Do you believe in Democracy?

[Gunthr]

Nash, lets put it another way...

Clinton's destructive conduct has hurt his party and his family, and diminished the awe that many of us had in the office of the president. It has left it's stench on Gore, who also seems to be thouroughly indoctrinated in the "it's all spin" school of honesty.

Even in your *spinning* weightless world of sliding ethical scales where you never know what is right or what is wrong, you can see that there have been consequences.

And now the economy, which seems to be one of the biggest concerns the democratic voters have had, is starting to enter a flat spin of its own. Watch while your fellow democrats drop Gore like a hot potatoe.

Some things you just don't have to put a spin on - they speak for themselves.  

<S>
Gunthr

[Apache]

Lets see now...."I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

My trouble is, I don't see your correlation between Reagan (Oath of Office)and Clinton (Lying under oath in a court of law).

[StSanta]

Well, with the plebeian masses being as stupid as they are, I do not believe in democracy.

I believe in StSantianism which is way better. If you're the elite ruling class, which I'd be.

So if you want to get rid of this OLD Greek idea, gimme some money and I'll make it happen.



------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}

[Gunthr]

StSanta, you don't happen to have a 666 birthmark on you, do you?  

Gunthr

[Nash]

   

"My trouble is, I don't see your correlation between Reagan (Oath of Office)and Clinton (Lying under oath in a court of law)." - Apache

Well, I may have my facts totaly screwed up on this, but Reagan *did* testify to this before the Tower Commision, as well as via deposition in a court of law  for in the Iran-contra trial of former National Security Advisor John Poindexter .

And like Clinton, he went on national television to address the nation stating "We did not -repeat - did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages - nor will we."

Eerie sense of dejavu.

I only refer you to the Oath of Office to say that there is a standard (wrong word, but hey) that comes with it. To say that lying is wrong only when done in a court of law is to be a little bit, uhm... you pick the word.

It's interesting to hear a take on this stuff coming from Monica Lewinsky's mouth. And don't be disgusting - there's no pun intended. I am lying.

LEWINSKY: If truth is synonymous with good, then truth is good and good is God, OK? ...
TRIPP: I think everyone has a moral code of some sort.
LEWINSKY: We do. But to everybody, it's different.




[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 11-29-2000).]

[Kieren]

Nash-

Here is where the flaw in your continual twisting of logic lies: your argument is based on the assumption that since presidents before have been imperfect, we should accept deceitful behavior now.

Wrong.

I won't even compare Clinton with presidents before- that is your attempt to divert us from the issue. The simple, proven fact is Bill Clinton is a spineless, lying, cover-his-own-butt-at-the-cost-of-everyone-around-him SOB. I don't care to discuss Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, or anyone else you want to bring up. If you can defend a Clinton presidency and his lack of respect not only for the office but the American people, well, it speaks of your morals and point of view. That doesn't mean necessarily it is bad, but I sure as hell don't agree with it.

Try as I might, I can't help but think you are merely shaking a hornet's nest for the fun of it.

As for the spin issue, I didn't spin. I offered my opinion, I wouldn't deign to speak for the American people. I told you how I felt, you call it spin. Whatever. Spin is an attempt to gloss over a bad situation to twist its original impact to a more desired result. It is done to ignore fact. I have not made any attempt to do so- are you?

You'll note I stay to the topic, and don't sidestep.  

[Nash]

   

Nash-
Here is where the flaw in your continual twisting of logic lies: your argument is based on the assumption that since presidents before have been imperfect, we should accept deceitful behavior now.

Wrong.

You bet yer arse it's wrong.

Sorry for the marathon post, gents, but I gotta do it.

banana created a post pointing out the hostility on this BBS towards the democrats. He wondered if the Republicans would prefer a 1 party system.

I replied also wondering about this hostility, and relating it to the anger expressed towards Clinton, then subsequently drew a parallel between Clinton's and the past President's actions, to contrast the difference in opinion on essentially the same matters.

Now you accuse me of a continual twisting of logic, paraphrasing me incorrectly saying "presidents before have been imperfect, we should accept deceitful behavior now."

That's wrong, Kieren. Understand? Yer doing precisely that which you accused me of. Additionally it is *completely* missing the point, by a mile.

Listen. I think everyone's been really cool about this. But you seem incapable of making a post without directing your criticism at me personally. You accuse me of:

Stirring the pot.
Diverting from the issues.
Twisting logic.
Spinning.
Sidestepping.
And on and bloody well on.

That's just in *this one thread alone*. But it sure as hell didn't start here. Ironically, you are single handedly making banana's point for him.

Damn. You want me to "stay on topic" Kieren? You want me not to "sidestep the issues"? I think I've been doing that. But I guess you want me to focus my attention on *your* personal grievances. Well fine Kieren - here goes:

"The simple, proven fact is Bill Clinton is a spineless, lying, cover-his-own-butt-at-the-cost-of-everyone-around-him SOB". - Kieren

Now - just how the f*ck am I supposed to respond to that?! Do you want me to pull out Clinton's medical charts to prove that he does, indeed, have a spine?! Put yourself in MY shoes fer chrissakes. Y'all post yer thoughts and get a pat on the back, well done, thank-you-very-much. I post MY thoughts - which, despite your view on the subject Kieren, I have every right in the world to do - and I get 10 posts of "Nash, but..." and "Nash, you are" and on. That's fine and cool. I mean totally. Don't mind at all, I expect it, and it's been a fairly interesting ride. But I gotta respond to 10 freaking posts, with all the points held therein. Sorry if I skip a few from time to time. Above that, *you* continue to attack *me*. Personally.

You are under the mistaken impression that my opinions are somehow illegitimate. It's sick that I gotta go through this again AS IF IT EVEN MATTERS... but c'est la vie. My immediate family are Americans. Yes, my Mom, Dad, brothers, grandparents, cousins etc.,  all American. I was educated in the US. I worked for several years in the US. I have spent time in every single State in the US (yes even Indiana) besides Alaska and Hawaii. I could walk down to the consulate tomorrow and pick up my US citizenship if I cared to. I am an avid follower of US politics and lifetime student of US history. Again, as if that even matters. It doesn't.

People from *anywhere* have every right to post on what is going on down there. And from my perspective, I'm struggling a bit, but hopefully making at least *some* points on the issues. Trying, anyways. I suppose it would be so much easier for you if I spoke in terms of "he..heh.. hehe... Bush sucks". Not gonna happen. That would be rather dull anyways, wouldn't it?

Here's what I think is going on Kieren. You view my political posts not unlike one of those guys who continually squeakes about AH. A thorn in your side. That type of stuff gets under my skin too. But man, recognize the distinction, and stop making this so damn personal. I love ya man.. gotten to sort of know ya through this sim and wouldn't hesitate to clear yer six for a second. But please, this harping is wearin' thin on me mate.

Again, please, look at the original post, then look at what just happened.

Sorry. Cheers. Salute.



[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 11-29-2000).]

[Toad]

I ignore party. I don't care if you're Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Reformist or whatever.

I have a very narrow focus.  

Do you acknowledge that a person is totally responsible for his own actions?

Do you acknowledge that a person should be held accountable by his society for those actions?

If so, you and I are on the same side I think.

If not, we will never be on the same side.  

Join the Responsible/Accountable Party!

Bill Clinton? I had friends flying and dying in VietNam when he visited Moscow.(If you ever get real bored, research which Americans and how many got a Russian visa in that time period.) If I ever get the chance, I'm going to pour a bottle of scotch over Clinton's grave...after I run it through my kidneys!  

[Nash]

Yah, well, it aint so easy. I too beleive in personal responsibility. Likewise in personal accountability.

Clinton weasled his way out of Vietnam - no question. Bush Sr.'s pick as vice president did exactly the same.

Bush Jr.? The guy we're talking about? The so-called president-elect?

He got out of it buy serving in the Texas National Guard flying near obsolete planes (T-31, T-37, T-39 and the F-102 fighter-interceptors) in the safety of the U.S. of A. Accepted into the Guard despite the fact that he scored 25 percent on a pilot aptitude test. Clinton dodged the draft? Yah... but who didn't? I'll tell you.. but first, more about Bush Jr.

This thing was known as "the champagne brigade", this Texas Air National Guard, where the sons of other powerful Texans as well as several Dallas Cowboys fulfilled their 'military duty'. Not only that, but this guy, Bush, went awol... AWOL... for A YEAR! Y'all might not of heard about it because the Dems felt that by opening this issue they would be vulnerable to attacks on Clinton. Yet it remains fact.

"Bush, as a Texas Air National Guard pilot in 1972, stopped flying after 22 months with his unit. Then, during a six-month stay in Alabama, Bush failed to report for required Guard drills. And six months after he returned to his home in Houston, his superior officers wrote that they had not seen him at his Houston air base for the previous year. Shortly after that, Bush was given an early discharge." - Boston Globe

Since the Globe first reported on the absences in May, Bush has declined to be interviewed on the issue. Dan Bartlett, Bush's spokesman, has said Bush did appear for drills in Alabama. But there are no records that he did, and the commander of the Alabama unit which Bush was assigned to in 1972 has said that Lieutenant Bush never showed.

In Birmingham, a group of veterans offered a reward of $1,000 for anyone who could prove that Bush served in the Alabama Guard. Nobody could do it.

Now. Gore *also* weasled his way out. He was a damned scribe for some army rag.

Yet - he was *there*. His Father, a powerful Senator, was a strong opponent of the war. Gore coulda found a zillion fancy ways, much like all of these guys, to get out of serving. But he didn't. Despite his father's objections, he volunteered. He ate the crap, smelled the toejam, and witnessed the horror first-hand.

Compare, contrast, evaluate. That's all I'm saying.

[Toad]

Nash,

First of all, I'm not comparing Clinton to anyone. I'm just telling you how I feel about him.

Second, you need to get a few facts straight. The T-41 is a C-172 with a higher horse engine that the USAF used at that time as a lead-in to pilot training (Separating the wheat from the chaff; relatively high wash-out rate). It continued in that role almost into the '80's I think. The T-37 jet is the initial airplane in UPT training. It continued into that role into the 90's. The T-38 was the "advanced" jet trainer. It is still in use today because it is one fine aircraft in that role. The F-102 and it's evolutionary brother, the F-106 were mainstays of the Air Defense Command til the late '70's IIRC.

So your statement "flying near obsolete planes (T-31, T-37, T-39 and the F-102 fighter-interceptors) in the safety of the U.S. of A." shows a lack of understanding with respect to what was going on at the time.

Here are a few facts for you:

The Guard, during VietNam carried a large portion of the ADC committment. Now you may feel this was playing it safe in the USA but it was a job that had to be done nonetheless. Somebody had to man ADC; the Guard did a lot of it if not MOST of it and sure, it was a "cushy deal". The "frontline fighters" never were in ADC; they were in VietNam. ADC's war committment was mostly filled by Guard Units.

Every service had those deals and many of them filled by Guard and Reserve. Sure, Bush Sr. probably locked up a Guard slot for Georgie. Lots and lots of Congressmen and other politicians did the same. I'd be interested to know just how many "Senator's Sons & Fortunate One" died in the War. I'm sure it's a very, very low number. (BTW, I've read the page you quote on Bush's military "career". Perhaps not too brilliant a career, eh? It doesn't really go into detail about how good he was though. Where are his evals? They're around, I assure you. The military keeps everything!)

Further, UPT engenders a follow-on committment to the USAF. In my case, as an ROTC grad, I was obligated for 6 years. (I think it's 10 now) However, Guard and Reserve trainees don't incur such a committment. When I went through in '73, a Guard guy only incurred a committment to work 2 years as a "weekend warrior". That committment COULD be shortened by the Unit, too. So 22 months may be relatively normal.

You should also realize that off and on throughout the war, the Guard and Reserve failed to fill their UPT quotas. For example, in my year, the Guard had about 335 slots nationwide; they got 3 volunteers according to the one Guard guy in my class.

Here's the difference between Bill and Bush, Jr. though.

I had three friends that died in two separate crashs of the T-38. Two while in UPT and one a few years later. Great airplane with one serious bad habit. If you flare high and get slow it will roll over on it's back and auger in a half a heartbeat. The first crash was a flight mate and his instructor. No survivors. The second crash was a squadronmate flying for proficiency. Same accident with a bit of windshear thrown it. The guy in the back punched out and got 1/2 a swing in the chute but he lived. The front seater never got out.

Now, weenie career notwithstanding, Bush Jr. won his wings. You can't fake that, not even with a political daddy. The day comes when you have to solo. Even when the war was at it's peak they didn't give the wings away; you had to earn them. You had to put it on the line. Bush Jr. did and he at least served for a period (22 months?)that could have been quite legitimate.

Now, as to his AWOL... if so, both he and the superior that covered him should have been court-martialed, I think. However, I can easily believe stuff like that went on with respect to the "Senator's Sons & Fortunate Ones." I don't approve of it. Overall, though, I think there's insufficient information _at present_ to make this charge stick. I'd like to see his records.  

Bill, otoh, has the whole ROTC resignation fiasco/lie-fest on his resume. His trip to Moscow in a period when a paranoid Soviet Union let almost NO Americans in speaks volumes to me. Bill's a draft dodger, plain and simple. He never wanted to serve and he lied to avoid it. He is not my kind of personally responsible, personally accountable guy. Never will be.

Young Al? Yeah, he had a pudknocker Army job and he had his Overseas tour cut short in a political move. Preferential treatment due to his daddy? Sure, just like Georgie probably got to get into the DFW Guard. A real VietNam vet? Yep, Al is. He went, even though they made sure he didn't get hurt. For every combat trooper we had 10 non-combat guys supporting them in country. If Al hadn't spent his six months typing, someone else probably would have. I have way more respect for Al than Bill as well.

For me there is a BIG difference between Clinton and Bush Jr/Al. A VERY big difference.

But it's OK with me if you don't see it that way! (I wouldn't share the Scotch anyhow.   )

[Nash]

  + <S>

Well... yah. Yah.

Ok, yer right, it was a trainer. Those planes were trainers. Yah. Don't mean nuthin' if ya wanna compare em to some kinda gallant flight time Bush scored in 'Nam though. But I'll concede the point.

However, 22 months was *short* for Bush. Not standard practice. He *did* go AWOL. "Insufficient information"? Of course. Like you said, "Senator's sons & fortunate ones".

But with regards to Bush winning his wings, no question. He did score 25% on his aptitude test, but was eventually regarded as a good pilot. On Aug. 24, 1970, Bush was promoted to first lieutenant.

Still - the holes remain.

You say there is insufficient information regarding the issue of his going AWOL. Yah, there most certainly is. Adding to this "insufficient information" is Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, DCO, to perform equivalent training at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery, Ala. He had no memory of Bush ever reporting to duty.

"Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," Turnipseed said. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."

You say "...if so, both he and the superior that covered him should have been court-martialed, I think." Won't comment, but want to repost it for the peanut gallery record.

Now Bill? Yes - same thing. And he wouldn't ever be your kind of "personally responsible, personally accountable guy."

"I wouldn't share the Scotch anyhow".

Shit Toad, reconsider. I could use some. While yer pissing it on Bill's grave, I'd continue in the role I've currently found myself in... that is... pissing into the wind.

[Nash]

And whatever...

As much as you hate the idea...

Bill is a freaking PRO. A true master. A Ninja. Yoda. He is the political equivelent of AH's Torque. Hate him, sure, but on a certain level, ya gotta respect him.

Mark my words, folks. The History books will not be asterixin' his blow job. They will be recording the unprecedented Republican witch-hunt that took place. He is that good. Mark my words.

 

[Nash]

Ah what the hell...

Gunthr has, in my opinion, come the closest to getting at the essence of the problem here... the heart of banana's post.

This 'hate' was not borne out of the distinction between an in court or out of court lie. Life is too short, and that is splitting hairs. Clinton was a target, and damned, long before the day he was forced to actually lie about it.

So Gunther gets the closest to it so far, imho:

 

Clinton's destructive conduct has hurt his party and his family, and diminished the awe that many of us had in the office of the president.

Boom! Right there... it is. Fundamentally, however, he is wrong. Yet/and he is right. Absolutely right. But still, wrong.

Chit - great post banana.

[Kieren]

Starting another one with Nash-

 
Look, I am going to address the person I am talking to, therefore there is no mistake to whom I am speaking.

Antagonistic? Not intending to be, in fact I address you directly to avoid painting all Democrats with the same brush. See, if you say "all you Republicans" it is a little difficult form me to be sure whether you mean me or any of the other dissenting views.

I speak my thoughts for me directly to the person I want to hear them. That can be viewed as confrontational, I suppose, but in my business it is also necessary for clarity.

banana expressed the fear that people don't want dissenting opinions- that isn't true. I love my country, and I feel there is a lot going wrong with it. I feel this current administration has a lot to do with it, and in many ways has taken us to new lows. I absolutely detest Bill/Hillary/Al. If/when someone starts to defend them it creates a chemical and vitriolic response.

It wouldn't matter who you are; I would assail defending, pro-Clinton people with equal vigor. You cannot begin to fathom the depth of scorne I possess for this administration. My disdain for the DNC only extends to the point they are supporting this illicit ballot counting episode. They are trying to skew the process, and make it look like Republicans are wrong to call foul. Speaking for me, I would never have a problem with a hand recount if it could be done fairly- but surely if you watched the video you can easily see it was not.

Here is something else you don't seem to understand about me- you made a comment in one of your rebuttals that "of course you are right, but I am not going to make your case for you.  " That is one instance of where I interpreted that to mean this was a game to you. I am not playing here. OTOH, I am not trying to attack "Nash the person", but I will certainly address "Nash the liberal activist".  

[Fury]

 

Originally posted by Nash:
Erhm... You people are aware that Clinton isn't the first President to lie, aren't you? Not by a long shot. In fact, he is only the latest in a long and proud tradition of political liars. Why does this seem to come as such a shock to you? Can you possibly be that naive?.........But you get my point. Politicians lie, and if you haven't resigned yourself to that fact you had better cease to observe politics or you'll wind up with one inferno of an ulcer.........Yet we foist this incredible heap of blame solely on Clinton. Have we all been hit with a serious epidemic of collective amnesia?...............

 

Originally posted by Nash:
.....Now you accuse me of a continual twisting of logic, paraphrasing me incorrectly saying "presidents before have been imperfect, we should accept deceitful behavior now.".........

I agree it is paraphrashing, but I also agree that you continue to point out that politicians lie.  Who cares if politicians lie, that is not the point when talking about Clinton.  The discussion was about Clinton's lies, not the lies of Presidents who came before him.  The fact that politicians lie is irrelevant to the discussion that Clinton lied and in fact sends the discussion on an unrelated tangent.

just imho of course.  I also inferred that your posts were defending Clinton's lies by pointing out that everyone lies.

Fury

[This message has been edited by Fury (edited 11-30-2000).]