|
Political Crap OT
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 |
Political Crap OT
"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 |
Political Crap OT
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. |
Political Crap OT
On Apr 23, 12:00 am, Marty 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, 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 Sure, especially a black president with a white mother. Naturally the US remains filled with ignorant hicks who, even after getting punched in the face again and again, still claim to be proud of their vote for Bush. What can you do with such people? They still think republicans are conservative! As for the Democrats, they're not doing any damage. It's one of the kindest battles ever and it will soon be over. The public has the attention span and memory retention of a Mayfly, so little matters until the presidential race itself winds down to the final weeks. Few people know or care to ponder what "Public Servant" once meant. The Good Captain 35s5 NY |
Political Crap OT
Capt. Rob wrote:
On Apr 23, 12:00 am, Marty 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, 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 Sure, especially a black president with a white mother. Naturally the US remains filled with ignorant hicks who, even after getting punched in the face again and again, still claim to be proud of their vote for Bush. What can you do with such people? They still think republicans are conservative! As for the Democrats, they're not doing any damage. It's one of the kindest battles ever and it will soon be over. The public has the attention span and memory retention of a Mayfly, so little matters until the presidential race itself winds down to the final weeks. Few people know or care to ponder what "Public Servant" once meant. Much as may like to spar with you Bob, I think there's a lot of truth in your words. Cheers Marty |
Political Crap OT
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 |
Political Crap OT
|
Political Crap OT
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 |
Political Crap OT
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:32:37 -0400, Vito wrote:
Men and women jump on grenades to save others. They are heros. Others have risked their lives (and often lost them) to protect and save others. They too are heros. A man I know had two planes shot out from under him but hiked back to fight again. I'd call him a hero. McCain got shot down and captured. Beats the **** out of Blundering Bush's record but not in the same league as the aforementioned folks. LOL, besides the jumping on grenades, McCain did all of the above. You may want to read, at least a little, about McCain's military career. |
Political Crap OT
"Vito" wrote:
Men and women jump on grenades to save others. While there are certainly many women who have done brave things to save others, I am unaware of any women who have thrown themselves on grenades. DSK |
Political Crap OT
|
Political Crap OT
X-No-Archive: yes
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message ... 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. |
Political Crap OT
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
... 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 A bunch of bs. As though Bush didn't use his father's influence. As though he completed his obligation. As though he wasn't a drunk. I didn't realize that Clinton went to Canada, which last I checked was the defacto destination for "draft dodgers." Still fighting the same war there Frank... the one about how terrible Clinton was. EXCEPT that he did more for this country than just about any other president in modern times; whereas, Bush has done the worse by far. Maybe you should blame Hillary for having enough sense of family values to stick it out in the marriage. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Political Crap OT
On 23 Apr 2008 14:23:01 -0500, "Dave" wrote:
X-No-Archive: yes "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message .. . 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 |
Political Crap OT
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Doug, as one who was there I'll offer some additional information regarding this subject. Frank, I appreciate & respect your views. I am old enough to remember the "temper of the times" pretty well. The newscasts are still vivid in my mind, in fact! Some stuff like the moonwalks, LBJ's signature 'Mah fellow Ah-murricans...' the footage of B-52 raids, and the growing consensus that the war in Vietnam wasn't really worth it. 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. A good choice IMHO. Not sure what I would have done myself, my family has a strong tradition of military service and I was not a great student. With a spiralling recession & talk of reviving the draft, I enlisted in the Navy in 1978. 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. Well, all his records have been lost, so nobody really knows, do they? The funny thing is that most vets I know have copies of many of their important military records, like evals and of course the DD-214. That a prominent person like George Bush Jr. had his records "lost" and none have ever surfaced really smells funny to me. Clinton, OTOH just dodged the draft. No more so than anybody else on a student deferment. ... Used influence to temporarily avoid serving I've never understood this. What influence did he have? He was a great student but he was a nobody from a broken home and a poor family. ..so he could go to England on a Rhodes scholarship with a promise he would serve on return. He broke that promise. Possibly so. It wouldn't be the first, most likely, and it wouldn't be the last. However, since bashing the Clintons has become the nation's largest industry, and much of the bashing is utter fabrication to my certain knowledge, I am rather reluctant to condemn Clinton for many of the things that are flung at him, like this "draft dodger" stuff. There are plenty of things that we definitely know he did that we can condemn him for. 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. How about the conscientious objectors who went to Vietnam and followed their units around unarmed? That takes real guts IMHO. DSK |
Political Crap OT
|
Political Crap OT
I've never understood this. What influence did he have? He was a great
student but he was a nobody from a broken home and a poor family. Frank Boettcher wrote: It is my understanding that he had an obligation based on an ROTC scholarship and an individual holding a General rank in the Arkansas guard intervened on his behalf to postpone his service until he completed his Rhodes tour based on his promise to serve at the conclusion of same. This is from memory, not from the time but later on. Well, sure... at the time, who had ever heard of Bill Clinton? It sounds more plausible than other stuff I've heard him accused of. It's possible that he offered to serve on return and as you said earlier, they were de-mobilizing and didn't want him. It would be more in character for him to have conveniently "forgotten," though. You are welcome to research and prove me wrong, it won't be the first time. As you may have guessed, the Clintons are not my favorite people. But there is certainly a large industrial base of Clinton bashing (so much that it's being outsourced these days) and a lot of it is pure hokum. I have no idea where to research anything like this anyway.... probably could find many sources both verifying & disproving it. My favorite Clintonism is when he declared that he "knew more about farming than any previous U.S. President." I mean, c'mon Bill, most of the Founding Fathers *were* farmers themselves! And falling asleep during Reagan's funeral was a classy move too. DSK |
Political Crap OT
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 06:25:12 -0400, wrote this crap:
They are stored at Dick Cheney's "undisclosed location, along with police reports of Dubya's drunk driving and wife beating incidents. Do you think you'll ever see Hillary's DD-214, or Bam-Bam's? They're probably with the records from the Rose Law Firm. I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. |
Political Crap OT
They are stored at Dick Cheney's "undisclosed location, along with police
reports of Dubya's drunk driving and wife beating incidents. Wife-beating? You're kidding, right? Laura would mop the floor with W. The Bush women have all the backbone in that family. Bloody Horvath wrote: Do you think you'll ever see Hillary's DD-214, or Bam-Bam's? They're probably with the records from the Rose Law Firm. They found those. Still looking for Nixon's tapes though. DSK |
Political Crap OT
Wife-beating? You're kidding, right?
wrote: Nope. That was why he "suddenly" got religion and stopped drinking. He was given an ultimatum. On what planet does this translate to "wife-beating"? President Bush is in quite good physical condition for his age. Nonetheless, observing the two of them shows strong evidence (as does the giving of ultimatums) the First Lady could (and would) kick his behind. DSK |
Political Crap OT
"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 |
Political Crap OT
wrote in message
... They found those. Still looking for Nixon's tapes though. DSK When Nixon died we observed 18-1/2 minutes of silence. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Political Crap OT
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:01:11 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: Neither did Bush. Jon, This is a technique of yours called pointing to bad behavior to justify other bad behavior. It's getting a bit old. Ever hear of Johnny one-note? You seem to think that it's reasonable to point out the bad behavior of someone out of office, while ignoring the bad behavior of someone in office. This is getting a bit old. Ever hear of not facing reality? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Political Crap OT
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:28:50 -0400, said: You seem to be trying to justify your own bad behavior by pointing at Jon's. You do the same thing he did on a regular basis, Dave. Examples, please. I'd say the last time you posted, but I would be accused of the same thing you did. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Political Crap OT
On 24 Apr 2008 13:45:02 -0500, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:28:50 -0400, said: You seem to be trying to justify your own bad behavior by pointing at Jon's. You do the same thing he did on a regular basis, Dave. Examples, please. The " Reality Distortion Machine", once started, must obfuscate with an absence of rationality, and insult with innuendo, ad infinitum. You're wasting your time. Frank |
Political Crap OT
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:49:35 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: I'd say the last time you posted, but I would be accused of the same thing you did. And you would of course be wrong. In that case, the last time you posted. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Political Crap OT
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
... On 24 Apr 2008 13:45:02 -0500, Dave wrote: On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:28:50 -0400, said: You seem to be trying to justify your own bad behavior by pointing at Jon's. You do the same thing he did on a regular basis, Dave. Examples, please. The " Reality Distortion Machine", once started, must obfuscate with an absence of rationality, and insult with innuendo, ad infinitum. You're wasting your time. Frank As are you, yet you both persist in your fantasy land of Bush being good for America. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Political Crap OT
Vito wrote:
wrote While there are certainly many women who have done brave things to save others, I am unaware of any women who have thrown themselves on grenades. When I was last in the hospital my nurse had just returned from Iraq. She said one of the females she treated had done so. I have no reason to doubt her. YMMV She treated her? Must have been one of those new mini grenades, as a rule, lying on top of an exploding grenade results in death. Cheers Marty |
Political Crap OT
Kevlar helmet and ceramic body armor it's possible.
"Marty" wrote in message ... Vito wrote: wrote While there are certainly many women who have done brave things to save others, I am unaware of any women who have thrown themselves on grenades. When I was last in the hospital my nurse had just returned from Iraq. She said one of the females she treated had done so. I have no reason to doubt her. YMMV She treated her? Must have been one of those new mini grenades, as a rule, lying on top of an exploding grenade results in death. Cheers Marty |
Political Crap OT
Vito wrote:
"Marty" wrote She treated her? Those were my words, not hers. You needn't grasp straws - just refuse to believe that a female would do that. Ah, so you just made it up.. |
Political Crap OT
Nope. That was why he "suddenly" got religion and stopped drinking. He
was given an ultimatum. On what planet does this translate to "wife-beating"? wrote: This one. It's not a translation of anything. It's what happened. Sorry, wrong again. "Wife-beating" is pretty self-explanatory, and it is a very different thing from a husband being "given an ultimatum." In fact the two are almost diametrical opposites. Either your language or your logic skills need some brushing up. DSK |
Political Crap OT
She treated her?
"Vito" wrote: Those were my words, not hers. You needn't grasp straws - just refuse to believe that a female would do that. Well, for my own part, it's not that I'm refusing to believe a female would carry out a brave & noble act of self-sacrifice on the battlefield. In fact, I'd find it easy to believe. However, the most recent conflicts have generally not had much in the way of grenades to throw oneself on. It's impossible to throw oneself on an IED. Another point to bear in mind that such acts are generally given some big attention by the big brass... quite a few Medal of Honor winners... in fact take a look at. http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/iraq.html DSK |
Political Crap OT
wrote:
She treated her? "Vito" wrote: Those were my words, not hers. You needn't grasp straws - just refuse to believe that a female would do that. Well, for my own part, it's not that I'm refusing to believe a female would carry out a brave & noble act of self-sacrifice on the battlefield. In fact, I'd find it easy to believe. However, the most recent conflicts have generally not had much in the way of grenades to throw oneself on. It's impossible to throw oneself on an IED. Another point to bear in mind that such acts are generally given some big attention by the big brass... quite a few Medal of Honor winners... in fact take a look at. http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/iraq.html DSK Interesting, two out of three people throwing themselves on grenades, 100% mortality... Cheers Marty |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com