Panther, I didn't say there were "rampant" war crimes in Vietnam, or anything about the chain of command, or that every vet was involved. What I said was "didn't they?" The actual thrust of my comment is that the charge against Kerry that he drove antiamerican sentiment in our foes should acknowledge the fact that Bush IS doing the same with the islamofascists right now. The only part of the comment dealing with Vietnam was two words indicating that I believed more than one war crime took place in Vietnam, a statement I will back up with some cites if you insist.
"Sounds like you've done a damn good job of describing Al Queda..."
Yep, I suppose--but I don't see how meeting their insanity with our own is going to help the problem!!!!!
I've never said a word publicly or privately about CBS's documents. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume Kerry fluffed up his injuries to escape Vietnam. I might have done the same. Anyway, quote some of my outlandish statements on SBVT and I'll explain them, but (as Rather pointed out in an insufficient defense) no one's refuted the charges against Bush, just the status of the documents they found. And for someone who really just took some flying lessons on the taxpayer's dime instead of facing combat, I find it offensive that he used more taxpayer $ to paint himself as a vet.
"But, you've said before that you don't think us lowly common folk should be able to "self medicate" because we aren't trained physicians and will screw it all up. Pfffffft."
Where's the quote? I wager it was about antibiotics, which even doctors can't use appropriately, and as a result, we have an antibiotic resistance nightmare. Things are worse in Spain where people self prescribe these drugs. Personally I think docs who can't use them appropriately shouldn't be able to give them either.
"How is Bush doing this more than those in another party who have it out for me, a white male?"
Bill, I'm a white male too, as it turns out. And I gotta say that I feel a lot less threatened by the democrat's attempts (to ____? Most of them are white guys themselves!) than by the republicans. I've yet to face a constitutional amendment to limit my personal freedoms on the basis of being white. When that happens, I'll be right there with you worrying about the Dems along with the Republicans.
As for the Patriot Act, I don't think the fact that something's been done before is a useful argument. I was actually refering to the FMA, which is an unprecedentedly mean spirited effort to divide America and make Bush's base worry about some of their fellow Americans, for no reason, instead of focus on their real problems, all so he can retain power.
"What makes you think he didn't consider alternative strategies?"
Personal accounts from people who watched decisions being made and were horrified at the sudden change from reasoned discussion and consideration of alternatives to the Bush team's mode of just going with what this guy already thought. Clinton was a sleaze, but one who brought professors into the white house several times a week on a variety of topics so he could be a better president. Bush gets all his news from rumsfeld and cheney and is proud he won't read newspapers.
"Is this a rigid, stupid man, or a decisive leader?"
Both, evidently. I've never claimed Bush was a waffler.
"Let's make you president on September 12, 2001"
Makes as much sense as giving Bush a stethoscope and asking him to fix heart attacks. I wouldn't want him to have too much access to controlled substances tho. As far as the economy goes, this is wartime, but then some would say it shouldn't have been, or that he shouldn't have given tax breaks and increased spending at the same time, etc etc. I'm not an economist and will lose such an argument with anyone who pays a lot of attention to this issue. Yet, I'm too smart to suggest flying to Mars while we're busy racking up the biggest debt in the history of the nation. There's a Salon piece available now on a conservative accounting of Bsh's economics, for interested parties.
"And just what idiot let all these conditions fester in Afghanistan before they finally ended up in the attacks on 9/11?"
Long discussion. Perhaps for another thread. I don't think we can blame Clinton and praise Bush for all disasters and victories during Bush's term, let's leave it at that.
So in sum, you've convinced me, Bill--Bush has the public relations skills and diplomacy of a moron, but, he's get some well thought out and disturbing policies in other fronts.
Beyond the bounce
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Hmm...
It could be fun to go point by point, Ian. But it misses the big picture. Your last statement says it all. Bush's enemies are schizophrenic in their view of this anti-Christ. Either he's a moron or an evil genius.
People and presidents make mistakes. Study American history in detail, and you'll realize that our greatest American heroes made mistakes. In fact their very human nature makes it all the more interesting when/if they triumph.
Abu Ghraib was a major clusterfuk. But I stand by my statement, Ian. I don't know what this obsession is with apologies - particularly before all the details were in. No, the president did NOT have all the facts when the New York Times was pushing for a Pulitzer on the backs of our American servicemen. (Think about how many Iraqi civilians and American servicemen lives have been lost through terrorism by fanning those flames. Food for thought...) No, this never should have happened. But...TALK IS CHEAP. Punish those responsible via a process that Iraqis can look up to and eventually emulate. Then make sure it never happens again.
No, Bush didn't get an "A" for that problem on the big test. But he's following through where it counts.
Think about how many years the military went without adequate pay, training, and support, Ian. You're going to put that on the back of a president who inherits that problem? It's a bit unfair. The prison scandal was all about people running something that they had no training to do. Where would we have gotten such people? You can't prepare for every contingency . It does no good to train for yesterday's great war, because our enemies are always changing the game to get an advantage.
I stand by my comment about allowing - and encouraging - those facing life-threatening situations to make peace with their maker. It's smart. It's evidence-based. There's a big difference between doing that and killing in the name of a god, or killing to convert. No thank you, and let me show you my hairy cheeks...
As for being gay and the family marriage act, well you're making this a bit simplistic, Ian. I agree that you have a right to feel pissed. I stand by you here. However understand that Bush - like all politicians - does things to appease his base. This is appeasement at best. There is no way in hell we are going to see this constitutional ammendment go through, just like there was no way in hell that the ERA was going to make it through. Both were initiated to appease a political base rather than done expecting to achieve an end. Showing that the public spoke and they said "No!" says it all.
As I have said before, forget about what they say - look at what they do and accomplish.
I could never support Bush the Republican with Republican platform any more than I could have supported Clinton the Democrat with the Democratic platform. Neither platform addresses my needs, and neither platform - in total - is IMO something that is good for the country. But if we can throw health care to Hillary and have her and the Socialists fail to create a single payer government system at the end of the day, well I can live with that. Same with the FMA.
Meanwhile... Check out Cheney openly disagreeing with the president, and standing by his daughter. It should be settled by the states, he says. I can live with that.
Furthermore... Please show me where in the Constitution it mentions anything about being gay. I'm not sure Jefferson and company really thought about it. I believe he and others were smart enough not to get overly specific with the document, and let the societies of the time interpret the document the way it best suited their needs. Just my opinion... Remember - women didn't have the right to vote when they first put it all together.
Be patient, my friend. I understand your frustration.
By the way, I HAVE encountered discrimination against white males in the work place. Not against me, mind you. My philosophy has always been to be good enough that they can't eliminate you at the margins. So far so good... But as a manager, I've had personnel come back to me and say "Wrong answer!" after selecting a candidate from a pool. Why? Because they knew one person would sue for discrimination, regardless of evidence to the contrary. And this after I had more minorities, women, and gays/lesbians than most do. I kid you not. So I had to re-interview everyone, and tape the whole thing. CYA business. It *****... But I got the best qualified candidate at the end of the day, in spite of the pressures that HR had to put on me.
This is why I shrug when I see folks point the bigot finger at Republicans. I see prejudice and bigotry everywhere. It's an equal opportunity disease.
Quick comment.... You have heard the opinions of people who have worked for Bush. That's all they are - opinions. Whenever your leader (or boss) does something that you disagree with, it's often easy to assume that they are stupid and only you have command of the world as it should be. Been there, done that. It's not a very emotionally mature mindset.
You and I could go on and on about the economy. Please, just accept the fact that this is a matter of policy and preference, and NOT a matter of IQ. Hell, I get mad when I hear socialists advocate screwing those in the upper 2 percent of income. (Edwards preached this at the RNC. Check out his speech). In the evolution of our Democracy/Republic, this was often referred to as tyrrany of the majority. It's the reason why we have a House and a Senate, and why members of Congress are chosen the way they are (by population in one half, and by state in another). It's also the philosophy behind the balance of powers in government.
Many great economists whom I'm sure you and other liberals disagree with have repeatedly shown the wisdom of lowering taxes on the wealthy and business. In fact John Kennedy did it, and fueled one of the greatest economic rallies in our country's history. My father voted for him, and set himself up for life in the stock market in the 1960s. It's a good thing - he had eight kids to feed.
Check out the economic powerhouses in our world. How are the socialist governments doing? How are the free market economies with low taxation doing? And where in the world does the Average Joe (and Mary) have the highest standard of living? (Personally I could give a rat's tushie about those who don't want to work)
And remember, Bush had to pull this country out of a nasty recession that started at the end of the Clinton administration. Lowering taxes and interest rates are two standard policies used to awaken a floundering economy.
And finally....
You aren't going to get any sympathy out of me - an R&D scientist - complaining about a trip to Mars. Kennedy's quest to go to the moon is one big reason why we have computers to argue economic policy on the Internet today. It's a big reason why we lead the world in technology, and have the most powerful military in the world. Start another thread, and we can debate the pros and cons of this dream.
- Bill
It could be fun to go point by point, Ian. But it misses the big picture. Your last statement says it all. Bush's enemies are schizophrenic in their view of this anti-Christ. Either he's a moron or an evil genius.
People and presidents make mistakes. Study American history in detail, and you'll realize that our greatest American heroes made mistakes. In fact their very human nature makes it all the more interesting when/if they triumph.
Abu Ghraib was a major clusterfuk. But I stand by my statement, Ian. I don't know what this obsession is with apologies - particularly before all the details were in. No, the president did NOT have all the facts when the New York Times was pushing for a Pulitzer on the backs of our American servicemen. (Think about how many Iraqi civilians and American servicemen lives have been lost through terrorism by fanning those flames. Food for thought...) No, this never should have happened. But...TALK IS CHEAP. Punish those responsible via a process that Iraqis can look up to and eventually emulate. Then make sure it never happens again.
No, Bush didn't get an "A" for that problem on the big test. But he's following through where it counts.
Think about how many years the military went without adequate pay, training, and support, Ian. You're going to put that on the back of a president who inherits that problem? It's a bit unfair. The prison scandal was all about people running something that they had no training to do. Where would we have gotten such people? You can't prepare for every contingency . It does no good to train for yesterday's great war, because our enemies are always changing the game to get an advantage.
I stand by my comment about allowing - and encouraging - those facing life-threatening situations to make peace with their maker. It's smart. It's evidence-based. There's a big difference between doing that and killing in the name of a god, or killing to convert. No thank you, and let me show you my hairy cheeks...
As for being gay and the family marriage act, well you're making this a bit simplistic, Ian. I agree that you have a right to feel pissed. I stand by you here. However understand that Bush - like all politicians - does things to appease his base. This is appeasement at best. There is no way in hell we are going to see this constitutional ammendment go through, just like there was no way in hell that the ERA was going to make it through. Both were initiated to appease a political base rather than done expecting to achieve an end. Showing that the public spoke and they said "No!" says it all.
As I have said before, forget about what they say - look at what they do and accomplish.
I could never support Bush the Republican with Republican platform any more than I could have supported Clinton the Democrat with the Democratic platform. Neither platform addresses my needs, and neither platform - in total - is IMO something that is good for the country. But if we can throw health care to Hillary and have her and the Socialists fail to create a single payer government system at the end of the day, well I can live with that. Same with the FMA.
Meanwhile... Check out Cheney openly disagreeing with the president, and standing by his daughter. It should be settled by the states, he says. I can live with that.
Furthermore... Please show me where in the Constitution it mentions anything about being gay. I'm not sure Jefferson and company really thought about it. I believe he and others were smart enough not to get overly specific with the document, and let the societies of the time interpret the document the way it best suited their needs. Just my opinion... Remember - women didn't have the right to vote when they first put it all together.
Be patient, my friend. I understand your frustration.
By the way, I HAVE encountered discrimination against white males in the work place. Not against me, mind you. My philosophy has always been to be good enough that they can't eliminate you at the margins. So far so good... But as a manager, I've had personnel come back to me and say "Wrong answer!" after selecting a candidate from a pool. Why? Because they knew one person would sue for discrimination, regardless of evidence to the contrary. And this after I had more minorities, women, and gays/lesbians than most do. I kid you not. So I had to re-interview everyone, and tape the whole thing. CYA business. It *****... But I got the best qualified candidate at the end of the day, in spite of the pressures that HR had to put on me.
This is why I shrug when I see folks point the bigot finger at Republicans. I see prejudice and bigotry everywhere. It's an equal opportunity disease.
Quick comment.... You have heard the opinions of people who have worked for Bush. That's all they are - opinions. Whenever your leader (or boss) does something that you disagree with, it's often easy to assume that they are stupid and only you have command of the world as it should be. Been there, done that. It's not a very emotionally mature mindset.
You and I could go on and on about the economy. Please, just accept the fact that this is a matter of policy and preference, and NOT a matter of IQ. Hell, I get mad when I hear socialists advocate screwing those in the upper 2 percent of income. (Edwards preached this at the RNC. Check out his speech). In the evolution of our Democracy/Republic, this was often referred to as tyrrany of the majority. It's the reason why we have a House and a Senate, and why members of Congress are chosen the way they are (by population in one half, and by state in another). It's also the philosophy behind the balance of powers in government.
Many great economists whom I'm sure you and other liberals disagree with have repeatedly shown the wisdom of lowering taxes on the wealthy and business. In fact John Kennedy did it, and fueled one of the greatest economic rallies in our country's history. My father voted for him, and set himself up for life in the stock market in the 1960s. It's a good thing - he had eight kids to feed.
Check out the economic powerhouses in our world. How are the socialist governments doing? How are the free market economies with low taxation doing? And where in the world does the Average Joe (and Mary) have the highest standard of living? (Personally I could give a rat's tushie about those who don't want to work)
And remember, Bush had to pull this country out of a nasty recession that started at the end of the Clinton administration. Lowering taxes and interest rates are two standard policies used to awaken a floundering economy.
And finally....
You aren't going to get any sympathy out of me - an R&D scientist - complaining about a trip to Mars. Kennedy's quest to go to the moon is one big reason why we have computers to argue economic policy on the Internet today. It's a big reason why we lead the world in technology, and have the most powerful military in the world. Start another thread, and we can debate the pros and cons of this dream.
- Bill
Last edited by Bill Glasheen on Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:39 pm, edited 5 times in total.
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
Here you go Justin... this is an article written by the overall commander of swift boats, Roy hoffman - a retired Navy Rear Admiral, while Kerry was in Vietnam:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Sa ... 5855934999
The intro:
"The Grand Deception:
'Kerry, War Hero,' Is a Myth
ROY F. HOFFMANN
GUEST COLUMNIST Sep 19, 2004
The widely repeated myth of "John Kerry, the Vietnam Navy Hero" is one of the most dishonorable and dangerous deceptions ever perpetrated upon the American public.
John Kerry is not a hero. He built this facade with unabashed personal promotion, aided and abetted by a supportive liberal media ready and willing to repeat in print his gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, and outright lies about his abbreviated four-month, 12-day tour of duty in Vietnam."
More:
"Kerry's meeting with Madame Binh representing the Viet Cong and with other members of the Vietnamese Communist delegations to the Paris Peace Conference in 1970, while he was yet a Naval Reserve officer, constitute meeting with the enemy during time of war. His subsequent press conference in July, 1971, urging President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's proposal for the return of our POWs , was a major propaganda victory for the Communist regime. His illegal and traitorous activities with the VVAW and the ilk of Jane Fonda unquestionably had a seriously demoralizing impact on our POWs and probably extended their imprisonment by at least two years."
(emphasis added by me)
The conclusion:
"Kerry is not a hero. He betrayed his comrades-in-arms in time of war. He is a chronic liar and a fraud. This is not about politics; it's about truthfulness, reliability, loyalty, and trust - all absolute tenets of command. John Forbes Kerry is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America."
Justin: Are you going to refute another Navy Rear Admiral?
Rich
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Sa ... 5855934999
The intro:
"The Grand Deception:
'Kerry, War Hero,' Is a Myth
ROY F. HOFFMANN
GUEST COLUMNIST Sep 19, 2004
The widely repeated myth of "John Kerry, the Vietnam Navy Hero" is one of the most dishonorable and dangerous deceptions ever perpetrated upon the American public.
John Kerry is not a hero. He built this facade with unabashed personal promotion, aided and abetted by a supportive liberal media ready and willing to repeat in print his gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, and outright lies about his abbreviated four-month, 12-day tour of duty in Vietnam."
More:
"Kerry's meeting with Madame Binh representing the Viet Cong and with other members of the Vietnamese Communist delegations to the Paris Peace Conference in 1970, while he was yet a Naval Reserve officer, constitute meeting with the enemy during time of war. His subsequent press conference in July, 1971, urging President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's proposal for the return of our POWs , was a major propaganda victory for the Communist regime. His illegal and traitorous activities with the VVAW and the ilk of Jane Fonda unquestionably had a seriously demoralizing impact on our POWs and probably extended their imprisonment by at least two years."
(emphasis added by me)
The conclusion:
"Kerry is not a hero. He betrayed his comrades-in-arms in time of war. He is a chronic liar and a fraud. This is not about politics; it's about truthfulness, reliability, loyalty, and trust - all absolute tenets of command. John Forbes Kerry is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America."
Justin: Are you going to refute another Navy Rear Admiral?
Rich
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
I will...and so will the US Navy:Justin: Are you going to refute another Navy Rear Admiral?
Navy: Kerry medals approved properly
Gene
"No, Bush didn't get an "A" for that problem on the big test. But he's following through where it counts."
Coinky dink: http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story. ... 0910WHT42D
Republicans Criticize Bush 'Mistakes' on Iraq
By Randall Mikkelsen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading members of President Bush's Republican Party on Sunday criticized mistakes and "incompetence" in his Iraq policy and called for an urgent ground offensive to retake insurgent sanctuaries.
========
Bill, the obsession with apologies is in part because not doing it brought another round of bad press in Iraq. How classy would it have been to say that as commander in chief, he's responsible for what happens in his military even if he was unaware of it, and that he apologizes for misconduct that took place, and will investigate and find out what happened and why and fix it?
"The widely repeated myth of "John Kerry, the Vietnam Navy Hero" is one of the most dishonorable and dangerous deceptions ever perpetrated upon the American public."
The story of Bush, war anything, must be one of the others.
"Well you're making this a bit simplistic, Ian." It isn't that complicated. Bush is either an a$$hole himself or he's selling out a segment of the country he's supposed to protect to a$$holes to retain power. Does he have to do that? No, of course not. If he wanted he could just be honest about what he feels and knows: "Hey, evangelical base, I know those gay people make you nervous and queasy, as do they me. But our government isn't supposed to deprive a group of their civil rights because others don't like them without some damned good reason, and we've got nothing, zilch, nada, doughnuts in that regard. So let's hate em and not use the Constitution as a tool of discrimination. Thanks, and God bless America."
Perhaps you're not aware, but political attacks aren't just words. I mean, words hurt people, but they also translate into other actions. Let's consider the case of Ballot Measure 9, a proposed anti-gay law in he midwest. As it was debated, vandalism and violent attacks against gay people rose substantially. This is well documented in the movie of the same name. Politicians raising challenges to civil rights also egged on bigots in the south and cost black lives there. And it's also important to Bush's fundie base that no public monies go toward realistic (that is, acknowledging the existance of gay people or that fact that "abstinence until marriage" is laughable to the straight kids and meaningless to the gay kids. This means anti-HIV efforts are being deliberately disrailed, and that is costing us lives and money too. Bush may or may not think that selling out US citizens is harmless political rhetoric, but he's dead wrong.
"Please show me where in the Constitution it mentions anything about being gay."
I don't get it. The concept didn't exist then. Relevance to current debate?
"Quick comment.... You have heard the opinions of people who have worked for Bush. That's all they are - opinions." Yup, true. Since that's all we'll ever have, should we throw in the towel and forever cease to care about a President's decision making style??
Bill, trip to Mars, probably good. Trip to Mars at a completely wrong time based on ongoing war and debt concerns, bad, dumb.
FYI, Bush doesn't have to be a "genius" to do the evil I've accused him of. Presidents have a lot of influence.
Coinky dink: http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story. ... 0910WHT42D
Republicans Criticize Bush 'Mistakes' on Iraq
By Randall Mikkelsen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading members of President Bush's Republican Party on Sunday criticized mistakes and "incompetence" in his Iraq policy and called for an urgent ground offensive to retake insurgent sanctuaries.
========
Bill, the obsession with apologies is in part because not doing it brought another round of bad press in Iraq. How classy would it have been to say that as commander in chief, he's responsible for what happens in his military even if he was unaware of it, and that he apologizes for misconduct that took place, and will investigate and find out what happened and why and fix it?
"The widely repeated myth of "John Kerry, the Vietnam Navy Hero" is one of the most dishonorable and dangerous deceptions ever perpetrated upon the American public."
The story of Bush, war anything, must be one of the others.
"Well you're making this a bit simplistic, Ian." It isn't that complicated. Bush is either an a$$hole himself or he's selling out a segment of the country he's supposed to protect to a$$holes to retain power. Does he have to do that? No, of course not. If he wanted he could just be honest about what he feels and knows: "Hey, evangelical base, I know those gay people make you nervous and queasy, as do they me. But our government isn't supposed to deprive a group of their civil rights because others don't like them without some damned good reason, and we've got nothing, zilch, nada, doughnuts in that regard. So let's hate em and not use the Constitution as a tool of discrimination. Thanks, and God bless America."
Perhaps you're not aware, but political attacks aren't just words. I mean, words hurt people, but they also translate into other actions. Let's consider the case of Ballot Measure 9, a proposed anti-gay law in he midwest. As it was debated, vandalism and violent attacks against gay people rose substantially. This is well documented in the movie of the same name. Politicians raising challenges to civil rights also egged on bigots in the south and cost black lives there. And it's also important to Bush's fundie base that no public monies go toward realistic (that is, acknowledging the existance of gay people or that fact that "abstinence until marriage" is laughable to the straight kids and meaningless to the gay kids. This means anti-HIV efforts are being deliberately disrailed, and that is costing us lives and money too. Bush may or may not think that selling out US citizens is harmless political rhetoric, but he's dead wrong.
"Please show me where in the Constitution it mentions anything about being gay."
I don't get it. The concept didn't exist then. Relevance to current debate?
"Quick comment.... You have heard the opinions of people who have worked for Bush. That's all they are - opinions." Yup, true. Since that's all we'll ever have, should we throw in the towel and forever cease to care about a President's decision making style??
Bill, trip to Mars, probably good. Trip to Mars at a completely wrong time based on ongoing war and debt concerns, bad, dumb.
FYI, Bush doesn't have to be a "genius" to do the evil I've accused him of. Presidents have a lot of influence.
--Ian
Here's another thought regarding your encounter with reverse racism in hiring. While I don't support reverse racism, I can't recall it being used as a fear-provoking political tool quite like racism was (say, with Willie Horton). And the most powerful political party in the nation isn't currently driving for a Constitutional Amendment that would force the states to keep whites unemployed. The target group for one is a minority composed of people from all classes, and the target group for the other is the most powerful voting block in the country. I don't think the threats even bear comparison.
As another piece of perspective, I doubt that anyone would write this forum and have the chutzpah to propose that it's ok for the President of the United States to foster racism for political gain and attempt to amend the Constitution to strip rights from black people just to satisfy some racists who were likely to vote for him. I doubt anyone would even write in to say it would have been ok in the 60s. Heck, I doubt they would write in to say that it would have been ok to keep blacks out of the service because racists might not accept them and this would have affected unit cohesion, or even that mixed race blacks should have to keep their black ancestry a secret or get kicked out.
"Oh, that's ok. He wants to stay President, so he has to pander to the racists. It probably won't pass or have other lasting repercussions. No big deal."
I don't think so.
As another piece of perspective, I doubt that anyone would write this forum and have the chutzpah to propose that it's ok for the President of the United States to foster racism for political gain and attempt to amend the Constitution to strip rights from black people just to satisfy some racists who were likely to vote for him. I doubt anyone would even write in to say it would have been ok in the 60s. Heck, I doubt they would write in to say that it would have been ok to keep blacks out of the service because racists might not accept them and this would have affected unit cohesion, or even that mixed race blacks should have to keep their black ancestry a secret or get kicked out.
"Oh, that's ok. He wants to stay President, so he has to pander to the racists. It probably won't pass or have other lasting repercussions. No big deal."
I don't think so.
--Ian
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
Hello Ian.
You said: "As another piece of perspective, I doubt that anyone would write this forum and have the chutzpah to propose that it's ok for the President of the United States to foster racism for political gain and attempt to amend the Constitution to strip rights from black people just to satisfy some racists who were likely to vote for him."
Back in the 50s then democrat senator Strom Thurmond actually made a run for the presidential nomination on a platfom very similar to that. Scary huh?
Gene: I did know about the Navy report. It does perplex me but I will look into it. The armed services are sworn to stay out of politcs and may have done that to stop the discussion and stay out of the fray. None of the bashing going on is serving any good purpose. Kerry would be wise to just drop the Vietnam era issues and get back to an issue. I suspect the GOP would follow suit.
Kerry opened the door and keeps it open. I have heard that in his discussions with Clinton that Clinton advised him to not press the service issue. It is similar to the CBS problem right now with the questionable documents. It is all really a red herring.
I might see some of the SBVT on Tuesday. If I do I may get more of their version of things without the media filters.
Rich
You said: "As another piece of perspective, I doubt that anyone would write this forum and have the chutzpah to propose that it's ok for the President of the United States to foster racism for political gain and attempt to amend the Constitution to strip rights from black people just to satisfy some racists who were likely to vote for him."
Back in the 50s then democrat senator Strom Thurmond actually made a run for the presidential nomination on a platfom very similar to that. Scary huh?
Gene: I did know about the Navy report. It does perplex me but I will look into it. The armed services are sworn to stay out of politcs and may have done that to stop the discussion and stay out of the fray. None of the bashing going on is serving any good purpose. Kerry would be wise to just drop the Vietnam era issues and get back to an issue. I suspect the GOP would follow suit.
Kerry opened the door and keeps it open. I have heard that in his discussions with Clinton that Clinton advised him to not press the service issue. It is similar to the CBS problem right now with the questionable documents. It is all really a red herring.
I might see some of the SBVT on Tuesday. If I do I may get more of their version of things without the media filters.
Rich
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
RANT=ON
For the life of me, Ian, I don't know where you're getting all this racist stuff. You know what it reminds me of? Did you see the presidential debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan? Jimmy starts spouting off about Ronnie being a racist. THE most famous and memorable line was a simple quip.
You see, that's why I disown both parties. It's this kind of crap that makes me sick of it all. Disown the platform of both parties - neither of which represent me - and I don't have to get the strawman labels put on me.
Still, it does get me a bit irked when I see it. It's one reason why both my wife and I wanted to leave Richmond when I got here. In 1992, the blacks and the decendants of confederate veterans were up in arms about whether or not the statue of a stupid tennis player was going to go up on Monument Avenue along with all the Confederate heroes. And you know what I think?
WHO F-ING CARES!!!!
The city is crumbling (literally - city hall building is falling apart), the wealth is fleeing to the suburbs, Medical College of Virginia faculty fled to the Columbia HCA hospital in the county, the banks all moved to Charlotte, the city had close to the highest per capita murder rate in the country, and they're fighting over a stupid statue?
Apparently the city - now 57% black - wants to forget its Confederate heritage, and the Sons of Confederate Veterans want to protect it. Oh boy, oh boy...
My solution? Burn the city down. The best thing that's happened in the past decade is that we've had an influx of industrious Mexicans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Indians. Some were brought in by Capital One, and they color my neighborhood. Others work the restaurants, the lawn services, and the janitorial services. It's the best thing that's happened to the city.
And to the rest of them? I say...
SHUT-UP!!!!
And they are. No more polarized city. No more provincial battles. Now we have ourselves a real population, and there are no more favored races or oppressed citizens. Spend too much time bitching about things, and your job will be taken from you. As it should...
RANT=OFF.
There, I feel better now.
As for the Iraq comments, I saw them. I fail to see what's new here. We all know what went right and what went wrong so far.
Remember when everyone was wringing their hands about Bush turning power over to the interim government too soon? Can't be done, they say. Baloney. He did it a week early. Fooled all the insurgents, who wanted to sour the day with some suicide bombings.
Sistani is the one big Shia ally that Bush has. His requests are simple - hold elections without delay, and let us run our country.
It's Cavalier - and stupid - to suggest that more razing of neighborhoods is going to make it all better. Only way that'll happen is to get the press out of Iraq. But that isn't going to happen.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Too many troops being too brutal, or too few troops and we're getting our butts kicked. To few men fighting, and too many getting killed. We don't have enough power to control Fallujah, and we're looking like bullies on the Arab Street. Which is it?
I'm not impressed with the Monday morning quarterbacks.
- Bill
For the life of me, Ian, I don't know where you're getting all this racist stuff. You know what it reminds me of? Did you see the presidential debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan? Jimmy starts spouting off about Ronnie being a racist. THE most famous and memorable line was a simple quip.
Good God, fellow, since when do the Democrats own all minority races and Republicans only white males? How ridiculous does that sound?There you go again...
You see, that's why I disown both parties. It's this kind of crap that makes me sick of it all. Disown the platform of both parties - neither of which represent me - and I don't have to get the strawman labels put on me.
Still, it does get me a bit irked when I see it. It's one reason why both my wife and I wanted to leave Richmond when I got here. In 1992, the blacks and the decendants of confederate veterans were up in arms about whether or not the statue of a stupid tennis player was going to go up on Monument Avenue along with all the Confederate heroes. And you know what I think?
WHO F-ING CARES!!!!
The city is crumbling (literally - city hall building is falling apart), the wealth is fleeing to the suburbs, Medical College of Virginia faculty fled to the Columbia HCA hospital in the county, the banks all moved to Charlotte, the city had close to the highest per capita murder rate in the country, and they're fighting over a stupid statue?
Apparently the city - now 57% black - wants to forget its Confederate heritage, and the Sons of Confederate Veterans want to protect it. Oh boy, oh boy...
My solution? Burn the city down. The best thing that's happened in the past decade is that we've had an influx of industrious Mexicans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Indians. Some were brought in by Capital One, and they color my neighborhood. Others work the restaurants, the lawn services, and the janitorial services. It's the best thing that's happened to the city.
And to the rest of them? I say...
SHUT-UP!!!!
And they are. No more polarized city. No more provincial battles. Now we have ourselves a real population, and there are no more favored races or oppressed citizens. Spend too much time bitching about things, and your job will be taken from you. As it should...
RANT=OFF.
There, I feel better now.
As for the Iraq comments, I saw them. I fail to see what's new here. We all know what went right and what went wrong so far.
Remember when everyone was wringing their hands about Bush turning power over to the interim government too soon? Can't be done, they say. Baloney. He did it a week early. Fooled all the insurgents, who wanted to sour the day with some suicide bombings.
Sistani is the one big Shia ally that Bush has. His requests are simple - hold elections without delay, and let us run our country.
It's Cavalier - and stupid - to suggest that more razing of neighborhoods is going to make it all better. Only way that'll happen is to get the press out of Iraq. But that isn't going to happen.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Too many troops being too brutal, or too few troops and we're getting our butts kicked. To few men fighting, and too many getting killed. We don't have enough power to control Fallujah, and we're looking like bullies on the Arab Street. Which is it?
I'm not impressed with the Monday morning quarterbacks.
- Bill
Tangent/ explanation:
Bill, you don't see where the racism stuff (which we both have mentioned) is coming from because I'm NOT accusing today's GOP or the democrats of pushing race in this campaign. I was accusing the GOP of pushing prejudice against gay people as a damaging political tool to retain power.
My comments about race were limited to this: promoting hatred of gay people as a campaign issue IS wrong and can't be brushed aside as a harmless strategy just like pushing hatred of racial minorities IS wrong and wouldn't be brushed aside. That's all--I was disappointed how forgiving you were of Bush using me as a scapegoat and asking how forgiving you would be if a politician used a racial minority in that role.
Rich, Strom did run on that platform and that made him a bad man... at least, Trent Lott quips aside, that sentiment is dying out.
Nontanget:
Forgot to mention: the charge that Clinton half destroyed the military and Bush had to salvage it is a serious, disputable, and complicated charge deserving of a separate thread, if warranted.
Bill, you don't see where the racism stuff (which we both have mentioned) is coming from because I'm NOT accusing today's GOP or the democrats of pushing race in this campaign. I was accusing the GOP of pushing prejudice against gay people as a damaging political tool to retain power.
My comments about race were limited to this: promoting hatred of gay people as a campaign issue IS wrong and can't be brushed aside as a harmless strategy just like pushing hatred of racial minorities IS wrong and wouldn't be brushed aside. That's all--I was disappointed how forgiving you were of Bush using me as a scapegoat and asking how forgiving you would be if a politician used a racial minority in that role.
Rich, Strom did run on that platform and that made him a bad man... at least, Trent Lott quips aside, that sentiment is dying out.
Nontanget:
Forgot to mention: the charge that Clinton half destroyed the military and Bush had to salvage it is a serious, disputable, and complicated charge deserving of a separate thread, if warranted.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Fair enough. So what you are saying is that the FMA ammendment issue is equivalent to the Willie Horton ads that torpedoed Dukakis. I see your point.My comments about race were limited to this: promoting hatred of gay people as a campaign issue IS wrong and can't be brushed aside as a harmless strategy just like pushing hatred of racial minorities IS wrong and wouldn't be brushed aside. That's all--I was disappointed how forgiving you were of Bush using me as a scapegoat and asking how forgiving you would be if a politician used a racial minority in that role.
This is arguable, but not deniable. Clearly the GOP struck a low blow with the Willie Horton ads. The imagery evoked a visceral response that "played to the cheap seats" as Gene puts it. I didn't quite understand what he meant when he first said it (which shows you how I view the situation). In the context of Willie Horton ads, I do understand it, but don't buy it.
You need to understand Ian (not very easily, I'm sure) that this is a no-win situation. Certain religious groups - devout Jews, Muslims, and Christians - take biblical/koran teachings about "homosexual acts" very seriously. Whatever.... I'm not a fan of such books as absolute purveyors of truth, but I defend the right of others to believe so and practice faiths based on those teachings.
So, where does that leave you? At best, these groups will love you but teach their faithful not to practice the acts of love that you find "natural." At best...
At worst, you are a target of discrimination. But this is against the teachings of the bible and koran (as I know them).
So what does that have to do with government? Not much in my book. But the Christian Right and the Islamofascists want us all to live under Judeochristian and/or Muslim law. I and others say keep your beliefs and practice them in your private lives. They (the extremists) say it's immoral to abort a fetus and engage in gay/lesbian love, and we should pass laws banning it. And lets get rid of stem cell research while we're at it.
The Christian Right has parked itself inside the large GOP tent. They are there with the libertarians who also don't quite have a home. It's an unnatural mix, like oil and water.
Imagine you, George Bush, trying to keep these two factions in your camp and showing up at the voting booth in a very tight election. What would you do?
It is what it is. Have faith in what's going on though. Voters will not pass an FMA. It is DOA. Bush isn't stupid.
Meanwhile, is GW appealing to the non-religious homophobes? Undeniably. Intentionally? I submit that this is unfair. There's a big difference between Willie Horton ads and a stance for the FMA.
Understand that Kerry is also against gay marriage, Ian. On most days... So, where does that put you with him? In your book, he also should be an evil lizard. Fair is fair.
This is an ugly issue, and it's going to take time. Meanwhile, I personally believe there are more important issues to address, and indirect ways (for now) to take care of your needs. From your perspective, that probably isn't good enough. But I think it's the best you'll get today.
One day at a time...
Meanwhile, why not celebrate the little steps? Why not give right wing Cheney the "atta boy" he deserves for stepping up to the plate and defending his daughter's right to enter a legal institution of marriage? Could it be that some are prejudging him? Not being fair? Why would you embrace Kerry who took a stance against gay marriage, and not support Cheney for courageously stepping outside the platform of the GOP to take a stance in your favor?
- Bill
Panther:
===
However , the difference in those protests and what Rich (and I'm) referring to is the activities which take the protester out of the USA to foreign soil and have them denounce the USA completely in all aspects.
===
This comes in two parts, leaving the US, and complete denunciation. As for the former, I don't see why it matters. I do agree that meeting with representatives of the country we're at war with, and giving them information is wrong, but just leaving the country to talk I don't see as being relevant.
As for completely denouncing the USA, I'm not sure why that's treason. People can have any stupid idea they want, and it's not like saying "the US *****" is giving anybody information.
===
To have openly claimed that war crimes were committed that you were personally aware of AND that you personally committed war crimes ... That is the ultimate in crossing the line from being a "war protester" to being a "traitor" by committing acts of aiding & abetting.
===
In my mind this is something the public needs to know about. If war crimes are going on, how can the populace come to an informed opinion about the war if they aren't aware of this?
Telling *only* the NVA would be treasonous, that I can accept. But if you're telling the US, and the NVA finds out as a side-effect, I think that is an unhappy consequence of the citizens' right to know.
However, you apparently don't believe there were many war crimes committed.
===
Back up this claim/accusation/assertion that there were rampant war crimes committed in VietNam (especially those that were directed to occur all the way down the chain of command as Kerry and others have claimed) with unbiased, documented sources and cites.
====
There are piles and piles of reports of war crimes in history book after history book. I can give you a reading list, but I'm sure you'd find some way to call all of them biased. Ultimately, there's no such thing as totally undeniable evidence.
There are people who don't believe in the moon landing, or the holocost. They think that someone with a lot of motive faked all of it. Unless you have no exposure to the history of that war, there's no way I'm going to convince you with evidence you've already chosen to disregard.
Bill:
====
You need to understand Ian (not very easily, I'm sure) that this is a no-win situation. Certain religious groups - devout Jews, Muslims, and Christians - take biblical/koran teachings about "homosexual acts" very seriously... I defend the right of others to believe so and practice faiths based on those teachings.
===
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Nobody is saying that every church has to be forced to accept gay marriage and perform the ceremony for homosexual couples. They're perfectly free to go on believing and practicing their faith regardless of the existance of gay marriage.
I think the comparison to race is apt... if certain popular religious groups all believed black people are evil, it would still be wrong to discriminate against them.
====
And where in the world does the Average Joe (and Mary) have the highest standard of living? (Personally I could give a rat's tushie about those who don't want to work)
===
I know how much everyone here loves the UN, but the US ranks only 8th in a quality of life study, behind Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, Belgium, and Iceland, in that order.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html
===
Why not give right wing Cheney the "atta boy" he deserves for stepping up to the plate and defending his daughter's right to enter a legal institution of marriage?
===
I agree, he deserves credit for this. It doesn't overcome his many other failings, but sure, it deserves recognition.
===
However , the difference in those protests and what Rich (and I'm) referring to is the activities which take the protester out of the USA to foreign soil and have them denounce the USA completely in all aspects.
===
This comes in two parts, leaving the US, and complete denunciation. As for the former, I don't see why it matters. I do agree that meeting with representatives of the country we're at war with, and giving them information is wrong, but just leaving the country to talk I don't see as being relevant.
As for completely denouncing the USA, I'm not sure why that's treason. People can have any stupid idea they want, and it's not like saying "the US *****" is giving anybody information.
===
To have openly claimed that war crimes were committed that you were personally aware of AND that you personally committed war crimes ... That is the ultimate in crossing the line from being a "war protester" to being a "traitor" by committing acts of aiding & abetting.
===
In my mind this is something the public needs to know about. If war crimes are going on, how can the populace come to an informed opinion about the war if they aren't aware of this?
Telling *only* the NVA would be treasonous, that I can accept. But if you're telling the US, and the NVA finds out as a side-effect, I think that is an unhappy consequence of the citizens' right to know.
However, you apparently don't believe there were many war crimes committed.
===
Back up this claim/accusation/assertion that there were rampant war crimes committed in VietNam (especially those that were directed to occur all the way down the chain of command as Kerry and others have claimed) with unbiased, documented sources and cites.
====
There are piles and piles of reports of war crimes in history book after history book. I can give you a reading list, but I'm sure you'd find some way to call all of them biased. Ultimately, there's no such thing as totally undeniable evidence.
There are people who don't believe in the moon landing, or the holocost. They think that someone with a lot of motive faked all of it. Unless you have no exposure to the history of that war, there's no way I'm going to convince you with evidence you've already chosen to disregard.
Bill:
====
You need to understand Ian (not very easily, I'm sure) that this is a no-win situation. Certain religious groups - devout Jews, Muslims, and Christians - take biblical/koran teachings about "homosexual acts" very seriously... I defend the right of others to believe so and practice faiths based on those teachings.
===
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Nobody is saying that every church has to be forced to accept gay marriage and perform the ceremony for homosexual couples. They're perfectly free to go on believing and practicing their faith regardless of the existance of gay marriage.
I think the comparison to race is apt... if certain popular religious groups all believed black people are evil, it would still be wrong to discriminate against them.
====
And where in the world does the Average Joe (and Mary) have the highest standard of living? (Personally I could give a rat's tushie about those who don't want to work)
===
I know how much everyone here loves the UN, but the US ranks only 8th in a quality of life study, behind Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, Belgium, and Iceland, in that order.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html
===
Why not give right wing Cheney the "atta boy" he deserves for stepping up to the plate and defending his daughter's right to enter a legal institution of marriage?
===
I agree, he deserves credit for this. It doesn't overcome his many other failings, but sure, it deserves recognition.
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
Justin said: " I do agree that meeting with representatives of the country we're at war with, and giving them information is wrong, but just leaving the country to talk I don't see as being relevant."
One good reason to be concerned? It violated US federal laws.
"There are piles and piles of reports of war crimes in history book after history book. I can give you a reading list, but I'm sure you'd find some way to call all of them biased."
Please, give me a reading list. I probably have read much of it already as that type of material is on many military required reading lists.
Standing by...
Rich
One good reason to be concerned? It violated US federal laws.
"There are piles and piles of reports of war crimes in history book after history book. I can give you a reading list, but I'm sure you'd find some way to call all of them biased."
Please, give me a reading list. I probably have read much of it already as that type of material is on many military required reading lists.
Standing by...
Rich
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Aaaarrrrggghhhh!I think the comparison to race is apt... if certain popular religious groups all believed black people are evil, it would still be wrong to discriminate against them.
Don't even think of making that comparison.
A religious belief against homosexual acts is very different from a religious belief against homosexuals. Bringing race into this shows that you do not understand this important distinction.
I do not espouse these Judeochristian and Muslim beliefs. However I understand them. That's a lot different than say what a white supremacist would preach.
Please, please read my posts carefully, and please do not misrepresent what I'm trying to get across here.
Thanks.
- Bill
[Minor clarification: It would be misleading to say that homosexuality is "against the Bible," etc when that statement is only one opinion among many. I know a heck of a lot of gay christians and gay-welcoming christians.]
A religious belief against gay people IS different from a religious belief against homosexual acts. However, this law is still an unnecessary intrusion on the personal liberties of people, and it is based in religious (intolerance/disapproval, your choice) which has no role in government and it's wrong. I fail to see how primarily religious backing of the idea distinguishes it from other discriminatory philosophies. If you want complete parallelism, reread Virginia v Loving, the supreme court ruling against Virginia's antimiscegenation law. This proposed amendment would be parallel to one denying marrying rights to black people or some other activity intrinsic to their lives, one that we would soundly reject as unjust and never dismiss as a harmless political strategy to retain office.
"There's a big difference between Willie Horton ads and a stance for the FMA."
What is it?
"I'm not impressed with the Monday morning quarterbacks."
McCain is perhaps the republican I most respect and has always seemed to me a rather even tempered guy. He's also the kind of vet Kerry and Bush could never compare themselves too. He's got problems with Bush's plan, so I take notice. A lot of people feel that Bush was the quaterback who assumed Iraq would be an easy task. Here's something that speaks to that issue AND the question of evil genius vs doofus:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/ ... index.html
Seymour Hersh's alternative history of Bush's war
The crack investigative reporter tells Salon about a disastrous battle the U.S. brass hushed up, the frightening True Believers in the White House,
and how Iran, not Israel, may have manipulated us into war
"Wouldn't it be great if the reality was that they were lying about WMD, and they really didn't believe that democracy would come when they invaded Iraq, and you could go to war with 5,000 troops, a few special forces, a few bombs and a lot of American flags, and Iraq would fold, Saddam would be driven out (...) Democracy would flow like water out of a fountain. These guys believe it. They believe WMD. There's no fallback with these guys. These guys are utopians...."
"So you don't think that this is some Machiavellian, cynical, manipulative ..."
"I used to pray it was! We'd be in better shape. Is there anything worse than idealism that doesn't conform to reality? You have an unrealistic policy."
A religious belief against gay people IS different from a religious belief against homosexual acts. However, this law is still an unnecessary intrusion on the personal liberties of people, and it is based in religious (intolerance/disapproval, your choice) which has no role in government and it's wrong. I fail to see how primarily religious backing of the idea distinguishes it from other discriminatory philosophies. If you want complete parallelism, reread Virginia v Loving, the supreme court ruling against Virginia's antimiscegenation law. This proposed amendment would be parallel to one denying marrying rights to black people or some other activity intrinsic to their lives, one that we would soundly reject as unjust and never dismiss as a harmless political strategy to retain office.
"There's a big difference between Willie Horton ads and a stance for the FMA."
What is it?
"I'm not impressed with the Monday morning quarterbacks."
McCain is perhaps the republican I most respect and has always seemed to me a rather even tempered guy. He's also the kind of vet Kerry and Bush could never compare themselves too. He's got problems with Bush's plan, so I take notice. A lot of people feel that Bush was the quaterback who assumed Iraq would be an easy task. Here's something that speaks to that issue AND the question of evil genius vs doofus:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/ ... index.html
Seymour Hersh's alternative history of Bush's war
The crack investigative reporter tells Salon about a disastrous battle the U.S. brass hushed up, the frightening True Believers in the White House,
and how Iran, not Israel, may have manipulated us into war
"Wouldn't it be great if the reality was that they were lying about WMD, and they really didn't believe that democracy would come when they invaded Iraq, and you could go to war with 5,000 troops, a few special forces, a few bombs and a lot of American flags, and Iraq would fold, Saddam would be driven out (...) Democracy would flow like water out of a fountain. These guys believe it. They believe WMD. There's no fallback with these guys. These guys are utopians...."
"So you don't think that this is some Machiavellian, cynical, manipulative ..."
"I used to pray it was! We'd be in better shape. Is there anything worse than idealism that doesn't conform to reality? You have an unrealistic policy."
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Remember, I'm the libertarian. I'm on your side here.
In regards to Willie vs. FMA... I've stated my case, Ian. You don't understand. I rest my case. Going beyond that will only needlessly offend - on both sides.
That Iranian "plot" is quite the Machiavellian notion, no? Sort of like the plot to kill JFK.
It would make a great movie.
- Bill
In regards to Willie vs. FMA... I've stated my case, Ian. You don't understand. I rest my case. Going beyond that will only needlessly offend - on both sides.
That Iranian "plot" is quite the Machiavellian notion, no? Sort of like the plot to kill JFK.
It would make a great movie.
- Bill
