Let me make this clear up front - If there was a Constitutional amendment requiring all those running for president to have served in the military I would support it - In fact, I'd make it a requirement for voting - However, since there is no such law or requirement I think that it's a non-issue
I bring up the following not to cast stones at Phil Gramm's military record but as a comment on his logic:
Yesterday on FACE THE NATION he claimed that he was serving in the military by teaching economics to students (some of whom were in ROTC) - He also said that because he was so smart he knew that they wouldn't use him well in the military so that's why he didn't join - Anybody who was ever in the service or knows anything about the military should think about what this means - Imagine having the luxury of deciding if the job the army assigns to you is worthy of you
When asked why, if he's such a budget genius and cutter), does he never vote to cut pork for his own state (i.e. searches for UFOs etc.) Gramm carefully explained that it's his job to cut the budget, but not for Texas - Now it does take long to figure out that if 100 senators beleive that then the budget will never be cut
: When asked why, if he's such a budget genius and cutter), does he never : vote to cut pork for his own state (i.e. searches for UFOs etc.) Gramm : carefully explained that it's his job to cut the budget, but not : for Texas - Now it does take long to figure out that if 100 senators : beleive that then the budget will never be cut
that's someone elses job, to TAKE THE CUTS!! phil will decide who, and how much. me, i'm mystified how anyone can take this guy seriously, except for that he has a pretty good jabber for the full mooners. time
In article <3ia6vk$...@savoy.cc.williams.edu>, pgior...@williams.edu
(Peter Giordano) wrote: > Yesterday on FACE THE NATION he claimed that he was serving > in the military by teaching economics to students (some of > whom were in ROTC) - He also said that because he was so smart > he knew that they wouldn't use him well in the military so that's > why he didn't join - Anybody who was ever in the service or knows > anything about the military should think about what this means - > Imagine having the luxury of deciding if the job the army assigns > to you is worthy of you
Didn't you get an exemption if you were a faculty member teaching classes? Granted he may not have been paid by the military, but didn't he get an exemption still?
Besides, teaching classes isn't my idea of an alternative to serving in the military. And to my knowledge, he didn't protest against his country while teaching econ.
In article <3ia7o8$...@savoy.cc.williams.edu> pgior...@williams.edu (Peter Giordano) writes: >Here's some more wonderful Gramm logic: >When asked why, if he's such a budget genius and cutter), does he never >vote to cut pork for his own state (i.e. searches for UFOs etc.) Gramm >carefully explained that it's his job to cut the budget, but not >for Texas - Now it does take long to figure out that if 100 senators >beleive that then the budget will never be cut
No, because there's 98 senators who don't represent Texas. That would be a 98-2 vote. Same with every other state. Phil Gramm's job, like every other Senator, is to both represent his state and his country. He seems to do both just fine.
I did not see the 60 MINUTES segment (I am the only person in America who has never seen a whole 60 MINUTES program?) - However, any questions regarding Phil Gramm's wife being Korean border on the racist and have no place in any political discourse - There's plenty to loath about Phil Gramm but his wife is not a suitable or fair target
In article <capell.1.200.2F491...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> capel...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Capell) writes: >In article <3ia7o8$...@savoy.cc.williams.edu> pgior...@williams.edu (Peter Giordano) writes: > >>Here's some more wonderful Gramm logic: > >>When asked why, if he's such a budget genius and cutter), does he never >>vote to cut pork for his own state (i.e. searches for UFOs etc.) Gramm >>carefully explained that it's his job to cut the budget, but not >>for Texas - Now it does take long to figure out that if 100 senators >>beleive that then the budget will never be cut > >No, because there's 98 senators who don't represent Texas. That would be a >98-2 vote. Same with every other state. Phil Gramm's job, like every other >Senator, is to both represent his state and his country. He seems to do both >just fine.
That's easy for *you* to say. You're sitting up there in Columbus, living in Virginia -- have you ever even been to Texas?
I'd appreciate it if you'd try speaking of something you have working knowledge of -- and this doesn't fall in that category.
Gramm is the quintessential east Texas politician -- preach fiscal responsibility, but throw that out the window if he can skim some more off to bribe the home folks into keeping him in office. (I've only lived here since 1965, so I've been around to watch his dog and pony show as long as he's been in office.)
--Patrick L. "and people wonder why some of us are for secession" Humphrey
In article <3ia7o8$...@savoy.cc.williams.edu> pgior...@williams.edu (Peter Giordano) writes:
>Here's some more wonderful Gramm logic:
>When asked why, if he's such a budget genius and cutter), does he never >vote to cut pork for his own state (i.e. searches for UFOs etc.) Gramm >carefully explained that it's his job to cut the budget, but not >for Texas - Now it does take long to figure out that if 100 senators >beleive that then the budget will never be cut
Gramm is famous for this (or infamous, depending on which side of the aisle you're on). In fact, talking one way and then voting another is now referred to as "Gramm-standing" on budget matters.
-- [ Chris Woodard, M.A. ] [ Anheuser-Busch Chair of Computational Theology ] [ University of Ediacara ] [ "Open-mindedness is not synonymous with blind gullibility." ]
In article <capell.1.200.2F491...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>, capel...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Capell) says:
>No, because there's 98 senators who don't represent Texas. That would be a >98-2 vote. Same with every other state. Phil Gramm's job, like every other >Senator, is to both represent his state and his country. He seems to do both >just fine.
Hum, the above defies logic - If every Senator does everything possible (cut deals, etc.) to preserve the "pork" for each state, it stands to reason that the budget will never be reduced - Gramm can't claim to be a budget cutter and at the same time crow about delivering the goods for his state - If he wants to be a leader then he has to lead and that means doing something unpopular sometimes
In article <3ib7k8$...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, c...@aol.com (Cgbg) says:
> Phil Gramm was in his mid-twenties and in graduate school >and teaching during the Vietnam War. > You better get used to candidates and presidents who >didn't have to lie and cheat to avoid going to Vietnam. The >future White Houses will be full of them.
1) I'd hardly call questioning the logic of Gramm's claim of military service an attack
2) without going into whether or not anybody lied or cheated, there are several things wrong with Gramm's logic
a. He claims to have better served his country as a college professor because the army wouldn't have given him a good enough job - If everybody decided which job was the best one for him in the army then nobody would be willing to fight
b. He claims that teaching economics to students who MIGHT have been in ROTC was military service - That's like saying if you delivered the Sunday paper to the general's house then you helped win the war
I don't condemn Gramm for not serving and taking advantage of deferments - I do question his attempts to make himself look macho by claiming a military background he never earned
In an interesting twist of fate, Susan Smith (the NC woman who drowned her two kids in the car) has said (and court records confirm) that her stepfather molested her when she was a child.
Her stepdad was the leader of the local Republican Party, and unless I am mistaken he was also a leader of the local chapter of the Christian Coalition. What kind of perverts is Ralph Reed letting into his or- ganization?
-- [ Chris Woodard, M.A. ] [ Anheuser-Busch Chair of Computational Theology ] [ University of Ediacara ] [ "Open-mindedness is not synonymous with blind gullibility." ]
In article <3ide7c$...@mother.usf.edu> woodw...@luna.ec.usf.edu. (Chris Woodward (PSY)) writes:
>In an interesting twist of fate, Susan Smith (the NC woman who drowned >her two kids in the car) has said (and court records confirm) that her >stepfather molested her when she was a child.
>Her stepdad was the leader of the local Republican Party, and unless >I am mistaken he was also a leader of the local chapter of the Christian >Coalition. What kind of perverts is Ralph Reed letting into his or- >ganization?
Nice try at painting all the Christian Coalition folks as perverts, but if your premise is true then Democrats are all perverts since their membership includes an Arkansas governor who dropped his pants and asked a woman he just met to perform oral sex on him, and a senator who drunkenly drove his car off a bridge, caused a woman's death, and then lied about it afterward. Perfect non sequiturs, all of them. Better luck next slur.
>-- >[ Chris Woodard, M.A. ] >[ Anheuser-Busch Chair of Computational Theology ] >[ University of Ediacara ] >[ "Open-mindedness is not synonymous with blind gullibility." ]
> In an interesting twist of fate, Susan Smith (the NC woman who drowned > her two kids in the car) has said (and court records confirm) that her > stepfather molested her when she was a child.
> Her stepdad was the leader of the local Republican Party, and unless > I am mistaken he was also a leader of the local chapter of the Christian > Coalition. What kind of perverts is Ralph Reed letting into his or- > ganization?
Is this simply mindless flamebait, Chris, or should one assume you tried to insert a point somewhere in there?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Havemann (p...@hsh.com) Resident Cynic, a.f.d-q
"There... I've run rings 'round you logically." -- Monty Python's Flying Circus
Peter> Chris Woodward (PSY) (woodw...@luna.ec.usf.edu.) wrote: >> In an interesting twist of fate, Susan Smith (the NC woman who drowned >> her two kids in the car) has said (and court records confirm) that her >> stepfather molested her when she was a child.
>> Her stepdad was the leader of the local Republican Party, and unless >> I am mistaken he was also a leader of the local chapter of the Christian >> Coalition. What kind of perverts is Ralph Reed letting into his or- >> ganization?
Peter> Exactly what are you saying? That all Republicans are child Peter> molesters?
He in no way said that. Why not read what he said?
Paul> woodw...@luna.ec.usf.edu. (Chris Woodward (PSY)) sez: >> >> In an interesting twist of fate, Susan Smith (the NC woman who drowned >> her two kids in the car) has said (and court records confirm) that her >> stepfather molested her when she was a child. >> >> Her stepdad was the leader of the local Republican Party, and unless >> I am mistaken he was also a leader of the local chapter of the Christian >> Coalition. What kind of perverts is Ralph Reed letting into his or- >> ganization?
Paul> Is this simply mindless flamebait, Chris, or should one assume you tried Paul> to insert a point somewhere in there?
The irony should be self evident. Or don't you remember that Newt blamed her actions on "liberal democrats"?
In article <3idb8p$...@larry.rice.edu> patr...@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> >No, because there's 98 senators who don't represent Texas. That would be a > >98-2 vote. Same with every other state. Phil Gramm's job, like every other > >Senator, is to both represent his state and his country. He seems to do both > >just fine.
>That's easy for *you* to say. You're sitting up there in Columbus, living in >Virginia -- have you ever even been to Texas? >I'd appreciate it if you'd try speaking of something you have working >knowledge of -- and this doesn't fall in that category.
Oh, I get it. Because you're from Texas (presumably), and you say Phil Gramm is bad, therefore he's bad and no one outside of Texas can disagree with you. Yet he still has a job as a United States Senator. You don't speak for all of Texas, obviously.
IA> Paul> woodw...@luna.ec.usf.edu. (Chris Woodward (PSY)) sez: IA> >> IA> >> In an interesting twist of fate, Susan Smith (the NC woman who drowned IA> >> her two kids in the car) has said (and court records confirm) that her IA> >> stepfather molested her when she was a child. IA> >> IA> >> Her stepdad was the leader of the local Republican Party, and unless IA> >> I am mistaken he was also a leader of the local chapter of the Christi IA> >> Coalition. What kind of perverts is Ralph Reed letting into his or- IA> >> ganization?
IA> Paul> Is this simply mindless flamebait, Chris, or should one assume you IA>tried IA> Paul> to insert a point somewhere in there?
IA>The irony should be self evident. Or don't you remember that Newt IA>blamed her actions on "liberal democrats"?
IA>Message: I care. IA> -- Ex President George Bush, in New Hampshire.
Newt was utterly without shame and principle when he exploited this tragedy to take a shot at his enemies. Two little kids die horribly, and all he can see is a handy sound bite. That doesn't justify decent people taking a shot at the "Christians" and conservatives, one of whom happens to be a child molester. I am sure there are any number of moderate and liberal people who have molested children as well. Many of I suppose many of them are not republicans. Of course, it is sweet to see Newt's obscenity come back in his face. But think of the children. Hanse
: In article <3iac55$...@jake.esu.edu> truh...@esu.edu (Tim Ruhnke) writes: : > : >it is this simple: : > phil gramm-american hypocrite
: Well, simple analyses for simple minds. : -- : "Don't tread on me"
i've been watching phil gramm for years. every aspect of his political life has been, do as i say, not as i do. he fought for BIG public spending projects in TX, and yet gets his nose in w/rudman, whose boots he couldn't even shine. mr. war hawk COULD HAVE joined the service, as the original post implied, but CHOSE not to. i don't give a shit what the defense dept. would have had him doing. if he thought the war and coerced service were important, he could have done his time. and it's a plus that he DIDN'T oppose the war? my old man had his ass on a destroyer during the post war occupation, and he about went to miami to protest the war during the 72 gop covention. gramm would have been one of the folks in there saying what a good idea it was to wage war against a people w/strong nationalistic leanings. newt's always talking movies (there's another war hypocrite, representing the highest subsidized county in the nation), here's a documentary you should check out: vietnam, the 10,000 day war. so my original response stands: phil gramm, american hypocrite. tim ps. someone should tell phil if he doesn't want his mama to live under govt. run health care, maybe HE can pay her medicare share.
: > You REALLY need to watch a tape of that show. He never : > said this. : > : > What he said was that he has NEVER voted to increase the : > deficit. However, once the spending was set (budget : > for the year) it was his job to get as much favorable : > treatment for Texas as possible. He said that once : > money was budgeted, (it was going to be spent in some : > state somewhere) it was his job to try to see it spent : > in Texas. : > : > What is wrong with that? As a Texas Senator, do you expect : > him to try to get all budgeted money spent in Virginia : > rather than Texas? : > : > This is your second post where you make up statements and : > attribute them to Graham. If you are going to lie, try : > to be a little more cagey about it!!!
: Duh, figure it out for yourself - 100 senators, 50 states to protect = : no budget reduction - Saying that he never voted to raise the deficit : is a lie if he goes on to say that he never made any hard choices to : cut the deficit either - It stands to reason that if he (like every : other politican) argues that it's his job to bring home the bacon then : we're going to be paying for that bacon
That doesn't speak to the point that you LIED about what the man said on the show! It is not what YOU reason, it is what the man said. And what HE said is NOT what you claim he said! Pure and simple, YOU lied.
-- Matt Hunter "I really hate it when I'm always right" - Ian Malcom Jurassic Park
: IT>Dan Day (d...@se.houston.geoquest.slb.com) wrote: : IT>: In article <3iac55$...@jake.esu.edu> truh...@esu.edu (Tim Ruhnke) writes: : IT>: > : IT>: >it is this simple: : IT>: > phil gramm-american hypocrite
: IT>: Well, simple analyses for simple minds. : IT>: -- : IT>: "Don't tread on me"
: IT> i've been watching phil gramm for years. every aspect of his political : IT>life has been, do as i say, not as i do. he fought for BIG public : IT>spending projects in TX, and yet gets his nose in w/rudman, whose boots : IT>he couldn't even shine. mr. war hawk COULD HAVE joined the service, as : IT>the original post implied, but CHOSE not to. i don't give a shit what : IT>the defense dept. would have had him doing. if he thought the war and : IT>coerced service were important, he could have done his time. and it's a : IT>plus that he DIDN'T oppose the war? my old man had his ass on a : IT>destroyer during the post war occupation, and he about went to miami to : IT>protest the war during the 72 gop covention. gramm would have been one : IT>of the folks in there saying what a good idea it was to wage war against : IT>a people w/strong nationalistic leanings. newt's always talking movies : IT>(there's another war hypocrite, representing the highest subsidized : IT>county in the nation), here's a documentary you should check out: : IT>vietnam, the 10,000 day war. : IT> so my original response stands: phil gramm, american hypocrite. : IT>tim : IT>ps. someone should tell phil if he doesn't want his mama to live under : IT>govt. run health care, maybe HE can pay her medicare share.
Good post. I am initially supporting Gramm. However, your post is a expression of you opinions. You tackled what you saw as flaws in the man WITHOUT LYING about what he has said. You are quite correct in that Gramm could have enlisted but chose not to. He didn't DODGE the draft but chose to accept a deferrment rather than volunteer to support it vigorously.
One could also argue that he should have fought vigorously to keep some of the PORK spending OUT of the budget and could have fought wasting some of the money in Texas on principle and let it go to pave more roads in W. Va. after the budget was passed.
Then there are the LIES of the next poster. Oh well, educated discourse can be rare.
: RIght; Philbert has been honored by a new word, "Grammstanding". It : means taking credit for something one has done his best to oppose. That : he dodged the draft dosen't bother me much;
I am glad it doesn't bother you because he DIDN't dodge the draft! You had better get used to that fact that many people in public life chose not to go. Most of them had, as Phil did, LEGAL deferrments. We have had a number of Presidents since the Civil War who did the same thing. Two, paid someone else to serve in the Civil War so they wouldn't have to. It was a LEGAL act, ethics aside!
: I went even though I kneew : w the war was wrong, but I do dislike him for being a hypocrite. He : says he didn't go because his talents would just be wasted defending his : in the military.
The big LIE! Gramm never said the above attribution.
: Why didn't I thing of that? "Hey sarge, I think my : talents are being wasted here. Can I go home?" Hmmmm.... : Hanse
Maybe you should have. I served recently and my Dad spent 26 months in Vietnam. Both he and I saw a number of soldiers get exactly what you describe. They simply "asked" to go home, refused to serve, and were discharged with "Failure to adapt" 214's. In addition, do you have the figures for the number serving vs the number that actually set foot in Vietnam? Pretty big difference.
-- Matt Hunter "I really hate it when I'm always right" - Ian Malcom Jurassic Park
IP>In article <3infdj$...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, mhun...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu IP>(Matthew James Hunter) says: IP>> IP>. IP>Somebody else said: IP>>: I went even though I kneew IP>>: w the war was wrong, but I do dislike him for being a hypocrite. He IP>>: says he didn't go because his talents would just be wasted defending his IP>>: in the military. IP>> IP>> The big LIE! Gramm never said the above attribution.
IP>I'll bet you $100 that that is indeed what he said - At least IP>in paraphrase - He said that if he went in the army his job wouldn't IP>be good enough for him - Millions of people heard him say it and anybody IP>can buy a transcript of the show - To futher his hypocracy, during his IP>annnouncment this week he wrapped himself in every possible military IP>symbol -
IP>The bet is this - I say (for $100) that Phil Gramm publicly claimed that IP>the army wasn't going to give him a good enough job so he stayed out - IP>And he also claimed that teaching economics to ROTC students was military IP>service -
This quote was recently printed in the Dallas Morning news. A library in any large city ought to have it on microfilm. Or you can get a reprint from the paper. If you think this hypocrisy is bad, you just don't know enough about Philbert. Hanse
: In article <3ij9pf$...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, mhun...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu (Matthew James Hunter) says: : .> That doesn't speak to the point that you LIED about what : > the man said on the show! It is not what YOU reason, it : > is what the man said. And what HE said is NOT what you : > claim he said! Pure and simple, YOU lied. : ..
: Yeh, you're right - I lied in order to destroy Gramm's : political career - I'm a big liar and Gramm is an American : hero - Yeh, right
Ah the lies continue! I never stated, as you imply, that Gramm is an American hero. You just got caught bud!
-- Matt Hunter "I really hate it when I'm always right" - Ian Malcom Jurassic Park
>Peter Giordano (pgior...@williams.edu) wrote: >: In article <3ij9pf$...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, mhun...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu (Matthew James Hunter) says: >: .> That doesn't speak to the point that you LIED about what >: > the man said on the show! It is not what YOU reason, it >: > is what the man said. And what HE said is NOT what you >: > claim he said! Pure and simple, YOU lied. >: ..
>: Yeh, you're right - I lied in order to destroy Gramm's >: political career - I'm a big liar and Gramm is an American >: hero - Yeh, right
> Ah the lies continue! I never stated, as you imply, that Gramm > is an American hero. You just got caught bud!
So if I lied then you'll take me up on my bet
You sure trhow the word "lie" around a lot - I guess you think that Limbaugh's a liar too
|
