Let's just say it isn't at all hard to pick up Republican figures that weren't
shining idols of saintliness, too. And when they're out of office, they're out
of office, so it isn't sensible to class them as contestants in the current
battle, which seems to be what Republicans want to do with Clinton.
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken
None of his superiors or contemporaries made that claim. What's your
source, a Michael Moore movie? Explain how he got qualified without
a physical and how he campaigned while flying.
You belittled Bush's service with the guard so setting the record straight
I don't see the connection. Do you support swift boat captains for president?
Nothing sided about it. I was pointing out an obvious hypocrisy.
Deal with it.
Anything but answer the contradiction. Dodging the draft is OK
if it's your boy but service in the guard is a copout if you don't like
him. That isn't rational no matter how you try to spin it.
So you are the silent minority then. Who did Bush kill?
Happy to point out some inconsistencies with left wing politics. I notice
you can't really address them directly, you'd rather ignore them.
He wouldn't need to. If it was illegal, walking away from it would have
been more of a challenge.
Yes, that's what I said but the liability comes from the media wing of the DNC,
not the law.
Oh, so it's a new thing and done only in the interest of fairness.
It's still doing well because...it's true. Everytime you guys bash Bush's
record we need only to look at the hypocrisy of looking the other way
at Clinton's. To you putting some daylight on the subject is smearing.
It's an old tactic to accuse your opponent of your faults and hope no
That's an interesting way to put it. Job growth is down but it's not improving.
hmmm. Kerry is going to fix that, how? By growing government ?
Not true if inflation is taken into account.
Assuming we continue to grow government, entitlements, etc.
...who made up the difference by slashing the military for one. That
isn't the best way to dowsize government in my view. He presided
over a period when the dotcom bubble was going full tilt but the economy
was on the downslope before the left. Look into it.
That's Bush's fault too? Why is everyone else paying more for oil
I don't consider the blood of U.S. and allied soldiers piss.
Saddam let terrorists live there in safe haven as long as they were
enemies of the west. You must be thinking the problem would have
simply cleared itself up. Had the UN acted in the intrests of world peace
there would have been no war.
Who said they were?
Who said they were? You asked for accomplishments.
Yep, just like the cruise missles he fired on Baghdad.
How did he kill the Kurds and why was he being inspected under UN resolutions?
Unlike the peace and harmony under Saddam.
The world is safer when tihe fanatics are on the defensive. We found out
what Clintonesque head brying does.
Nuclear weapons are nothing to yawn over no matter how small the
nation if they are devoted to terrorism. Your lack of world affairs understanding
Odd that he isn't running on his senate record then.
You mean the full BS? You can't actually name anything substantive?
Let's not give him the chance either.
The sore spot is between your ears. That part of the mission was accomplished
as stated by Tommy Franks, who had the idea for the morale booster.
Brush up on some facts and make that sore heal up!
with..... political opinion that.....no
I have to say...I'm a Democrat, and even *I* am saying "Can we get to
the issues?" There's been a LOT of water under the bridge since Viet
Nam, and whether a group of vets think Kerry is or isn't fit for
command isn't really going to sway my opinion one way or 't'uther. I
respect vets, and I respect everyone's right to an opinion, but
hey...it's just that, an opinion.
And it does NOT say in the constitution that 527 groups have to be
fair and balanced in their adverts. So, yeah, Bob, I completely agree
with you--getting to the real issues would be a good thing. Pity that
it probably won't happen anytime soon... <sigh>
Read or listen to Kerry's testimony instead of the overblown BS from Limbaugh
and his ilk. Kerry never branded all Nam vets as war criminals. His testimony
came about a year, IIRC, after Wm. Calley's trial and the massive rehashing of
the My Lai massacre.
And trashing the '60s and '70s ANG was a reasonable activity back then. As I
said before, the story is different today, though problems remain. The ANG of
the '60s and '70s was a farce, or it was about 90% of the time.
Nah. Just a record that Bush refuses to discuss.
And, as Alex noted, Bush made damned good and sure he wasn't where he'd get a
scratch. Flying jets is a difficult job, but flying is not as difficult as it
is made out to be, and there are a lot of built-in safety factors, especially
when you're flying outmoded machinery that cannot be brought up to grade on
modern weapons systems. There's not a lot of emphasis on stressing the
machinery, or the personnel, when there is no chance of real-life use. And,
anyway, Bush got off flying status as quickly as he could.
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken
On 27 Aug 2004 00:40:22 GMT, email@example.com (Charlie Self)
Are you listening to the same recordings as the rest of us? "I, like
others participated in ... " He did brand all American soldiers as war
criminals, acting in violation of the Geneva convention.
But then, last week, in an interview when challenged by a fellow swift
boat veteran he made the statement, "I didn't say that Swift boat vets
committed atrocities, it was all the other soldiers".
You've made an elementary mistake: the phrase "I, like others" is
not the same thing as "all American soldiers".
See the difference, "others" vs. "all"??? "Others" is more than
one but not necessarily "all".
So the President is to be demonized by Kerry et al because there were some
problems with abuse in Iraq while it's ok for Kerry to have admitted to
personally committing abuses. That is hypocrisy.
You gotta be kidding. After eight years of Clinton's antics, it was a real
relief to see the Bush administration take office -- my first thought was that
the grownups are back in charge.
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
In choosing a elected official, my personal oppionion is to choose a
man/woman of character, are they telling me the same thing today, tomarrow,
next week, are they doing what they think is right or what the poles say is
right. For me that is far more important then what the position are I
didn't agree with what most of what Jessy Venturea stood for, but I
supported him because I knew exactly what he stood for, one of my favorate
sayings is "a devil you can trust is better then a saint you can't" Clinton
may not have inhaled but blew smoke for 8 years, Kerry changes positions in
the same speech, so who are you left with Bush or Nader, and honestly if
your undecided at this point Vote Nader, let him know somebody loves him it
would make is day!
Doug Miller wrote:
Yep. When I want the straight story on President Bush, I head straight for
a former Kerry staffer. Forget Kerry flip-flopping in the same speech...try
the same sentence. "I actually voted for the 87 billion before I voted
against it." Hard to get around that one.
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:41:45 -0500, Todd Fatheree wrote:
Folks who enjoy that quote have apparently not realized that these were
two very different bills. Here's an analogy: Say you offer
me an 8" jointer at $500 and I agree to your price. You tell me, "It's a
deal." Then the next day I come to pick it up, I say, "I'll pay you next
month." If you cancel the deal, are you a flipflopper? After all, first
you agreed to the sale and then you disagreed with it. No, you're not a
flipflopper. You're just showing common sense in the face of my attempt to
change the rules, which is exactly what Kerry did. Really. Look at the
facts; it's all public record stuff.
One of the several reasons I'm voting for a Democrat presidential
candidate for the first time in my life is the meaningless drivel that the
Republicans are substituting for a realistic discussion of issues. The
silliness about the 87 billion is a perfect example of campaign-by-slogan,
and I expect better from my leaders.
First off, I don't believe you've never voted for a Democrat before, unless
you've never voted before at all. I can't prove it, but it's just a gut
feeling. You want to say I don't know, fine. I'm just not buying it.
Second, Kerry is the same guy who can't decide whether or not he owns an
SUV. When he's talking to union auto workers, he's a proud owner. When
environmentalists might be listening, suddenly the only vehicles in the
fleet are Honda Insights. On the Senate vote in question, it was passed
87-12. That's quite a minority for Kerry to be with. It didn't have
anything to do with the rules being changed, but he and Edwards had to show
the Deaniacs that he was also a big anti-war guy just like Howard.
Hmm, Fletis ... Which part can't you find a cit for? The President's
speeches on Sept 13, 16, 2001? The quotes from Face the Nation or
Meet the Press on March 16, 2003? The White House press briefing on
Oct 24, 2001? You do know that most of the President's speeches are
actually on the White House web site?
I admire your determination that quotations be placed in context.
Wouldn't it be nice if the Bushies did that? So how about this one:
Had it been responsible journalism they would have linked to the speeches,
if that's what they were, so we could see them in context. Asking the reader
to accept their word as gospel is unprofessional so it's not a good source.
Also when a source blends numerous editorials into the mix it confuses
the subject further. For example when Bush says he thinks we are welcomed
in Iraq they insert fatalities as an obvious smear tactic. The fatalities are
quite low for a war that scale, still too many, but some perspective is in
order. Were we welcomed in Germany?
The cits are there. Since when does each cit have to have a hotlink?
First you claim there are no citations, then you claim that it's too
hard to research it because you didn't get an easy hotlink.
Iraq fatalities are a real and objective data point. Are you saying
it's a smear just to point out how many troops are dying in Iraq?
Yeah, some perspective is in order. How about this one:
Iraq is certainly not Germany. That comparison is ridiculous, not to
mention transparently self-serving.
No, I don't want your critique. Obviously, I posted it to demonstrate
the hypocrisy of the Bushies who complain about quotations out of
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.