Yellow Badge of Cowardice
Thomas Banks
>
> This means that anyone who served this country has the right to
>speak out about the cowards who ran away like that asshole, Clinton. No
>Rush did not serve the country, but he did not run away to England
>either. He just played the liberals game.
Oh, brother. Gramm didn't serve; Gingrich didn't serve; nor did your
that 4-F fat fuck, Rush. For them to wave the flag for political or, in
Rush's case, financial gain is beyond cynical.
--
\ /
O O
-----m-( )-m-----
Grafitti by:
tba...@richmond.infi.net
tba...@aol.com
1:264/416 (FidoNet)
T. Carr
Key point.. Gramm, Gingrich, Rush, or most of the democrats that did
not serve did so through legitimate deferments (college,National Guard
etc...) Other members of congress did serve. That isnt the issue.
The issue is character. and of honesty. Was that present by
Bill Clinton joining the national guard, the leaving as a rhodes scholar?
(and then not finishing?)
Does this president have the moral right to send troops into battle
based on his track record?
T. Carr
T. Carr
>In article <4cggl4$o...@motown.coast.net>, T. Carr <tdc...@Coast.net> wrote:
>> Does this president have the moral right to send troops into battle
>>based on his track record?
>>
>
>when it becomes necessary) to do so because he is President of the
>United States, elected by the People.
>
>Mr. Rush, on the other hand, is "an entertainer".
>
>Jim Beckman j...@mtgbcs.att.com
>
Jim .. Senator Dole, Senator Kerry, or those who did not serve, but did
so honorably would have the moral right to send to send troops into
battle IF elected president.
President Clintons record with regards to vietnam is quite different.
As far as rush, he presents his slant on the issues and makes no bones
about it. A little different than most newspapers that would claim
impartiatlily.
T. Carr
T. Carr
>In article <4cggl4$o...@motown.coast.net>, tdc...@Coast.net says...
>> Does this president have the moral right to send troops into battle
>>based on his track record?
>
>no relevance. Augustus Caesar did not fight (unlike his uncle
>Julius), yet ordered his troops to war.
>
>--
>Roy Evritt (rev...@cyberatl.net)
>Oxford, Georgia, U.S.A.
>
Did Augustus Caesar join the armed forces, change his mind, then go
overseas to study, and not complete his degreee? While he was overseas
did he demonstrate against the war his country was fighting ?
If he did, then i guess you have a point
T. Carr
Jeff Oransky
Roy Evritt <rev...@cyberatl.net> wrote:
>In article <4cggl4$o...@motown.coast.net>, tdc...@Coast.net says...
>> Does this president have the moral right to send troops into battle
>>based on his track record?
He has the right, as the President, to send troops into battle.
Whether or not he has the moral authority for this action is
very debatable considering his record.
>Yes, because the military-service track record you cite has
>no relevance. Augustus Caesar did not fight (unlike his uncle
>Julius), yet ordered his troops to war.
Clintons lack of military service isn't the problem. The fact that he
actively evaded the draft because he disagreed with US policy in
Viet Nam is the problem. I some young soldier out there questions
Clintons policy in the current matter, from where does Clinton get
the moral authority to say he was right in his case but this young guy
is wrong. You can talk all you want about the differences in the
situations but the fact remains that Clinton would not serve because
he thought the policy was immoral, what gives hime the right to say
that someone today that believes that his policy is immoral is
wrong. It is not merely a matter of not serving (its rediculous
to think that a president MUST have military experience, although
it certainly helps a lot).
Jeff Oransky
jao...@pacbell.com
*I haven't committed a crime. What I did was fail to comply with the law.*
-David Dinkins, New York City mayor,
answering accusations that he failed to
pay his taxes
131G40000-J.BECKMAN(MT4084)1023MT
>based on his track record?
>
No. And neither does anyone else. He has the right (and the obligation,
Andrew Hall
Jeff> In article <4ch08d$3...@news.atlcom.net>, Roy Evritt
Jeff> <rev...@cyberatl.net> wrote:
>> In article <4cggl4$o...@motown.coast.net>, tdc...@Coast.net
>> says...
>>> Does this president have the moral right to send troops into
>>> battle based on his track record?
Jeff> He has the right, as the President, to send troops into
Jeff> battle. Whether or not he has the moral authority for this
Jeff> action is very debatable considering his record.
>> Yes, because the military-service track record you cite has no
>> relevance. Augustus Caesar did not fight (unlike his uncle
>> Julius), yet ordered his troops to war.
Jeff> Clintons lack of military service isn't the problem. The
Jeff> fact that he actively evaded the draft because he disagreed
Jeff> with US policy in Viet Nam is the problem. I some young
Jeff> soldier out there questions Clintons policy in the current
Jeff> matter, from where does Clinton get the moral authority to
Jeff> say he was right in his case but this young guy is wrong.
There is a huge difference between avoiding the immoral draft
and refusing an order after voluntarily enlisting.
Jeff> You can talk all you want about the differences in the
Jeff> situations but the fact remains that Clinton would not serve
Jeff> because he thought the policy was immoral, what gives hime
Jeff> the right to say that someone today that believes that his
Jeff> policy is immoral is wrong. It is not merely a matter of not
Jeff> serving (its rediculous to think that a president MUST have
Jeff> military experience, although it certainly helps a lot).
Jeff> Jeff Oransky jao...@pacbell.com
Jeff> *I haven't committed a crime. What I did was fail to comply
Jeff> with the law.*
Jeff> -David Dinkins, New York City mayor,
Jeff> answering accusations that he failed to pay his taxes
Charlie Ambrosi
>From: rev...@cyberatl.net (Roy Evritt)
>Subject: Re: Yellow Badge of Cowardice
>Date: 4 Jan 1996 16:46:05 GMT
>In article <4cggl4$o...@motown.coast.net>, tdc...@Coast.net says...
>> Does this president have the moral right to send troops into battle
>>based on his track record?
>Yes, because the military-service track record you cite has
>no relevance. Augustus Caesar did not fight (unlike his uncle
>Julius), yet ordered his troops to war.
>--
>Roy Evritt (rev...@cyberatl.net)
>Oxford, Georgia, U.S.A.
You're comparing Augustus, probably one of the five greatest rulers in the
history of mankind, to the candy-assed bubblenosed coward in the White House!?
Now I KNOW there's incest aplenty in Georgia! ( BTW, Julius was his
great-uncle thence his adoptive father).
Roy Evritt
Michael K. Ross
>In article <4ch08d$3...@news.atlcom.net>,
>Roy Evritt <rev...@cyberatl.net> wrote:
>>In article <4cggl4$o...@motown.coast.net>, tdc...@Coast.net says...
>>> Does this president have the moral right to send troops into battle
>>>based on his track record?
>
>He has the right, as the President, to send troops into battle.
>Whether or not he has the moral authority for this action is
>very debatable considering his record.
>
>>Yes, because the military-service track record you cite has
>>no relevance. Augustus Caesar did not fight (unlike his uncle
>>Julius), yet ordered his troops to war.
>
>Clintons lack of military service isn't the problem. The fact that he
>actively evaded the draft because he disagreed with US policy in
>Viet Nam is the problem. I some young soldier out there questions
>Clintons policy in the current matter, from where does Clinton get
>the moral authority to say he was right in his case but this young guy
>is wrong.
Because these people aren't being _drafted_. They're volunteers. Big
difference.
- Mike Ross
Zepp
>not serve did so through legitimate deferments (college,National Guard
>etc...) Other members of congress did serve. That isnt the issue.
> The issue is character. and of honesty. Was that present by
>Bill Clinton joining the national guard, the leaving as a rhodes scholar?
>(and then not finishing?)
>based on his track record?
Gramm, who has spent his entire life on the public tit, didn't serve because
they weren't drafting college teachers. Rush had a pimple on his ass.
Buchanan had a bum knee that miraculously healed itself after he was declared
4-F. There's recurring rumors that Gingrich called in a few favors to beat the
draft.
Back in the late 60's, early 70's, the National Guard was seen as a repository
for weenies who lacked the guts to either go or protest the war. A Rhode
Scholarship, then as now, was a high honor earned by a lot of very hard work.
It wasn't exactly as easy a dodge as putting on lipstick and pantyhose and
sashaying into your local draft board was. Also, Bill never joined the Guard.
He considered doing so at one point, and changed his mind. Anyone who was of
age in those days and had figured out that Vietnam didn't have a damn thing to
do with American security or "fighting for freedom" went through those types
of changes.
Tell me--how old were YOU in 1970?
>
> T. Carr
>
Centurion 5
: Because (tdc...@Coast.net) wrote...
: >Does this president have the moral right to send troops into battle
: Yes, because the military-service track record you cite has
: no relevance. Augustus Caesar did not fight (unlike his uncle
: Julius), yet ordered his troops to war.
Hmmm. Here we go again! "Moral Right?" Since when was the decision
to commit troops to battle based upon the morality of the leader of a
nation, furthermore, the United States?
What 'moral-right' did we have deploying troops in the Gulf, Grenada,
Haiti, Panama, Nicaragua (for which they were never decorated, nor
acknowledged), Vietnam, et. al.? Quite a silly requisite if you ask
me. And besides what does his implied 'track record' have to do with
this, or even better yet, since when did any C-N-C for that fact have
to meet such requirement? I know of no such prerequisite.
The bottom-line is that the troops are there; The fighting has stopped,
for now. And the worst that has happened: A soldier was injured by
accidentally stepping on a mine, and an armored division was caught in
an unexpected flood on the banks of the Sava. We aren't there to
promote democracy, defend oil-fields, extracate American citizens &
allies, or achieve conquest ...We are there to vanguard peace in the
name of humanity and basic moral principles & decency.
Now, Go Tell It To The Spartans.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5th Centurion | нлГКнГоГКнГнлГКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлл
Centurion Chronicles & Web Page | нлГКнГоГКнГнлГКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлл
<http://www.webcom.com/centrnv/> | нлГКнГоГКнГнлГКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлл
Last Updated: 1/3/96 | нлГ $ $ $ $ $ нГоГ $ $ $ $ $ нлл
Accessors To Date: TooManyTo Keep Count | E. PLURIBUS UNUM
===============================================================================
Voltaire
(131G40000-J.BECKMAN(MT4084)1023MT) wrote:
>In article <4cggl4$o...@motown.coast.net>, T. Carr <tdc...@Coast.net> wrote:
>> Does this president have the moral right to send troops into battle
>>based on his track record?
>>
>
>No. And neither does anyone else. He has the right (and the obligation,
>when it becomes necessary) to do so because he is President of the
>United States, elected by the People.
>
>Mr. Rush, on the other hand, is "an entertainer".
An entertainer whose ratings are falling.
Voltaire
C.C.Mctavish
>
>
> Key point.. Gramm, Gingrich, Rush, or most of the democrats that did
>not serve did so through legitimate deferments (college,National Guard
>etc...) Other members of congress did serve. That isnt the issue.
It certainly IS an issue when you imply that Clintons'
student deferrment was somehow less valid than those used
by Gramm and Newt. A 2S is 2S. (I had one too. They were
were pretty popular)
> The issue is character. and of honesty. Was that present by
>Bill Clinton joining the national guard, the leaving as a rhodes scholar?
>(and then not finishing?)
Clinton was never enrolled as member of the National Guard. And
as for accepting a Rhodes Scholarship, where is the crime in
that? Just because Gramm and Newt were never offered one does
make Clinton's offer any less legal.
> Does this president have the moral right to send troops into battle
>based on his track record?
>
Of course he does. He is the president, elected by the people.
If you want to insist that only military veterans should be allowed
to be president, then you will better amend the constitution to
do so.
T. Carr
Last time.. The pattern of deception that Bill Clinton engaged in puts
him on very shaky moral ground to send in troops to be shot at. Other
people that either served or took a legitimate deferment would be on
solid moral ground
President Clinton has the LEGAL right to send the troops in. No
argument there.
T. Carr
Roy Evritt
>
> Did Augustus Caesar join the armed forces, change his mind, then go
>overseas to study, and not complete his degreee? While he was overseas
>did he demonstrate against the war his country was fighting ?
>
> If he did, then i guess you have a point
>
No, as I understand it, one would describe Augustus as a "sickly
wimp" before he came to power. It made no difference to his ability
as (important words coming) the leader of a nation to send troops
into combat.
I have given up debating your type on the greater patriotism required
to point out that one's own country has erred. Flag waving comes
easy. One does not need to refer to morality or use good thinking.
T. Carr
>Roy Evritt (rev...@cyberatl.net) shared:
>: Because (tdc...@Coast.net) wrote...
>
Please dont confuse the morality of the objective vs the morality of
the person.
Please dont clip this part.. THE PRESIDENT HAS THE LEGAL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO SEND TROOPS INTO COMBAT.
I have never argued that point. Mr Clinton as president Has that
authority.
If you objectively review Mr Clintons actions during the foreign
conflict when he was eligible to serve(vietnam), his actions were
decietful to say the least.
As far as other people not serving in the armed forces, fine. There
legitimate,legal means to to to fight a war. (National Guard, college
deferments, hardship, c.o) That would not place them on weak moral ground
to send troops into combat.
I dont think FDR recieved any comments on his not having served in the
military. But then again, nobody is comparing the current president to
FDR
T. Carr
Christopher Rose
> Did Augustus Caesar join the armed forces, change his mind, then go
>overseas to study, and not complete his degreee? While he was overseas
>did he demonstrate against the war his country was fighting ?
> If he did, then i guess you have a point
> T. Carr
Again irellevant. One of the most vocal organized war protest groups
where soldiers who had returned from vietnam. Better question, did you
go to vietnam? If not, then by your line of reasoning you have no
moral authority to comment on the subject. Tochee(sp)
Christopher Rose
> Key point.. Gramm, Gingrich, Rush, or most of the democrats that did
>not serve did so through legitimate deferments (college,National Guard
>etc...) Other members of congress did serve. That isnt the issue.
> The issue is character. and of honesty. Was that present by
>Bill Clinton joining the national guard, the leaving as a rhodes scholar?
>(and then not finishing?)
> Does this president have the moral right to send troops into battle
>based on his track record?
> T. Carr
This argument used against clinton is stupid. To put it in
prespective, Because the manger of Mcdonalds has no experience fliping
burgers does this mean he can't order supervise someone else flipping
burgers? Lots of Republicans tend to forget one of there favs old
danny boy als "joined the national gaurd" because his rich mommy and
daddy manged to get him out of the war. Oh we convienently forgot
that. If I where Clinton, or Quayle for that matter, I would have done
the same thing. (I can't blame either.) I wish everybody would stop
trying to rag on peples character and actualy argue some issues that
amount to a hill of beans. NOBODY WANTED TO GO TO VIETNAM THAT HAD
HALF A BRAIN.
Mitchell Holman
}"T. Carr" <tdc...@Coast.net> wrote:
}
If I where Clinton, or Quayle for that matter, I would have done
}the same thing. (I can't blame either.) I wish everybody would stop
}trying to rag on peples character and actualy argue some issues that
}amount to a hill of beans. NOBODY WANTED TO GO TO VIETNAM THAT HAD
}HALF A BRAIN.
}
Personally, I admire Clinton for using every legal method
to stay out of Vietnam, and wish more had done so. At least
Clinton was open about his opposition to the war, unlike
Qauyle and Gramm and their ilk that cheered it on from the
sidelines. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Mitchell Holman
"Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons
released by vegetation, so let s not go overboard in setting and
enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources."
Ronald Reagan (b. 1911), U.S. Republican politician, president.
Sierra (10 Sept. 1980). Reagan later amended this figure to 93%.
Bazemore Jonathan R
s
References: <4c3o1l$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4c578t$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4cce0p$g...@news.infi.net> <4cggl4$o...@motown.coast.net> <4ch08d$3...@news.atlcom.net> <charles.h.ambro...@tek.com>
Organization: Community College of Denver
Distribution:
Charlie Ambrosi (charles....@tek.com) wrote:
: In article <4ch08d$3...@news.atlcom.net> rev...@cyberatl.net (Roy Evritt) writes:
: >From: rev...@cyberatl.net (Roy Evritt)
: >Subject: Re: Yellow Badge of Cowardice
: >Date: 4 Jan 1996 16:46:05 GMT
: >In article <4cggl4$o...@motown.coast.net>, tdc...@Coast.net says...
: >> Does this president have the moral right to send troops into battle
: >>based on his track record?
: >Yes, because the military-service track record you cite has
: >no relevance. Augustus Caesar did not fight (unlike his uncle
: >Julius), yet ordered his troops to war.
: >--
: >Roy Evritt (rev...@cyberatl.net)
: >Oxford, Georgia, U.S.A.
: You're comparing Augustus, probably one of the five greatest rulers in the
: history of mankind, to the candy-assed bubblenosed coward in the White House!?
: Now I KNOW there's incest aplenty in Georgia! ( BTW, Julius was his
: great-uncle thence his adoptive father).
hehehehahaha
Erik Marksberry
> On 4 Jan 1996 16:51:07 GMT, "T. Carr" <tdc...@Coast.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Jim .. Senator Dole, Senator Kerry, or those who did not serve, but did
> >so honorably would have the moral right to send to send troops into
> >battle IF elected president.
> >
> > President Clintons record with regards to vietnam is quite different.
> >
> > As far as rush, he presents his slant on the issues and makes no bones
> >about it. A little different than most newspapers that would claim
> >impartiatlily.
>
> presidency that involve past military service or opposition to past
> American military policies?
>
> Voltaire
>
Absolutely none. On the other hand, would you want an ex-con serving
as a judge? A child molester teaching 2nd grade?
L...@mdli.com
In article <4ci1cl$m...@news.atlcom.net>, <rev...@cyberatl.net> writes:
>
> I have given up debating your type on the greater patriotism required
> to point out that one's own country has erred. Flag waving comes
> easy. One does not need to refer to morality or use good thinking.
>
1. Quayle had the money and connections to make his draft evasion look cleaner
2. Quayle thought the Viet war was a dandy idea (as long as someone else
fought it)
>
Terry C Shannon
Voltaire <volt...@chelsea.ios.com> wrote:
>On 4 Jan 1996 16:51:07 GMT, "T. Carr" <tdc...@Coast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Jim .. Senator Dole, Senator Kerry, or those who did not serve, but did
>>so honorably would have the moral right to send to send troops into
>>battle IF elected president.
>>
>> President Clintons record with regards to vietnam is quite different.
>>
>> As far as rush, he presents his slant on the issues and makes no bones
>>about it. A little different than most newspapers that would claim
>>impartiatlily.
>
>And which Constitutional provision sets up the qualifications for the
>presidency that involve past military service or opposition to past
>American military policies?
>
> Voltaire
No provision whatsoever. The problem, if any, is one of credibility.
Clinton opposed--and allegedly demonstrated against (I say allegedly
because I was in the Republic of Viet Nam, not London, when the
demonstrations reportedly happened) our involvement in Viet Nam. It seems
ironic that the President is so gung-ho about committing American armed
forces to another distant Noble Cause--one that is fraught with potential
for escalation and big-time bloodshed.
But ironic or not, the troops are there and the whole affair probably
doesn't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things--unless you
are an ultraright fundamentalist!
OldCrow
RHA
Mitchell Holman <hol...@connect.net> wrote:
>In article <4cjepo$k...@barney.gvi.net>, cr...@gvi.net (Christopher Rose) wrote:
>}"T. Carr" <tdc...@Coast.net> wrote:
>}
> If I where Clinton, or Quayle for that matter, I would have done
>}the same thing. (I can't blame either.) I wish everybody would stop
>}trying to rag on peples character and actualy argue some issues that
>}amount to a hill of beans. NOBODY WANTED TO GO TO VIETNAM THAT HAD
>}HALF A BRAIN.
>}
>
> Personally, I admire Clinton for using every legal method
> to stay out of Vietnam, and wish more had done so. At least
> Clinton was open about his opposition to the war, unlike
> Qauyle and Gramm and their ilk that cheered it on from the
> sidelines. What a bunch of hypocrites.
>
Absolutely. When I went to college, after my two years of
active duty, I met a young kid who constantly bitched about
the "draft dodgers" protesting the war. He thought I'd
agree with him. I told him "Tim, if Vietnam is so important
to you, what are you doing here?" He didn't like that and
said he wanted his degree first.
When Nixon ended student deferments, Timmy ran over to another
college to enroll in their ROTC course. Then when the lottery
was instituted, he spent an hour shitting bricks until they
hit his birthdate...350 or something. He jumped up and started
running. I yelled out "Where ya goin'". "To quit ROTC", he
yelled back over his shoulder, "fuck that marching shit."
I imagine he's a Phil Gramm or Pat Buchanan supporter today.
--
rha
Barry DeCicco
leadership did not serve, and that the conservative definition
of 'did not serve, but did so honorably' seems to include
any and all Republicans who didn't serve, for any reason whatsoever,
the statement below is false.
|> On 4 Jan 1996 16:51:07 GMT, "T. Carr" <tdc...@Coast.net> wrote:
|>
|>
|> > Jim .. Senator Dole, Senator Kerry, or those who did not serve, but did
|> >so honorably would have the moral right to send to send troops into
|> >battle IF elected president.
|> >
Barry
Erik Marksberry
> In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960105...@red.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
> Erik Marksberry <mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>=20
> > On Sat, 6 Jan 1996, Voltaire wrote:
> > >=20
> > > > Jim .. Senator Dole, Senator Kerry, or those who did not serve, bu=
t did=20
> > > >so honorably would have the moral right to send to send troops into=
=20
> > > >battle IF elected president.
> > > >
> > > > President Clintons record with regards to vietnam is quite differ=
ent.
> > > >
> > > > As far as rush, he presents his slant on the issues and makes no =
bones=20
> > > >about it. A little different than most newspapers that would claim=
=20
> > > >impartiatlily.
> > >=20
> > > And which Constitutional provision sets up the qualifications for the
> > > presidency that involve past military service or opposition to past
> > > American military policies?
> > > Voltaire
> > >=20
> >=20
> > Absolutely none. On the other hand, would you want an ex-con serving=
=20
> > as a judge? A child molester teaching 2nd grade? =20
>=20
> Are we saying that the President needs to have work experience in ever=
y
> area the job covers? That means we need a candidate who has been a
> bureaucrat, a congressperson, a lawyer, an accountant and a military
> person. =20
No, but we find it very contradictory that a draft dodging anti-war=20
protester is now in command of the most powerful military in the world.=20
It is not a legal issue at all; it's a moral one.
>=20
> No wonder the minimum age in 35 -- you need some time to pack in all
> those careers!
>=20
> Are we also saying objecting in principal to the Vietnam conflict is o=
n
> the same level with a felony? Or was that just a fun overstatement to ge=
t
> our attention? =20
I do not equate Clinton with a child molester. But moving overseas to=20
avoid the draft and then organizing protests against your own country is=20
slightly more than just objecting in principle.
>=20
> Remember, Clinton supported the Gulf War, so it's not like he has
> forever been opposed to armed intervention.
With the election rolling around, and Bush riding his 89% approval=20
rating from the Gulf War, it would have been political suicide to=20
denounce the Gulf War, especially given his Vietnam track record.
> > =20
> Jason H.
> =A9 The Chronicle of Neglected Truth
>=20
> --=20
> Jason Hardy
>=20
> "People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and h=
ave a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle
>=20
>=20
Erik Marksberry "If cars evolved the way computers did, they=20
University of Iowa would run for six months on a quarter's worth
of gas and explode once per day."
Erik Marksberry
> In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960105...@red.weeg.uiowa.edu>, Erik Marksberry <mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
> |> On Sat, 6 Jan 1996, Voltaire wrote:
> |> > On 4 Jan 1996 16:51:07 GMT, "T. Carr" <tdc...@Coast.net> wrote:
> |> >
> |> >
> |> > >
> |> > > President Clintons record with regards to vietnam is quite different.
> |> > >
> |> > > As far as rush, he presents his slant on the issues and makes no bones
> |> >
> |> > And which Constitutional provision sets up the qualifications for the
> |> > presidency that involve past military service or opposition to past
> |> > American military policies?
> |> >
> |> >
> |>
> |> Absolutely none. On the other hand, would you want an ex-con serving
> |>
>
> of Dole), serving as commander in chief, when they used the system so well,
> to avoid non-career-enhancing moves like risking their lives in Vietnam?
But none of the Republican leadership is commander in chief; Clinton
is.
> Barry
>
Erik Marksberry "If cars evolved the way computers did, they
Voltaire
Voltaire
(Bazemore Jonathan R) wrote:
>: You're comparing Augustus, probably one of the five greatest rulers in the
>: history of mankind, to the candy-assed bubblenosed coward in the White House!?
>: Now I KNOW there's incest aplenty in Georgia! ( BTW, Julius was his
>: great-uncle thence his adoptive father).
>
>
> hehehehahaha
What's so funny? You seem to have confused Mr. Evritt's beloved
Georgia with your last family reunion.
Voltaire
Barry DeCicco
|> On Sat, 6 Jan 1996, Voltaire wrote:
The one which the Republicans all seem to have discovered, as soon as Clinton
was elected. This was coincident to so many conservatives having suddenly
'discovered' that the U.S. is an 'oppressive, police state', once
they didn't have a President from their own party.
Barry
Barry DeCicco
|> On Sat, 6 Jan 1996, Voltaire wrote:
|> > On 4 Jan 1996 16:51:07 GMT, "T. Carr" <tdc...@Coast.net> wrote:
|> >
|> >
|> > > Jim .. Senator Dole, Senator Kerry, or those who did not serve, but did
|> > >so honorably would have the moral right to send to send troops into
|> > >battle IF elected president.
|> > >
|> > > President Clintons record with regards to vietnam is quite different.
|> > >
|> > > As far as rush, he presents his slant on the issues and makes no bones
|> > >about it. A little different than most newspapers that would claim
|> > >impartiatlily.
|> >
|> > And which Constitutional provision sets up the qualifications for the
|> > presidency that involve past military service or opposition to past
|> > American military policies?
|> >
|> > Voltaire
|> >
|>
|> as a judge? A child molester teaching 2nd grade?
|>
Or almost any of the Republican leadership (with almost the sole exception
of Dole), serving as commander in chief, when they used the system so well,
to avoid non-career-enhancing moves like risking their lives in Vietnam?
Barry
Philippe Hajjar
volt...@chelsea.ios.com (Voltaire) wrote:
And which Constitutional provision sets up the qualifications for the
>presidency that involve past military service or opposition to past
>American military policies?
Clinton is being a hyporcrite, though. Someone who was so opposed to America
being the world's policeman should not be sending 20,000 American troops to an
obvious death trap.
I wonder what would happen if Clinton deployed 20,000 troops into America to
deal with our problems?
Philippe Hajjar
PNH...@PSU.EDU
"Vote Democrat. It's easier than working."
Flames and chain letters can be directed to RTFM@FUBAR or SMUT@PSUVM
Fred McCall
:Because these people aren't being _drafted_. They're volunteers. Big
:difference.
But they didn't volunteer to be put at risk for no damn good reason.
Maybe not such a big difference, after all.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
f...@onramp.net -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Jason Hardy
Erik Marksberry <mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jan 1996, Voltaire wrote:
> > On 4 Jan 1996 16:51:07 GMT, "T. Carr" <tdc...@Coast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Jim .. Senator Dole, Senator Kerry, or those who did not serve, but did
> > >so honorably would have the moral right to send to send troops into
> > >battle IF elected president.
> > >
> > > President Clintons record with regards to vietnam is quite different.
> > >
> > > As far as rush, he presents his slant on the issues and makes no bones
> > >about it. A little different than most newspapers that would claim
> > >impartiatlily.
> >
> > And which Constitutional provision sets up the qualifications for the
> > presidency that involve past military service or opposition to past
> > American military policies?
> >
> > Voltaire
> >
>
> Absolutely none. On the other hand, would you want an ex-con serving
> as a judge? A child molester teaching 2nd grade?
Are we saying that the President needs to have work experience in every
area the job covers? That means we need a candidate who has been a
bureaucrat, a congressperson, a lawyer, an accountant and a military
person.
No wonder the minimum age in 35 -- you need some time to pack in all
those careers!
Are we also saying objecting in principal to the Vietnam conflict is on
the same level with a felony? Or was that just a fun overstatement to get
our attention?
Remember, Clinton supported the Gulf War, so it's not like he has
forever been opposed to armed intervention.
>
Jason H.
© The Chronicle of Neglected Truth
--
Jason Hardy
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle
RHA
Fred McCall <f...@onramp.net> wrote:
>mr...@dcc.com (Michael K. Ross) wrote:
>
>:Because these people aren't being _drafted_. They're volunteers. Big
>:difference.
>
>But they didn't volunteer to be put at risk for no damn good reason.
>Maybe not such a big difference, after all.
>
No one forced them. Big difference. Possibly you're too young
to understand.
>
>--
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
> live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
Enjoyed your .sig quote, do you see the contradiction in it?
--
rha
Gary Willford
> Gramm, who has spent his entire life on the public tit, didn't serve beca=
use
> they weren't drafting college teachers. Rush had a pimple on his ass.
> Buchanan had a bum knee that miraculously healed itself after he was decl=
ared
> 4-F. There's recurring rumors that Gingrich called in a few favors to bea=
t the
> draft.
None of these people are sending troops to Bosnia, Clinton is. Rush, contr=
ary to your lie, had a =
stomach ailment, not a pimple. Further, "rumors" carry ZERO weight.
> Back in the late 60's, early 70's, the National Guard was seen as a repos=
itory
> for weenies who lacked the guts to either go or protest the war. A Rhode=
Bullshit! A number of National Guard units and individuals deployed to and=
participated in the =
fighting in Vietnam. This lame argument is weak attempt to shift the focus=
to Quayle. At least =
Quayle put on a uniform, which is a helluva lot more than we can say for th=
e current President.
> Scholarship, then as now, was a high honor earned by a lot of very hard w=
ork.
Scholarship wasn't what got Clinton out of the war. After receiving his dr=
aft notification, he =
suddenly developed a desire to join ROTC. A desire which evaporated when t=
he threat that he =
might be drafted did. His infamous letter expressing his true desires has =
been published. In =
that letter he stated:
1. He wanted to remain "politically viable'"
2. The military was "evil."
This last was no condemnation of the policies of Vietnam, but of the milita=
ry itself. Now he is =
using the very thing he labled as evil to get people killed for something t=
hat is not in the =
national interest. That is why he has no moral authority for this action.
> He considered doing so at one point, and changed his mind. Anyone who wa=
s of
> age in those days and had figured out that Vietnam didn't have a damn thi=
ng to
> do with American security or "fighting for freedom" went through those ty=
pes
> of changes.
Care to tell me what Bosnia and Somalia had to do with American security or=
"fighting for =
freedom?"
> Tell me--how old were YOU in 1970?
Six. Tell me--where were YOU when President Clinton sent me to Mogadishu t=
o get shot at on a =
daily basis for nothing?
Gary Willford
The Adversary
-- =
=93My country, may it always be right. But, my country, right OR wrong!=94=
- Stephen Decatur
Erik Marksberry
> <mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Voltaire wrote:
>
> >> And which Constitutional provision sets up the qualifications for the
> >> presidency that involve past military service or opposition to past
> >> American military policies?
> >>
> >
> >as a judge? A child molester teaching 2nd grade?
>
>
> An ex-con can serve as a judge if he or she is elected or appointed.
>
> A child molester would never be allowed to teach at any level.
>
> Once again, how does this relate to the constitutional qualifications
> for President. A sure sign of a poor argument is bringing up
> information that has noting to do with the question at hand.
I answered your question and then expanded on what I felt to be the
heart of the debate. There are _no_ military prerequisites to be
President. However, that is not all there is to it. An ex-con CAN
become a judge, but SHOULD he? Should someone who in the past went
against the legal system be allowed to later shape the legal system by
his judgements? I see conflicts in that situation, and I feel there
are parallels between it and President Clinton.
We are not debating the legality of Clinton sending troops, we are
debating the morality of it. From that view, it is you bringing up
information not relating to the debate at hand.
>
> Voltaire
>
Erik Marksberry
Gary Willford
> =
> In article <4ch2sg$v...@motown.coast.net>, tdc...@Coast.net says...
> >
> > Did Augustus Caesar join the armed forces, change his mind, then go
> >overseas to study, and not complete his degreee? While he was overseas
> >did he demonstrate against the war his country was fighting ?
> >
> > If he did, then i guess you have a point
> >
> =
> No, as I understand it, one would describe Augustus as a "sickly
> wimp" before he came to power. It made no difference to his ability
> as (important words coming) the leader of a nation to send troops
> into combat.
> =
> I have given up debating your type on the greater patriotism required
> to point out that one's own country has erred. Flag waving comes
> easy. One does not need to refer to morality or use good thinking.
There is nothing wrong in pointing out that your country has erred. It is =
another thing to =
refuse to serve (either actively or passively) when called upon to do so. =
That is where Clinton =
lost the moral high ground. Not because he disagreed with the policies ove=
r Vietnam, but because =
he didn't put his ass in the grass when called upon to do so.
Gary Willford (One who served when he did not want to do so)
Gary Willford
> Because these people aren't being _drafted_. They're volunteers. Big
> difference.
The "people" to which you refer having nothing to do with the President's m=
oral authority. =
Nobody "volunteered" to go to Bosnia. Most of us volunteered to protect th=
e country, and not the =
President's reelection hopes.
The President did not go to a war he did not agree with, how can he force o=
thers to do the same?
Gary Willford
Voltaire
<mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>> Voltaire wrote:
>> And which Constitutional provision sets up the qualifications for the
>> presidency that involve past military service or opposition to past
>> American military policies?
>>
>
> Absolutely none. On the other hand, would you want an ex-con serving
>as a judge? A child molester teaching 2nd grade?
What does this have to do with the original question?
An ex-con can serve as a judge if he or she is elected or appointed.
A child molester would never be allowed to teach at any level.
Once again, how does this relate to the constitutional qualifications
for President. A sure sign of a poor argument is bringing up
information that has noting to do with the question at hand.
Voltaire
Gary Willford
> =
> > Did Augustus Caesar join the armed forces, change his mind, then go
> >overseas to study, and not complete his degreee? While he was overseas
> >did he demonstrate against the war his country was fighting ?
> =
> > If he did, then i guess you have a point
> =
> > T. Carr
> Again irellevant. One of the most vocal organized war protest groups
> where soldiers who had returned from vietnam. Better question, did you
> go to vietnam? If not, then by your line of reasoning you have no
> moral authority to comment on the subject. Tochee(sp)
Only if you were eligible to go. I was born in 1964, are you attempting to=
argue that I have no =
moral authority to comment on Vietnam because I was too young to go? If so=
, then you must =
advocate putting machineguns in the hands of children under 7 and sending t=
hem off to war. =
I did go to Somalia and have volunteered for EVERY conflict since Granada. =
I didn't agree with =
the policy in Somalia, and I didn't want to go, but I did. So I have EVERY=
right to comment. =
Now, you want to debate this with someone whose record you can't disparage?=
You know, in your =
heart of hearts, that if this was George Bush sending troops to Bosnia, the=
re would be protesters =
in D.C., and you'd probably be one of them.
Chickenhawks are an amazing specie.
Gary Willford
> =
> On 4 Jan 1996 16:51:07 GMT, "T. Carr" <tdc...@Coast.net> wrote:
> =
> > Jim .. Senator Dole, Senator Kerry, or those who did not serve, but di=
d
> >so honorably would have the moral right to send to send troops into
> >battle IF elected president.
> >
> > President Clintons record with regards to vietnam is quite different.=
> >
> > As far as rush, he presents his slant on the issues and makes no bone=
s
> >about it. A little different than most newspapers that would claim
> >impartiatlily.
> =
> And which Constitutional provision sets up the qualifications for the
> presidency that involve past military service or opposition to past
> American military policies?
> =
> Voltaire
I don't think anyone is arguing that point. I certainly am not. We are ta=
lking about moral =
authority. Setting the example. Being willing to do unpleasant things you=
rself before ordering =
others to do so.
Mr. Clinton called the military "evil," and sought to avoid the draft on th=
ose grounds. He is =
now using that same "evil" to bolster his reelection bid. This is simply i=
mmoral, and he =
deserves to be taken to task for it.
Brett Kottmann
: Hmmmm . . . . Abe Lincoln had no military experience. Did this disqualify
: him from surrendering to the South?
Abe Lincoln served in the militia (!) and unlike Picard, surrendered
nothing.
Brett
_____________________________________________________________________________
For a team that Clinton promised would adhere to a "higher ethical standard"
his administration has presided over an extraordinary amount of corruption
and an unprecedented number of high-level officials forced to resign in
disgrace. The Times (of London), Feb 12, 1995.
Zepp
Gary Willford <lawy...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
>None of these people are sending troops to Bosnia, Clinton is. Rush,
Actually, he had a pilodal cyst, which normally would not be grounds for a 4-F
deferrment. I agree about rumors, and that's why I identified it as such.
>
>> Back in the late 60's, early 70's, the National Guard was seen as a
repository
>> for weenies who lacked the guts to either go or protest the war. A Rhode
>
>Bullshit! A number of National Guard units and individuals deployed to and
participated in the
>fighting in Vietnam. This lame argument is weak attempt to shift the focus
to Quayle. At least
>Quayle put on a uniform, which is a helluva lot more than we can say for the
current President.
Yup, never knew when the Cong were gonna invade Indiana. I've never heard of
any NG outfits going to 'Nam.
>
>> Scholarship, then as now, was a high honor earned by a lot of very hard
work.
>
>Scholarship wasn't what got Clinton out of the war. After receiving his
draft notification, he
>suddenly developed a desire to join ROTC. A desire which evaporated when the
threat that he
>might be drafted did. His infamous letter expressing his true desires has
been published. In
>that letter he stated:
>1. He wanted to remain "politically viable'"
>2. The military was "evil."
How about some real quotes instead of this bullypucky?
>This last was no condemnation of the policies of Vietnam, but of the military
itself. Now he is
>using the very thing he labled as evil to get people killed for something
that is not in the
>national interest. That is why he has no moral authority for this action.
>
>> He considered doing so at one point, and changed his mind. Anyone who was
of
>> age in those days and had figured out that Vietnam didn't have a damn thing
to
>> do with American security or "fighting for freedom" went through those
types
>> of changes.
>
>Care to tell me what Bosnia and Somalia had to do with American security or
"fighting for
>freedom?"
They don't have a thing to do with either.
>> Tell me--how old were YOU in 1970?
>
>Six. Tell me--where were YOU when President Clinton sent me to Mogadishu to
get shot at on a
>daily basis for nothing?
You mean President Bush, don't you?
GlenY31305
proven both of us right. damn if I was going to get my ass shot at for big
oil.
McGuireCom
Gary Willford
> =
> In article <30EED3...@wolfenet.com>,
> Gary Willford <lawy...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
> >Michael K. Ross wrote:
> >
> >> Because these people aren't being _drafted_. They're volunteers. Big
> >> difference.
> >
> >The "people" to which you refer having nothing to do with the
> >President's moral authority.=3D
> >
> >Nobody "volunteered" to go to Bosnia. Most of us volunteered to
> >protect the country, and not the President's reelection hopes.
> =
> Do you have any idea how WW II started. Germany attacked
> Czechoslovakia and it wasn't in *our* national interest
> to intervene, Japan invaded China and it wasn't in *our*
> national interest.
So? WWII started for US when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. THAT was in our n=
ational interest.
=
> WW I started in Serbia when one faction disagreed with
> another.
But it started for US after the sinking of the Lusitania. Regardless, what=
drug the big European =
powers into the fray was their own treaties, not anything that happened in =
Bosnia.
=
> Of course you probably don't care that Russia is ethnically
> on the side of the Serbs and the Arab nations have a kinship
> with the Muslems. You just don't care, right? You just
> don't see the possibility of a real disaster.
If you know as much about history as you claim, you would know that the sam=
e conflict, with the =
same ethnic ties, has been going on for oh...about 3 CENTURIES. It is the =
remanants of the =
conquest of the Balkans by the Ottoman Empire. Atrocities have been commit=
ted by BOTH sides =
throughout the centuries. There is absolutely NOTHING we can do to wipe ou=
t that much hatred. =
As you said yourself, WWI started with Serbian politics. Getting involved =
in that internal =
conflict is what truly got the ball rolling for the European powers. We ar=
e repeating the exact =
same MISTAKE.
=
> >The President did not go to a war he did not agree with, how
> >can he force others to do the same?
> >
> >Gary Willford
> >The Adversary
> >
> >-- =3D
> >
> >My country, may it always be right. But, my country, right OR wrong!
> >
> >- Stephen Decatur
> So you would kill people even if the reason for killing them
> was immoral?
I kill when my country tells me to kill. If President Clinton tells me to =
go kill Serbs, I'll go =
kill Serbs. If he tells me to kill Muslims, I'll do that too. Absent a cl=
early illegal order, a =
soldier does as he is ordered. =
[NOTE TO RACKY: THIS last sentence is what separates us from the Nazis]
Nothing President Clinton has ordered is illegal. Then again, nothing Pres=
idents Kennedy, =
Johnson, or Nixon ordered in Vietnam was illegal either.
I've answered your question, now answer mine. Is it moral for a man to ord=
er others to do what =
he himself would not do?
RHA
Gary Willford <lawy...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
>Michael K. Ross wrote:
>
>> Because these people aren't being _drafted_. They're volunteers. Big
>> difference.
>
>The "people" to which you refer having nothing to do with the
>President's moral authority.=
>
>protect the country, and not the President's reelection hopes.
Do you have any idea how WW II started. Germany attacked
Czechoslovakia and it wasn't in *our* national interest
to intervene, Japan invaded China and it wasn't in *our*
national interest.
WW I started in Serbia when one faction disagreed with
another.
Of course you probably don't care that Russia is ethnically
on the side of the Serbs and the Arab nations have a kinship
with the Muslems. You just don't care, right? You just
don't see the possibility of a real disaster.
>The President did not go to a war he did not agree with, how
>can he force others to do the same?
>
>Gary Willford
>The Adversary
>
>-- =
>
>My country, may it always be right. But, my country, right OR wrong!
>
>- Stephen Decatur
So you would kill people even if the reason for killing them
was immoral?
--
rha
Gary Willford
> =
> Hmmmm . . . . Abe Lincoln had no military experience. Did this disqualify=
> him from surrendering to the South?
Hate to tell you, but Abraham Lincoln served in the Illinois militia. In f=
act, he was elected to =
the rank of Captain on his first enlistment. He later reenlisted and serve=
d another term as a =
private.
And he didn't surrender to the South.
Gary Willford
The Adversary
-- =
=93My country, may it always be right. But, my country, right OR wrong!=94=
- Stephen Decatur
Shel
> I answered your question and then expanded on what I felt to be the
>heart of the debate. There are _no_ military prerequisites to be
>President. However, that is not all there is to it. An ex-con CAN
>become a judge, but SHOULD he? Should someone who in the past went
>against the legal system be allowed to later shape the legal system by
>his judgements?
Why the heck not? Shit, you'd have Nelson Mandela still in jail, or at
least not in the position he is in now. What a stupid argument!
I see conflicts in that situation, and I feel there
>are parallels between it and President Clinton.
> We are not debating the legality of Clinton sending troops, we are
>debating the morality of it. From that view, it is you bringing up
>information not relating to the debate at hand.
Surely the morality of sending troops is paramount, not who does it?
Talk about clouding and ignoring the really important issue. Stick at
it Voltaire, you have a knack of bringing out the most puerile
posters, which would be great entertainment except for the fact many
of them actually believe themselves....
/\ /\
/ \/\/\/ \
/ '' \
/ shel \
/ oz. \
MmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmM
the secret of self-worth
is to lower your expectations
until they're already met.
MmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmM
Larry Nomer
(RHA) writes:
>In article <30EED3...@wolfenet.com>,
>Gary Willford <lawy...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
>>Michael K. Ross wrote:
>>
>>> Because these people aren't being _drafted_. They're volunteers. Big
>>> difference.
>>
>>The "people" to which you refer having nothing to do with the
>>President's moral authority.=
>>
>>Nobody "volunteered" to go to Bosnia. Most of us volunteered to
>>protect the country, and not the President's reelection hopes.
>
>Do you have any idea how WW II started.
Yes, due to the miserable Treaty of Versailles foisted upon the Germans
after WWI, in large part due to the U.S. needlessly meddling in WWI
(when "peace candidate" Woodrow Wilson broke is word only months after
being elected, and for no legitimate reason.)
>Germany attacked
>Czechoslovakia and it wasn't in *our* national interest
>to intervene, Japan invaded China and it wasn't in *our*
>national interest.
>
>WW I started in Serbia when one faction disagreed with
>another.
Quite so, and our Founders were very familiar with the history
of endless wars in Europe and specifically warned us to "Stay
out of foreign entanglements". Too bad b*ttwipe Wilson
had to screw up the whole couse of this century....
>Of course you probably don't care that Russia is ethnically
>on the side of the Serbs and the Arab nations have a kinship
>with the Muslems. You just don't care, right? You just
>don't see the possibility of a real disaster.
No, it sounds about like business as usual in that part of the world,
so we should stay out.
>rha
-Larry Nomer
Mr. Sam
>In article <4cggl4$o...@motown.coast.net>, tdc...@Coast.net says...
>> Does this president have the moral right to send troops into battle
>>based on his track record?
>Yes, because the military-service track record you cite has
>no relevance. Augustus Caesar did not fight (unlike his uncle
>Julius), yet ordered his troops to war.
Did Mr. Augustus claimed to 'loathe' the military, hhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm?
--
Mr. Sam, talk.politics.misc troll patrol.
_____________________________________________________________________________
"Government is not a solution to our | "First of all, keep in mind that most
problem, government IS the problem." | of our problem is with working
-- R. Reagan. | Americans." -- B. Clinton.
_____________________________________|_______________________________________
Charlie Ambrosi
>From: ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp)
>Subject: Re: Yellow Badge of Cowardice
>Date: Sun, 07 Jan 96 17:54:26 GMT
>>Bullshit! A number of National Guard units and individuals deployed to and
>participated in the
>>fighting in Vietnam. This lame argument is weak attempt to shift the focus
we can say for the
>current President.
>Yup, never knew when the Cong were gonna invade Indiana. I've never heard of
>any NG outfits going to 'Nam.
>>
>
That's because you don't know what you're talking about. Some NG units did
get sent to 'Nam. If you weren't there then why don't you just shut the fuck
up!
Andrew Hall
Gary> Zepp wrote:
>> Gramm, who has spent his entire life on the public tit, didn't serve beca=
Gary> use
>> they weren't drafting college teachers. Rush had a pimple on his ass.
>> Buchanan had a bum knee that miraculously healed itself after he was decl=
Gary> ared
>> 4-F. There's recurring rumors that Gingrich called in a few favors to bea=
Gary> t the
>> draft.
Gary> None of these people are sending troops to Bosnia, Clinton is. Rush, contr=
Gary> ary to your lie, had a =
Gary> stomach ailment, not a pimple. Further, "rumors" carry ZERO weight.
You are ill-informed. He had a cyst on his rear and
for some reason got away without the government doctors
checking it out.
C.C. Mctavish
> bdec...@sunm4048at.sph.umich.edu (Barry DeCicco) wrote:
>
>
>
> >The one which the Republicans all seem to have discovered, as soon as Clinton
> >was elected. This was coincident to so many conservatives having suddenly
> >'discovered' that the U.S. is an 'oppressive, police state', once
> >they didn't have a President from their own party.
>
>
> I think you meant to say "Suddenly Overzelous" Once the Conservatives
> relised that the Commander and Chief hadn't a clue on the proper use
> of force as the Waco and Randy Weaver debacles will atest too..
In point of fact, the Randy Weaver/Ruby Ridge debacle happened
under Bush's watch, not Clinton's.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Andrew Hall
Sam> In <4ch08d$3...@news.atlcom.net>, rev...@cyberatl.net (Roy Evritt) wrote:
>> In article <4cggl4$o...@motown.coast.net>, tdc...@Coast.net says...
>>> Does this president have the moral right to send troops into battle
>>> based on his track record?
>> Yes, because the military-service track record you cite has
>> no relevance. Augustus Caesar did not fight (unlike his uncle
>> Julius), yet ordered his troops to war.
Sam> Did Mr. Augustus claimed to 'loathe' the military, hhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm?
Are you claiming that Clinton made such a claim?
Please prove it using English this time. Last
time you used a letter written to Col. Holmes
which did not back up your claim.
Paul H. Henry
<lawy...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
> Zepp wrote:
>
> > Gramm, who has spent his entire life on the public tit, didn't serve because
> > they weren't drafting college teachers. Rush had a pimple on his ass.
> > Buchanan had a bum knee that miraculously healed itself after he was
> > declared 4-F. There's recurring rumors that Gingrich called in a few
> > favors to beat the draft.
>
> None of these people are sending troops to Bosnia, Clinton is. Rush,
> contrary to your lie, had a stomach ailment, not a pimple. Further,
> "rumors" carry ZERO weight.
Liar, heal thyself. Limbaugh received a medical deferment because he had a
pilonidal cyst--in effect, a pimple on his ass. His father served in World
War II with the same kind of pilonidal cyst.
[...]
> > Scholarship, then as now, was a high honor earned by a lot of very hard
> >work.
>
> Scholarship wasn't what got Clinton out of the war. After receiving his
> draft notification, he suddenly developed a desire to join ROTC. A
> desire which evaporated when the threat that he might be drafted did.
> His infamous letter expressing his true desires has
> been published. In that letter he stated:
>
> 1. He wanted to remain "politically viable'"
> 2. The military was "evil."
>
> This last was no condemnation of the policies of Vietnam, but of the
> military itself.
Lie number two. The letter to which you refer does not contain the word
"evil," despite your putting quotation marks around it. Nor does it
contain the phrase "I loathe the military," as you right-wing slobberers
often claim. It DID contain the following sentence:
I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one
story will help you to understand more clearly how so many
fine young people have come to find themselves still loving
their country but loathing the military, to which you and
other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best
service you could give.
So we have the young Mr. Clinton calling military officers "good men [who]
have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give."
Certainly, a far cry from calling them "evil."
> Gary Willford
> The Adversary
Adversary of the truth, apparently. Cleaning up after you guys' lies is a
full time job.
--
=============================================================================
_ (phe...@halcyon.com) || "There is always something to be thankful
|_) || for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not
| aul H. Henry - Tacoma, Wash. || a Republican." --H. L. Mencken
====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
L...@mdli.com
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960106...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
> >
> > A child molester would never be allowed to teach at any level.
> >
> > Once again, how does this relate to the constitutional qualifications
> > for President. A sure sign of a poor argument is bringing up
> > information that has noting to do with the question at hand.
>
> heart of the debate. There are _no_ military prerequisites to be
> President. However, that is not all there is to it. An ex-con CAN
> become a judge, but SHOULD he? Should someone who in the past went
So, you are comparing the principled opposition to an immoral war with CHILD
MOLESTATION!!! This is an insult to the great many patriots who protested the
war.
> against the legal system be allowed to later shape the legal system by
> his judgements? I see conflicts in that situation, and I feel there
> are parallels between it and President Clinton.
> We are not debating the legality of Clinton sending troops, we are
> debating the morality of it. From that view, it is you bringing up
> information not relating to the debate at hand.
>
> >
> > Voltaire
> >
>
> Erik Marksberry
>
Erik Marksberry
> In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960106...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
> <mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
> > >
> > > A child molester would never be allowed to teach at any level.
> > >
> > > Once again, how does this relate to the constitutional qualifications
> > > for President. A sure sign of a poor argument is bringing up
> > > information that has noting to do with the question at hand.
> >
> > I answered your question and then expanded on what I felt to be the
> > heart of the debate. There are _no_ military prerequisites to be
> > President. However, that is not all there is to it. An ex-con CAN
> > become a judge, but SHOULD he? Should someone who in the past went
>
> So, you are comparing the principled opposition to an immoral war with CHILD
> MOLESTATION!!! This is an insult to the great many patriots who protested
> the war.
I am not equating the two. I saw the child molestation analogy as an
extreme but valid way to convey a point.
And which patriots are you talking about? The same one's that spit on
the soldiers as they came home? How are you defining "patriots" in this
case?
As for Clinton, he engaged in other activities besides principled
opposition.
[snip]
Erik Marksberry
Gary Willford
> =
> >>>>> Gary Willford writes:
> =
> Gary> Zepp wrote:
> >> Gramm, who has spent his entire life on the public tit, didn't serv=
e beca=3D
> Gary> use
> >> they weren't drafting college teachers. Rush had a pimple on his a=
ss.
> >> Buchanan had a bum knee that miraculously healed itself after he wa=
s decl=3D
> Gary> ared
> >> 4-F. There's recurring rumors that Gingrich called in a few favors =
to bea=3D
> Gary> t the
> >> draft.
> =
> Gary> None of these people are sending troops to Bosnia, Clinton is. =
Rush, contr=3D
> Gary> ary to your lie, had a =3D
> =
> Gary> stomach ailment, not a pimple. Further, "rumors" carry ZERO wei=
ght.
> =
> You are ill-informed. He had a cyst on his rear and
> for some reason got away without the government doctors
> checking it out.
No, I would submit that you are. I've heard and read that it was a stomach=
disorder on BOTH =
sides of this debate. In fact, the last leftist I heard attack Rush did so=
on the basis of his =
upset tummy.
Charlie Ambrosi
>From: ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall)
>Subject: Re: Yellow Badge of Cowardice
>>>>>> Sam writes:
> Sam> Did Mr. Augustus claimed to 'loathe' the military, hhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm?
>Are you claiming that Clinton made such a claim?
>Please prove it using English this time. Last
Why should he BOTHER. Seems like you were busy checking out Rush's butt-cyst
when you could have been learning to read English yourself! Why don't get
someone to read Klinkton's quote re "loathing the military" to you.
Gary Willford
> =
> > None of these people are sending troops to Bosnia, Clinton is. Rush,
> > contrary to your lie, had a stomach ailment, not a pimple. Further,
> > "rumors" carry ZERO weight.
> =
> Liar, heal thyself. Limbaugh received a medical deferment because he had =
a
> pilonidal cyst--in effect, a pimple on his ass. His father served in Worl=
d
> War II with the same kind of pilonidal cyst.
Whatever, I'm just going by what a LEFTIST talk show host said. That's wha=
t I get for believing =
a leftist. What does his father have to do with it? Don't you think rules=
change? The military =
used to exclude those with homosexual tendencies. We don't anymore.
> =
> > > Scholarship, then as now, was a high honor earned by a lot of very ha=
rd
> > >work.
> >
> > Scholarship wasn't what got Clinton out of the war. After receiving hi=
s
> > draft notification, he suddenly developed a desire to join ROTC. A
> > desire which evaporated when the threat that he might be drafted did.
> > His infamous letter expressing his true desires has
> > been published. In that letter he stated:
> >
> > 1. He wanted to remain "politically viable'"
> > 2. The military was "evil."
> >
> > This last was no condemnation of the policies of Vietnam, but of the
> > military itself.
> =
> Lie number two. The letter to which you refer does not contain the word
> "evil," despite your putting quotation marks around it. Nor does it
> contain the phrase "I loathe the military," as you right-wing slobberers
> often claim. It DID contain the following sentence:
> =
> I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one
> story will help you to understand more clearly how so many
> fine young people have come to find themselves still loving
> their country but loathing the military, to which you and
> other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best
> service you could give.
> =
> So we have the young Mr. Clinton calling military officers "good men [who=
]
> have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give."
> Certainly, a far cry from calling them "evil."
My apologies, he didn't say the military was evil, he said he loathed it. =
The conclusion remains the same. How can he use something he loathes?
Michael K. Ross
>>|> > And which Constitutional provision sets up the qualifications for the
>>|> > presidency that involve past military service or opposition to past
>>|> > American military policies?
>>|> >
>>|> > Voltaire
>>|> >
>
>
>>The one which the Republicans all seem to have discovered, as soon as Clinton
>>was elected. This was coincident to so many conservatives having suddenly
>>'discovered' that the U.S. is an 'oppressive, police state', once
>>they didn't have a President from their own party.
>
>
>I think you meant to say "Suddenly Overzelous" Once the Conservatives
>relised that the Commander and Chief hadn't a clue on the proper use
>of force as the Waco and Randy Weaver debacles will atest too..
>
Uhh.... Randy Weaver was on Bush's watch.
And blaming Clinton for the screwups of a lot of FBI and Treasury
agents is stretching it. He may bear technical responsibility as the
head of the agencies, but he had no real involvement.
- Mike Ross
Mark
>In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960105...@red.weeg.uiowa.edu>, Erik Marksberry <mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
>|> On Sat, 6 Jan 1996, Voltaire wrote:
>|> > On 4 Jan 1996 16:51:07 GMT, "T. Carr" <tdc...@Coast.net> wrote:
>|> >
>|> >
>|> > > Jim .. Senator Dole, Senator Kerry, or those who did not serve, but did
>|> > >so honorably would have the moral right to send to send troops into
>|> > >battle IF elected president.
>|> > >
>|> > > President Clintons record with regards to vietnam is quite different.
>|> > >
>|> > > As far as rush, he presents his slant on the issues and makes no bones
>|> > >about it. A little different than most newspapers that would claim
>|> > >impartiatlily.
>|> >
Andrew Hall
Charlie> In article <AHALL.96J...@remus.cs.uml.edu> ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) writes:
From> ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall)
Subject> Re: Yellow Badge of Cowardice
Date> 08 Jan 1996 18:52:46 GMT
>>>>>>> Sam writes:
Sam> Did Mr. Augustus claimed to 'loathe' the military, hhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm?
>> Are you claiming that Clinton made such a claim?
>> Please prove it using English this time. Last
Charlie> Why should he BOTHER. Seems like you were busy checking out Rush's butt-cyst
Charlie> when you could have been learning to read English yourself! Why don't get
Charlie> someone to read Klinkton's quote re "loathing the military" to you.
I can read it myself. It is in the third person. Despite
many lies to the contrary.
Paul H. Henry
<lawy...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
> Paul H. Henry wrote:
[...]
> > I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one
> > story will help you to understand more clearly how so many
> > fine young people have come to find themselves still loving
> > their country but loathing the military, to which you and
> > other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best
> > service you could give.
> >
>
> > So we have the young Mr. Clinton calling military officers "good men [who]
> > have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give."
> > Certainly, a far cry from calling them "evil."
>
> My apologies, he didn't say the military was evil, he said he loathed it.
>
> The conclusion remains the same. How can he use something he loathes?
Do you even know how to read? He did NOT say he loathed the military. Are
you perhaps hoping that if you repeat the lie often enough, it will become
true?
Christopher Rose
>Christopher Rose wrote:
>> =
>> > Did Augustus Caesar join the armed forces, change his mind, then go
>> >overseas to study, and not complete his degreee? While he was overseas
>> >did he demonstrate against the war his country was fighting ?
>> =
>> > If he did, then i guess you have a point
>> =
>> > T. Carr
>> Again irellevant. One of the most vocal organized war protest groups
>> where soldiers who had returned from vietnam. Better question, did you
>> go to vietnam? If not, then by your line of reasoning you have no
>> moral authority to comment on the subject. Tochee(sp)
>Only if you were eligible to go. I was born in 1964, are you attempting to=
> argue that I have no moral authority to comment on Vietnam because I was too young to go?
NO. That is not what I said. I said by YOUR LINE OF RESONING ( Clinton
didn't go therefore he has no moral authority on the issue.) This was
a rhetorical question in case you couldn't figure it out.
> If so then you must advocate putting machineguns in the hands of children under 7 and sending t=
>hem off to war.
No but the NRA does.
>I did go to Somalia and have volunteered for EVERY conflict since Granada.
>I didn't agree with the policy in Somalia, and I didn't want to go, but I did. So I have EVERY
>right to comment.
Like I said above I wasn't denying your right to comment. I was simply
emplying by your line of reason unless a person serves in a war then
they have no moral authority to send troops into battle or comment
otherwise. If you didn't agree with Somalia why did you go? For
someone so concerned about moral authority you have no objections
about killing people in the name of something you don't beleive in.
Read "The things they carried" by Tim Obrien. Especially the part
where he thinks about going to Canada
>Now, you want to debate this with someone whose record you can't disparage?
>You know, in your heart of hearts, that if this was George Bush sending troops to Bosnia, there would be protesters
>in D.C., and you'd probably be one of them.
I sure would because I don't think Clinton should have sent them
either. (Thats what you get for assuming)
>Chickenhawks are an amazing specie.
Wrong again . I've never been a hawk of any kind. I guess this makes
Dan Quayle and his ilk Chikenhawks too huh?
My propblem is that people under the guise of being moral, work up
their self righteous, pompus selves to make a partisan attack. Why not
just come right out and say what you mean. You don't like Clinton
because he's a liberal moderate and a democrat. Stop pussy footing
around and say what you mean. And don't hide behind a damn flag to say
it.
Voltaire
Ambrosi) wrote:
>In article <4cpc0i$4...@news.snowcrest.net> ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) writes:
>>From: ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp)
>>Subject: Re: Yellow Badge of Cowardice
>>Date: Sun, 07 Jan 96 17:54:26 GMT
>
>
>>>Bullshit! A number of National Guard units and individuals deployed to and
>>participated in the
>>>fighting in Vietnam. This lame argument is weak attempt to shift the focus
>we can say for the
>>current President.
>
>>Yup, never knew when the Cong were gonna invade Indiana. I've never heard of
>>any NG outfits going to 'Nam.
>>>
>>
>
>That's because you don't know what you're talking about. Some NG units did
>get sent to 'Nam. If you weren't there then why don't you just shut the fuck
>up!
Thanks there Charlie (I hope you didn't use that name in country). It
has been a while since we got the mandatory "If you weren't in the
shit then shut the fuck up" cliche. That is what the Vietnam war was
all about. Fighting and dying so only people who volunteered or got
drafted could talk about it later. Must have been some dandy tai-stick
Bro.
Voltaire
Paul H. Henry
charles....@tek.com (Charlie Ambrosi) wrote:
> In article <AHALL.96J...@remus.cs.uml.edu> ah...@cs.uml.edu
(Andrew Hall) writes:
> >From: ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall)
> >Subject: Re: Yellow Badge of Cowardice
> >Date: 08 Jan 1996 18:52:46 GMT
>
> >>>>>> Sam writes:
>
>
>
> > Sam> Did Mr. Augustus claimed to 'loathe' the military,
hhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm?
>
> >Are you claiming that Clinton made such a claim?
>
> >Please prove it using English this time. Last
>
>
> Why should he BOTHER. Seems like you were busy checking out Rush's butt-cyst
> when you could have been learning to read English yourself! Why don't get
> someone to read Klinkton's quote re "loathing the military" to you.
I don't know who this Klinkton fellow is, but on the off chance you're
referring to the President, he has never said he loathed the military, as
you would know if YOU can read English:
I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one
story will help you to understand more clearly how so many
fine young people have come to find themselves still loving
their country but loathing the military, to which you and
other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best
service you could give.
--
Alan Bomberger
>I don't know who this Klinkton fellow is, but on the off chance you're
>referring to the President, he has never said he loathed the military, as
>you would know if YOU can read English:
> I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one
> story will help you to understand more clearly how so many
> fine young people have come to find themselves still loving
> their country but loathing the military, to which you and
> other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best
> service you could give.
To whom do you think he was referring? Must be those other guys. In the
context of the whole letter, it seems quite clear that Clinton includes
himself in that class of "fine young people".
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
Andrew Hall
>> So we have the young Mr. Clinton calling military officers "good men [who=
>> have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give."
>> Certainly, a far cry from calling them "evil."
Gary> My apologies, he didn't say the military was evil, he said he loathed it. =
No he did not, liar., He said that many of his generation loathed it.
A true statement that did not say whether or not he was in the group
that did. With his above statement to Col. Holmes, it is hard to see
how you can come to the silly conclusion that Rush did.
Gary> The conclusion remains the same. How can he use something he loathes?
Evidence, not lies wins.
Gary Willford
> =
> >>>>> Gary Willford writes:
> =
> >> So we have the young Mr. Clinton calling military officers "good me=
n [who=3D
> >> have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give."=
> >> Certainly, a far cry from calling them "evil."
> =
> Gary> My apologies, he didn't say the military was evil, he said he lo=
athed it. =3D
> =
> No he did not, liar., He said that many of his generation loathed it.
> A true statement that did not say whether or not he was in the group
> that did. With his above statement to Col. Holmes, it is hard to see
> how you can come to the silly conclusion that Rush did.
Sir, I do not take kindly to be labled a liar. I made a mistake and admitt=
ed it. =
A lie is an intentional mistatement.
You can twist Clinton's words all you want. The meaning of them is clear t=
o all
but those Clinton apologists like yourself, who seek to justify his orderin=
g =
people into harms way when he himself would not go.
=
> Gary> The conclusion remains the same. How can he use something he lo=
athes?
> =
> Evidence, not lies wins.
Your own evidence proves my case.
Michael K. Ross
>On Mon, 8 Jan 1996 L...@mdli.com wrote:
>> In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960106...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
>> So, you are comparing the principled opposition to an immoral war with CHILD
>> MOLESTATION!!! This is an insult to the great many patriots who protested
>> the war.
>
> I am not equating the two. I saw the child molestation analogy as an
>extreme but valid way to convey a point.
> And which patriots are you talking about? The same one's that spit on
>the soldiers as they came home? How are you defining "patriots" in this
>case?
> As for Clinton, he engaged in other activities besides principled
>opposition.
Like what? I don't recall seeing any pictures of him spitting on
anybody. What other nefarious activities was he involved in?
- Mike Ross
Patrick J. McGuinness
>An ex-con can serve as a judge if he or she is elected or appointed.
Even more fun, and EX-CON JUDGE *can* serve as a Congressman !!!
In Congress we now have Rep. Alcee Hastings, formerly impeached Federal
Judge - brought down on bribery charges. He is a Democrat from Florida.
I wonder how he voted on the Lobbyist Gift ban bill?
Charlie Ambrosi
>From: hol...@connect.net (Mitchell Holman)
>Subject: Re: Yellow Badge of Cowardice
>In article <4cjepo$k...@barney.gvi.net>, cr...@gvi.net (Christopher Rose) wrote:
>}"T. Carr" <tdc...@Coast.net> wrote:
>}
> If I where Clinton, or Quayle for that matter, I would have done
>}the same thing. (I can't blame either.) I wish everybody would stop
>}trying to rag on peples character and actualy argue some issues that
>}amount to a hill of beans. NOBODY WANTED TO GO TO VIETNAM THAT HAD
>}HALF A BRAIN.
>}
Better half a brain than NO GUTS Chrissy!
> Personally, I admire Clinton for using every legal method
> to stay out of Vietnam, and wish more had done so. At least
> Clinton was open about his opposition to the war, unlike
> Qauyle and Gramm and their ilk that cheered it on from the
> sidelines. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Yeah and I guess Gramm and Quayle went to Russia and played kissy-face while
Russian advisors were supervising and PARTICIPATING in the torture of American
POWs....wait...you say they WEREN'T there?....just Clinton?..oh..sorry.
BTW, I hear old Bubblenose wants to punch out William Safire for pointing out
what a liar his bitch wife is. Yeah, sure, he'd cry like a baby while Safire
did a tap dance up and down the yellow stripe along his back. He HAD his
chancein the 60s to prove how "tough" he is and he CHICKENED OUT! (Just like
YOU Mitch {rhymes with "Hillary"}).
> "Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons
> released by vegetation, so let s not go overboard in setting and
>enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources."
> Ronald Reagan (b. 1911), U.S. Republican politician, president.
> Sierra (10 Sept. 1980). Reagan later amended this figure to 93%.
Andrew Hall
Gary> Andrew Hall wrote:
>> =
>> >>>>> Gary Willford writes:
>> =
Gary> Zepp wrote:
>> >> Gramm, who has spent his entire life on the public tit, didn't serv=
Gary> e beca=3D
Gary> use
>> >> they weren't drafting college teachers. Rush had a pimple on his a=
Gary> ss.
>> >> Buchanan had a bum knee that miraculously healed itself after he wa=
Gary> s decl=3D
Gary> ared
>> >> 4-F. There's recurring rumors that Gingrich called in a few favors =
Gary> to bea=3D
Gary> t the
>> >> draft.
>> =
Gary> None of these people are sending troops to Bosnia, Clinton is. =
Gary> Rush, contr=3D
Gary> ary to your lie, had a =3D
>> =
Gary> stomach ailment, not a pimple. Further, "rumors" carry ZERO wei=
Gary> ght.
>> =
>> You are ill-informed. He had a cyst on his rear and
>> for some reason got away without the government doctors
>> checking it out.
Gary> No, I would submit that you are. I've heard and read that it was a stomach=
Gary> disorder on BOTH =
Then you heard wrong.
Gary> sides of this debate. In fact, the last leftist I heard attack Rush did so=
Gary> on the basis of his =
Gary> upset tummy.
Check out the facts.
Gary Willford
> =
> In article <30F219...@wolfenet.com>, Gary Willford
> <lawy...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
> =
> > Paul H. Henry wrote:
> =
> [...]
> =
> > > I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one
> > > story will help you to understand more clearly how so many
> > > fine young people have come to find themselves still loving
> > > their country but loathing the military, to which you and
> > > other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best
> > > service you could give.
> > >
> >
> > > So we have the young Mr. Clinton calling military officers "good men =
[who]
> > > have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give."
> > > Certainly, a far cry from calling them "evil."
> >
> > My apologies, he didn't say the military was evil, he said he loathed i=
t.
> >
> > The conclusion remains the same. How can he use something he loathes?
> =
> Do you even know how to read? He did NOT say he loathed the military. Are=
> you perhaps hoping that if you repeat the lie often enough, it will becom=
e
> true?
Of course he is! If anyone here needs to take a few classes on reading, =
its you. Look at the context: he is telling his story to explain to the =
COL why "so many fine young people" loathe the military. Why tell his
own story if not to provide justification for his personal loathing of
the military?! Only a Clinton spin-doctor could pull any other meaning out=
of the passage.
Regardless, the man STILL DODGED THE DRAFT! What others did is irrelevant.=
Mr. Sam
wrote:
>>>>>> Charlie Ambrosi writes:
> Charlie> In article <AHALL.96J...@remus.cs.uml.edu> ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) writes:
> From> ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall)
> Subject> Re: Yellow Badge of Cowardice
> Date> 08 Jan 1996 18:52:46 GMT
> >>>>>>> Sam writes:
> Sam> Did Mr. Augustus claimed to 'loathe' the military, hhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm?
> >> Are you claiming that Clinton made such a claim?
> >> Please prove it using English this time. Last
> Charlie> Why should he BOTHER. Seems like you were busy checking out Rush's butt-cyst
> Charlie> when you could have been learning to read English yourself! Why don't get
> Charlie> someone to read Klinkton's quote re "loathing the military" to you.
>I can read it myself. It is in the third person. Despite
>many lies to the contrary.
That's irrelevant, you ignoramus. I have posted the actual excerpt itself,
and you still continue to deny reality. I'll post it again, and I'll keep
posting it until you can't deliberately ignore it.
On December 3, 1969, Bill Clinton wrote:
>And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me
>and have a right to know what I think and feel.
Andrew, open your eyes and remove the fingers from your ears - this is Bill
Clinton writing about how he thinks and feels.
> I am writing too in the hope
>that my telling you this one story will help you to understand more clearly
>how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their
>country but loathing the military, ...
Only someone who willingly ignores reality will refuse to admit that this is
Bill Clinton writing to the ROTC director, Col. Eugene Holmes, hoping that his
'story will help' him understand why he loathes the military.
You are grasping at straws, Andrew. Despite the third person, Mr. Bill's
purpose in writing this letter is to explain WHAT HE THINKS AND FEELS, you
ignoramus. Read the previous sentence. You have shut your eyes and closed
your ears because you hope desperately to avoid having to face the truth about
your beloved president.
You know, I find it funny. These are the same people who throw temper
tantrums demanding to know the 'full context' of quotes of Mr. Bill that I use
in my signature. Yet, when I stand by ready to give them the full letter in
this case - (did you hear it, Andrew *full letter*! I'm waiting for you or
any other sore loser to demand posting the 'entire context', and I will, every
damn sentence of that damn letter) - you are strangely silent, and you ignore
the reality staring you in the face.
--
Mr. Sam: member, talk.politics.misc troll patrol.
_____________________________________________________________________________
"Government is not a solution to our | "First of all, keep in mind that most
problem, government IS the problem." | of our problem is with working
-- R. Reagan. | Americans." -- B. Clinton.
_____________________________________|_______________________________________
torgo
>From: phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry)
>Subject: Re: Yellow Badge of Cowardice
>In article <30F219...@wolfenet.com>, Gary Willford
><lawy...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
>> Paul H. Henry wrote:
>[...]
>> > I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one
>> > story will help you to understand more clearly how so many
>> > fine young people have come to find themselves still loving
>> > their country but loathing the military, to which you and
>> > other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best
>> > service you could give.
>> >
>>
>> > So we have the young Mr. Clinton calling military officers "good men [who]
>> > have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give."
>> > Certainly, a far cry from calling them "evil."
>>
>> My apologies, he didn't say the military was evil, he said he loathed it.
>>
>> The conclusion remains the same. How can he use something he loathes?
>Do you even know how to read? He did NOT say he loathed the military. Are
>you perhaps hoping that if you repeat the lie often enough, it will become
>true?
It seems to work for the Demmycrats, doesn't it?
Erik Marksberry
> Erik Marksberry <mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
> > I answered your question and then expanded on what I felt to be the
> >heart of the debate. There are _no_ military prerequisites to be
> >President. However, that is not all there is to it. An ex-con CAN
> >become a judge, but SHOULD he? Should someone who in the past went
> >his judgements?
>
> least not in the position he is in now. What a stupid argument!
Nelson Mandela opposed slavery in the past and opposes it today, and
sacrificed decades of his life for imprisonment over what he believed
in. Clinton once opposed military intervention in internal disputes but
now feels such intervention is a pretty good idea. What a stupid
comparison!
>
> I see conflicts in that situation, and I feel there
> >are parallels between it and President Clinton.
> > We are not debating the legality of Clinton sending troops, we are
> >debating the morality of it. From that view, it is you bringing up
> >information not relating to the debate at hand.
>
> Surely the morality of sending troops is paramount, not who does it?
> Talk about clouding and ignoring the really important issue. Stick at
> it Voltaire, you have a knack of bringing out the most puerile
> posters, which would be great entertainment except for the fact many
> of them actually believe themselves....
>
Whether or not to send troops is an important issue, but it is not the
issue we are discussing. For the cheap seats, I'll say it again: WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT THE MORALITY OF CLINTON SENDING TROOPS TO BOSNIA. Both are
seperate issues, able to be discussed in different threads.
Puerile? Yeah, I suppose your right. I mean, Clinton has waffled on
so many other things, why should I expect anything different of him in
this case.
Andrew Hall
Sam> In <AHALL.96J...@remus.cs.uml.edu>, ah...@cs.uml.edu
Sam> (Andrew Hall)
wrote>
Charlie> Why should he BOTHER. Seems like you were busy checking
Charlie> out Rush's butt-cyst when you could have been learning to
Charlie> read English yourself! Why don't get someone to read
Charlie> Klinkton's quote re "loathing the military" to you.
>> I can read it myself. It is in the third person. Despite many
>> lies to the contrary.
Sam> That's irrelevant, you ignoramus. I have posted the actual
Really? When some one claims that he said "I loathe the military"
it is irrelevant that in fact he said "many fine people loathe...">
I can see how you would feel the truth is irrelevant, you have never
shown any understanding of honesty.
Sam> excerpt itself, and you still continue to deny reality. I'll
Sam> post it again, and I'll keep posting it until you can't
Sam> deliberately ignore it.
Sam> On December 3, 1969, Bill Clinton wrote:
>> And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been
>> good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel.
Sam> Andrew, open your eyes and remove the fingers from your ears -
Sam> this is Bill Clinton writing about how he thinks and feels.
Yes.
>> I am writing too in the hope that my telling you this one story
>> will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people
>> have come to find themselves still loving their country but
>> loathing the military, ...
Sam> Only someone who willingly ignores reality will refuse to
Sam> admit that this is Bill Clinton writing to the ROTC director,
Sam> Col. Eugene Holmes, hoping that his 'story will help' him
Sam> understand why he loathes the military.
If he meant that, he would have said that. What he did mean, and what he
did say, is that by understanding Mr. Clinton's objections to the
draft and the war, Col. Holmes could understand better the stronger
feelings that many of Mr. Clinton's generation felt. Why do you
have to make things up? There are plenty of real things to bash
Clinton with. Try sticking to them.
Sam> You are grasping at straws, Andrew. Despite the third person,
Sam> Mr. Bill's purpose in writing this letter is to explain WHAT
Sam> HE THINKS AND FEELS, you ignoramus. Read the previous
Sam> sentence. You have shut your eyes and closed your ears
Sam> because you hope desperately to avoid having to face the truth
Sam> about your beloved president.
Why do you lie so much. I do not even like Clinton, much less
love him. But I hate lies, which is why I attack them where
ever I see them. Which is at least half of your posts.
Sam> You know, I find it funny. These are the same people who
Sam> throw temper tantrums demanding to know the 'full context' of
Sam> quotes of Mr. Bill that I use in my signature. Yet, when I
Sam> stand by ready to give them the full letter in this case -
Sam> (did you hear it, Andrew *full letter*! I'm waiting for you
Sam> or any other sore loser to demand posting the 'entire
Sam> context', and I will, every damn sentence of that damn letter)
Sam> - you are strangely silent, and you ignore the reality staring
Sam> you in the face.
I have the full letter. I admire the 1969 Clinton. I just wish he
had stayed the same instead of turning into a waffling liar.
Michael K. Ross
>> > > I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one
>> > > story will help you to understand more clearly how so many
>> > > fine young people have come to find themselves still loving
>> > > their country but loathing the military, to which you and
>> > > other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best
>> > > service you could give.
>> > >
>> >
>> > > So we have the young Mr. Clinton calling military officers "good men =
>[who]
>> > > have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give."
>> > > Certainly, a far cry from calling them "evil."
>> >
>> > My apologies, he didn't say the military was evil, he said he loathed i=
>t.
>> >
>> > The conclusion remains the same. How can he use something he loathes?
>> =
>
>> Do you even know how to read? He did NOT say he loathed the military. Are=
>
>> you perhaps hoping that if you repeat the lie often enough, it will becom=
>e
>> true?
>Of course he is! If anyone here needs to take a few classes on reading, =
>its you.
Duuuhhh.... Before you go hurling insults about other people's
comprehension skills, perhaps you should verify that your own house is
not made of glass.
>Look at the context: he is telling his story to explain to the
>COL why "so many fine young people" loathe the military. Why tell his
>own story if not to provide justification for his personal loathing of
>the military?!
Because the story he told was not _his own_. It was about a friend of
his. Are you ready to offer a retraction and an apology?
>Only a Clinton spin-doctor could pull any other meaning out=
>of the passage.
>
>Regardless, the man STILL DODGED THE DRAFT! What others did is irrelevant.=
>
He avoided the draft legally, as did Rush, Newt, Gramm, et. al. If
there's no difference, why hassle Clinton and not the others?
- Mike Ross
Walker on Earth
Gary Willford <lawy...@wolfenet.com> writes:
>> I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one
>> story will help you to understand more clearly how so many
>> fine young people have come to find themselves still loving
>> their country but loathing the military, to which you and
>> other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best
>> service you could give.
>The conclusion remains the same. How can he use something he loathes?
But let's say for the sake of argument that he did and proceed to point
two: how can one use something one loathes? Well, sometime after being
told to wave bye-bye to Mr. Poop, I learned to loathe a certain necessary
biological process quite thoroughly :-) More seriously, I deplore the
use of violence- an internalized sensation I admit- but I would not be
adverse to using it in the proper circumstances, say, to avoid being mug-
ged.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. And many die that deserve life. Is it in
your power to give it to them? Then do not be so quick to deal out death in
judgement, for even the very wise may not see all ends."
Ken Ehrett
>In article <30F219...@wolfenet.com>
>Gary Willford <lawy...@wolfenet.com> writes:
>
>>> I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one
>>> story will help you to understand more clearly how so many
>>> fine young people have come to find themselves still loving
>>> their country but loathing the military, to which you and
>>> other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best
>>> service you could give.
>
>>My apologies, he didn't say the military was evil, he said he loathed it. =
>
>>The conclusion remains the same. How can he use something he loathes?
>
>First, in the above sentence Clinton did not say he loathed the military.
>But let's say for the sake of argument that he did and proceed to point
>two: how can one use something one loathes? Well, sometime after being
>told to wave bye-bye to Mr. Poop, I learned to loathe a certain necessary
>biological process quite thoroughly :-) More seriously, I deplore the
>use of violence- an internalized sensation I admit- but I would not be
>adverse to using it in the proper circumstances, say, to avoid being mug-
>ged.
Bill Clinton spent a large portion of his time attempting to convince
anyone who would listen that the United States had no business
interferring into the internal affairs of a country (Vietnam) which
was merely engaged in a civil war. This was the convenient attitude
of a large portion of spoiled, lazy teenagers of his Generation who
felt that they had unlimited rights and no responsibilities. The
present day Bill Clinton who now has command of those same military
forces he never served with now considers it to be perfectly logical
to intervene in the internal affairs of a foreign country engaged in a
civial war. Funny how your attitude changes when you're too old to
serve. Not that we would want a coward like him in the service,
anyway. We don't need any more Robert Garwoods.
Rusty Blake
Daughter: So what happened then daddy?
Father: Well dear, it turns out that the evil bitch was slain and
thrown into the dungeon for a long, long, time.
Her husband, the naive William of White water, was sent back to
sell carriages in Arkansas, and the victorious Newty and the Dole
fish were honored for bringing good and happiness back to the
kingdom forever, and the villagers lived happily ever after.
The End!
Daughter: Read it again Daddy, Read it again!
C.C. Mctavish
wrote:
>
>
Funny thing - he was never CHARGED with draft evasion. Or is
there something you know that the lawyers in the Nixon Justice
Department overlooked when they were prosecuting draft dodgers
by the thousands?
And given all the passport and security checks Clinton went
through to go to Oxford (not to mention Moscow), it IS odd that
they just "overlooked" all the evidence of draft evasion you
are so worked up over.
> What others did is irrelevant.
>
What others did - like Newt, Gramm, and the rest - is EXTREMELY
relevant, since it ought to tell you WHY what they (and Clinton)
did was not illegal and was not draft evasion.
PS: how old WERE you in 1968, anyway?
Philip Tien
>In article <4c578t$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cooki...@aol.com says...
>>
>> This means that anyone who served this country has the right to
>>speak out about the cowards who ran away like that asshole, Clinton. No
>>Rush did not serve the country, but he did not run away to England
>>either. He just played the liberals game.
>Oh, brother. Gramm didn't serve; Gingrich didn't serve; nor did your
>that 4-F fat fuck, Rush. For them to wave the flag for political or, in
>Rush's case, financial gain is beyond cynical.
Sheesh, there seems to be some obsessive demonization of Clinton, as
though he had admitted to having baked babies for breakfast every day.
As I understand the draft thing, Clinton
1) Thought that the war in Vietnam was wrong;
2) Protested against it;
3) Tried every available means to avoid going;
4) Succesffuly did so without breaking any laws.
Sounds like a whole bunch of people at about that time.
On the other hand, Quayle, as an example,
1) Thought the war was just peachy;
2) However, had no actual interest in going over there and actually
figthing;
2) Arranged to get a cushy job in the Indiana National Guard by
pulling some strings where the risk of having to do 2) was
functionally nil.
You could argue that Clinton, had he been truly courageous, would have
tried to go 1-A and then arranged to have his ass slung in jail in an
act of civil disobedience, thereby paying a price for his opposition
to the war. But what they hey, he ain't Ghandi or Mandela, but so
what?
I think it plausible to believe that, had it been say WWII, an
unambiguous white hat vs. black hat war, Clinton would have served,
unless you want to remain absolutely convinced that he is evil
personified.
To get into the sanctimonious argument about "moral superiority",
assuming that we have one individual who believes that the war was
wrong, and arranges not to go, vs. one who believes the war is right,
and arranges for someone else to go....well, you can draw your own
conclusions.
>--
> \ /
> O O
>-----m-( )-m-----
>
>Grafitti by:
> tba...@richmond.infi.net
> tba...@aol.com
> 1:264/416 (FidoNet)
Erik Marksberry
I was asking as to what the posted defined a patriot as. He thought
the protesters were the patriots; I was curious as to his thoughts about
the people who served in the war.
Draft dodging and organizing protests while overseas constitutes more
than just principled opposition.
131G40000-J.BECKMAN(MT4084)1023MT
>
>>Chickenhawks are an amazing specie.
>
>Wrong again . I've never been a hawk of any kind. I guess this makes
>Dan Quayle and his ilk Chikenhawks too huh?
>
Yes. In fact, J. Danforth Quayle is practically the species
type. And what a marvelously ironic name.
Jim Beckman j...@mtgbcs.att.com
Walker on Earth
>during the Viet Nam war, but would have signed up in a minute
>for a war where our country was in danger. The 1969 Clinton
Andrew, I think you have cogently summarized the feelings of a lot
people, myself included. If there had been a draft for the gulf
war, I certainly would not have gone then either. This is a safe
enough approach to the question that you might safely solicit the
opinions of others without too much fear of another barbecue ;-)
Mitchell Holman
}C36...@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Walker on Earth) wrote:
}
}
}Bill Clinton spent a large portion of his time attempting to convince
}anyone who would listen that the United States had no business
}interferring into the internal affairs of a country (Vietnam) which
}was merely engaged in a civil war. This was the convenient attitude
}of a large portion of spoiled, lazy teenagers of his Generation who
}felt that they had unlimited rights and no responsibilities.
This "generation of spoiled, lazy teenagers" also included
a heck of a lot of Vietnam Veterans who were equally opposed
to the war. Of course, I doubt you would have called them
that as they threw their combat medals at the White House
lawn from their wheelchairs.
I am sure they could learn a thing or two about "rights and
responsiblitites" from the likes of you, no doubt.
Mitchell Holman
Andrew Hall
Harold> phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote for all to see:
Harold> [edited]
>> (Clinton) has never said he loathed the military, as
>> you would know if YOU can read English:
>> I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one
>> story will help you to understand more clearly how so many
>> fine young people have come to find themselves still loving
>> their country but loathing the military, to which you and
>> other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best
>> service you could give.
Harold> I would have to infer that it is your contention that Clinton in the
Harold> quoted passage was not including himself as a "fine young" person who
Harold> found themselves "loathing the military".
Harold> I would have to consider such an inference to be quite a stretch,
Harold> since Clinton was, after all, writing an explanation to the ROTC
Harold> commander discussing why he was withdrawing from his promise to join
Harold> the unit. Once this is put into that context, it is clear, in my
Harold> opioion, that Clinton was not simply discussing an abstract group of
Harold> other young people, but was including himself.
That is inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph
"to which you and other good men have devoted years,
lifetimes, of the best service you could give." The
most reasonable explanation of what he meant is that by seeing
Mr. Clinton;';s reasoning, Col Holmes might be better
able to understand how th more extreme member of Mr.
Clinton's generation thought.
Now it is perfectly fair to say that you think Mr. Clinton was
in that group, but it is dishonest to claim that
this letter proves it. It is also pretty silly to
think that Mr. Clinton, a bright man, would say
something to piss off Col. Holmes on purpose.
I know that I would not have served the military in any capacity
during the Viet Nam war, but would have signed up in a minute
for a war where our country was in danger. The 1969 Clinton
letter summarizes my feeling at the time perfectly --- and I
did not loathe the military. I felt sorry for it.
S. Keller
>
> In article <4cggl4$o...@motown.coast.net>, tdc...@Coast.net says...
> > Does this president have the moral right to send troops into battle
> >based on his track record?
>
> Yes, because the military-service track record you cite has
> no relevance. Augustus Caesar did not fight (unlike his uncle
> Julius), yet ordered his troops to war.
>
> --
> Roy Evritt (rev...@cyberatl.net)
> Oxford, Georgia, U.S.A.The point isn't whether he fought or not, it is that he evaded fighting
and cuddled up with the communists to protest! And what relevance does
Augustus Caesar have to present day USA? Was Caesar a liar also?
Wonders never cease! I never knew that.
S. Keller
>
> In article <4ci1cl$m...@news.atlcom.net>, <rev...@cyberatl.net> writes:
> >
> > I have given up debating your type on the greater patriotism required
> > to point out that one's own country has erred. Flag waving comes
> > easy. One does not need to refer to morality or use good thinking.> I think there were two main differences between Dan Quayle and Bill Clinton
>
> 1. Quayle had the money and connections to make his draft evasion look cleaner
>
> 2. Quayle thought the Viet war was a dandy idea (as long as someone else
> fought it)
First off, you would need to substantiate your claims.
Second, what does this comparison have to do with current events?
Third, you left out the most important comparison: Quale has integrity,
Clinton is a proven liar.
>
> >
> I think there were...
Maybe this is a practice you shouldn't engage in. Thinking for you seems
to be dangerous.
S. Keller
>
> > Did Augustus Caesar join the armed forces, change his mind, then go
> >overseas to study, and not complete his degreee? While he was overseas
> >did he demonstrate against the war his country was fighting ?
>
> > If he did, then i guess you have a point
>
> > T. Carr
> Again irellevant. One of the most vocal organized war protest groups
> where soldiers who had returned from vietnam. )
It *is* relevant. Of these Vietnam Veterans who returned from the war
only to protest against it, how many have gone on to become Commander in
Chief? Being anti-war, doesn't make protesting a good thing. Protesting
only undermines the efforts of the soldiers who remain in combat. There
are much better ways of voicing opinions while not severing support for
friends and family and fellow Americans still stuck in the middle of a
strange forest surrounded by people who want only to blow their heads
off. Someone can't say they loath the military and then expect the
military to willfully respect him as their leader. You can't be known to
be without character, and expect to lead people with character.
> Better question, did you
> go to vietnam? If not, then by your line of reasoning you have no
> moral authority to comment on the subject. Tochee(sp
Talk about irrelevancy! How can you compare being qualified to be
Commander in Chief to being qualified to comment on the subject? That's
like comparing the coach of a football team to one of the fans in the
stands. Because the fan has never been to a football game, he has no
moral authority to comment on the game? But just because the coach
was caught betting against his own team, he shouldn't be disqualified
as their head coach? Get real!
S.T.K.
Forbes for Pres.,'96
Paul H. Henry
(Harold Brashears) wrote:
> phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote for all to see:
>
> [edited]
>
> >(Clinton) has never said he loathed the military, as
> >you would know if YOU can read English:
>
> > I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one
> > story will help you to understand more clearly how so many
> > fine young people have come to find themselves still loving
> > their country but loathing the military, to which you and
> > other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best
> > service you could give.
>
> I would have to infer that it is your contention that Clinton in the
> quoted passage was not including himself as a "fine young" person who
> found themselves "loathing the military".
>
> I would have to consider such an inference to be quite a stretch,
> since Clinton was, after all, writing an explanation to the ROTC
> commander discussing why he was withdrawing from his promise to join
> the unit. Once this is put into that context, it is clear, in my
> opioion, that Clinton was not simply discussing an abstract group of
> other young people, but was including himself.
Oh, so you're judging him not on the basis of what he SAID, but what you
WISH he had said. That explains a lot.
Terry C Shannon
Hmm. I think the spelling is touche (accent over the "e"). Anyhoo, those
of us who did spend time in Sunny Southeast Asia are far better qualified
to offer opinions on said service than those who spent time on the
protest hustings. After spending nearly two years in garden spots like
Pleiku and Bon Song, I came away from the mess with an absolute loathing
of genetic drift such as Robert MacNamara and Lyndon Baines Johnson. A
fucking shame that they weren't forced to serve under their own Rules of
Engagement(tm).
OldCrow
Paul H. Henry
> Bill Clinton spent a large portion of his time attempting to convince
> anyone who would listen that the United States had no business
> interferring into the internal affairs of a country (Vietnam) which
> was merely engaged in a civil war.
Okay, I'm following you so far.
> This was the convenient attitude
> of a large portion of spoiled, lazy teenagers of his Generation who
> felt that they had unlimited rights and no responsibilities.
Well, I don't really see how B naturally follows A, but I'll let it slide
for the sake of argument.
> The present day Bill Clinton who now has command of those same military
> forces he never served with now considers it to be perfectly logical
> to intervene in the internal affairs of a foreign country engaged in a
> civial war.
So, to continue your analogy, the people who oppose intervention in Bosnia
are spoiled, lazy teenagers of his Generation who feel that they had
unlimited rights and no responsibilities.
Would you happen to be one of those teenagers, Ken?
Voltaire
wrote:
Daughter: Daddy, Have you been listening to Rush on the car radio
again? Everyone knows that story is a Republican wet dream and a fairy
tale. Tell me the one again about how Newt was getting blow jobs in
his car while the GOP was planning to rob from the poor and give to
the rich. Mommy says you need to spend less time with G. Gordon Liddy
and more time with her..........Owwwwww daddy. Don't hit me. Tell me
the story again. I'll be good and listen. Really I will.
From the mouth of babes.
Voltaire