|
CreativeDominant -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (12/2/2015 2:47:08 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
As far as Sharpton goes, U can't help that you only read those stories that didn't bring up the disturbing part of the story. Got a cute that contradicts what's stated above? Why don't you bring that to the table instead of your usual smugness?
Where is your validation for this insipid drivel? Where's your validation that Sharpton had any other motive other than saving his own skin? I've got a valid cite but, like others, I'm tired of bringing sources when you bring nothing other than your mouth. You bring a valid cite, I'll bring one. Otherwise, your words are...in your words...drivel.quote:
As for Jackson, what he did in that one instance made him...at that time...a hero.
So the black guy you hate is no longer a hero because that was then and this is now?[8|]?
Doesn't stop the fact that he is a race-baiter today, filled with inflammatory rhetoric
I am unaware of any law against people speaking out against racism and lynchmob mentality. Could you give us a cite?
I said absolutely NOTHING against Jackson calling out racism (though his record shows him to be somewhat hypocritical in regards to that). Care to show where I did? Unlike you, I'm able to separate the things he says that are right from what he says that is wrong and inflammatory.
quote:
any more than John McCain being a war hero made up for his perceived...by those who didn't like him...flaws.
In his book "ace" mccain admits to being a liar,a cheat,a pimp and a traitor...those are hardly perceived flaws they are admissions from his own mouth.
What did "ace" mccain do that made him a war hero? Tell you what...why don't you bring those passages? While we're waiting, here's the words of someone who was a PIW with John. Not fond of John's politics but still:
1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW's for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.
2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case -- new POW's arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John's father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW's suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.
3) John was offered, and refused, "early release." Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to "admit" that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was "lenient and humane." So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW's were released, with the sick and wounded going first.
4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor -- 8, Service Crosses -- 42, Silver Stars -- 590, Bronze Stars -- 958 and Purple Hearts -- 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many -- not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.
John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More than 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.
I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.
Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.
I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.
quote:
As for the rest...for someone who likes to knock others' reading comprehension, you might want to get yours checked. The paragraph clearly states it was the shooting, not Jackson, which led to the riots and the investigation.
Yet you somehow do not feel that black people are entitled to free speech..why is that?
Again, I said nothing about denying him his free speech rights. This time, why don't you bring your same rebuttal to tweak about her complaining about inflammatory rhetoric from the right fueling criminals? Or are you just that much of a hypocrite?
|
|
|
|
