Crackdown on Porn

On CNN.com:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A man who served in the same Navy unit as Sen. John Kerry denounced on Tuesday charges the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee made as an antiwar protester that he and other U.S. troops committed atrocities in Vietnam.

"I saw some war heroes ... John Kerry is not a war hero," said John O'Neill, a Houston lawyer who joined the Navy's Coastal Division 11 two months after the future senator left Vietnam. "He couldn't tie the shoes of some of the people in Coastal Division 11."

In a related development, the Kerry campaign said Tuesday it would post all of the Massachusetts senator's Navy records on its Web site, after the Boston Globe reported that the campaign refused to provide access to some records, despite Kerry's pledge on Sunday to let reporters see them.

In an interview Tuesday on CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports," O'Neill said allegations about atrocities made by Kerry after his return render him "unfit" to be president.

"His allegations that people committed war crimes in that unit, and throughout Vietnam, were lies. He knew they were lies when he said them, and they were very damaging lies," said O'Neill, adding that other former sailors from the same unit also plan to come forward to take on Kerry, whose Vietnam service has figured prominently in his campaign for the White House.

This past weekend, Kerry said that his use of the word "atrocity" in a 1971 interview was "inappropriate," and he added that he never intended to cast a negative light on the sailors with whom he served.

Speaking on NBC's "Meet The Press," Kerry said Sunday, "The words were honest, but, on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top."

Asked whether Kerry's expressions of regret were sufficient, O'Neill pointed to the fact that Kerry on Sunday characterized his 1971 charges as "a little bit excessive."

"It's really not a matter of forgiveness. It's a matter of fitness to be the commander-in-chief of all U.S. forces," he told Blitzer. "The damaging lies that he told about war criminals have haunted people's entire lives. So it's just a little bit late, in the course of a presidential campaign, to say it's a bit excessive."

Responding to O'Neill's comments, Michael Meehan, a senior Kerry campaign adviser, said "his characterization of John Kerry's service is inaccurate."

Meehan said Kerry has "apologized for some of his word choices."

"He was a young man who came back, had seen a lot in Vietnam, wanted this country to end that war and came back worked very hard to bring that war to an end," Meehan said.

"Mr. O'Neill has certainly earned his right, through his service, to speak whatever he wants and have his opinions," Meehan said. "We would disagree with some of his characterizations. Sen. Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam. ... [He] won a Silver Star for bravery, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts leading that division."

After returning from Vietnam, Kerry became a leader in the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In 1971, he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, accusing President Nixon of prolonging the war and charging that fellow service members had committed war crimes.

Among the charges he lodged were that troops had committed rapes; cut off ears, limbs and heads; taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals; blown up bodies; and randomly fired at civilians.

An incensed Nixon encouraged O'Neill, who was awarded two Bronze Stars in Vietnam, to challenge Kerry, which he did in a debate on the "Dick Cavett Show."

At one point during the heated exchange, O'Neill, an admiral's son, demanded Kerry explain why, if he saw war crimes taking place, "you didn't do something about them."

Since then, O'Neill has largely remained out of the spotlight as Kerry's political star rose in Massachusetts and then nationally, turning down what he said were more than 50 requests -- many from Kerry's political opponents -- to come forward on television.

"I haven't been on television in many, many years. I had very little political involvement," said O'Neill, who described himself as a political Independent in a phone interview last month with the Houston Chronicle.

But O'Neill said Tuesday that he and the others who served with Kerry -- who "would much rather have nothing to do with this" -- feel they have "no choice" but to come forward, which he said would dispel the notion that Vietnam veterans as a group are supportive of Kerry's candidacy.

"We were there, we know the truth, and we know that this guy's unfit to be commander-in-chief," said O'Neill, who took over command of Kerry's boat after he left. "I think you'll find that people are very, very angry at John Kerry. They remember his career in Vietnam as a short, controversial one, and they believe that only Hollywood could turn this guy into a war hero."

On Sunday, Kerry was also asked by "Meet the Press" moderator Tim Russert whether he would release all of his military service records from Vietnam, following President Bush's decision to make public all of his records from his years in the Texas National Guard. Kerry said reporters could come to his campaign headquarters to view the records but he did not plan to release them.

But Tuesday, the Boston Globe reported that when one of its reporters took the Kerry campaign up on that offer, the journalist was told that access would only be provided to records already released by the campaign, not the senator's entire Navy file.

With Republicans poised to criticize Kerry for not releasing all of his military records, the campaign decided Tuesday afternoon to post the records on its Web site to diffuse the issue. They are expected to be available by Wednesday evening.

"John Kerry has a record in the military that he's running on, not from," Meehan said. "Everything the U.S. Navy sent to Sen. Kerry, we'll post on the Web site."

Great choices we're offered, aren't they?
 
Oh, the right to vote is a wonderful thing. Don't think for one moment that I don't love living in a country that gives me that right.

But just because I also have the right to have anal sex with another man, it doesn't mean that I want to run down to the nearest gay bar and actually pick one up.

I have no problems with men that *do* wish to have anal sex with other men - It's just not for me. But I'm glad I live in a country that allows me to make that choice.

I have the right to cast my vote, if I so wish. I don't wish to exercise that right.
 
raphy said:
Oh, the right to vote is a wonderful thing. Don't think for one moment that I don't love living in a country that gives me that right.
But just because I also have the right to have anal sex with another man, it doesn't mean that I want to run down to the nearest gay bar and actually pick one up.
Please, that's a ridiculous analogy. P.
 
Raphy

Nothing in my post was aimed at you, I'm sorry if you read it that way. It is clear from your posts that you are not complaining about the decisions taken by politicians.

I think, if I have read you correctly, you see no value in voting faced with the choices of politicians you are given. You therefore accept the situation from that standpoint.

My beef, for what it is worth, is with those who do complain about what they get and still not bother to vote.

I understand entirely the lack of electorate enthusiasm when faced with two parties whose ability to direct policy is inevitably dictated by the interests of non-elected officials and other bodies, the policy invariably ends up painted in a light pink or light blue hue.

It is an uphill task, I don't know what can be done to change things. It does concern me for the simple reason that the decisions taken in one place, have far reaching impact across the world. It was always thus, it just happens a little quicker these days.

In the meantime, I'll just get on enjoying myself.

NL
 
Why is it a rediculous analogy?

Living in the "free world" gives me the right to choose to do or choose to not do certain things.

I can choose whether I want to have anal sex with a man
I can choose whether I want to worship a particular religon
I can choose whether I want to drive a large or a small car
And
I can choose whether I want to vote.

Yup folks, it's a choice. That's what a 'free country' means. It's a choice. It ain't an obligation.
 
neonlyte said:
Raphy

Nothing in my post was aimed at you, I'm sorry if you read it that way. It is clear from your posts that you are not complaining about the decisions taken by politicians.

I think, if I have read you correctly, you see no value in voting faced with the choices of politicians you are given. You therefore accept the situation from that standpoint.

My beef, for what it is worth, is with those who do complain about what they get and still not bother to vote.
I couldn't agree with you more :)

That's hypocrisy of the highest order.
neonlyte said:

I understand entirely the lack of electorate enthusiasm when faced with two parties whose ability to direct policy is inevitably dictated by the interests of non-elected officials and other bodies, the policy invariably ends up painted in a light pink or light blue hue.
I could not have said it better myself.
neonlyte said:

It is an uphill task, I don't know what can be done to change things. It does concern me for the simple reason that the decisions taken in one place, have far reaching impact across the world. It was always thus, it just happens a little quicker these days.

In the meantime, I'll just get on enjoying myself.

NL
My feelings exactly :)
 
Last edited:
raphy said:
Why is it a rediculous analogy?
OK, I'll presume you really don't know. Your logic works, but simplistically, and I do believe many of us are more serious than that about this topic.

Given the basics of democracy and the right to vote, and given the outcomes for individuals, communities, the country, and even the world, the repercussions of voting or not-voting can be immense (for the good or bad).

Given that you are one man with one life, your right to be fucked or not fucked in the arse by another man matters to no one but yourself.

Perdita
 
perdita said:
OK, I'll presume you really don't know. Your logic works, but simplistically, and I do believe many of us are more serious than that about this topic.
That may be your problem, y'know...
perdita said:

Given the basics of democracy and the right to vote, and given the outcomes for individuals, communities, the country, and even the world, the repercussions of voting or not-voting can be immense (for the good or bad).

Given that you are one man with one life, your right to be fucked or not fucked in the arse by another man matters to no one but yourself.

Perdita

Aaah, now we're back to the assumption that voting changes anything (on a global or even national scale)

Remember, I don't buy that assumption.
 
Raph, twice now you've been arrogant enough to tell my what my problem is, i.e., on a personal basis, vs. my simply stating that you posted a ridiculous analogy. Done here. P.
 
perdita said:
Raph, twice now you've been arrogant enough to tell my what my problem is, i.e., on a personal basis, vs. my simply stating that you posted a ridiculous analogy. Done here. P.

Oh, and calling my analogy ridiculous is the hight of civility?

Feel free to be done all you like. After all, remember, this is a free country and to post or not to post is just another choice.

*chuckles and shakes his head*
 
raphy said:
Oh, and calling my analogy ridiculous is the hight of civility?
Raph, it was, and my simple sentence was a statement, as plainly as I could put it, nothing uncivil about it. P.
 
raphy said:
Oh, and calling my analogy ridiculous is the hight of civility?

Feel free to be done all you like. After all, remember, this is a free country and to post or not to post is just another choice.

*chuckles and shakes his head*

I have to agree with Perdita on this one Raphy. You could have picked a better analogy than sodomy.

As far as freedom to do that, you do not always have that option here, since in most states it is illegal. Not that I think it is fair to convict anyone of sexual preferences.

I'm not trying to step on your toes, so don't take offense, but you do not live in the States, so if you are going to make an argument or analogy as such, research your information.

It's hard to be a flag waving American these days when you see some of the problems we face in our government, just as much as you see it in yours.
However though you may have the right to make make choices in your life, not everyone has the freedom to do so.

You have made this an interesting debate and I am happy to view your opinions. Choice vs Freedom.....could be an interesting thread in itself....maybe better as Choice vs Freewill.

~A~
 
raphy said:
I don't think it's likely to get much more interesting, Mrs J. They stood up on their soap boxes. I heckled from the peanut gallery. I think we're probably done ;)
Raphy, you must have loved Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park. Standing up and expressing oneself does invite abuse.

It's very easy for a person who doesn't care about anything to stand back and snipe at those who do. That's certainly your right and I respect it, but, as far as I'm concerned, you're just another troll, although more open and honest about it than most.

Continuing the Hyde park tradition of trying to give as good as one gets, in light of your latest posts, I appreciate your demonstrating there is no such thing as inutterable nonsense.

Thank you and goodnight.
 
Last edited:
KenJames said:
Raphy, you must have loved Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park. Standing up and expressing oneself does invite abuse.

It's very easy for a person who doesn't care about anything to stand back and snipe at those who do. That's certainly your right and I respect it, but, as far as I'm concerned, you're just another troll, although more open and honest about it than most.

Continuing the Hyde park tradition of trying to give as good as one gets, in light of your latest posts, I appreciate your demonstrating there is no such thing as inutterable nonsense.

Thank you and goodnight.

*L* Ken, you do have guts. Standing up naked in your Av and talking politics! Only on Lit. Maybe we should have them do that in the presidential debates?

I only have one last thing to say for people who choose not to vote: think of what would happen if everyone did as you do.

---dr.M.
 
dr_mabeuse said:
*L* Ken, you do have guts. Standing up naked in your Av and talking politics! Only on Lit. Maybe we should have them do that in the presidential debates?
Mab., that's a devilish idea; I think it would improve things greatly, though I would be forced to only listen, or drape my TV so I only saw their faces.

Yeah, Ken, I had not thought like Mab. cos I have AVs turned off right now but I've seen your pic. You're cool, even if you are from Texas ;) .

Perdita
 
Hi raphy,

Taken together, your two posts make my point better than I could - sure you'll live, no matter who's in government, but, as you imply, how you live could be very different.

f5
 
Last edited:
dr_mabeuse said:
*L* Ken, you do have guts. Standing up naked in your Av and talking politics! Only on Lit. Maybe we should have them do that in the presidential debates?
Naked on my soap box, no less!

I used to have a bigger version of the AV photo in my profile, but it quit displaying. Standing up naked is a . . . urr . . . political statement. Yeah, that's it, a political statement! ;)

I'd prefer the naked truth to naked bodies in the presidential debates.

perdita said:
Yeah, Ken, I had not thought like Mab. cos I have AVs turned off right now but I've seen your pic. You're cool, even if you are from Texas ;) .
:rose:
 
Last edited:
Has that stopped me from voting? No. The point of a vote is not to win, but to play.

That's the way I've felt, and why I used to be a card-carrying member of the Libertarian party when I lived in Texas. Currently I have no political affiliation, although I am considering changing my registration to Democrat because Florida is not an open primary state...not that the Florida primary matters to the extent of a fart in a hurricane in a front-loaded primary system.

My husband, whose mother in her prime was quite the political animal and was quite active (one of the family photos is of her at some fundraiser or other standing next to Lloyd Bentsen, who had an arm draped around her) sort of gently pooh-poohed my Libertarian activities, feeling that politics is exactly like a horse race and you should back whomever you feel has the best chance of winning. However, when I chose to work in the campaign of a friend of ours who ran for the TX legislature back in '79 (it was a special election)--he ran as a Republican but that was because he knew that running as a Libertarian in Pasadena, TX wouldn't work--he was with me at the campaign HQs where I was cold-calling prospective voters. I hate cold-calling type jobs and can't even do them well unless I have had a slug of Vicodin beforehand.

Raphy, dear, I hope you can always, always have the luxury of maintaining your non-convictions. If Krugman and Kissinger are right, evil times could be ahead.
 
SlickTony said:
That's the way I've felt, and why I used to be a card-carrying member of the Libertarian party when I lived in Texas. Currently I have no political affiliation, although I am considering changing my registration to Democrat because Florida is not an open primary state...not that the Florida primary matters to the extent of a fart in a hurricane in a front-loaded primary system.

My husband, whose mother in her prime was quite the political animal and was quite active (one of the family photos is of her at some fundraiser or other standing next to Lloyd Bentsen, who had an arm draped around her) sort of gently pooh-poohed my Libertarian activities, feeling that politics is exactly like a horse race and you should back whomever you feel has the best chance of winning. However, when I chose to work in the campaign of a friend of ours who ran for the TX legislature back in '79 (it was a special election)--he ran as a Republican but that was because he knew that running as a Libertarian in Pasadena, TX wouldn't work--he was with me at the campaign HQs where I was cold-calling prospective voters. I hate cold-calling type jobs and can't even do them well unless I have had a slug of Vicodin beforehand.

Raphy, dear, I hope you can always, always have the luxury of maintaining your non-convictions. If Krugman and Kissinger are right, evil times could be ahead.
I have a long history of going with my heart, rather than my head, so I have to disagree with your mother in law. You should back who your conscience dictates. The choices aren't always great, but there's generally someone worse to vote against.
 
KenJames said:
I have a long history of going with my heart, rather than my head, so I have to disagree with your mother in law. You should back who your conscience dictates. The choices aren't always great, but there's generally someone worse to vote against.

I vote with my head, rather than my heart most times. Neither is particularly effective. The hope is that you can find someone who expresses ideas and values your head can support and a presonae you heart is comfortable with too. For me that hasn't happened since Regan and I was too young to vote. Bush sr. I was actually pretty comfortable with both heart & head. CLinton I despised. W I found the lesser of two evils, but defintely not someone my heart or head endorsed strongly. Now? Why use heart or head? Each will rebell no mater which I choose.

Better to vote for the libertarian kook, whoever that may be. At least after the election he goes back to the booby hatch with his padded room & throazine. So he will be happy in loosing :) Strangely, in this election, I find that somewhat ironically appealing as whichever one wins I feel I will loose. I wonder if I could book a room at bellvue for the next four years?

-Colly
 
Colly, I will vote for Kerry mainly as an anti-Bush vote. Would you let me (us) know what you think the plusses might be if he is elected. Throw in the negatives if you want, but I want to have an idea to hope with (if at all possible).

Thanks, Perdita :rose:
 
Colleen Thomas said:
I vote with my head, rather than my heart most times. Neither is particularly effective. The hope is that you can find someone who expresses ideas and values your head can support and a presonae you heart is comfortable with too. For me that hasn't happened since Regan and I was too young to vote. Bush sr. I was actually pretty comfortable with both heart & head. CLinton I despised. W I found the lesser of two evils, but defintely not someone my heart or head endorsed strongly. Now? Why use heart or head? Each will rebell no mater which I choose.

Better to vote for the libertarian kook, whoever that may be. At least after the election he goes back to the booby hatch with his padded room & throazine. So he will be happy in loosing :) Strangely, in this election, I find that somewhat ironically appealing as whichever one wins I feel I will loose. I wonder if I could book a room at bellvue for the next four years?

-Colly
I was sleepy and being intellectually sloppy when I wrote the "heart" part. What I intended to say was simply that I won't back someone just because I think they're going to win.
 
ABSTRUSE said:
I have to agree with Perdita on this one Raphy. You could have picked a better analogy than sodomy.

As far as freedom to do that, you do not always have that option here, since in most states it is illegal. Not that I think it is fair to convict anyone of sexual preferences.

I'm not trying to step on your toes, so don't take offense, but you do not live in the States, so if you are going to make an argument or analogy as such, research your information.

It's hard to be a flag waving American these days when you see some of the problems we face in our government, just as much as you see it in yours.
However though you may have the right to make make choices in your life, not everyone has the freedom to do so.

You have made this an interesting debate and I am happy to view your opinions. Choice vs Freedom.....could be an interesting thread in itself....maybe better as Choice vs Freewill.

~A~

*sigh*

Whether the analogy is weak or not, the point still stands. I get to pick and choose whether I want to vote. I don't have to do it, and I resent the implication that I'm a bad person for not choosing to do it.

Yup, that's right. It's not that I don't vote because I'm too lazy. I actively choose not to exercise my right to vote. That's a choice that I have made after putting time and thought into my decision.

Whether I live in the US or not is irrelevant - My comments stand for all democratic nations.
 
dr_mabeuse said:
*L* Ken, you do have guts. Standing up naked in your Av and talking politics! Only on Lit. Maybe we should have them do that in the presidential debates?
Now that would be funny.
dr_mabeuse said:

I only have one last thing to say for people who choose not to vote: think of what would happen if everyone did as you do.

---dr.M.
You think trains wouldn't still run? Electricity wouldn't still be made at the power plants? Water, heat, those services would instantly stop? I'd wager that 99% of people would still continue with their daily lives.

George W. doesn't make my electricity. A bunch of guys in a power plant do. He doesn't keep me supplied with propane to heat my house either. He isn't the guy that delivers my mail, and he isn't my local police chief.


Countries are self perpetuating entities.

It wouldn't be the end of the world, trust me.
 
Back
Top