Democrats continue downward slide...

[Bandit60]

The one thing I keep hearing from the liberals is that Bush was hiding in the Guard. Let me tell you that alot of my friends are in the guard and serve active duty around the world doing dangerous missions. Dont forget who's airplanes were scrabled out after 911 (Syracuse Air National Guard). And some of those pilots who were scramble had just return from Iraq just days earlier.

So if you liberals thing the Guard is for people hiding you are just plain wrong.

 

[N2264J]

Re: Democrats continue downward slide

The one thing I keep hearing from the liberals is that Bush was hiding in the Gaurd. Let me tell you that alot of my friends are in the gaurd and serve active duty around the world doing dangerous missions. Dont forget who's airplanes were scrabled out after 911 (Syracuse Air National Gaurd). And some of those pilots who were scramble had just return from Iraq just days earlier.

So if you liberals thing the Gaurd is for people hiding you are just plain wrong.

Incorrect. The Guard is a completely different animal today since the draft went away. In the 60s it wasn't an "all volunteer Army" and the children of the privileged with a high draft lottery number could avoid combat in the National Guard or a student deferment in college. That was widely known.

The Vietnam war was fought by the kids of the poor and working class. Personally, I think that makes the service of John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, and John McCain remarkable.

 

[Bandit60]

I didnt know that you had to have money to sign up for the Guard back in the 60's. Please explain that to me?

 

[GogglesPisano]

The one thing I keep hearing from the liberals is that Bush was hiding in the Gaurd. Let me tell you that alot of my friends are in the gaurd and serve active duty around the world doing dangerous missions. Dont forget who's airplanes were scrabled out after 911 (Syracuse Air National Gaurd). And some of those pilots who were scramble had just return from Iraq just days earlier.

So if you liberals thing the Gaurd is for people hiding you are just plain wrong.

You Bush-worshippers are grasping at straws here. There is a reason W's unit was called a "champagne squadron." Explain why he bypassed 350 others to get into it. Explain why the majority of members were from the upper echeclons of Texas political and business circles, "We're not sending OUR sons to Vietnam, are you kidding?"

And there is a reason Kerry is called a war hero.

Not to mention Cheney. anyone have a response to his five deferrals and "other priorities at the time?"

Snap out of it. Reality is out there, you just need to turn Rush down and search for it.

 

[sqwkvfr]

Re: Re: Democrats continue downward slide

Personally, I think that makes the service of John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, and John McCain remarkable.

Perhaps, but that alone doesn't make any one of them qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Also, since you failed to mention it, I feel that I should throw in a little disclaimer here: Maureen Dowd is one of the most partisan, left-wing columnist in the country....her column should not, in any way be accepted as "reporting." It's her opinion, and it's so predictable I could've told you what it was gonna be before I read it.

 

[N2264J]

Re: Democrats continue downward slide

Perhaps, but that alone doesn't make any one of them qualified to be Commander in Chief.

And by the same token, Bush's by passing hundreds of other applicants, who were not as well connected, to the head of the line in a National Guard unit where everyone knew the two chances of being activated were slim and none, then failing to show up for drills somehow makes him qualified? Clinton lied about having sex and was impeached for it. Bush, on the other hand, mislead the American public into a "diversionary war" that has undermined our ability to execute the real war on terror and so far cost us over 700 lives, 9000 wounded and maimed, America's high ground as a moral authority in the world and multi billions of dollars with no end in sight. Talk about your loose cannons. Which scenario truly constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors? Where are our priorities?

Also, since you failed to mention it, I feel that I should throw in a little disclaimer here: Maureen Dowd is one of the most partisan, left-wing columnist in the country....her column should not, in any way be accepted as "reporting."

I guess that's why she's in the editorial section. She writes editorials. Not only that, but she's hot, funny, smart and I like her politics. She'd be a great date and I want her.

 

[BornAgainPagan]

You see, you have to live a little longer, and examine both positions of American politics, and with knowlege of the intent of the founders, then decide which position is more consistent with what America is supposed to be, and with what has made America great. Having done so with intellectual honesty, you will, as I did , change your mind about liberalism.

A little short in sight here. What is truly consistent with what "America is supposed to be" is that we can decide on a position and act upon that opinion. The notion that an "ism" has an exclusive claim to "intellectual honesty" is nonsense and delusional. That said, for most of the very reasons you mentioned, I have changed my mind about and have grown out of conservatism.

 

[Herman Bloom]

sqwkvfr,

The title of your original post is very telling. So you really believe that the actions of one member of the party indicates malfeasance throughout? Please tell me you're not that much of an idiot.

Pure partisans have nothing to offer this nation.

 

[sqwkvfr]

So you really believe that the actions of one member of the party indicates malfeasance throughout?

Nope.

Let's examine this:

The Democrat party has lost majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The majority of large state governor's mansions are occupied by Republicans. A Republican is living in the White House....I know how much that torks of the liberals on this board so I'll say it again...A Republican is living in the White House.

In the 2002 elections, the Democrats once again got their butts handed to them in gubernatorial and US Congressional races.

Shortly after the Democrat's losses in 2002, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said that Democrats aren't getting their "message out." So, the rhetoric has been racheted up "ludicrous speed."

The presidential primaries and Howard Dean have moved the Democrat party so far left that it has been a home and launching platform for such left-wing kooks as E.L.F., the gay marriage crowd, and the war-for-oil protesters (who are just taking a break between WTO riots). These are the sorts of activities that bring the conservatives in this country out to express their disgust. And they don't do it by smashing storefront windows and throwing molitov cocktails at the police....they do it at the ballot box.

The Democrats, in a rush to nominate "anyone else," picked someone they didn't know. Now that they're learning more about him, they don't like what they see....and they're having second thoughts.

What we're seeing is a fractured and divided Democrat party. The simple fact that they felt the need to hold a "Democrat Unity Dinner" demonstrates that. If, like some on this board have suggested, we go to a mutiple, issue driven party system, I guarantee you that the Democrat party would be the first to fly apart. Take a look at how many groups there are within the Democrat party; The congressional black caucus, the DFLers, the DNCers, the ELFers, NOW, etc.....and why does the party that claims to be so inclusive find the need to have an elite "Democrat Leadership Council" within the party? There are so many people pulling that party in so many different directions, the only thing holding it together is their irrational, seething hatred for President Bush.

Anyway, Pelosi was wrong. People got the message....they just didn't like what they heard. Now they're hearing it at ten times the volume, and people are not only disagreeing with their message, they're disgusted by it's tone.

There are puh-lenty of leftist partisans on this board...I try to provide balance in a light-hearted, cheeky, manner....and I never, ever call other members names:

Please tell me you're not that much of an idiot.

 

[Timebuilder]

The Vietnam war was fought by the kids of the poor and working class. Personally, I think that makes the service of John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, and John McCain remarkable.

Actually each and every one of the vets I know came from homes where they could easily have been granted student deferments. One girl I went to school with had an older brother who volunteered, went through OCS, and earned a silver star as a lieutenant. Their farm is now worth about 2.5 million. They have some horses.

I passed up on a deferment myself, and took my turn in the draft like anyone else. I wish I'd taken my opportunity to go to a service academy instead.

Explain why he bypassed 350 others to get into it. Explain why the majority of members were from the upper echeclons of Texas political and business circles, "We're not sending OUR sons to Vietnam, are you kidding?"

Did you know, my friend, that most of the guys in that squadron were from democrat homes? You won't see Maureen Dowd crowing about that one, I guarantee it. Whatever you think about the different opportunities afforded the wealthy in America, it has always been so. They complied with the rules, as they were written. They served. They were discharged honorably. End of story.

And there is a reason Kerry is called a war hero.

Because it will help him to gain votes from undecideds? That's my take, since his core voting group HATES the military.

Not to mention Cheney. anyone have a response to his five deferrals and "other priorities at the time?"

If they were all within the bounds of the rules, what needs to be explained? Millions of Americans had other priorities. Kerry's priorities were to trash his former comrades after failing to report any geneva violations, and argue against the interests of his country. Want some insight into the Kerry post war activities? Did it help the enemy? Check this out:

http://www.grunt.com/downloads/hownorthvietnamwonthewar.htm

And by the same token, Bush's by passing hundreds of other applicants, who were not as well connected, to the head of the line in a National Guard unit where everyone knew the two chances of being activated were slim and none, then failing to show up for drills somehow makes him qualified?

What makes him qualified? Hmm. I guess it isn't obvious to you. Let me spell it out.

Both Kerry and Bush served in prescribed manners, both acceptable to the military and under law. It's what happened afterwards that is the different matter.

Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy after returning home. He spoke out agianst US policy, policy that he would be expected to implement as a possible response to a terrorist act.

Bush never acted against the US, and never gave aid and comfort to the enemy. In addition, Bush has shown a massive amount of character and consistency of belief compared to Kerry.

Does that help you to understand why he is more qualified?

Bush, on the other hand, mislead the American public into a "diversionary war" that has undermined our ability to execute the real war on terror and so far cost us over 700 lives, 9000 wounded and maimed, America's high ground as a moral authority in the world and multi billions of dollars with no end in sight.

Unfortunately for you, there are no facts to support this assumption, which is the jello-like foundation of democrat attacks. None. The highly partisan 9-11 commission tried to spew enough rhetoric to hurt the president, and tried to find a fault. They failed. In fact, they inadvertently revealed that one of the commissioners, Jamie Gorelick, was at least partially responsible for the "wall" that prevented us from having better tools to avert the 9-11 attack by preventing sharing of information between government departments. SHE should now be investigated.

What is truly consistent with what "America is supposed to be" is that we can decide on a position and act upon that opinion. The notion that an "ism" has an exclusive claim to "intellectual honesty" is nonsense and delusional.

No, my pagan friend. What America is supposed to be is a part of the values upon which she was founded, not merely the ability to take a position, willy-nilly without understanding the intent of the construction of our government. Nowhere did I claim that any "ism" had an exclusive claim on intellectual honesty. I WOULD say, now that you have opened the door, that the liberals are being deliberately dishonest in their intellectual position, since they readily make up lies out of whole cloth.

Example? "Newt Gingrich wants to put all of the old people out on the street without healthcare." To be intellectually honest, that statement could never have been made. There are tons of such outright lies, willingly told for the purpose of misleading people. If that isn't intellectual dishonesty, there may be no definition at all.

That's why you should refute liberalism, if you are indeed an honest person.

Pure partisans have nothing to offer this nation.

Best reason I have heard yet to defeat Kerry. Thanks.

 

[Herman Bloom]

There are tons of such outright lies, willingly told for the purpose of misleading people. If that isn't intellectual dishonesty, there may be no definition at all.

Right. And I'm sure that conservatives are just above the fray here. Give me a break.

That's why you should refute liberalism, if you are indeed an honest person.

Pretty sweeping assumption you're making here. Oh but I forgot, you were a hippie once so you can speak for all liberals.

Best reason I have heard yet to defeat Kerry. Thanks

Did I say anything in that post about voting for Kerry? NO. As usual you just assumed. And you proved my point perfectly -- blind partisanism is not responsible, and it's just not American.

 

[Timebuilder]

Right. And I'm sure that conservatives are just above the fray here. Give me a break.

I'll do better than that.

I'll give you a chance to find a similar lie told by republicans.

I'll check back in about ten years. That should give you enough time to find just one.

Pretty sweeping assumption you're making here. Oh but I forgot, you were a hippie once so you can speak for all liberals.

Non sequitur. You guys are haveing a lot of them lately. How about supplying something that actually refutes something I have said?

Did I say anything in that post about voting for Kerry?

No, you suggested that a partisan had nothing to offer this nation. You swereved into a bit of wisdom, and I agreed. Neither myself nor GW are partisans. If we were, we would not disagree on so many issues, would we? In fact, MANY republicans disagree with Bush. He's just too liberal for most of us.

 

[Singlecoil]

Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy after returning home. He spoke out agianst US policy, policy that he would be expected to implement as a possible response to a terrorist act.

So that would mean the generals, colonels, and other officers mentioned in this article are guilty of treason? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason, as is violating national security by leaking the identities of CIA agents.

link

 

[BornAgainPagan]

No, my pagan friend. What America is supposed to be is a part of the values upon which she was founded, not merely the ability to take a position, willy-nilly without understanding the intent of the construction of our government.

Quite the contrary. No, blaringly the contrary. Your subjective opinion of America's "values" aren't everyone's. I would hardly call having a voice as merely mere. Objectively, this is fundamental to democracy and to the values of our country. Speaking of willy-nilly understanding.


Your "example" doesn't prove anything. There are many outright lies from BOTH sides.

Nowhere did I claim that any "ism" had an exclusive claim on intellectual honesty. I WOULD say, now that you have opened the door, that the liberals are being deliberately dishonest in their intellectual position, since they readily make up lies out of whole cloth.

Once again you have contradicted yourself. You have done this before so I'm not surprised. There's some intellectual honesty for ya.

 

[Timebuilder]

Quite the contrary. No, blaringly the contrary. Your subjective opinion of America's "values" aren't everyone's. I would hardly call having a voice as merely mere. Objectively, this is fundamental to democracy and to the values of our country. Speaking of willy-nilly understanding.

Let me recommend to you a course in critical thinking.

I do not have a subjective view of America's values. I have read the work of the the founders, those men who designed this country according to what they believed were the rights and priviliges of a free society that were granted by God, whom they recognized as the creator. In fact, you need only the understanding of a sixth grader, (a 1963 fifth grader, mind you, since they no longer teach the basis of the ideas used by the founders) to have a sufficient understanding of these ideas.

I know mentally challenged people who "have a voice." They do not engage in substantive discussion of issues, do not represent people in congress, and do not, by their participating voice, add to the arena of ideas. We take care of them because we care about them, but they are essentially unable to really participate. Still, the constitution guarantees their right to speak. But they do only "merely" speak.

So you do not, simply by speaking, take part in the substantive discussion of the values upon which this country was founded and the erosion of those values by liberalism. In order to do so effectively, you must have an understanding of the intent of the founders.

While I agree that my ideas of America's values are not everyone's ideas, I assert that this is so because those ideas have been so muddled by liberals and pop culture as to be unrecognizable to all but those who have taken the time, or sat through a fifth grade civics class in 1963, to understand what the intent of the founders actually was.

I believe you regard my viewpoint as being subjective for no other reason than being caught up in the din of opinion about the basis ideas of America that has been supported by the media and the left. You are failing to distinguish between the subjective din and the objective truth. Not surprising, in these confused days.

Your "example" doesn't prove anything. There are many outright lies from BOTH sides.

All that I have asked you for is an example, just ONE, no more, of a lie similar in scope and intent to the healthcare lie about Newt Gingrich told by liberals for the purpose of frighteneing my mother and yours. If you can find such a lie, just one, I invite you to post it. Go ahead. Make my day.

Once again you have contradicted yourself. You have done this before so I'm not surprised. There's some intellectual honesty for ya.

My friend, when you don't undserstand what someone has written, I suggest you do better than that to try and discredit the writer. It makes you look bad. It's an ad hominem attack, the lowest rung on the response ladder.

I tried to help you understand, and you cling to your lack of understanding. Fine. If you won't try, I can't help you.

Maybe that's something besides intellectual dishonesty. Maybe it's liberal blindness.

For those of you who want to learn about what an ad hominem attack is, by definition, go here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

You will understand after checking the site, and discover that liberals do this all the time. It is a position without substance.

 

[Timebuilder]

So that would mean the generals, colonels, and other officers mentioned in this article are guilty of treason? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason, as is violating national security by leaking the identities of CIA agents.

If you mean colonels, generals, and others who engaged in the kind of activities that Kerry did upon returning to the US, then the answer would be yes. I know of very few people who fit that category who were service members, but it certainly would include the active members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War during the time of the active Vietnam conflict.

As General Bui Tin explains, they saw the American antiwar movement as a valuable tool to help them gain a tactical advantage, weakening the American position. This cost American lives.

So, when we engage in discussion about American policy, we need to be cautious that we do not inadvertently aid the enemy as we do so. To politicize the Vietnam of any other conflict, such as Iraq is being politicized now, is a disservice to the men and women who are now engaging the enemy. There is no formula, no intellectual gymnastics that can justify weakening the resove of our troops by the political statements being made by a presidential candidate or his surrogates.

As for leaking CIA identities, there is more to that story, including contacting the agency itself to see if this was a sensitive piece of information. Nothing has come of it, and I don't expect anything to come of it. Why? Well, for one thing, the identity of that woman was only a surprise to the general public. Did it give aid and comfort to anyone? I seriously doubt it.

If you want the scoop, you can talk to Bob Novak. I understand he isn't talking, though.

 

[N2264J]

Rush Limbaugh hyperbole...

Let me recommend to you a course in critical thinking...

I have read the work of the the founders, those men who designed this country according to what they believed were the rights and priviliges of a free society that were granted by God, whom they recognized as the creator. In fact, you need only the understanding of a sixth grader...

OK, since I never made it to the sixth grade, enlighten us on how an ex military man exercising his freedom of speech is giving "aid and comfort to the enemy."

I think there's a big difference between the hideous overstatment of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" and just not agreeing with the guy's political views.

 

[Timebuilder]

Re: Rush Limbaugh hyperbole...

OK, since I never made it to the sixth grade, enlighten us on how an ex military man exercising his freedom of speech is giving "aid and comfort to the enemy."

I think there's a big difference between the hidious overstatment of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" and just not agreeing with the guy's political views.

No, I'm certain you were in the sixth grade.

This is what I mean about the lack of critical thinking that is so rampant.

I said that those who were in school after 1963 (and this assumes a public school setting where most Americans are educated) were not taught about the beliefs and values of the founders. Perhaps it is because they were all men, perhaps because they owned slaves. More likely, it is because they worshipped God.

Anyone can say that anything they say is simply the "exercise of a right to free speech."

However, if they are truly engaged in a constructive dialogue, they are careful to no put our troops and their victories in jeopardy as they speak. Kerry was apparently unconcerned about the effect of his speech, Jane Fonda's speech, or anyone else's speech which might have had the unitended consequences of aiding the enemy.

So, we must be careful when we choose the manner of our disagreement with policy.

 

[N2264J]

Re: Rush Limbaugh hyperbole...

So, we must be careful when we choose the manner of our disagreement with policy.

That's it?

I suppose you've bought into the Bush policy of no photographs of the rows of flag drapped coffins from Iraq when they're transferred at Dover AFB. Sometimes censorship is required in a democracy. An informed electorate may be dangerous to the status quo.

Is it our civic duty to speak out and, if need be, hold our government to account for its actions or not?

 

[Herman Bloom]

If you can find such a lie, just one, I invite you to post it. Go ahead. Make my day.

Didn't a Republican President resign bacause he lied?

Although I'm sure you'll come right back over the top with some rediculous diatribe about how that doesn't really relate, and I'm also sure that your answer will, as always, wreak of your unfathomable arrogance.

And speaking of rampant abuses of the constitution and of political power....remember the voter guides?