Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wanker on November 29, 2000, 10:34:00 AM
-
Sometimes I really wonder. Guys like Toad are pretty open-minded and willing to look at the issue and be as objective as possible. <S> Toad!
To all the Republicans having a field day in here: Would you be happy if there were only one political party in the US? From what most of you are posting, it seems that you don't even want two or more political parties in American anymore. Believing one side is misguided is one thing, but the out and out hostility toward all democrats or liberals in this BBS makes me question your attitude toward democracy in principle.
I'm a person that loves debate. But I've been very wary of posting in here because most of you don't seem to believe in debate. You have some inborn hostility that is boiling to the surface, and you're not willing to try to step back and look at things objectively. You accuse the "dems" or the "libs" of using the points of law to suit their needs, yet you do precisely the same thing.
If you guys want a country without a democratic party, just say so. We can then proceed with the book burnings and the deportations.
I have two grandfathers, both of whom are/were liberal democrats, and they both fought for this country in WWII. One of them died in battle, one of them survived. The way you guys act, you make it sound like the only people that care for this country or have made sacrifices for it are Republicans.
So, do you believe in Democracy or not?
-
Ya know, it leaves me scratching my head too.
I think the hostility for the Democrats to such a degree is unprecedented in (at least modern) political history. When Clinton took over, there seemed to be this perception that he *stole* the office. That he *stole* the Republican wedge issues (crime/welfare). That he revived a Democratic party that the Republicans declared dead only a year prior. It was illegitimate, it was an aberration. We've all seen the last 8 years and what followed from the day of his inauguration... a concerted effort, an almost diabolical (we were so close!) obsession with ousting Clinton. That he defied them only enraged them more.
Why was that?
Now we've got Gore...who we've nary heard a peep from in those last 8 years, and *he's* suddenly transformed into the new anti-Christ. Oh the absolute HATE for Gore.
Dammit those bastards are stealing it again!
Why is that?
It's really damaging stuff. Poison.
-
Now, wait a moment...
Of course I like democracy, and value a differing opinion. Let me lay out my feelings as clearly as I can:[list=1]- I believe Bill Clinton is the most unflappable, bold-faced liar we have ever seen in American politics. I think so much has happened amongst Bill/Hillary/Al that is illicit I cannot separate them. Al has displayed a penchant for lying on his own, so I don't even need to fall back on the Clinton administration for any more of an opinion on him.
- I honestly believe Al Gore will sell our butts down the river if it furthers him in any way. Accepting campaign contributions from the Chinese in '96 is treason IMO.
- Mr. Gore has a habit of smearing his opponents. Did you watch the Democratic debates, and what he did to Bill Bradley? He flatly lied about Bradley at every turn, and dragged him through the mud. He now has his surrogates out there calling the Republicans "fascists" and "nazis". He was *this* close to investigating the backgrounds of potential electors- why?
- His continual statements that this election isn't about him, but his fight to ensure democracy and the Constitution is protected is transparent as his personality. It is win at all costs, and he doesn't care who gets hurt in the process. He is fighting to get 15,000 more ballots excluded (Republican), and CNN is reporting Gore's team has succeeded in getting 3,600 selected ballots sent to Tallahassee- and you know that means they will be counted again, most likely under Gore standards. This is ironic, because he had gone to the FLC to enable local canvassing boards to count if they wanted to, and to set what standards they would. When they didn't join lockstep in PBC, Gore sued. Now their position is that local canvassing boards need to be told how to count.
- I am sick of hearing Democratic supporters talk about Republican rioting. Funny, not one arrest, not one burnt-out car, not one case of looting, no riot police visible... This on the heels of Lieberman's "let's tone down the rhetoric" speech. This was not Watts, or Berkeley, or L.A. by any means.
- I am sick of Jesse Jackson trying to play the race card.
- I am sick that the Democratic party planned, executed, and implicitly endorsed excluding service votes.
- I am sick of lawsuits that seek to circumvent law. Did you watch that Florida judge take that jackal Bois to the woodshed yesterday? Bois said he "objected to the ballot", not the canvassing board whom he said did their job correctly. "What have the ballots done to you?" asked the judge. Bois knows he cannot directly contest the canvassing board, so he is trying to contest an inanimate object instead. A legal sidestep. He sought to have the process circumvented by having the remedy delivered before judgement on whether or not a remedy is warranted. This is like two brothers fighting over a slice of pie. One brother says "let me eat the piece of pie now, because if you decide I should get it I won't have time to eat it later". He in the process would be denying the Republicans due process- of course in the name of protecting the Constitution. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
- There are some who have posted here in the Democratic cause who have IMO sought only to stir the pot. Sure, they make some great points, but then when someone makes a legitimate retort they ignore it and jump on another issue. This is not debate.[/list=a]
Does that clarify, at least in my case? I am not against Democrats here on the board, but the DNC has behaved miserably not only in Florida, but during the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration. I can't guarantee Bush will be any better than Clinton; I can easily guarantee Gore won't be. I have 8 years of watching this administration to help me formulate my opinion, and frankly I would have voted for the Republican mascot before I ever cast a vote for Gore.
[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 11-29-2000).]
-
I believe that we need at least two parties in the USA for a healthy airing of issues.
I've always been an independent, and have voted democratic in the past, but more often republican.
For my own part, I've become passionately conservative since Bill/Hillary Clinton entered the Whitehouse. (Actually, outraged is the word that comes to mind.)
If you are an unhappy Democrat, I think you can lay the blame for much of the vitriol you describe right on Clinton's doorstep. I also believe that the differences in attitudes and beliefs of "middle America" and "major city dwellers" have been steadily growing apart, no doubt because of the demographics.
But I wonder why some liberals cannot understand why it would make a citizen angry when the President of the USA gets blowjobs in the oval office, using appallingly poor judgement, and forces the nation's kids to learn about these things perhaps before they are ready, and then lies to Americans while looking them right in the face???
What is the difference between me and you that leaves me outraged with this kind of leadership, but apparently leaves you unaffected??? And that is only one issue.
Yep, there is no doubt about it, conservative Americans are angry.
:/
Gunthr
-
If you guys want a country without a democratic party, just say so. We can then proceed with the book burnings and the deportations.
Open dialogue, outside of stereotypes you say? Just come out and say republicans are facists if you're going to, let's not beat around the bush (no pun).
Fact is it's going to get heated discussing politics, there's no way around it. The percentage of hard core seems to be about the same on each side, but for whatever reason it looks like there are more republicans in Aces High than democrats, so that similar percentage translates to a lot more people.
-
Democracies tend to self-destruct with time. The main reason for that is that more emphasis is put on the rights and less on the responcibilities.
So more and more unproductive people start voting themselves wealth taken from the productive people. That causes the number of productive people to go down.
Whatever was applicable at the time of your grandfathers may be completely different now. Then welfare was a tool to help few people in trouble to get back on their feet.
Now wealfare is the reason for a whole multi-generation class of fast-breeding voting drones.
miko
-
Kieren:
I believe Bill Clinton is the most unflappable, bold-faced liar we have ever seen in American politics.
Gunthr:
...and then lies to Americans while looking them right in the face???
N.I.X.O.N.
...the President of the USA gets blowjobs in the oval office...
How about Kennedy's well documented womanising? Can you say with absolute conviction that Kennedy never pursued one of his affairs within the White House?
He was a great president, but like all great men, they are flawed and have vices.
I'll never vote for a person who appears perfect (an impossibility IMO)- there would be something wrong with the country I lived in if that was the case.
-
Our system of government was formed by the Republic.
On a side note: Even Gores upper echelons are calling for him to stop, step down and concede: http://www.msnbc.com/news/496118.asp#BODY (http://www.msnbc.com/news/496118.asp#BODY)
-
Won't wash, Dowding. I accept that people are flawed. I also accept that people are accountable for those actions. What you seem to suggest is that, since no one is perfect, lying must be ok. Substitute your vice of choice for "lying", and you can extrapolate that it is possible that, in time, anything will go.
Clinton lied not only to all of us, but in his deposition in the Paula Jones case. It was a felony, not a faux paus. He denied Paula Jones due process- and the express purpose of the Executive Branch of our government is to make certain laws are carried out. This in itself is an impeachable offense.
If I had done half of what Clinton has done, I surely would have lost my job and gone to prison. I wonder how many people sitting in federal prison right now feel there is a double-standard in American law?
Clinton has had people fall on grenades for him since he took office. He is hated by conservatives for a reason. I won't miss that lip-biting, finger-wagging, wife-cheating, missile-secret-selling, draft-dodging SOB one bit.
-
Anyone read articles lately about the rise of teen oral sex in schools? Yep. They think its okay for reasons in this order:
A) The president does it, so it must not be that wrong.
B) You cannot get sexually transmitted diseases.
Both accounts are wrong. A) The president did a shameful thing after "The People" elected him into office (I, for one, can say from 1992.."I told you so!") His 'legend' into the history books will be that of a shameful man put in a position to abuse his power and the first president to be impeached.
and B) You CAN get sexually transmitted diseases from oral sex.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 11-29-2000).]
-
Kieren said:
He is hated by conservatives for a reason. I won't miss that lip-biting, finger-wagging, wife-cheating, missile-secret-selling, draft-dodging SOB one bit.
He is also hated by some democrats for the same reasons. Personally, I think he should've been run out of town on a rail after he looked at the camera and lied to America. But. IMHO, Al Gore is not Bill Clinton. I don't put Gerald Ford in the same boat with the trickster, either.
Ripsnort said: ...and the first president to be impeached.
Erm, perhaps you've forgotten about Andrew Johnson? 1868 dude. Time to check your history sources, Rip.
-
Let me rephrase that: "1st president to be impeached by perjuring under oath."
Jackson was also a democrat.
-
LOL Rip. It's Andrew JOHNSON, not Jackson! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Oh, and btw...
How far down the list was "Because it feels so good" in that oral sex report? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
There is no democratic party in the sense that it was founded, and existed in the past. Can you imagine what Harry Truman would have thought of clinton. He would have kicked his ass, personally, for what he has done to the honor of the office of the presidency. gore has learned, from his boss, that you can get away with anything, with the right sound bite.
The republicans have nothing to brag about here. They didn't have the backbone to kick clinton out. And now they are paying for it with gore. In the end, we Americans are the ones paying for it. By being embarrassed yet again, by the clinton/gore white house.
-
Sorry typo! JOHNSON, hehe!
-
banana, you stated:
IMHO, Al Gore is not Bill Clinton.
Well, Al Gore is not actually Bill Clinton, but he is close enough for government work:
Gore stated:
"Any government official who ... lies to the United States Congress will be fired immediately."
(Source: Seattle Times, June 29, 1987)
Gore must have been talking about the standards he'd apply to a Republican White House! After all, he referred to Clinton as "one of our greatest presidents" at the White House Post-Impeachment Pep Rally on December 19, 1998.
Enough said.
Gunthr
-
Originally posted by banana:
Oh, and btw...
How far down the list was "Because it feels so good" in that oral sex report? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
Not sure, it was published in USA today. Either way, very disturbing indeed. Unless your single without kids, then it may be appealing.
-
banana: have two grandfathers, both of whom are/were liberal democrats, and they both fought for this
country in WWII. One of them died in battle, one of them survived. The way you guys act, you make it
sound like the only people that care for this country or have made sacrifices for it are Republicans.
So, do you believe in Democracy or not?
I believe in a 2 party system, or multiple, however, your grandfathers democrats today would get the Republican vote. The Democratic party has changed since their time. My father-in-law, and Grandmother both used to be stout Democrats, since the 1960 election, they've both voted Republican.
Either way, I always look at the issues first, I have voted for *some* democrats in this state in the last 20 years, because their issues were what was important to me, not whether they rode a donkey or a elephant.
Lately, its been the Pubs that closer relate to issues that concern me.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 11-29-2000).]
-
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?
We hold Nixon up as an example... but relatively speaking, his undoing was merely that he got *caught*. Clinton, Gore, Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Reagan, ....er Carter's failure was either that he was incapable of it, or that he was just plain lousy at it.
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.
The essence of *governance* does not require truth at all times, and in fact sometimes quite the contrary. It is only *politics* that makes this demand. Again, either you are feigning shock, or you've been living in a bubble.
Yet we foist this incredible heap of blame solely on Clinton. Have we all been hit with a serious epidemic of collective amnesia?
And the hypocrisy. Somehow we've found a way to give Bush Jr. some kind of credit for hiding his DUI charge, as he felt it would be a (yegads!) bad influence on his daughter. Yet we want the President of the United Sates to stand before a nation of daughters on live television and recount the intimate details of a hummer.
Cripes.
Eight years of investigation, litigation, unprecedented scrutiny, millions upon millions of squandered dollars later.... and all these guys could come up with was a blow job? Damn straight - I woulda told em to mind their own f*cking business. It's a *blow job* fer chrissakes! I would strongly suggest, if you haven't already, to be on the recieving end of one of these from time to time. You may actually learn to enjoy it. You might even loosen up. And you may also discover that it certainly is NOT a threat to national security.
There's no doubt in my mind that the Republicans have been absolutely sucking tit in the politics game, lately. Odd, because it seems not so long ago that I had em pegged as the masters.
Cheers (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
No-spin zone here, Nash.
Clinton will point that finger in your face and tell you what is an obvious lie. Even when caught, he will continue to lie. There is a world of difference between Clinton and other presidents.
He has no shame.
I have always asked myself this question: If Clinton is capable of lying right to our faces, blatantly, what other things has he lied about that we don't know about? You think there is no connection between Chinese campaign contributions and the thefts at Los Alamos? Now who is being naive?
It's not just a blowjob to me, Nash. It never was. I am not cynical enough to believe that I should accept open, bold-faced lying. In this life, you only receive the respect you demand. Clinton has been a slap in the face to all Americans of any intelligence- he must believe we are either so morally corrupt we don't mind his ethics, or that we are too stupid to know when someone lies to us.
-
Nice spin Kieren (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Here's a tip fer ya.... it's *all* spin.
-
Yep, most politicians lie, no doubt about it. Only thing is, I can't seem to recall any President other than Clinton that perjured himself. Can you?
[This message has been edited by Apache (edited 11-29-2000).]
-
Nash, there's a big difference between lying to the people, and lying UNDER OATH to a judge, the latter being you'll do anything to circumvent the law. Alot of ex-presidents have so-called 'lied' to the people, this one lied while under the oath, in a court room.
-
Ronald Reagan, Iran Contra, "I don't recall".
-
and really....we're splitting hairs at this point, aren't we?
-
"Under Oath"
-
...and no, not splitting hairs at all. I give most the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. When ya gotta pay a fine for lyin', guess that proves somethin', least to me anyway.
BTW, make sure yas understand Hillbonics, I regress when I type fast (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Reagan had the intent of "Whats good for the country", in his mind, whether it was or not is for the individual to decide, however Clinton had his CROTCH in mind, while spending my money doing it.
-
....yes, under oath.
I'll remind you the the very job of Presidency requires you to take an oath.
Splitting hairs.
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<S>
Gunthr
-
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).
-
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();
}
-
StSanta, you don't happen to have a 666 birthmark on you, do you? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Gunthr
-
"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).]
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
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).]
-
I ignore party. I don't care if you're Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Reformist or whatever.
I have a very narrow focus. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
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! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
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.
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) )
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) + <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.
-
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.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
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.
-
Starting another one with Nash-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)" 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". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
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).]
-
Kieren said:
banana expressed the fear that people don't want dissenting opinions
You misunderstand, Kieren. I don't fear those people, I just want to be clear if that is what they really want. Some, and I repeat, some of the conservative posters here have been expressing opinions, which in my mind, come close to advocating the elimination of the democratic party.
Kieren, as long as I've known you on this and Argo's BBS, you've been one of the most rational people I've ever met. In fact, I thought you were a very open-minded kind of person. But something about BC has lit the fire in you. I think we all get the drift that you hate him.
I would argue with you that just like it would not be fair to accuse Gerald Ford of being as devious as Nixon, it is not fair to accuse Gore of being a liar like Clinton.
I find it very amusing that nobody paid any attention to Gore until he decided to run for President. Now, he's been elevated, to borrow from Nash, to the position of Anti-Christ. Talk about your Republican opportunism!
I have nothing personal against Bush, and I will ignore the fact that he lied about his DUI arrest. All that is in the past. I just don't happen to agree with his stance on a few issues.
Clinton is past history. He is gone in a couple of months. How far back in history do are we going to go to argue our points? George Bush Sr. looked at the camera and said "Read my lips, no new taxes". I would've thought that hit you Reps harder than Clinton lying about getting blown in his office. Your own president lied to you about taxes, something that directly affects your pocketbook, yet you place a blowjob far above that on your lists of presidential lies?
Using your logic paradigm, with your Bill/Hillary/Al statement, then we are to assume that George Sr/George Jr is a fair statement, right? So, we can expect to be lied to by George Jr. just as we were lied to by George Sr.
Now, if by some miracle(or disaster, depending on your POV) Gore is elected and becomes President, let's say he is assassinated or dies. That makes Liebermann president. You will then see him elevated to Anti-Christ status level, too, and the Jew baiting will begin.
-
Originally posted by banana:
.........George Bush Sr. looked at the camera and said "Read my lips, no new taxes".
The biggest reason why I did not vote for Mr. Bush Sr. in 1992. I felt he lied to my face. Whether he did or did not lie is a matter of opinion; mine is that he did.
Fury
-
Nash..not to beat a dead horse, but
I almost infer that you think a USAF pilot that did not go to VietNam during that era somehow equates to "draft dodging." Tell me it isn't so.
My brother graduated from UPT in '67...Bush Jr's time...he was a FAIP (First Assignment Instructor Pilot) or "plowback". He went right back into ATC training new kids. He fulfilled his committment and got out in '72. He applied for and was granted an "early out" by a few months. Was his service somehow less honorable? Were he to run for President, would we scupcake and denigrate him for not being a "real" pilot? BTW, at that time ATC got "first pick" when it needed pilots. He's damn good, third in his class I think.
Overall, a small percentage of USAF pilots served and flew combat in VietNam. Many were on duty in other places around the world and never rotated through the war zone. (No, no...please don't thank us! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ) Very, VERY, VERY few Guard guys went to the war zone and most who did were probably in Tanker or Transport squadrons on TDY. Should these Guard guys be ashamed of their service?
Bush Jr. got a good deal. He still served, however, just like thousands of other Guard guys that didn't go over.
I'll repeat that I have a strong suspicion that his committment probably WAS in the 24 month range and repeat that it can be waived by the Guard Unit. You could probably check this if you were interested in digging deep for the true situation at the time.
The only way you can really know what went on is to get his military records and see what actually went down. Probably impossible; somehow I bet the records have been lost. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Was it the perfect "military hero" career? Not for a Hollywood movie. He didn't run away, however, he served. Just like Al the typist.
As for Bill again.... You tell me you are a "responsibility and accountability" guy.
Looking at Clinton's life story, from the ROTC lies and on through the TV Special "I did not have sex with that woman!", tell me how you can tolerate him at all, let alone respect him.
He, IMHO, is almost the poster boy for "no personal responsibility, no personal accountability".
I will always disdain him.
Now, I've reconsidered on the Scotch. Since I wouldn't pour my GOOD Scotch over his grave, I'll probably get something cheap I'd be willing to share....if the whole bottle still gets properly placed! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Kieren,
Look, I am going to address the person I am talking to, therefore there is no mistake to whom I am speaking.
Huh? This sums up your reply to the post where I state that (my own paraphrasing here) I recieve 10 posts with "Nash, but.." and "Nash, you..", which is totally fine, but *you* attack *me*?
Hell yah address your posts to me if ya want. That only makes sense. The problem is your posts have not just been about the content of my posts, but the style, the intent, and question the very right I have to post in the first place. It's insulting.
If/when someone starts to defend them it creates a chemical and vitriolic response.
At least I know where yer coming from now, and I will read your posts within' this context.
Fury,
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.
Actually Fury, this discusion was, again, of Republican hostility to such an extent that perhaps a 1 party system would suit them better. Not neccessarily about Clinton, and not neccessarily about past Presidents. Clinton was brought up as a possible reason for the hostility. Past Presidents were brought up to examine the almost double-standard in condemning Clinton's actions solely.
I apologize if I confused you. Kind of enlightening (though hardly suprising) that the mere mention of Clinton can trigger such a narrow focus.
-
Hey Toad,
No - though you're right, I *did* kinda slant my point that way, the gist of it was regarding his going AWOL. No disrespect intended to National Guardsmen.
Yah, I believe in personal responsibility/accountability. Strangely, I also have an enormous amount of respect for Clinton. Hey - I'm a complex person (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Thanks for the Scotch - even if it *is* the cheap stuff. As has been pointed out numerous times here (in case I forgot), I am Canadian. I will drink *anything*. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Yer right Nash, I'm not sure how the whole Clinton thing relates to the original post (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) It sorta got brought up and then a lot of posts went in that direction.
Anyways, to go back to the original post, I don't really consider myself Republican even if I do vote a lot that way. I've always thought that the two-party system sucked, and I wish there was more of a choice (of course there is already, we've got Buchanan and Nader and some other obscure people who run), but right now they're not really enough to do anything but swing votes from one party and possibly have an affect on the outcome of elections (Perot '92 was the best showing for a non two-party vote to date, I believe). <wow, that is a long sentence>
Anything less that a 1 party system sounds like a dictatorship or monarchy (yuk, unless that's what you're looking for).
I enjoy a debate as much as the next OClubber (although I enjoy reading more than posting), so long as it stays civil and out of the gutter. Regardless of which side or person is slinging, I can do without the tone of some of the posts.
Fury
-
Actually Fury - "anything less that a 1 party system" is *anarchy* (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
banana-
Bill/Hillary is a team, make no mistake on that point. They are intrinsically connected. It is said that Clinton would never have made the Whitehouse without Hillary. Hillary has her own laundry list, but that is neither here nor there- yet. She will run in 2004, and we can take that up then. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Gore has left a slime trail too these last eight years. His inane ramblings aside, he has violated the very campaign rules he vowed to change (which, btw he vowed to do after McCain's movement gathered so much support). Ironic to see Mr. "No legal binding authority" champion campaign finance, right?
No one said anyone was the Anti-Christ that I have heard, except those defending the Clinton administration. I do strongly feel we have fallen into a moral abyss, with Bill Clinton himself providing the shove.
Where Gore lost me was when he fell in step with Clinton. I never, ever trusted Clinton after hearing the outrageous "I smoked, but I didn't inhale" line. "What a really stupid lie" I thought. I felt the wrong man had been forwarded by the Democrats, and Al Gore would have been better.
Then we have no legal binding authority, chinese campaign contributions, the victory lap around the Whitehouse, Monk shadow contributions, etc. that showed me that Gore was only Bill Clinton's protege'. Gore lies too, but he doesn't have nearly the charm or intelligence of Clinton to pull it off.
Notice how this isn't a rail against the DNC? I have targeted 3 individuals and as a voter and a citizen hold them responsible for their actions. The DNC disappoints me right now for their biased attempts to overturn this election through whatever means necessary. The Republicans can be similarly criticized, so I leave them out (beyond the "who sets the handcount standards" issue).
Al Gore cannot be trusted, and eight years of this administration underscores that point. I don't know if I can trust Bush, but I know I can't trust Gore.
-
Originally posted by Nash:
Yah, I believe in personal responsibility/accountability. Strangely, I also have an enormous amount of respect for Clinton
I find those two sentences to be mutually exclusive. But then, I'm not a very complex person, at least when it comes to responsibility/accountability. Either it's there or it's not. In Bill's case, it clearly is not.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-30-2000).]