Posted on 01/19/2008 7:54:17 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
I replied in that thread.
Like that’s going to happen.
Puhleeze. The poster I was responding to in 16 was saying that we should not eject any of Paul's supporters because it would reduce the size of the coalition. Mty reference to Nazis and Truthers was intended to point out that if we keep all you Paul crazies in the name of the big tent, we have to keep some Nazis and Truthers.
As for post 39, in that I referred to "you" meaning all Ron Paul supporters. You were the one talking about Nazis and Truthers.
It seems that no matter how many times I say that I don't think all of his suppporters are Troofers and Nazis, I get told I'm saying all of Paul's supporters are Troofers and Nazis. Same thing with the candidate himself. Once again, the charge that I'm a disingenuous poster comes from someone doing it himself.
Oh no, actually, I'm feeling that satisfaction right now. Looking forward to a Packer win today as well.
Enjoy your delusion. I’m done with you.
The Jewish Task Force talks about those things too, which doesn't mean that the people who host cable access programs for that group aren't lunatics.
As far as I know, Paul hasn't agreed to appear on any of those program.
Why should whether someone is "nationally syndicated" have a bearing on your decision to appear, or refuse to appear, on his radio program?
If David Duke were somehow able to sign a national syndication contract with Clear Channel, would that mean that Paul should appear on his radio program?
Fr. Coughlin hosted a radio program that was more popular than the kookfest Alex Jones operates today, does that mean that the bilious, bigoted opinions he expressed on that program deserved the explicit endorsement of presidential candidates?
Have you seen the turning radius of a PT boat and the turning radius of a destroyer? See "A Question of Character: The Life of John F. Kennedy" by Thomas Reeves for full details. Reeves says Kennedy and his crew wre probably literally caught napping. That sounds like Paul's newsletter story to me.
And they call the Ron Paul supporters conspiracy nuts!
Smart teens!
It's conspiracy nuttery to believe that a PT boat can out turn a destroyer?
I think I'm seeing the intellectual prowess that's led you to be in the barrel for Ron Paul.
Only a conspiracy nut would question what happened to Kennedy and PT109.
A PT boat can outturn a destroyer if it sees it in time.
Collision! PT-109 was one of the boats left behind. Lieutenant Kennedy rendezvoused his boat with PT-162 of his own patrol section and PT-169, which had been separated from another section, and the three boats spread out to make a picket line across the strait. At about 2:30 in the morning, a shape loomed out of the darkness three hundred yards off PT-109's starboard bow. So difficult was visibility that it was first believed to be another PT. When it became apparent that it was one of the Japanese destroyers, Kennedy attempted to turn to starboard to bring his torpedoes to bear. But there was not enough time. The destroyer, later identified as the Amagiri, the escort ship of the Express, struck PT-109 just forward of the forward starboard torpedo tube, ripping away the starboard aft side of the boat. Less than a minute had passed since the first sighting. http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/JFK+in+History/John+F.+Kennedy+and+PT109.htm
The reason I referred you to Reeves’ book is because he provides a lot more evidence. If your library doesn’t have it, they can get it through interlibrary loan.
Evidence of what?
Nothing that happened that night reflects poorly on Kennedy.
And the evidence for this claim of dereliction of duty is?
Of course, I'll gladly withdraw my reference to JFK, even though it was offered truthfully. You see, I've been in military organizations and I've been the editor of a national publication, and I can tell you that the "five years without reading the newsletter" fiasco is, if true, far more of a screwup than anything John Kennedy did in the Pacific or in office.
I wasn't judging the book, I was finding out the issue regarding PT109.
So, the issue was that according to the author, Kennedy was delerict in his duty and that is why the boat was cut in two, not in the darkness of early morning, but in broad daylight.
There's more in there. For example, Reeves describes how Jack at first wanted to avoid any discussion of himself as a "war hero" because he considered his most heroic moment to be a big clusterhuck. It's been about four years since I read it, but I didn't walk away thining "This is much ado about nothing." To me the main thing is that Joe Kennedy wanted a vision of his boy going down fighting, so that's what he created. Even if JFK himself didn't actually screw the pooch out there, the fix was in to make him out to be something he wasn't. After reading bios of Kennedy, the thing I was most convinced of was that Joe Kennedy was a son of Hell. If their father had been a decent human being, I think Jack, Bobby and Teddy would have been great men in every sense of the word. Of course, I'll gladly withdraw my reference to JFK, even though it was offered truthfully. You see, I've been in military organizations and I've been the editor of a national publication, and I can tell you that the "five years without reading the newsletter" fiasco is, if true, far more of a screwup than anything John Kennedy did in the Pacific or in office.
Well, thank you for withdrawing it.
Ofcourse any skipper of a ship/boat is not going to feel proud of losing his ship/boat, no matter what the circumstances and how well he did after losing the ship/boat.
Unlike Kerry, Kennedy actually did show real courage and leadership ability.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.