Has Michael Moore become a full blown Truther?

[WildCat]

Every handgun is registered in canada.

Except the illegal ones...

 

[FactCheck]

Kerry received three purple hearts. He missed exactly ONE day of duty as a result of his "wounds." That isn't debunkable.

What is debunkable is the characterization that he somehow should be thought of padding his heroism because the government gives EVERYONE purple stars for even less than the wound he had.

He wasn't saying "Vote for me because I have a purple star." He was saying "Vote for me because I actually KNOW what combat is." Something Bush and the right had to counter with slander and nutcases with a grudge from the past.

 

[FactCheck]

Except the illegal ones...

Which are very few because of them needing to be registered. No one wants an illegal gun traced back to them.

 

[Corsair 115]

Except the illegal ones...

Many of which are smuggled into Canada from the United States, according to law enforcement authorities.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Something Bush and the right had to counter with slander and nutcases with a grudge from the past.

Hang on, that's a pretty serious allegation there. As much as I detest the chimp guy, do you actually have any evidence that he was the one that was behind such groups as the Swift Boat Vets?

 

[FactCheck]

Hang on, that's a pretty serious allegation there. As much as I detest the chimp guy, do you actually have any evidence that he was the one that was behind such groups as the Swift Boat Vets?

Connections with the Bush campaign

The Bush campaign became part of the general SBVT controversy when McCain condemned the first SBVT ad, and said, "I hope that the president will also condemn it." The Bush campaign did not condemn SBVT or the SBVT ads The campaign did not endorse the group either, stating "We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam."[80] Kerry was dismissive of this statement, saying, "Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that."[81] Kerry also alleged that SBVT was "a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know — he wants them to do his dirty work".[82] When pressed on the issue, President Bush called for an end to all 527 group political advertisements, and challenged Kerry to do the same.[83]

Critics and the Kerry campaign pointed to several specific connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign asserted that Bush campaign headquarters in Florida distributed fliers promoting SBVT events, a charge the Bush campaign denied.[84] Kenneth Cordier, former vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney (in 2000) and volunteer member of the Bush campaign veterans steering committee, appeared in the second SBVT advertisement. The Bush campaign asked him to resign and stated that it had been unaware of his SBVT involvement.[85]

On August 25, 2004, Benjamin Ginsberg, the top election lawyer to the Bush campaign on campaign finance law, also resigned after it was learned that SBVT was one of his clients. Ginsberg stated that he was withdrawing to avoid being a distraction to the campaign. He declared that he had acted "in a manner that is fully appropriate and legal,"[73] arguing that it was not uncommon or illegal for lawyers to represent campaigns or political parties while also representing 527 groups. He also maintained that he did not disclose to the Bush campaign that he was simultaneously representing the SBVT group. After leaving the Bush campaign, Ginsberg retained his status as counsel to SBVT.

In January 2005, Governor Jeb Bush, the President's brother and Florida chairman for his 2004 campaign,[86] sent a letter to SBVT member and former POW Bud Day, thanking him for his "personal support of my brother in his re-election." In addition, Governor Bush said of the SBVT:

"As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry."[63][87]

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

At a minimum, Bush helped slander him by not denoucing them. He gave them a little more credibility.

 

[FactCheck]

Hang on, that's a pretty serious allegation there. As much as I detest the chimp guy, do you actually have any evidence that he was the one that was behind such groups as the Swift Boat Vets?

Connections with the Bush campaign

The Bush campaign became part of the general SBVT controversy when McCain condemned the first SBVT ad, and said, "I hope that the president will also condemn it." The Bush campaign did not condemn SBVT or the SBVT ads The campaign did not endorse the group either, stating "We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam."[80] Kerry was dismissive of this statement, saying, "Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that."[81] Kerry also alleged that SBVT was "a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know — he wants them to do his dirty work".[82] When pressed on the issue, President Bush called for an end to all 527 group political advertisements, and challenged Kerry to do the same.[83]

Critics and the Kerry campaign pointed to several specific connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign asserted that Bush campaign headquarters in Florida distributed fliers promoting SBVT events, a charge the Bush campaign denied.[84] Kenneth Cordier, former vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney (in 2000) and volunteer member of the Bush campaign veterans steering committee, appeared in the second SBVT advertisement. The Bush campaign asked him to resign and stated that it had been unaware of his SBVT involvement.[85]

On August 25, 2004, Benjamin Ginsberg, the top election lawyer to the Bush campaign on campaign finance law, also resigned after it was learned that SBVT was one of his clients. Ginsberg stated that he was withdrawing to avoid being a distraction to the campaign. He declared that he had acted "in a manner that is fully appropriate and legal,"[73] arguing that it was not uncommon or illegal for lawyers to represent campaigns or political parties while also representing 527 groups. He also maintained that he did not disclose to the Bush campaign that he was simultaneously representing the SBVT group. After leaving the Bush campaign, Ginsberg retained his status as counsel to SBVT.

In January 2005, Governor Jeb Bush, the President's brother and Florida chairman for his 2004 campaign,[86] sent a letter to SBVT member and former POW Bud Day, thanking him for his "personal support of my brother in his re-election." In addition, Governor Bush said of the SBVT:

"As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry."[63][87]

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

At a minimum, Bush helped slander him by not denoucing them. He gave them a little more credibility. I never said he was behind them. Though it's exactly the tactic Rove would come up with.

 

[WildCat]

BTW, the US and Canada actually have very similar murder rates among the same demographic groups. What skews the data is that the US has more of the groups likely to commit murders.

Of course, this is the racial 3rd rail no one wants to touch. Please don't interpret this as me saying that blacks and hispanics are inherently more likely to be violent, it's just pointing out that factors other than gun availability are in play here, and far more relevant.

 

[pomeroo]

Connections with the Bush campaign

The Bush campaign became part of the general SBVT controversy when McCain condemned the first SBVT ad, and said, "I hope that the president will also condemn it." The Bush campaign did not condemn SBVT or the SBVT ads The campaign did not endorse the group either, stating "We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam."[80] Kerry was dismissive of this statement, saying, "Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that."[81] Kerry also alleged that SBVT was "a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know — he wants them to do his dirty work".[82] When pressed on the issue, President Bush called for an end to all 527 group political advertisements, and challenged Kerry to do the same.[83]

Critics and the Kerry campaign pointed to several specific connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign asserted that Bush campaign headquarters in Florida distributed fliers promoting SBVT events, a charge the Bush campaign denied.[84] Kenneth Cordier, former vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney (in 2000) and volunteer member of the Bush campaign veterans steering committee, appeared in the second SBVT advertisement. The Bush campaign asked him to resign and stated that it had been unaware of his SBVT involvement.[85]

On August 25, 2004, Benjamin Ginsberg, the top election lawyer to the Bush campaign on campaign finance law, also resigned after it was learned that SBVT was one of his clients. Ginsberg stated that he was withdrawing to avoid being a distraction to the campaign. He declared that he had acted "in a manner that is fully appropriate and legal,"[73] arguing that it was not uncommon or illegal for lawyers to represent campaigns or political parties while also representing 527 groups. He also maintained that he did not disclose to the Bush campaign that he was simultaneously representing the SBVT group. After leaving the Bush campaign, Ginsberg retained his status as counsel to SBVT.

In January 2005, Governor Jeb Bush, the President's brother and Florida chairman for his 2004 campaign,[86] sent a letter to SBVT member and former POW Bud Day, thanking him for his "personal support of my brother in his re-election." In addition, Governor Bush said of the SBVT:

"As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry."[63][87]

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

At a minimum, Bush helped slander him by not denoucing them. He gave them a little more credibility. I never said he was behind them. Though it's exactly the tactic Rove would come up with.

In your opinion, did Kerry slander the men who served in Vietnam when he compared them to the "hordes of Genghis Khan" and falsely accused them of committing atrocities? Were those men justifed in taking offense at what they regarded as Kerry's lies? Were the Swift Boat veterans, some of them Democrats, merely "Republican operatives" or could it be that they were actually making a point?

 

[Calcas]

Move it to politics...

 

[boloboffin]

In your opinion, did Kerry slander the men who served in Vietnam when he compared them to the "hordes of Genghis Khan" and falsely accused them of committing atrocities? Were those men justifed in taking offense at what they regarded as Kerry's lies? Were the Swift Boat veterans, some of them Democrats, merely "Republican operatives" or could it be that they were actually making a point?

You could at least get the quote right:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Connections with the Bush campaign

Let's check these one by one shall we...

The Bush campaign became part of the general SBVT controversy when McCain condemned the first SBVT ad, and said, "I hope that the president will also condemn it." The Bush campaign did not condemn SBVT or the SBVT ads The campaign did not endorse the group either, stating "We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam."[80] Kerry was dismissive of this statement, saying, "Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that."[81] Kerry also alleged that SBVT was "a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know — he wants them to do his dirty work".[82] When pressed on the issue, President Bush called for an end to all 527 group political advertisements, and challenged Kerry to do the same.[83]

So what we have here is Kerry's campaign saying that Bush was behind them, without any proof, and Bush's campaign denying it. Yes Bush didn't condem their action, but he didn't endorse it either, so there is no evidence of a Bush-SBVT connection here, other than Kerry's (a non-unbiased party) claims of such a connection.

Critics and the Kerry campaign pointed to several specific connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign asserted that Bush campaign headquarters in Florida distributed fliers promoting SBVT events, a charge the Bush campaign denied.[84] Kenneth Cordier, former vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney (in 2000) and volunteer member of the Bush campaign veterans steering committee, appeared in the second SBVT advertisement. The Bush campaign asked him to resign and stated that it had been unaware of his SBVT involvement.[85]

So again we have unproven alogation by a non-unbiased party which was refuted by the Bush Campaigners. When one volenteer of the Bush Campaign did show up to have a connection to bioth, he was made to resign. Where is the evidence of a Bush being behind them here? If anything it shows he didn't agree with them and wanted to stay clear of them by forcing the resignation of someone involved in both.

On August 25, 2004, Benjamin Ginsberg, the top election lawyer to the Bush campaign on campaign finance law, also resigned after it was learned that SBVT was one of his clients. Ginsberg stated that he was withdrawing to avoid being a distraction to the campaign. He declared that he had acted "in a manner that is fully appropriate and legal,"[73] arguing that it was not uncommon or illegal for lawyers to represent campaigns or political parties while also representing 527 groups. He also maintained that he did not disclose to the Bush campaign that he was simultaneously representing the SBVT group. After leaving the Bush campaign, Ginsberg retained his status as counsel to SBVT.

So where's the connection here? The lawyer resigned when a conflict of interests come to light, and states that he never told the Bush Campaign that he was representing both.

In January 2005, Governor Jeb Bush, the President's brother and Florida chairman for his 2004 campaign,[86] sent a letter to SBVT member and former POW Bud Day, thanking him for his "personal support of my brother in his re-election." In addition, Governor Bush said of the SBVT:

"As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry."[63][87]

So Bush's brother thought they did a good job and wrote to them to say so... how is this proof of any connection to Bush and him "being behind them"?

At a minimum, Bush helped slander him by not denoucing them. He gave them a little more credibility.

No, you need to check the definition of slander. It doesn't include failure to denounce or reprim someone else for saying untrue things. Your demoratic colours are showing here.

I never said he was behind them.

You said that he countered Kerry's "I've seen Combat" with "slander and nutcases with a grudge from the past." So far you haven't proven your case that Bush was in any way involved it in, and merelty standing to one side and not opposing them is not slander as you claim.

Though it's exactly the tactic Rove would come up with.

More biased and unproven supposition. You really need to stop letting your own political views from colouring your view of things. As a foreigner I don't have a Democrat/Republican bias. Personally I don't really like either, but politically I'm more likely to lean Democrat (If I was Californian, I'd have voted for Arnolt as Gov, but I'd vote Hillary for Pres ) so I don't read what quote you have provided with any preconcieved bias. The simple fact of the matter is that Bush just didn't do anything to stop them, but nor was he actually obigated too do anything. Kerry tried to drag Bush into it by claiming he was behind it, but didn't actually prove anything.

 

[FactCheck]

BTW, the US and Canada actually have very similar murder rates among the same demographic groups. What skews the data is that the US has more of the groups likely to commit murders.

Of course, this is the racial 3rd rail no one wants to touch. Please don't interpret this as me saying that blacks and Hispanics are inherently more likely to be violent, it's just pointing out that factors other than gun availability are in play here, and far more relevant.

First, what does it matter? If the crime rate drops as a whole with stronger regulations, are the lives saved not worth saving because the rate for blacks and hispanics is high? I don't understand what's relevant about it?

Ever since the stronger regulations both the US and Canada have enjoyed a lower murder rate. Especially NY which has lots of blacks and Hispanics. It also has one of the toughest gun laws in the country. Lets look at poverty and education and not race. They tend to go hand in hand with race but there are many poor and uneducated whites who also murder more than whites as a whole.

I researched this long before I became a 9/11 debunker. Do you know where the crime guns were traced to in NY? Virginia for the most part. The same was true for most cities. Where ever there was strong gun laws the criminals went over the city or state lines to buy guns in areas with lax gun laws. The gun lobby said the murder rate was going to climb if the guns were regulated in the 90's but it went down. The south bucked the trend and continued to have lax gun laws. They also had the most murder with gun loven Texas as one of the highest. People love to point to DC but DC crime guns were almost exclusively from Maryland which also had lax gun laws. That was until Bush stopped the gun trace studies.

After all the research I've done there is no doubt in my mind that gun regulation has a positive effect on the murder rate. I also found that race had to do with education and poverty which has more to do with the murder rate.

 

[FactCheck]

In your opinion, did Kerry slander the men who served in Vietnam when he compared them to the "hordes of Genghis Khan" and falsely accused them of committing atrocities? Were those men justifed in taking offense at what they regarded as Kerry's lies? Were the Swift Boat veterans, some of them Democrats, merely "Republican operatives" or could it be that they were actually making a point?

Now for the research:

"They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

This was taken out of context just the same as CT's take the NIST out of context. So he didn't slander anyone because he was only relying what was told to him. No one to date from the group has come out saying one one in the group said that. And some of the atrocities are well documented.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...m_atrocities_revealed_in_report_boston_globe/

So even if he did say it the facts support it.

There are atrocities in every war and by every side. Even the one we're in now.

I know it's romantic to think we are above that kind of thing but we aren't. The day we went to war I said on a forum something like "Be prepared for atrocities commited by our own military."

There was a cable access show, just after the war started that had a vet talking to some school children about war. He told the children without batting an eye that he used to rip open up the wounds of the prisoners to get information from them.

You see how easy it is for CT's to buy lies? It seems you have.

Now a question for you. After I show you everything that was told about Kerry was no different than a CT lie will you do more research before bashing the liberal candidate?

 

[FactCheck]

"Let's check these one by one shall we..."

Yes lets...

"So what we have here is Kerry's campaign saying that Bush was behind them, without any proof, and Bush's campaign denying it. Yes Bush didn't condem their action, but he didn't endorse it either, so there is no evidence of a Bush-SBVT connection here, other than Kerry's (a non-unbiased party) claims of such a connection."

None of that matters because I never said Bush was behind it. I said he slandered him. There is a difference.

"So again we have unproven alogation by a non-unbiased party which was refuted by the Bush Campaigners. When one volenteer of the Bush Campaign did show up to have a connection to bioth, he was made to resign. Where is the evidence of a Bush being behind them here? If anything it shows he didn't agree with them and wanted to stay clear of them by forcing the resignation of someone involved in both."

This goes more to republicans helping slander him. Again, I never said Bush was behind it so this is a moot point. There are two parts to the quote. You are fixated on the word Bush.

"So where's the connection here? The lawyer resigned when a conflict of interests come to light, and states that he never told the Bush Campaign that he was representing both."

Again, I didn't say Bush was behind it. Only that he slandered Kerry by not denouncing the swift boaters helping them to gain credibility.

"So Bush's brother thought they did a good job and wrote to them to say so... how is this proof of any connection to Bush and him "being behind them"?

I never said he had a connection I simply quoted the text in full because being a debunker I hate when people take a sentence out of context. If I wanted to lie I would have only quoted small parts like republicans and CT's do.

"No, you need to check the definition of slander. It doesn't include failure to denounce or reprim someone else for saying untrue things. Your demoratic colours are showing here."

For the record I'm a card carring independent who has voted republican more than once. I also call myself a flaming liberal and I'm proud of it. That doesn't change the facts.

And for the record I know what the legal definition is but the effects are the same here. If you don't like how I used the word, fine. We aren't in a court room and I am using writers license. It's slander to me. But I'll change it if we can get back to the real issue and that is what was said about Kerry was a lie.

"You said that he countered Kerry's "I've seen Combat" with "slander and nutcases with a grudge from the past." So far you haven't proven your case that Bush was in any way involved it in, and merelty standing to one side and not opposing them is not slander as you claim."

That's because I never said he was involved in it. Are your colours showing?

"More biased and unproven supposition. You really need to stop letting your own political views from colouring your view of things. As a foreigner I don't have a Democrat/Republican bias. Personally I don't really like either, but politically I'm more likely to lean Democrat (If I was Californian, I'd have voted for Arnolt as Gov, but I'd vote Hillary for Pres ) so I don't read what quote you have provided with any preconcieved bias. The simple fact of the matter is that Bush just didn't do anything to stop them, but nor was he actually obigated too do anything. Kerry tried to drag Bush into it by claiming he was behind it, but didn't actually prove anything.

As I said I'm not a democrat but I never said that was a fact. It's clearly my opinon based on past actions by Rove which I am entitled to.

 

[DavidJames]

You see how easy it is for CT's to buy lies? It seems you have.

Exactly, belief in the Swifties claims is no different then belief in the 9/11 CT claims.

Now a question for you. After I show you everything that was told about Kerry was no different than a CT lie will you do more research before bashing the liberal candidate?

The political "woo" is strong in him, I doubt it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And for the record I know what the legal definition is but the effects are the same here. If you don't like how I used the word, fine. We aren't in a court room and I am using writers license. It's slander to me. But I'll change it if we can get back to the real issue and that is what was said about Kerry was a lie.

I'm going to deal with this bit, because the rest of it boils down to this section, especially the bit I have underlined.

It seems that your entire case here is that you think Bush should have denounced them, and because he didn't, he thus supported them. I'd say this is the same as Dylan Avery claiming that since 80% of the population of the US don't say they disagree with him, they must support him.

Sure I can see that politically Bush wouldn't have been worried about them attacking Kerry because it certainly wasn't hurting him, but he had no obilgation to refute or rebuke them ethier, just as Kerry had no obligation to refute or rebute CBS for the faked Bush memos they aired.

Esentially you are trying to tar Bush with the actions of the SBVT group when in reality he had nothing to do with them, isn't this the same as blaming him for 9/11 because he didn't do anything to stop it? (okay so he knew a little more about the SBVT than ther 9/11 Hijackers, but still...) Personally I think that Bush has done enough in the past 6 years to nail him as a blitherring idiot, without making up stuff to add to the mix.

That's because I never said he was involved in it.

Something Bush and the right had to counter with slander and nutcases with a grudge from the past.

Are your colours showing?

If you have read my postings here you'd know my view on American politics and Bush in particular very well, I don't hide them.

 

[boloboffin]

Hey, folks!

There's already a thread in Politics talking about John Kerry and the Swift Boat liars that attacked him, and it's freshly bumped, tidied up, and waiting for us. What say we get some more people into the conversation?

 

[David Wong]

You see how easy it is for CT's to buy lies? It seems you have.

I know, I get so embarrassed for my liberal friends who start talking about fixed elections via Diebold voting machines, and Bush starting the Iraq war purely for oil, and Bush being AWOL from the National Guard. They're so quick to buy into that nonsense but are able to see the 9/11 CT stuff for what it is. Bizarre.

Too many people clinging to wacky conspiracy theories, too few people wanting to talk about boring, serious issues.

 

[Corsair 115]

BTW, the US and Canada actually have very similar murder rates among the same demographic groups. What skews the data is that the US has more of the groups likely to commit murders.

Do you have any sources for this handy? I'd be interested in seeing the specific numbers involved.