[sarcyspice]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

laSpartan,

You know what, I'm bored with this immature tactic. Instead of acknowledging that my source was valid, you immediatley switched attack to the second source. You got excited about it being in English, then when shown why, you didn't acknowledge your error.

I'm just going to say that if you want to discuss something, you must first acknowledge your errors and the points being made.

Only then will we move on and discuss something else.

I'm going to give you the bottom line: Many of us weren't angry or critical of what kerry did in Vietnam. We were, however, very angry about what he did when he got home.

Throwing medals, "Ghengis Khan," and working for the U.S.'s defeat as a mouthpiece of the vietcong.

Actually.... if you are going to use any person as a source, then it is not fair to question who the source is in relation to other matters.......to see whether it is credible?? or should we take everything written as gospel and not question it at all...

after all is that not what you did with clark?????

If the person who wrote it is connected to the swift boaters, which it looks like it is, then spartan has a very valid argument and you are trying to deflect that