First of all, Senator, i would like to mention that i did mention warmongering in one of my statements, but if the Senator would read the enitre statement she would see that i take back the warmongering accusation in the same statement. I stand for that i called you a warmonger but you can't say that i am still now, i withdrew the statement as i said before and have not since uttered a word about it against you.
The Senator is advised to consider his statements
thoroughly in the future. Regardless of whether or not he took it back, he still slandered Senator Rudolph's name, as well as my own, in such a fashion. The fact that he withdrew it in the same statement only shows that he wavers on his official stance, and that he clearly had no evidence to back up his scandalous claim.
Fruther you are the liar for calling me a liar and a blackguard, i have only said what i see as the truth.
Surely, the Senator agrees that anyone speaking something which is clearly not the truth is either a liar or a fool. Given that it is my clear view - one can dispute this point if one so wishes; I shall gladly await any opposition thereto - that his prior accusations were baseless, and that we - That is to say, Senator Rudolph and myself - had not acted in a militaristic fashion at any point in time, I am forced to decide as which I shall regard him. Given my respect for the Senator's intelligence, I am thus forced to deem him a liar.
I have said that the USA needs to modernize its military as its is old, not for purposes of war but just plain updating the current equipment to the current standards that exist. Secondly i call your bill Militaristic because you devot the enitre of your reaserch point on military techonolgies and doctorines, that is the reason why i call your BIll militaristic.
Senator Kenzington wishes to modernize the military, yet does not allocate sufficient funding to do so. Upon facing a bill wherein such funds
are taken care of, he deems it militaristic. One might call the Senator intentionally malicious, but I shall restrict myself to deeming him rather confused as to the nature of the situation.
You are yet again a liar for calling me "Who panders to the German-American Bund". I have not done this, i merely told the senator that her current ideology is most compatible with Beckendorf's Bill. Beckendorf's BIll is not in no way supporting any violance and treason to our democracy, for this i call you a liar and very un-democratic for pushing down people when they utter what they believe, though it is not tolerable when they use violence on the streets for this.
I apologise if you have misunderstood me but your accusations are unfounded.
-Senator William Fitzgerald Kenzington
Allow me to present the following points, for
all of the Senate to hear:
Senator Kenzington calls the Rudolph-Danner Bill militaristic, yet when faced with a Senator who openly supports an eventual allegiance with the Axis, and finds that our industrial spending should "
concentrate mainly on Army and Air Force", he immediately declares that the Beckendorf Bill is "is the most representative of his ideology." Clearly, the Senator is
well aware of which bill conceals the true militaristic intent.
When faced with my accusations that he was allying himself with a Senator who supported the allegiance with the Axis, Senator Kenzington attempted to hide this, stating that Senator Sinclaire "said that the Axis are always welcome, but not in what way," in spite of the original statement of the mentioned Senator being entirely unambiguous:
The Allies and the Axis are always welcome [Emphasis mine]
Furthermore, the Beckendorf Bill has the explicit support of Senator Heidelburg, representative of the infamous German-American Bund, who, as you might recall, were determined by Congressional Representative Samuel Dickstein to explicitly support a branch of Adolph Hitler's Nazi Party here in the United States.
Senator Clark Gable of Florida
I cast my vote for the Beckendorf bill.
A pity. May one inquire as to why the Senator would wish to go against all of his previously mentioned policies, vote across party lines,
and leave behind the Bill about which he previously negotiated, all at the same time?
))
