and letting him know what he thinks about the lies TBP paid for. Good for Franken.
It's not the place nor the time for that kind of thing....we don't elect senators to congress to argue with citizens (5 years after the fact) about campaign politics....especially when it's the first thing that comes out of his mouth (and obviously on his mind as well), when the Pickens was there to talk about something as important as alternative fuel and freeing us from our reliance on foreign oil (something that's been put off way too long and of major importance today). I guess criticizing pickens about representing "big oil" and wanting to keep the country dependent on it, was out of the question since he was there in support of wind power. The point I'm making is, Franken is not there to pick up where he left off as a political commentator on Air America. It's no different than a political commentator from the right being elected into the Senate....could you imagine that? Rush as a U.S. Senator (or any other conservative talk radio host)......I don't think so, they'd be terrible at it, they're too biased and brain-washed. It's not constructive or even proper IMO for a U.S. Senator to be telling a citizen what his personal opinion is of him (maybe in a private one-on-one discussion but, not in public).
It's not the place nor the time for that kind of thing....we don't elect senators to congress to argue with citizens (5 years after the fact) about campaign politics....especially when it's the first thing that comes out of his mouth (and obviously on his mind as well), when the Pickens was there to talk about something as important as alternative fuel and freeing us from our reliance on foreign oil (something that's been put off way too long and of major importance today). I guess criticizing pickens about representing "big oil" and wanting to keep the country dependent on it, was out of the question since he was there in support of wind power. The point I'm making is, Franken is not there to pick up where he left off as a political commentator on Air America. It's no different than a political commentator from the right being elected into the Senate....could you imagine that? Rush as a U.S. Senator (or any other conservative talk radio host)......I don't think so, they'd be terrible at it, they're too biased and brain-washed. It's not constructive or even proper IMO for a U.S. Senator to be telling a citizen what his personal opinion is of him (maybe in a private one-on-one discussion but, not in public).
Bull sh8t!!!!!!!!! I applaud Franken for putting Pickens in his place. Why should any elected official pander to a dishonest man?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
