Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dago on October 16, 2001, 11:53:00 AM
-
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured
1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military
personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19
and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those
responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224
and injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be
hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 3
U.S. sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 people would
be alive today.
An interesting question:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting
stones, it is a legitimate question. There are two men, both extremely
wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives hundreds of
millions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism.
That being the case, why is it that the US government has spent more
money chasing down Bill Gates over the past ten years than Osama bin
Laden?
It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her
forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir.
This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to
recall anything about past events!
Incredible!!
-
no comment .. you said it all
-
Clinton:
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
Right Wing wailing.
Clinton:
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
Right Wing wringing their hands.
Clinton:
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
Right Wing gnashing their teeth.
Clinton:
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
Ad Nauseum
Clinton administration: 291 dead in terrorist attacks during 8 years in office, 6203 injured.
Bush administration 5000+ dead, 5000+ injured in terrorist attacks in 9 months in office.
Not a very good record when compared is it?
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 people would
be alive today.
Are you forgetting that they tried to kill OBL?
Granted the effort was ineffectual but do you think he may have been DISTRACTED trying to remove that hemorrhoid Starr from his anus?
I see a lot of patriotism from Americans talking about how we ALL need to stand behind the President in times of emergency and I agree with that.
Where in hell were all these <lol> patriots when Clinton faced the same challenges albeit on a smaller scale, buncha hypocrites.
An interesting question:
That being the case, why is it that the US government has spent more
money chasing down Bill Gates over the past ten years than Osama bin
Laden?
During that same period the Starr commision spent HOW MUCH time and money chasing shadows and invading American citizens private lives?
To only come up with marital infidelity...sheesh, wouldn't that money and effort have been better spent chasing OBL?
The Republican party isn't as blameless as you guys like to portray.
How about the Bush BLUNDER of 3 weeks ago?
They had OBL in the sights of an armed Predator drone but squandered a golden opportunity to kill him.
I suppose they wouldn't have had good reason to bomb the toejam out of Afghanistan had they done so... toejam they need to feed the defense contractors don't they?
Clinton was a putz, but aren't you guys going on about him well beyond reason?
Edited for page format.
[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: weazel ]
-
Dago just stated the facts & I agreed with him. No name calling, no excitement.
I appreciate the last paragraph of his post concerning the book deals the best ...don't think he meant to get ur panties in a wad weazel :)
-
Nope.
First off, this is the United States. Freedom to pick apart the president is one of the things we enjoy, and I'll expect to hear all about Dubya's problems when he's done.
Secondly, the problem most people have with Clinton today is his reduction of the military. He didn't take care of it at all.
Also, he really went out of his way to earn the nickname "Slick Willy". He cared more about public opinion than anything, whatever got him re-elected, and whatever developed some legacy. So far as we can tell, the legacy he left is not so great, and we are still finding out about stuff.
Ken Starr: I'm sorry, Clinton made that a public issue by going on national TV, looking straight at us, and lying about it. He would be in much better shape if he had just admitted it, taken a couple weeks off to repair his relationship with his wife, and gotten back to work. Instead, he tried to dodge the bullets, and that's what got him into real trouble. His constant dodging around and lying is what turned that fiasco into the public issue it became.
Clinton had all the power to go after Bin Laden that Bush has now, he just didn't use it. Democrats tend to use the military less, and now it's coming back to haunt them. Cruise Missles hitting the sand and breaking apart a few tents just wouldn't cut it now.
Using the number of lives lost during an administration to compare effectiveness is a joke, ESPECIALLY since Bush has only been in office less than a year. Who handed him that situation? It didn't develop under Bush's watch, just showed it's ugly self now. To put the blame on Bush is way out of line. Clinton shouldn't be blamed for it either, but he did have the power to do something about it in the eight years he was commander in chief of the military.
-
Originally posted by Greese:
Nope.
First off, this is the United States. Freedom to pick apart the president is one of the things we enjoy, and I'll expect to hear all about Dubya's problems when he's done.
Why wait until he's done...did Clinton get that luxury?
Secondly, the problem most people have with Clinton today is his reduction of the military. He didn't take care of it at all.
Also, he really went out of his way to earn the nickname "Slick Willy". He cared more about public opinion than anything, whatever got him re-elected, and whatever developed some legacy. So far as we can tell, the legacy he left is not so great, and we are still finding out about stuff.
What did you expect? Every politician want to be re-elected.
I recognize that the military lost effectiveness during his tenure and it was irresponsible.
Ken Starr: I'm sorry, Clinton made that a public issue by going on national TV, looking straight at us, and lying about it. He would be in much better shape if he had just admitted it, taken a couple weeks off to repair his relationship with his wife, and gotten back to work. Instead, he tried to dodge the bullets, and that's what got him into real trouble. His constant dodging around and lying is what turned that fiasco into the public issue it became.
Think what you like, I support the Constitution of the US, and IMO what Starr did was not only illegal but also highly distasteful in prying into Clintons sexual affairs.
I could care less if him and Hillary were bringing a donkey into their bedroom, it was none of our business.
Clinton had all the power to go after Bin Laden that Bush has now
The point is he DIDN'T have the support behind him Bush has right now, it took 5000 lives to get it...where were all the patriots at then? Probably glued to the TV ogling Clintons sexual affairs....right?
Using the number of lives lost during an administration to compare effectiveness is a joke, ESPECIALLY since Bush has only been in office less than a year. Who handed him that situation? It didn't develop under Bush's watch, just showed it's ugly self now. To put the blame on Bush is way out of line. Clinton shouldn't be blamed for it either, but he did have the power to do something about it in the eight years he was commander in chief of the military.
I only pointed out what happened on BOTH of their watchs, I'm not assigning blame to either of them just a comparison.
You say you don't blame Clinton yet your whole post points the finger at him.
Hypocrite.
[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: weazel ]
-
weazel, man I had no idea you support that lying excuse for a man so much. You and "MG" friends, brothers? You two blow the same horn :)
-
Clinton administration: 291 dead in terrorist attacks during 8 years in office, 6203 injured. Bush administration 5000+ dead, 5000+ injured in terrorist attacks in 9 months in office.
Not a very good record when compared is it?
Weasel,
Now not even a reasonable intelligent person can offer that up as any kind of response or reason.
Its like someone pulling the pin on a grenade, juggling it for a few seconds and tossing it to someone else.. It would blow up on the second guy because of an action the first one took. Would the first guy then say "hey, it never blew up when I handled it, you must have screwed up, and now you have a bad record".
This is pretty comparable to what happened to Bush. Clinton, through his inactions and failure to effectively deal with terrorism left a situation that was only going to get worse. Now Bush has to deal with the mess caused by Clintons inability and lack of spine.
BTW, not take credit where due, I got that original post in an email and just pasted it here. But I did that because I found it interesting and worthy of some thought.
Dago
[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Dago ]
-
That being the case, why is it that the US government has spent more
money chasing down Bill Gates over the past ten years than Osama bin
Laden?
This is a good example of the fallacy of the loaded question. Basically, the question is "loaded" with a statement assumed to be true - in this case the original caller did not bother to present a case that more money was in fact spent on Bill Gates than Osama bin Laden. If anyone has actual data regarding this I would be interested, but somehow I doubt that is forthcoming. :rolleyes:
[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Erlkonig ]
-
Originally posted by -ammo-:
weazel, man I had no idea you support that lying excuse for a man so much. You and "MG" friends, brothers? You two blow the same horn :)
Where do I "support Clinton" in my posts?
Is it this line:
"Clinton was a putz"
Oops... can't be that one it's critical of him.
I recognize that the military lost effectiveness during his tenure and it was irresponsible.
Nope...not that one either.
The only thing supportive of Clinton is the reference to his RIGHT to privacy.
You know....that part of the Constitution the Right Wing finds distasteful?
Please quit trying to put a conservative <lol> spin on what I'm saying. ;)
Dago, go back and READ my previous post - it's a comparison, not an attempt to assign blame to either of them.
If I wanted to assign blame it would go back to decades of US policy, not just recent history.
...don't think he meant to get ur panties in a wad weazel :)
No panties here, I'm nekkid! :D
[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: weazel ]
-
Originally posted by weazel:
The only thing supportive of Clinton is the reference to his RIGHT to privacy.
You know....that part of the Constitution the Right Wing finds distasteful?
Actually the part I found I found distasteful was his total disreguard of his what is right or wrong. He was in the highest position there is in the country that I love and he could care less about the sorry image he projected. He blatently would lie to the same people he swore to defend. He is without a doubt the most selfish person I have ever seen. The "right wing" (your label) represented me when they sought justice for his dispicableness.
Just My opinion but I bet there are alot more like me.
[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: -ammo- ]
-
cheating on his wife.. was none of the public's business,thats a family matter, that should be delt with on the family level, not the national level, so the fact that he lied about it is a moot point, it wasnt any of our business to begin with..
still didnt like him though.
-
We make a draft dodger the commander and chief. Then we are surprised the he has no character. Its no wonder some people thought we were to stupid to defend ourselves.
-
Originally posted by Wobble:
cheating on his wife.. was none of the public's business,thats a family matter, that should be delt with on the family level, not the national level, so the fact that he lied about it is a moot point, it wasnt any of our business to begin with..
still didnt like him though.
This has been discussed at length umpteen times on this BBS alone. If Lieing is OK with you, and cheating is OK with you, and general subjectiveness to what is true and right is OK with you, then by all means its none of your business what Bill Clinton did.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-:
This has been discussed at length umpteen times on this BBS alone. If Lieing is OK with you, and cheating is OK with you, and general subjectiveness to what is true and right is OK with you, then by all means its none of your business what Bill Clinton did.
That's a circular argument ammo, the bottom line is as a citizen of the US was he entitled to his personal privacy?
Regardless of him being a lying,cheating, rat bastard he was entitled to the rights granted by the US Constitution...you know, the same Constitution you swore to defend?
A double standard is just....wrong.
PS:
Actually the part I found I found distasteful was his total disreguard of his what is right or wrong.
Two wrongs don't make a right do they? ;)
Lol easymo, running to Canada or getting daddy to *find* <buy> you a spot in the National Guard is the same thing in my eyes.
Both are chickenshit. :D
I served in the US Army, I never saw combat but was in a few history making operations.
IMO compulsory military service should be a requirement for all US citizens when they reach adult age. <S>
[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: weazel ]
-
weazel, I am pretty sure he violated a few laws ;) I regret that nothing ever stuck. Basically if me or you did the same crap he did and we got caught, we would do time. It really bugs me that military members must follow the orders of that guy and we are held to the UCMJ...and even if he isn't...he should at least hold himself to that standard. He isnt a real man IMO.
-
I do belive there is a difference weazel.
A guy once ask me if i thought the guys who served in the states did as much.
Where do you draw the line? Did a guy who lost his legs serve as well as one that died? Did the one who never got hit serve as well? Where do you draw the line?
Well! Ill tell you :). They draw the line at the induction center. The men take the oath. The boys find a way out of it. After they take the oath its just a matter of luck. But, they all take there chances for the constitution.
As I see it Bush took the oath. (BTW there are guardsmen in the middle east right now.)
That gutless , sniveling, excuse for an ex-president found a way out.
[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: easymo ]
-
Originally posted by easymo:
I do belive there is a difference weazel.
A guy once ask me if i thought the guys who served in the states did as much.
Where do you draw the line? Did a guy who lost his legs serve as well as one that died? Did the one who never got hit serve as well? Where do you draw the line?
Well! Ill tell you :). They draw the line at the induction center. The men take the oath. The boys find a way out of it. After they take the oath its just a matter of luck. But, they all take there chances for the constitution.
As I see it Bush took the oath. (BTW there are guardsmen in the middle east right now.)
That gutless , sniveling, excuse for an ex-president found a way out.
I wasn't hacking on the National Guard, just stating there was more than one way to be a draft dodger.
;)
-
If Lieing is OK with you, and cheating is OK with you, and general subjectiveness to what is true and right is OK with you...
and as long as will not cannot and does not affect you, not a shred of it would be any of your business.. or the rest of the public's.
[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Wobble ]
-
I wasn't defending Ken Starr. I don't know enough about htat stuff, but I know that my commander in chief looked us all in the eye and lied to us, rather than being a man.
Public elected official=a guy who needs to be above reproach.
Presidents have to keep their nose clean, or someone, "hether it be a right wing conspiracy" or the media, whatever, will take what they find and run with it. A guy in that position can't be running around with the interns, someone will find out and smear it all over the news. So it may not have been our business. Well, I personally didn't care, except that it was another man who neglected his commitment to his wife. But when he lied about it for the whole country to see, that was enough for me to not respect him again.
As far as blaming the terrorist attacks on clinton, I can't do that. The only one to balme is bin Laden. To say Clinton dropped the ball on bin laden would be accurate, but nobody could have forseen the disaster of Sep. 11th.
-
Does Clinton has a right to privacy? To a point. Does he have a right, while holding the highest elected office in the United States to carry on sexual escapades with interns and anyone else he choose to molest?
Not if it puts him in a postion that could subject him to blackmail or coersion, in my opinion anyway.
dago
-
"They can run, but they can't hide"
-Ronald Reagan
-
:rolleyes: Getting bj's in the Oval Office: Distastefull? Yes. Classless? You bet.
But whatever.
What does anger me about him is that he broke the law. You can defend his right to privacy and whether or not the US people had a right to know what he was doing till the cows come home. What you can't argue with is the fact he committed perjury. He lied under oath.
That is a crime folks. If he wanted to dodge the question, he could have invoked the 5th or refused to answer and faced those consequences. However, he choose to lie under oath.
One more time. That is a crime. He committed a crime while President of the United States. This wasn't some international law. This wasn't pissing off one part of the world, or some interest group in the US. He broke a law that exists in every jurisdiction in the country. You don't even have to be a law student to know that it is illegal to lie under oath. But he did it anyways.
-
Originally posted by Dune:
:rolleyes: Getting bj's in the Oval Office: Distastefull? Yes. Classless? You bet.
But whatever.
What does anger me about him is that he broke the law. You can defend his right to privacy and whether or not the US people had a right to know what he was doing till the cows come home. What you can't argue with is the fact he committed perjury. He lied under oath.
That is a crime folks. If he wanted to dodge the question, he could have invoked the 5th or refused to answer and faced those consequences. However, he choose to lie under oath.
One more time. That is a crime. He committed a crime while President of the United States. This wasn't some international law. This wasn't pissing off one part of the world, or some interest group in the US. He broke a law that exists in every jurisdiction in the country. You don't even have to be a law student to know that it is illegal to lie under oath. But he did it anyways.
IIRC you are an attorney Dune?
Sure it's a crime AND wrong!
The issue is SHOULD he have been questioned about it?
IMO it was just sleazy right wing tactics to give them political capital for the 2000 elections, it worked but that buzzard will come home to roost eventually...and Republicans will look stupid in the countries eyes when it does.
:o
BTW if a person is proven to have lied under oath in court and the presiding judge does nothing about it what are my options?
Can I or should I report this to someone above him? I got a raw deal in a perjury situation that really pisses me off.
-
Oh man...
But anyways, easymo, if you define your President's character by his military service (or lack thereof) you should be absolutely appalled with your current Commander in Chief. Many vets are.
To everyone else, if you define your Presidents's (both current and former) character by their honesty with the public you would be equally as appalled.
To the Dems on this board. This is a BBS revolving around a military simulation. As such, you are obviously going to see many many MANY more conservatives engaging in a group hug. "It's ok buddy - your right... No no, YOU'RE right... no I insist, YOU'RE RIGHT.
Whatever. This place is as good a gauge on things as walking into an English Lit class and asking those folks about world events.
I didn't read this thread in it's entirety but from what I scanned I can pick out at *least* twenty things I saw stated as fact which absolutely were not, and could back up those things with unassailable supporting evidence. Really. No... *really*. Would it make a diff? Nah. That old thing; if ya say some things enough times and they become truth, and hell... lets be honest... the truth is only that which we want to hear in the first place. Some go to CNN for their "truth", some go to Fox, some go to Rush.. some to Salon... well you get my point I hope. Truth. Despite people seemingly grasping at that sort of thing here, not many people actually want it to begin with. We want what already fits. These discussions are only for *reassurance*. The rest, the conflicting, the things that require effort... well.. there are only so many hours in a day and christ... we all got toejam to do... including coming to this BBS and spewing out our particular canned version of the "truth". And yeah, seeking reassurance where we know we're gonna get that.
"Whew! These people, they *get it*!"
So screw it.. Right Wingers (oh my!) - enjoy the group hug. Left Wingers - if yer bored, if ya wanna stir some toejam up, or if something actually does get yer back up, by all means express it... But just don't expect a lot. In terms of hard political discussion (by both sides), this place is a goof. A circle jerk. A playground that innevitably winds up in some combination of neener-neener and dogpile.
<hiccup> You heard me I spoke hehe. :D
-
Obviously you are looking down at us from the lofty perch of righteousness,Nash. Surprised you took the time to comment.
-
Nash, sounds like your finally reaching the boiling point that your College Professors might have been wrong all those years after all. :D
-
Whelp; it's better than punting the cat... if nothin else; the BBS is a place to spew without a condom requirement.
I'd be lying if I were to say I hadn't learned something in all these discussions.
Like, for example; I'd never get elected for a second terms as president if I nuked the middle-east into an orbital epitaph for terrorists.
Oh, well. :D
-
Originally posted by Montezuma:
"They can run, but they can't hide"
-Ronald Reagan
OH PUHLEASEEEEEEEE!
Adding a quote from that evil son of a squeak in a Clinton bashing thread?
Reagans record speaks for itself, liar, back door deals with terrorist sponsoring states, allowing cocaine to be imported and sold in the US all the while pursuing the <lol> "war on drugs".
Scum and hypocrite of the lowest order.
Clinton was a fediddleing angel by comparison to that criminal.
-
May be that the investigation of Clinton went too far, maybe not far enough. However, it didn't start out as a question of whether or not he had sex with Monica. The whole thing began with accusations of sexual harrassment.
Kinda gives a black eye to those Clinton supporting feminist organizations. Seems much to easy for them turn the whole thing around into a right to privacy issue.
-
Nash, we've ploughed this ground before, you and I... but since you lead with it, I'll amuse you one more time. It's long, but please bear with me.
I had a friend in UPT that went out one day with his instructor and the first thing they did (which was normal in training) was simulate an engine failure on the T-38 right after Takeoff and re-enter the pattern doing a "single engine heavyweight landing."
My friend, who was one of the better (top 20%) students, flared high and brought the power back. The instructor jammed them both into burner... a split second to late. The airplane rolled over on its back and impacted. No survivors.
Once I got out to my unit, Uncle Sam became concerned that we poor copilots weren't getting enough stick time. (This was in the Carter years. 95% of all USAF co-pilots WEREN'T getting enough stick time. Fortunately, my unit, the RC-135 unit was flying max hours around the world and our tradition was the copilot flew every other sortie, start to finish including receiver air refuelings. We got LOTS of stick time.) Anyway, we got T-38's to fly again to "maintain our proficiency". One of my buddies, who had graduated Distinguished Graduate from the -135 copilot school at Castle took one out one day. Super stick. He flared a bit high on a runway that had a few BIG buildings on the windward side. He eased the power off, still high, as he went past the buildings. The wind changed significantly (sheared), he stalled and it rolled over. The guy in back shot out horizontally and lived. My buddy did not get out.
Now, what's the point? Well, little Georgie went thru UPT. He flew the T-38, just as my friends did. He went thru RTU in the F-102 as I recall... not a real easy airplane. He flew it around some. He did what they told him to do for a while. At some point, he left. No one seems to be able to find either an honorable... or a DISHONORABLE discharge. One or the other must be around somewhere.
Bottom line is little Georgie signed up. He took the risks inherent in learning to fly high performance aircraft. He then flew high performance aircraft.
Now did his daddy get him into a "good" Guard unit? Probably. Everyone who had any sense at that point (It was pretty clear LBJ wasn't trying to "win" the war.) was trying to do the same thing. (I didn't have much sense. :D)
I'm certain old Senator Gore made sure his little bit of the future DNA mix into the human race also got non-combat duty in the action army. To his credit, little Al did go to Vietnam, even if it was to type. He served, that's what counts. So I have no problem with him either.
So, count me as one of the "vets" that isn't one tiny bit "appalled" at the present Commander in Chief's service.
-
I don't know what Gore did in "nam. But there was no safe place there. Our company cook won the silver star, and the bronze star with oak leaf cluster. Vietnam was not WW1. There were no front lines. So Gore is my brother. He just fell in with bad company.
-
Toad,
The first part of your post can be summed up by saying "The Guard wasn't exactly a nice place to serve - there were risks - so ya can't knock him for going there instead of serving in Vietnam". And I'm not knocking him for that. That's not my point. What I'm saying is what you and I both have come to learn and agree happened: that at some point... he... just...left.
You can continue to point to the fact that there (magically) exists no paper work regarding this, in terms of AWOL, Dishonorable Discharge or Honorable Discharge etc... there's no document saying exactly *why* he just stopped showing up. I'm sorry, but I find that perspective to be a bit naive. Bad records went away... what a shocker. So then, the only sort of "out" your looking at in terms of the choices here is that Bush was Honorably discharged, and that the paperwork just disappeared. Other than that you're left with AWOL or a Dishonorable Discharge, and the paperwork just disappeared. Or... there was no paperwork created to regarding his absence whatsoever. Which do you really think is a more likely scenario? Never mind, I know the answer. Everything's cool, he was honorably discharged and some clerk accidently took a Bic to his file.
Bush won't proffer any record of an Honorable Discharge (why not?), and he won't entertain any questions on the matter. His base commanders dunno what the hell happened other than the fact that he wasn't there.
Well, fine... continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. Ok sure, he was honorably discharged for some good reason (what?) and the file got lost. Bush won't comment on the matter for another good reason (what?). Whatever.
This is the kind of thing I was raising when I brought this example up. Easymo so quickly chastises Clinton's lack of a Vietnam record, yet he is either is unaware of Bush's own culpability or chooses to ignore it because that simply doesn't fit within his comfort zone.
If we go by your own example Toad, the entire Whitewater fiasco should be viewed by *everyone* here as nothing more than an egregious witch hunt. Why? Because, well, no record of any Clinton wrongdoing exists. Yet these things are still held against him... because many don't like the guy and in *this* particular case, a lack of evidence means nothing. Or it means something even more ominous. But at the end of the day, that just doesn't fit does it? Screw him, he was guilty.
Call me arrogant... I really don't care. I'm calling many of you hypocritical. Don't get me wrong... I still love you guys :) but just as y'all wanna continue to plug away at the other side while completely ignoring your own party's skeletons... I have just as much right to call BS on it.
And how convenient... All this in a Dago thread. He was the guy who posted this wild story about how Clinton was cruising into the habours of Vietnam with the Vietnamese flying over the US's. What an uproar by folks here, what an outrage, and this just proves that Clinton is scum... etc. etc. I called BS on that. I asked Dago to respond. I then posted the news report showing that Clinton.... erhm... *flew* into Vietnam. Dago didn't respond, you guys didn't say a word and that thread dropped out of radar faster than my flaming Mossie.
Now here he is again with another gem. "Whaaa Clinton didn't bomb the toejam out of Afghanistan" or something. Huh? Like he could? Maybe Dago missed it, but does anyone else notice a change in the wind since the 11th that might make sending 4 aircraft carriers into that region a bit more palatable/justifiable? He concludes it with this:
"It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir.
This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events! Incredible!!"
Like wtf? What the hell kinda argument is that? I don't understand the logic at play there at all. But here we go... "Amen! Burn the motherf*cking draft dodging scum".
Uhm.. yah.
-
"Amen! Burn the motherf*cking draft dodging scum".
Anyone got a match?
-
Right? What did I expect? And I'm arrogant for expecting nothing less.
-
No, that is an incorrect summation.
What I said is he did serve. Just like Gore.
Vietnam is immaterial to the submission of self to the authority of the Nation.
Guard or Active Duty is immaterial to the submission of self to the authority of the Nation also. Plenty of supposedly "safe" Guard units got the big suprise when they were called up.
Did I go to Vietnam? No. I was in AFROTC, went to UPT in '73, and made it to my unit in early '75 after RTU. The only guy in my UPT class that "made it" to Vietnam showed up at his C-130 squadron in Clark just in time to evacuate Saigon. They stuck him in the door with a flare gun and told him to shoot it if he saw a missile coming up. It was all over before they even checked him out as "combat ready" in the squadron. But he did step on Vietnamese soil and fly in their airspace.
So, did my group of 55 UPT graduates serve? Should we be looked down upon because we were still "safe" in college getting a required degree to enter UPT when the real action was going on?
Where do you draw the line?
Bush served. Gore served.
Bush's exit from the service appears to be undocumented as far as anyone has been able to determine. Highly unusual; there should be paperwork.
You choose to immediately assume "foul play" and that he deserted. You have no evidence.
May I paraphrase? "Because, well, no record of any Bush wrongdoing exists. Yet these things are still held against him... because many don't like the guy and in *this* particular case, a lack of evidence means nothing. Or it means something even more ominous. But at the end of the day, that just doesn't fit does it? Screw him, he was guilty." Looks like the door swings both ways.
I see no evidence either way... as yet. Therefore, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt... for now. Sort of an "innocent until proven guilty thing".
Whitewater? That's not really a blip on my personal radar screen vis-a-vis Clinton. There was certainly no submission of self to the authority of the Nation, however. That bothers me, I admit. The definition of "is" bothers me. There's a few other similar things that bother me... and there is evidence in those cases as well as these two.
Now, enough of ploughing old furrows. Back to the regularly scheduled slug-fest. ;)
You may have the "last word". :D
-
I notice you are posting from Canada. WTF is up with that.
-
Easymo? WTF is up with what? Go ahead.
-
I have never met a single person that gave so much as a second thought to Canadian politics. Why would you care about ours?
[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: easymo ]
-
Toad, again whether you realize it or not, you are refuting points that I'm not making.
Yeah, wow, the Guard was a squeak of a place. Yeah C130's and UPT and AFROTC and missiles inbound and whatever. Like I said 5 minutes ago, this aint what I was on about. To reiterate, I aint knockin' Guard duty whatsoever... Ok? (<cough> many would.... *I* am not.)
"Should we be looked down upon because we were still "safe" in college getting a required degree to enter UPT when the real action was going on?" - Toad
No. I hope that answers that.
More germane to my point: "What I said is he did serve. Just like Gore."
And what I'm saying too is that he served....errr... for a bit. Until perhaps a bout with ADD left him with the impulse to pick up and try something else for a while. I'm glad to hear you at least say that it is "highly unusual" that no paperwork exists for this <cough> absence.
Look at easymo here. He's fumbling around for a pack of matches yet he dismisses this entire episode out of hand. Doesn't respond in any meaningful way, doesn't refute, qualify, justify... nothing.... Just is content with "ah hell, that sonuhvasqueak". Right or wrong.... Doesn't matter in the least to him... He doesn't acknowledge its existance. It doesn't fit. It takes too much energy.
So excuse me if I descend from my lofty perch to tell him that he is full of toejam on this. I'm begging him to prove me wrong... but he won't. He doesn't *have* to. Spit out some comforting remark, and recieve the obligatory high fives and attaboys, and done like dinner.
*That* is all I was saying in bringing this up. And by no means has this got any bearing on anything... like these BBS discussions. What the f*ck do I want with facts for? Because *facts* aren't the point of AH's BBS political debate.
And Toad, you paraphrasing what I said by injecting Bush's name was *exactly* what I was demonstrating by writing that. It was the whole *point* of it. I thought it was obvious. Read it again. I was explicitly saying how easily it was to turn around the "missing documents" debate... And what do you do? You latch on to this to turn it around by dropping in Bush's name. Duh. I mean - that's what I was *saying* was going on here. So nothing new there except to underline this hypocrisy I guess.
Thanks for the last word :) But come on, don't foist that upon me. That's too much responsibility... and we both know there aint never gonna be any last word...
Wait a sec... a golden opportunity here. Scratch the above. Thanks for the last word.
Might I conclude with:
Toad shags sheep, chickens, vegetables and small pieces of machinery. He likes to drink Old Milwaukee and has a tattoo on his arm that says "Mom". He had work done on that tattoo changing it to "Morine", the name of his second wife, who promptly left him after walking in on him during his attempted intercourse with a carrot grater.
[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]
-
"Wtf" becomes "why do you care"?
If I had any sense that you were truly curious about this I might be inclined to answer. I don't and I'm not.
-
Toad shags sheep, chickens, vegetables and small pieces of machinery. He likes to drink Old Milwaukee and has a tattoo on his arm that says "Mom"
being a Texan, I must say I am offended.. Being a Texan guarentees me the right to be called such things, please do not wast good Texan insults on non-texans in the future...
thank you
-
Ya got me nash. I could not care less what any Canadian thinks of AMERICAN politics.
-
OK, so you don't get the last word. Guess I lied. :)
Point One: I do try to deal in "facts" in all these BBS debates. I almost always provide links to corroborating information as you may have noticed. I realize there are others... on both sides of the political "fence"... that do not.
Point Two: You seem to equate Clinton's documented non-service and documented ROTC-dodge to Bush's undocumented "early out". May I suggest there's quite a large difference there?
Point Three: Well, your "demonstration" wasn't clear to me. But then I flew all last night.
Lastly, my second wife's name was most certainly not Morine; that was the third wife. ;)
-
re Point one: yeah, I know you do. You are not above the selective useage or interpretation of these facts, as not I nor anyone else is... but at least you do attempt to get that straight.
re Point two: Actually it was the equating of the lack of documents connecting the Clintons with any wrong doing in Whitewater and the lack of documents connecting Bush to any wrong doing wrt his service. With one it's heresy to folks here, with the other its probably just some administrative screw up.
but... re: point three: understood.
re easymo: Like I give a toss.
-
Canadian? Yawn
If a Canadian ever had an original idea. They would lose it out on a moose trail somewhere.
[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: easymo ]
-
All americans are now in the same boat. The lines on the map have no impact on the direction the wind blows.
-
Neener neener easymo.
Moose trail...har har... Good one. I don't even know what that is.
That's the extent of this stuff really... isn't it? And erhm... yer not exactly the shining example of someone with an original idea, are you? Funny you should bring that up.
We've heard yer remarks about Clinton's service. Any word now on Bush's? Nope... Matches and Moose trails. Good stuff.
Hangtime, you're right... despite what guys like Dago would have ya believe by constantly dredging up this garbage for the local hyenas to pour over.
[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]
-
Originally posted by easymo:
Canadian? Yawn
Easymo, Canada is a good friend to the US.
Don't let the Vietnam draft dodgers going to Canada color your opinion of their country, the Canadians who frequent this board have all shown their support for us since 9/11.
I'm glad to see them standing with us <S> Canadians!
-
Thanks, but I don't know if he's unaware of that, exactly. If he aint... well... we got Canadian planes, boats and troops over in that region now. Why am I interested in American politics? Hhm...
Calling me a Canadian as if it were some sort of derogatory remark was about the only thing he could muster, I think. Doesn't make much sense to me either, and has nothing to do with anything as far as I can see.
[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]
-
Originally posted by Greese:
Public elected official=a guy who needs to be above reproach.
Wow !
You live in Dreamland ?
[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: straffo ]
-
When will you yanks learn that a totalitarian StSantian secular government is JUST what you need?
:)