|
Post by ctdahle on Aug 9, 2004 10:47:48 GMT -7
Galvin,
I have made a new rule for myself and I thought you might appreciate it:
"Never argue with an idiot; he may he be doing the same."
|
|
|
Post by Cablemender on Aug 9, 2004 12:34:30 GMT -7
Does that make anyone who disagrees with Galvin the subject of your "idiot" comment, Chris? Where do you draw the line between idiocy and honest and open debate about a topic?
|
|
|
Post by ctdahle on Aug 9, 2004 14:14:38 GMT -7
Does that make anyone who disagrees with Galvin the subject of your "idiot" comment, Chris? Where do you draw the line between idiocy and honest and open debate about a topic? I just make the shoes. I don't determine who wears them.
|
|
|
Post by Cablemender on Aug 9, 2004 15:45:34 GMT -7
How convenient.
I knew you wouldn't have the guts.
|
|
|
Post by MrRepublican on Aug 9, 2004 16:17:13 GMT -7
That is what happens when libs run out of facts to argue a baseless position. First the namecalling, then the denial. Soon we'll see the innuendo.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Aug 9, 2004 20:28:22 GMT -7
Galvin said - I wasn't aware that presidents usually were in attendance of the dead when they come back from extended combat operations. Is that SOP, or did Reagan do so because of the loss of life was because of the terrorist attack? I know he did visit hospitals of the wounded from both Iraq and Afghanistan. People can say all they want about how he is hiding from it but I have not once heard him back up or pass the buck that someone is victimizing our people, he has pretty much continually stated that a war is being fought. So if thats a pass, I better go out tomorrow and buy some boxers with elephants on them
|
|
|
Post by downunder on Aug 9, 2004 21:42:02 GMT -7
Ah Line Goddess, it's been so long since we've had the honor of your debating style ...Galvin isn't LG....I wish she was back with us though.
|
|
|
Post by Galvin on Aug 13, 2004 21:34:45 GMT -7
I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. I may not choose to argue with everyone who disagrees with me either.
|
|
|
Post by MrRepublican on Aug 14, 2004 20:06:55 GMT -7
Well, apparently ctdahl disagrees with you on that one.
|
|
|
Post by Galvin on Aug 14, 2004 20:17:44 GMT -7
I know that some of you think that this administration's total ban on any pictures, public access, or publicity in connection with returning dead from Iraq and Afghanistan makes good political sense by heading off the use of any pictures connecting them, and GWB in particular, with what is really going on there.
Making the public aware of the reality of war is always a sensitive topic to regimes the world over and has been from time immemorial because of the fear that it will create a defeatist attitude and undermine morale. But this has been proved to not always be the case.
Some time after the midpoint of WWII, FDR ordered that combat photographers shoot photos and film of just about everything about the war in progress, warts and all, and that the results be shown to the public. Such an order was almost unprecedented in the history of human conflict and many in the government and military were opposed to it being implemented. But implemented it was.
The result, surprisingly, was a noticable hardening of resolve and a strengthening of the determination of the American public to achieve a final and decisive victory. Of course the war in question was one in which there was virtual unanimous support among the population and showing the dark side was not going to result in demands that we immediately pull our troops out and bring them home. The threat was, after all, unmistakably real and proved worse than we had ever imagined once the concentration camps were liberated. The situation, in fact, was nearly the exact opposite of the one we now find ourselves enmeshed in as regards unity of purpose.
That being the case, I have no doubt that GWB and his bunch of deferment heroes want to stay as far as possible away from Dover. If he actually has the stones that he aspires to, regard for the young men and women that he is responsible for, and even half the character that is claimed for him he would do it.
If he did such a thing and it was not used as the usual photo op, i.e., just as Reagan did it, I would have no excuse to not have a better opinion of him. But the reality is very simply that I will never have to make that adjustment in opinion because he isn't even remotely near the person of character that Reagan was.
Republican National Convention in 1988: George W. Bush, asked by a Hartford Courant reporter about what he and his father talked about other than politics. "P*ssy," Bush replied.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Aug 15, 2004 6:53:53 GMT -7
Heh, yeah well that worked so well that they didn't follow suit in Korea for some reason. I love this questioning of character. Here is a good example. Yeah in the best tradition of a former president, except he said it long before he had political aspirations and as far as I know he isn't disscussing it with interns. You know I think I heard he pulled a girls pig tails in preschool, the scum!
|
|
|
Post by Galvin on Aug 15, 2004 8:29:19 GMT -7
As far as doing the same thing in Korea by showing nearly everything involved with the war consistent with security, they basically did. I am old enough to remember my own father, a Marine veteran of the invasion of Okinawa, swearing long and loud about the number of dead resulting from the retreat from Chosen Reservoir. I myself well remember and am affected to this day by the pictures of rows of dead Marines laid out on the frozen ground. Such pictures would never have been shown to the public prior to Roosevelt's order and yet there they were in the newspaper. I include these little gems because a huge amount of time, oxygen, effort, and ink has been expended by conservative interests, primarily through their de facto propaganda outlets, the talk shows, and the Republican party attack machine itself on assailing the character of anyone who dares to put their head above the trench to challenge their golden boy. I think the basic facts are that the man is a cocky little rich boy who comes from a lot of new money and unimaginable priviledge but who had to be told how to behave once he entered public life. I think that he is still basically the cocky little twerp he has been described to be by those who knew him all through his early life. The fact that those making the poor character accusations of Bush's opponents are blatantly hypocritical and selectively blind to his own foilbles is patently obvious to anyone willing to make even the most minimal of efforts to find them. And that is the key, why make the effort if you will only find something you don't want to hear? It is certainly no big effort to find such examples either. All one has to do is want to. They are all over the place. As far as the quote cited being of one said long before he had any political aspirations, sorry, not even close. Try checking some facts before posting such broad statements. He had already lost a run for congress and had a lot of political time under his belt when the statement was made. The following link has a history of his political career. Refer to my claim above that he has had to be taught how to behave in polite company. The links to other parts of the article at the right side cover the rest of his life and career if you have other questions. www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/candidates/can_bush-political.htmlI also find it interesting that GWB claims to have never touched a drop of alcohol after 1986 and yet the incident involving publicly screaming obscenities at the Wall Street Journal editor, his wife, and young child occurred a year or so after that claimed date and in fact around the time of the quote cited. Witnesses, and there were a restaurant full, said he was drunk at the time. I'd hate to think he was capable of doing such a thing while sober. But it apparently isn't what's said so much as who says it and whether or not you support him (or her). The right makes much of "character" and "family values" and has attacked Clinton non-stop for not being able to keep his pants on. Yet if one were to make committing adultery a reason for removing politicians from office, as with Clinton, there would be few left to run the country. Yeah, I know, he was impeached for lying about his affair with La Lewinsky but why did the personal life of a president become the nation's business in the first place? The temptations and opportunity for politicians to venture outside their marriages has been a truism ever since there were politicians. ( Henry Kissinger's statement that power is the greatest aphrodisiac can be translated as: if you are a politician and you aren't getting laid you must be really ugly. And he wasn't exactly Adonis. Bragging were we, Henry?) Why did we spend such a large amount of the country's ( i.e., your and my) money on attempting unsuccessfully to remove the man for his personal foibles? Perhaps it was because the Republicans felt so entitled to the seat of power they lost in 1992 and a better and more valid reason couldn't be found? The current attacks on Kerry's character are another example. The absolutely disgusting display of the casting of aspersions on Kerry's military awards by people who make no bones about their staunch political affiliation with the right is a case in point. The fact that the guy Kerry pulled out of the water (a Republican, by the way) says they were being shot at and Kerry saved his life is brushed aside in favor of the politically partisan motivated statements of a bunch of people who claim they were there. Perhaps it is the Navy that should be attacked for giving him the medals. And while we're at it, why don't we bring up the brilliant military records of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove and all the other deferment heroes who keep the fires stoked in the right's attack machine and who are salivating all over this issue? Now the Republican attack machine is going after Kerry as being out of touch with the common man because of his wealth while conveniently overlooking the fact that, although not anywhere near as bucks-up as Kerry and his wife, Bush isn't exactly a pauper either. GWB was here in Seattle yesterday and went directly to Medina, the most expensive neighborhood in the Northwest (it's where Bill Gates lives), to raise some 2 plus million dollars at a very private function that cost $2,500 just to get in the gate. For another ten grand you could get a picture with our fearless leader and for $25,000 you could get a short audience with the great man to go with your picture. We obviously are getting the best government money can buy. But that doesn't mean he isn't a man of the people. They just have to be the right people. There is a famous clip of GWB addressing just such a similar group in which he says "Here we have the haves and the have mores. Some people call you elites, I call you my base." Yup, he's going to do everything possible to make sure us poor schlubs get our due. BTW: I just heard that the GAO has just released a report that has determined that something like two-thirds of the recent tax cuts has most benefitted the top one percent of our population. Comments? RNS?
|
|
|
Post by MrRepublican on Aug 15, 2004 9:19:23 GMT -7
I know that some of you think that this administration's total ban on any pictures, public access, or publicity in connection with returning dead from Iraq and Afghanistan makes good political sense by heading off the use of any pictures connecting them, and GWB in particular, with what is really going on there. I know that you think that Michael Moore's misuse, abuse, and mischaracterization of what is really happening there makes good political sense by creating the illusion that what is really not going on is. At the same time, I think it is extremely disingenuous for liberals who claim they want complete access to anything and everything classified or otherwise to turn around and refuse to be interviewed by conservative commentator (unless they define what the commentator can ask and what they cannot ask). If they have nothing to hide and demand full disclosure of our governent, then why are they hiding. Moore's O'Reilly interview was granted with a 3 page list of stipulations.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Aug 15, 2004 9:50:40 GMT -7
I wasn't around back then to say one way or other, but from what I understand the pictures of combat dead were not released for public viewing while it was ongoing, they did release pictures with the news but it was well after the fact. I stand corrected on the timing of his aspirations, but it was still before he was elected in public office. Want to wager we can can find off color comments from ANY elected official before they were in office? As far as I know the title of spoiled little rich kid does not exclude anyone from running for office, in fact that is pretty much who does and gets elected. Or I suppose you believe the poor ol boy story of Clinton. And speaking of him, I guess you missed the point of Clinton, didnt just commit adultery he had an intern in the Oval office and then he lied about it, repeatedly to Congress and more importantly to us, and under oath. Why is it our business? Because he works for the people supposedly, and that isn't his office, its ours and if we want to know if he had sex with his staff while on the job, we should damn well have the right to know. Hmm so criticism of Kerry by those who were there
is sickening? Maybe their political affiliation is because of what Kerry has become since then, like the doctor who treated his last purple heart wound. Dont make me laugh at the absurdity of the Kerry war hero mythology. Substantiated claims he went back and reenacted his "heroic efforts" and then Speilberg adding in bullet splashes so they could show it at the DNC. Yeah, heck what's to attack? Yeah lets rip Bush for his quotes about his glorious service...oh thats right, his quotes only pertain to proving he wasnt AWOL, which he proved (though I'm sure not wel enough for some) So now the RAM (repub attack machine) attack him for his wealth? Well gee he would only be the richest president in modern history, pointing that out is an attack? Funny how you dont point out the $10k a plate dinners for the Kerry campaign or are we going to pretend those don't happen? Well it would be interesting what "most benefitted" means. It would also be interesting to know how much the top 1% pay in correlation with how much tax cut they got.
|
|
|
Post by Cablemender on Aug 15, 2004 10:46:23 GMT -7
Good topics for debate!
Yes, the Democrats would never stoop to such an act, right?
So is Kerry. The point is how they draw on that background in their lives as public servants. With Bush, we have the opportunity to see and compare his behavior in the Al Hunt incident to his actions and conduct while in the White House. There has not been any repeats of that, so why point backwards to illustrate how he’d act going forward when there is plenty of other data out there to indicate he doesn’t act like that as President. That would be like believing the word of the numerous women who claimed Clinton did everything from come on to them to rape them while he was a governor. We aren’t supposed to look back on candidates past, didn’t you learn that from the Democratic party yet?
I think it’s more to the point by accepting they both have problems like any other humans do. You are trying to paint a picture of one side ruthlessly attacking the other side, who somehow doesn’t deserve it, and that isn’t the case. No one put Kerry’s words in his mouth, and no one but him is trying to hide his records. He is claiming all these actions and leadership that some 250 others, who were also there, did not see. In fact, many of them with first-hand knowledge saw something different, but because they say it, all of a sudden they are bigots and hate-mongers, just like every other person who says or does something the Dems don’t like. Well, too bad, it’s a free country, so why should I believe a guy like Kerry who can’t get his facts straight over guys who have made these same claims for over 30 YEARS and haven’t had to alter a single solitary fact? How do you explain Kerry having his “searing memory” of being in Cambodia in Christmas 1968, and blaming it on Nixon who wasn’t even President yet? It took the Swift Boat guys to force the truth out of him, and we don’t even know if his latest version IS the truth. Of course, he could release his record and clear this all up immediately, but, well, he isn’t a Republican so we can’t ask that of him. Yes, all those 250 Swifties were rounded up by the RNC just for this assault. Sure. Try reading their history.
Who cares what he did in 1986, he wasn’t President then. Damn, don’t you even check the Democratic talking points on this stuff? Don’t you remember the Arkansas secretary of Transportation who was canned and replaced by Clinton, and the first thing the new guy did was to build a 20+-mile stretch of double-lane road from a main highway to… the Whitewater property? We weren’t supposed to ask about that because it was pre-Presidency. So we have to have one standard, or the other, but not one for Democrats and another for Republicans. That is why you see such a one-sided investigatory effort; the Republicans are just following the same playbook that was used in ’92 and in ’96, and in 2000.
Because Clinton put it there, that’s why. That Oval Office doesn’t belong to him, it belongs to US. We don’t accept a guy being put in there and using it as his personal bordello space. To some people, me among them, it’s sickening to walk into the Lincoln Memorial and see in his own words the reverence which he gave to that office, then think about how LITTLE reverence Clinton showed it. You’re right, there are many people in public life that have affairs and don’t conduct themselves in accordance to their own vows. While they may each be despicable, they are a world apart from someone conducting oneself so immorally in a place that is so symbolic and important to America’s citizens. Doing it in the Oval Office goes beyond just personal weakness and sex; it is defilement of the things that are important to America’s perception of their government, and the faith that they hold in it. Just like many people might view a person who stole money from a charity different than someone who stole it from a big corporation, while the crimes are equal in the eyes of the law, they are NOT equal in how they represent disdain for American societal values. For such intellectuals, neither Clinton nor Gore could figure that out.
We did that because he had a history of corruption in state government in Arkansas, and because he and his wife conducted business affairs outside the rules the rest of us have to live by. Did you miss the fact that many of his business associates were put behind bars for their end of the transactions? Did you miss the facts that he lied to you, to me, to America, and to a grand jury? What should we have done about that, thrown a party and hope GWB shows up and has too much to drink? I would point out that John Gotti wasn’t convicted several different times.. does that mean he was innocent of all those charges?
Continued below..
|
|
|
Post by Cablemender on Aug 15, 2004 10:46:41 GMT -7
That’s a very selective analysis. No one I know argues that Kerry pulled the guy out of the river. What they differ on is the circumstances under which it took place. According to Kerry’s account, and ONLY his account, all the other boats took off leaving him alone in a Boston Whaler with a guy in the water. The crew members of Swift Boat #3, who ALL went in the water when their ship was blown clean out of the water, AND the crew of boats #1, #2, and #4 all tell it differently. According to all of their testimonies, right after the explosion Kerry and his boat took off down river while they followed their standard tactic by spreading out and getting between the men in the river and the shoreline, in order to protect them from fire and and prevent them from being dragged ashore and captured. Once they spread out, they’ve documented that they pulled in every other member of Swift #3, and were on the way to recover Rasmussen when Kerry showed back up and drove directly to him and pulled him aboard. I think pulling that guy to safety was heroic; but I also think it is spoiled when the guy is obviously lying about it to make himself out something better than he actually was. THAT is what I find despicable, not his actions.
Then his medals. I told you before I’m not impressed with them because I’ve seen so many go to people who didn’t deserve them at the cost of people who richly earned them. Once when returning from a western pacific cruise, I saw a medal denied to a machinist who stayed aboard and spent four days in sweat, day and night, making a repair that kept my ship from losing an entire shaft right out the back end, and the subsequent flooding from a 22-inch diameter hole that would have been left there. Guys literally saved his ship single-handedly, but couldn’t have a medal because “his department had already used up their allotment.” The Chaplain and his assistant were their own department too, and they were allotted 1 medal. So this guy who sat on his duff for six months got the medal the machinist really earned. I’ve seen hundreds of cases just like that.
It says something to me when the guy’s CO says he never put Kerry in for a Purple Heart (PH #1 in this case), yet later Kerry is awarded one. So, the obvious question is, how’d he get it? There is only one person on earth with the ability to release the records on that, and he’s clamming up. Now I don’t think it is unreasonable to think that if his award was truly on the up-and-up and he claims, it should be a simple matter of telling the DoD to release the specifics so all these detractors will shut up and go home. Why doesn’t he, do you suppose? Now our only alternative seems to be to hope that someone in the Bush administration will follow the precedent set by Clinton’s White House lawyers and ignore the privacy act like they did with Linda Tripp, and release them without any okay by the person involved. Once again, the Republicans get slapped with being the bad dog here, when history, if you bother to read it, tells you otherwise.
Maybe. Are they the one strutting around pounding their chest about them?
Far as I know, none of them are claiming to have Purple Hearts earned under questionable circumstances. If they are, I’m all for dragging their stuff out also. I haven’t heard a single one of them question Kerry’s service, in fact I’ve heard both Hannity and Limbaugh praise it – try getting something like that out of Al Franken’s program. If you are going to be critical of people who don’t have any experience being critical of someone else’s efforts, start with the NY Times.. that ought to keep you busy for a couple lifetimes.
Exactly. But Bush isn’t trying to deny his wealth either, and isn’t running around denying he owns SUVs, and isn’t being critical of people causing too much pollution by driving a Chevy Suburban while he’s jetting around on his Gulfstream. It’s one thing to have a vision of where we should go with protection of the environment, it’s totally another to try and pass fault on SUV drivers and “big corporations” when it’s those same corporations who have voluntarily led the efforts to clean up the water and air. This tells me he’s merely pandering to the environmentally unconscious, not really ready to LEAD the effort as he is claiming.
Yes, yes, poor Kerry would never do something like that, would he? Why he’d never dream of having, say, a star-studded fund raiser at Radio City where he not only raised a ton of cash, but heard “the heart and soul of America,” which is so obscenity-riddled he is ashamed to release the tape to us “schlubs.” How many "schlubs" and everyday Joes you figure were at that event?
You should talk to some of his present constituency in Massachusetts and find out what a true “common man” he isn’t. Maybe you could invite him to Wendy’s and teach him how to act in public.
Who paid the most taxes in the first place? We can cut to the chase on this one: Tell you what, next spring I’ll find someone who doesn’t pay any tax but can use your tax return more than you, and you can send it to them. That’s what you’re suggesting by saying others should get the biggest break when they didn’t pay the biggest share to begin with. Deal? I paid taxes this year, and I got a fair share based on what I paid in, not from someone else’s contribution.
|
|
|
Post by JohnC on Aug 15, 2004 12:00:04 GMT -7
Let's face it, folks, I doubt that anyone here can name ANY politician who hasn't lied to his constituency at one time or another. I'd also venture that they felt (at the time they lied) it was necessary for the overall good. I won't attempt to say whether they were right or wrong.
However, it seems that lately, whether due to better/more coverage by the media or just plain "don'tgiveadamitis", certain pollies, from practically all of the known/registered political parties are lying their fool heads off and becoming extremely upset when they get caught. Some of them seem to feel that their extreme wealth, heroism, military record or lack of it should give them a free pass to making any statement they want to make and we should believe them.
Others seem to feel that their length of "service", their sexual orientation or their own personal feelings should be the sole reason to vote for them, never mind that a huge percentage of their constituency disagrees with those philosophies, even if they are the "sitting such-and-such or are head of this or that committee.
In the long run, no matter what is said or done, I would hope that each of us who can legally vote will do just that, using that large mass of grey stuff located at the top of the body instead of any other part, no matter how persitent the urges are. JohnC
|
|