"Marty" wrote in message
...

Looking from the outside, it looks like the Democrats are beating
themselves with a stick. Slinging mud at each other,,,McCain must be
chuckling at the ineptitude. The single biggest thing that is being
demonstrated in primary after primary is that America is still
fundamentally racist, blacks vote for blacks, whites vote for whites, and
there are a lot of white Dems who think that's not the case, enough that
Obama is likely to be running against McCain. Anyone care to speculate if
the US is ready to elect a black president?

Cheers
Marty


I don't see it that way. I think that given the record turnout, no matter
who finally is the nominee, that person will be pretty much fully supported
by the people who voted for the other person. How anyone can seriously
consider voting for McCain, given all that he is/stands for... continuing
the war, lack of fiscal understanding, poor human rights outlook, not to
mention his age, etc., is certainly beyond me. While he may be a hero, he
comes from a long line of aristocracy of admirals, and he's married to a
heiress. While Bill/Hillary are certainly wealthy, they came from the
working class. Obama is much the same. He has a lot of support among whites,
especially those with a college or better education. I don't think you can
classify the US as a racist society compared to the way we were 30/40 or
more years ago. We have a long way to go, but things are better.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:01:49 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote this crap:

"Marty" wrote in message
...

Looking from the outside, it looks like the Democrats are beating
themselves with a stick. Slinging mud at each other,,,McCain must be
chuckling at the ineptitude. The single biggest thing that is being
demonstrated in primary after primary is that America is still
fundamentally racist, blacks vote for blacks, whites vote for whites, and
there are a lot of white Dems who think that's not the case, enough that
Obama is likely to be running against McCain. Anyone care to speculate if
the US is ready to elect a black president?

Cheers
Marty


I don't see it that way. I think that given the record turnout, no matter
who finally is the nominee, that person will be pretty much fully supported
by the people who voted for the other person. How anyone can seriously
consider voting for McCain, given all that he is/stands for... continuing
the war, lack of fiscal understanding, poor human rights outlook, not to
mention his age, etc., is certainly beyond me. While he may be a hero, he
comes from a long line of aristocracy of admirals, and he's married to a
heiress. While Bill/Hillary are certainly wealthy, they came from the
working class. Obama is much the same. He has a lot of support among whites,
especially those with a college or better education. I don't think you can
classify the US as a racist society compared to the way we were 30/40 or
more years ago. We have a long way to go, but things are better.


That's what your gay friends in California tell you. I and my friends
in the midwest would never consider voting for a Commander in Chief
who doesn't have any military experience.





I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

Looking from the outside, it looks like the Democrats are beating
themselves with a stick. Slinging mud at each other,,,McCain must be
chuckling at the ineptitude. The single biggest thing that is being
demonstrated in primary after primary is that America is still
fundamentally racist,

There are numbers to support that contention, but you could also look
at it the other way. Enough people have broken away from the pea-
brained bigotry of our caveman ancestors that the U.S. could have a
black President by this time next year.


"Capt. JG" wrote:
I don't see it that way. I think that given the record turnout, no matter
who finally is the nominee, that person will be pretty much fully supported
by the people who voted for the other person.

Maybe, but more likely not. There are a lot of people who really
really *hate* the Clintons, Republicans & Democrats alike.

Remember, the U.S. has an official 2-party system, but each party is
really a coalition similar to those cobbled together under the
parliamentary system. Hillary & Obama each have their own
constituencies, which do have a large overlap... but when one or the
other finally wins, some members of the losers coalition will drop
out. It's inevitable. The question is, how many and will they be PO'd
enough to vote Republican (for President)?

.... How anyone can seriously
consider voting for McCain, given all that he is/stands for... continuing
the war, lack of fiscal understanding, poor human rights outlook, not to
mention his age, etc., is certainly beyond me.

I could explain it, but you might not want to listen. I would
certainly consider voting for McCain for President under many possible
circumstances.


Bloody Horvath wrote:
.... I and my friends
in the midwest would never consider voting for a Commander in Chief
who doesn't have any military experience.


Flunked high school civics, did you?

Without civilian control & oversight of the military, you have a
fascist dictatorship, not a democracy. However a lot of people would
like exactly that... a "strong man" who would make the trains run on
time,

And did you consider our current President's "military
experience" (getting drunk at the O-club and going AWOL, followed by
the convenient loss of all his records) valuable when weighing your
vote?

DSK

wrote:
Looking from the outside, it looks like the Democrats are beating
themselves with a stick. Slinging mud at each other,,,McCain must be
chuckling at the ineptitude. The single biggest thing that is being
demonstrated in primary after primary is that America is still
fundamentally racist,

There are numbers to support that contention, but you could also look
at it the other way. Enough people have broken away from the pea-
brained bigotry of our caveman ancestors that the U.S. could have a
black President by this time next year.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I didn't really mean white
racism, but rather black. Many white dems were quite happy to vote for
Obama, but among black voters, particularly southern black voters, the
crossover rate seems a lot less, at least from a cursory glance at the
numbers. In other words a lot of folks who voted for the colour of
Obamas skin rather than his politics.

Cheers
Marty

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Looking from the outside, it looks like the Democrats are beating
themselves with a stick. Slinging mud at each other,,,McCain must be
chuckling at the ineptitude. The single biggest thing that is being
demonstrated in primary after primary is that America is still
fundamentally racist,

There are numbers to support that contention, but you could also look
at it the other way. Enough people have broken away from the pea-
brained bigotry of our caveman ancestors that the U.S. could have a
black President by this time next year.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I didn't really mean white racism,
but rather black. Many white dems were quite happy to vote for Obama, but
among black voters, particularly southern black voters, the crossover rate
seems a lot less, at least from a cursory glance at the numbers. In other
words a lot of folks who voted for the colour of Obamas skin rather than
his politics.

Cheers
Marty


The Clintons have a lot of respect in the black community... which they
deserve. This isn't about racism, at least not yet, despite the media's
attempt to make it about race.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
...
Looking from the outside, it looks like the Democrats are beating
themselves with a stick. Slinging mud at each other,,,McCain must be
chuckling at the ineptitude. The single biggest thing that is being
demonstrated in primary after primary is that America is still
fundamentally racist,

There are numbers to support that contention, but you could also look
at it the other way. Enough people have broken away from the pea-
brained bigotry of our caveman ancestors that the U.S. could have a
black President by this time next year.

If Obama is the nominee, then the vast majority of Hillary supporters will
go with him.


"Capt. JG" wrote:
I don't see it that way. I think that given the record turnout, no
matter
who finally is the nominee, that person will be pretty much fully
supported
by the people who voted for the other person.

Maybe, but more likely not. There are a lot of people who really
really *hate* the Clintons, Republicans & Democrats alike.

Perhaps, but compared to continuing the current policies, they would likely
hold their nose. At the moment, I think Obama has a better shot.

Remember, the U.S. has an official 2-party system, but each party is
really a coalition similar to those cobbled together under the
parliamentary system. Hillary & Obama each have their own
constituencies, which do have a large overlap... but when one or the
other finally wins, some members of the losers coalition will drop
out. It's inevitable. The question is, how many and will they be PO'd
enough to vote Republican (for President)?

Anyone who's son or daughter is fighting in Iraq, not to mention the people
themselves. Cheney was booed recently during a speech there. Some of the
soldiers were trash-talking him to reporters during the speech to reporters.
How many times has that happened. The Pentagon's own people think it's a
"debacle" of huge perportions. The economy is in a shambles.

.... How anyone can seriously
consider voting for McCain, given all that he is/stands for...
continuing
the war, lack of fiscal understanding, poor human rights outlook, not to
mention his age, etc., is certainly beyond me.

I could explain it, but you might not want to listen. I would
certainly consider voting for McCain for President under many possible
circumstances.

He's better than Bush, but that's not saying much. He probably doesn't lie
as much as Bush, but that's not saying much. He's got military experience
more than Bush (who has practically zero), but that's not saying much. He's
too old, but I guess he's better than someone's who's brain dead like Bush.
There, I thought of four things. LOL

bs removed

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:23:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


And did you consider our current President's "military
experience" (getting drunk at the O-club and going AWOL, followed by
the convenient loss of all his records) valuable when weighing your
vote?

DSK


Doug, as one who was there I'll offer some additional information
regarding this subject.

Within six months or so, I am the same age as both Bush and Clinton.
I was subject to those same decisions regarding what to do about the
draft similar to each of those individuals. Falling behind in my class
because of lack of money and the neccessity to work, and losing my
deferrment, I chose to join the Marine Corp Reserves, rather than be
drafted. I thought that, if deployed, it would be better to go with
people I know who would be pretrained. If not deployed, I could
continue with my education and life in general.

Bush joined the Guard much later than I. At the time that the
alledged AWOL took place the military was in a mode of trying to dump
excess personnel. The war in Vietnam was winding down, experienced
pilots and other military specalities were coming home and there were
too many of them. Additionally, the military had just gone through an
extensive pay increase to try to get equity with private industry to
be able to compete for future people, in anticipation of the
elimination of the draft and an all volunteer, professional military.
They were trying to cut costs. I know of many people in my unit who
were advised when transferrring to a new area, that they could get out
if a unit was not conveniently located. I got the impression they
were encouraged to do that. Maybe he used influence, maybe he didn't
but it helps to know what the climate was at that time.

Clinton, OTOH just dodged the draft. Used influence to temporarily
avoid serving so he could go to England on a Rhodes scholarship with
a promise he would serve on return. He broke that promise. This was
an earlier timeframe before the winding down of Viet Nam.

I think I have more respect for those that went to Canada to avoid the
draft and a war that was ill conceived and poorly executed, than for
Clinton. After all, they gave up their lives and homes without
knowing if they could ever come back. Clinton gave up nothing, just
used influence.

My thoughts on the matter

Frank

X-No-Archive: yes

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news
Doug, as one who was there I'll offer some additional information
regarding this subject.

Don't confuse them with facts, Frank. You're challenging an article of
faith.

On 23 Apr 2008 14:23:01 -0500, "Dave" wrote:

X-No-Archive: yes

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news
Doug, as one who was there I'll offer some additional information
regarding this subject.

Don't confuse them with facts, Frank. You're challenging an article of
faith.

Not attempting to confuse, Dave. I met Doug and family on his ICW
loop and he is an intelligent and likable person. I'm simply offering
a perspective based on living through the times.

I'm not defending Bush. The use of influence to change position on a
national guard list was commonplace, so if it happened it would not
surprise me because I know others, locally, who took advantage of the
same thing. Individuals with a whole lot less stroke than the Bush
family. So his "crime" was to accept the outcome.

It was not time of fairness. If you were poor, could not afford to
continue education past high school, had no influence, could not trick
the system by taking drugs to fail the physical, you were drafted or
you joined, or you fled the country, plain and simple. Then the
lottery, then the elimination of the draft.

My comments on the "winding down" of the war are as I observed them.
Many combat pilots were coming back and the slots in guard units were
coveted, and they deserved them. If you didn't want to stay in, no
one was going to chain you to the post.

Frank

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:28:52 -0500, Frank Boettcher

said:

It was not time of fairness. If you were poor, could not afford to
continue education past high school, had no influence, could not trick
the system by taking drugs to fail the physical, you were drafted or
you joined, or you fled the country, plain and simple. Then the
lottery, then the elimination of the draft.

Certainly not news to me. I got out of school at the height of the war.
Called up my draft board and was told that unless I volunteered I would be
drafted. I told them I would sign up for OCS, and they said they'd put my
folder at the back of the drawer, and I should let them know when I had
been
sworn in. Dunno how it was in Hope, AK, but where I came from people were
expected to honor their word, and I did. Clinton didn't.

Neither did Bush. I know you hate the Clintons, but the reality is that Bush
didn't finish what he signed up for wrt to his service commitment.
Unfortunately, he learned that lesson a bit late and now we have Iraq.


My comments on the "winding down" of the war are as I observed them.
Many combat pilots were coming back and the slots in guard units were
coveted, and they deserved them. If you didn't want to stay in, no
one was going to chain you to the post.

Yes. When I got out everyone was getting early outs by a few months. I
called up the local reserve unit, and they said come if you want to, but
no
big deal if you don't want to.

Bush did "get an early out." He just stopped showing up... and remains a
chickenhawk.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com