"w" And The Presidential Debate

[srm]

Originally posted by Cal+Oct 5 2004, 06:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Oct 5 2004, 06:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--john doe@Oct 4 2004, 08:37 PM

Well Doe boy, if that crap had happened under Clinton, I have no doubt at all that you would be blaming it totally on him

No, I blame Clinton for other things. What surprises me today is that you and your buddies are slamming George Bush, claiming he is a draft dodger for joining an arm of the US military, yet you ignore the fact that Clinton blatantly was a draft dodger, and hold him up as a hero of your cause.

And please, don't try to be patronizing by calling me a boy. I haven't resorted to calling you names, please return the favor.

Point well taken on the "boy" comment. I apologize.

As to joining the crowd against Bush on the draft or military service issue---have you heard me say anything bad about Bush on THAT issue? Yes, I have defended Kerry's war record, but have I slammed Bush's? I think I have said that I really don't think that either one's record is much of an issue, and believe that other issues are much more important.

As to draft "dodging", I don't recall Clinton doing anything illegal to avoid the draft. I think he went to England to study as he was quite a scholar. It is no secret that he did not support the Vietnam war, as many of us didn't. Why is it a sin to avoid fighting a war you don't believe in? I had a student deferment and avoid it too. And am still glad I did. It was a useless, senseless cause that the american people were led to support on the basis of lies and misrepresentations. Sound familiar?

then why is kerry so critical of VP Cheney and his deferments? For that matter, kerry had a number of deferments too yet he attacks the VP.

[Cal]

Originally posted by srm+Oct 5 2004, 07:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Oct 5 2004, 07:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Oct 5 2004, 06:42 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--john doe@Oct 4 2004, 08:37 PM

Well Doe boy, if that crap had happened under Clinton, I have no doubt at all that you would be blaming it totally on him

No, I blame Clinton for other things. What surprises me today is that you and your buddies are slamming George Bush, claiming he is a draft dodger for joining an arm of the US military, yet you ignore the fact that Clinton blatantly was a draft dodger, and hold him up as a hero of your cause.

And please, don't try to be patronizing by calling me a boy. I haven't resorted to calling you names, please return the favor.

Point well taken on the "boy" comment. I apologize.

As to joining the crowd against Bush on the draft or military service issue---have you heard me say anything bad about Bush on THAT issue? Yes, I have defended Kerry's war record, but have I slammed Bush's? I think I have said that I really don't think that either one's record is much of an issue, and believe that other issues are much more important.

As to draft "dodging", I don't recall Clinton doing anything illegal to avoid the draft. I think he went to England to study as he was quite a scholar. It is no secret that he did not support the Vietnam war, as many of us didn't. Why is it a sin to avoid fighting a war you don't believe in? I had a student deferment and avoid it too. And am still glad I did. It was a useless, senseless cause that the american people were led to support on the basis of lies and misrepresentations. Sound familiar?

then why is kerry so critical of VP Cheney and his deferments? For that matter, kerry had a number of deferments too yet he attacks the VP.

Did I say I agreed with Kerry attacking Bush on that issue? For the record, I don't. As I said, I don't really think it is an issue worth addressing; other than defending Kerry on the issue of his record, I have said nothing much about Bush's, and don't think Kerry should have either.

[Snow]

Originally posted by srm@Oct 5 2004, 07:07 AM

then why is kerry so critical of VP Cheney and his deferments? For that matter, kerry had a number of deferments too yet he attacks the VP.

Actually I think Kerry sent Teresa to bark up Cheney's tree.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Helgaboy, one more:

Add to this the recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."

In plain language, this means that, in the struggle in Iraq, Raffarin does not see France on the side of its NATO allies — the U.S., Britain, Italy and Denmark among others — but on the side of the "insurgents."

WTF? (The "F" is for "Frick" or "Freak" or "Fetch," by the way.)

Yet Kerry's "plan" anticipates that our French "allies" will take over our fight against France's current "allies," the insurgents. Right.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Oct 5 2004, 12:13 PM

Helgaboy, one more:

Add to this the recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."

In plain language, this means that, in the struggle in Iraq, Raffarin does not see France on the side of its NATO allies — the U.S., Britain, Italy and Denmark among others — but on the side of the "insurgents."

WTF? (The "F" is for "Frick" or "Freak" or "Fetch," by the way.)

Yet Kerry's "plan" anticipates that our French "allies" will take over our fight against France's current "allies," the insurgents. Right.

Kerry blames Bush for losing Osama by not "using the best troops in the world" when Bush in fact did exactly what Kerry says he would do. Bush turned the task of catching Osama over to our new ally, Afghanistan. Kerry would enlist France (who has clearly said they won't help even if Kerry is elected) to help out yet Bush gets lambasted for doing the same thing with Afghanistan.

Can't have it both ways sentator. Flip Flop, Flip Flop.

[helgaboy]

Let me begin by letting you know more about my facts I got. They actually came from a newspaper known for supporting Republican candidates and was a HUGE supporter of Bush in 2000 and the owner had even contributed to his campaign in 2000. Where did you get your disputes the RNC? As for Cheney Bush would do himself alot of good if he were to drop him like a brick, (for many reasons in my mind) if for nothing else because of his behavior on the senate floor. That was not Presidential at all and I know he is the VP and not the P but I have heard many say you have to pick a VP who can take over the predsidency today if necessary. How many of us would feel safe with a hot head like cheney in office? now what I reall want to say

Kerry blames Bush for losing Osama by not "using the best troops in the world" when Bush in fact did exactly what Kerry says he would do. Bush turned the task of catching Osama over to our new ally, Afghanistan. Kerry would enlist France (who has clearly said they won't help even if Kerry is elected) to help out yet Bush gets lambasted for doing the same thing with Afghanistan.

Bush did not do the same thing in Afgahnistan he turned it over to other groups of world terrorist to find Bin Laden. Afghanistan did not have the armed forces to help in any significant way. with this logic we can pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqi army take over.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by helgaboy@Oct 5 2004, 02:10 PM

Bush did not do the same thing in Afgahnistan he turned it over to other groups of world terrorist to find Bin Laden. Afghanistan did not have the armed forces to help in any significant way.

Really?? Are you certain? Which groups are you speaking of?

with this logic we can pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqi army take over.

It seems as if you are the one struggling with logic. Pulling our of Iraq and leaving Iraqi forces to manage doesn't logically follow from my comments to any degree.

Even so, that is actually the plan. It was the Iraqi forces that recently said they would have gone after the insurgents in Sumarra with or without the assistance of U.S. Forces. They, with the help of U.S. Forces did succeed in regaining control of that city. With the continued training of Iraqui police and military, we will eventually be turning over the management of their own country to them.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Helga,

I don't care where you got your "facts" from. They're just wrong. Look it up. Social Security and Medicare haven't been cut, and there has been no new tax advantage given to "outsourcing." Either you're misreading your local newspaper, or it's got the facts wrong. I suspect the former.

So Cheney told the execrable Senator Leahy, in response to the former's calling him a crook and then trying to pretend nothing had happened, to perform an anatomical impossibility in the Senate chamber (not "on the Senate floor," which is a phrase used to describe the chamber when the Senate is in session, which it wasn't when Cheney resorted to the Old Dutch monosyllabic.) I thought the classier thing to do (since duelling is illegal) would have been for Cheney just to turn his back, but Victorian insults like that seem to have gone out of style.

Are you equally concerned that Senator Kerry used an f-bomb in his interview with Rolling Stone? I mean, could there be a more obvious case of a poser trying to look edgy?

By the way, if you think virtually every politician in Washington, and even more so their staffs, aren't the foulest-mouthed creatures you'll meet this side of the Navy, you need to spend some time in that atmosphere.

[Kevin]

Helga,

Might I suggest you read the column titled "Kerry Wants Everything Both Ways" which will be posted at the following link tomorrow. It may help you clear up some obvious misunderstandings you have.

http://www.newsmax.com/pundits/Farrell.shtml