Phony Controversy
Bow Tie
Gordo
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdhNzdlNmVlMjQ0ZDY1ZTAxOWU0NmM4...
I tried to get out for 9 holes today. Didn't make it. Have to repair
a sprinkler in my yard. Looked at some different golf clubs also.
Ben.
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdhNzdlNmVlMjQ0ZDY1ZTAxOWU0NmM4...
"Phony controversy"? Perfect description of every single post you
make. Oh, and a nice follow up description would be "I'm the poor
fucking victim, everyone is out to get me". Right, you poor, poor
misunderstood guy, you.
MnMikew
"Bow Tie" <ken_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191259285....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdhNzdlNmVlMjQ0ZDY1ZTAxOWU0NmM4YWQzMTQyNzQ=
>
Media Matters smearing someone, how unusuall. I hear the Dopeocrats want to
offer up a resolution condeming what Rush said. LOL! I hope they do.
Ben.
> Media Matters smearing someone, how unusuall. I hear the Dopeocrats want to
> offer up a resolution condeming what Rush said. LOL! I hope they do.
Mike, you (thankfully) pen one or two sentence posts. How hard can it
possibly be to spell each of those very few words correctly? Again,
you have succeeded in making Mike Tyson seem like Kurt Vonnegut.
Bow Tie
> On Oct 1, 12:21 pm, Bow Tie <ken_pitt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdhNzdlNmVlMjQ0ZDY1ZTAxOWU0NmM4...
>
> "Phony controversy"? Perfect description of every single post you
LOL!
Otherwise, best regards.
Ken
Bow Tie
>
> news:1191259285....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdhNzdlNmVlMjQ0ZDY1ZTAxOWU0NmM4...
>
> Media Matters smearing someone, how unusuall. I hear the Dopeocrats want to
> offer up a resolution condeming what Rush said. LOL! I hope they do.
The funny thing is the guy Rush was talking about actually is a phony.
Claimed to be Army Ranger. Claimed to be a corporal. Claimed to have
been awarded the Purple Heart. Hadn't done any of it.
They're trying to back door the Fairness Doctrine.
Ken
William A. T. Clark
Bow Tie <ken_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So, Ken, when (you wish) this blows up into a full scale thread, are we
then going to get the usual "poor me - I'm being attacked" whine from
you? You started this OT thread, totally unprovoked. You deserve all you
(might) get for doing so.
William Clark
Gordo
What's his golf handicap? Why does this have to play out here?
Ben.
> What's his golf handicap? Why does this have to play out here?
Don't be that guy...that poor, delusional guy. If you really do want
pure golf talk, go to golfdiscussions.com - it's golf and only golf.
This is an unmoderated forum. As much of a pansy as Pitts is, he can
say whatever he wants...and then cry like a woman when he gets beat
down time after time.
annika1980
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdhNzdlNmVlMjQ0ZDY1ZTAxOWU0NmM4...
You know it's a left-wing controversy when it is about people dying
for corporate profits, crooked politicians, or the world getting
hotter.
You know it's a right-wing controversy when it is about something
somebody said or newspaper ads.
Right-wingers don't ever want to talk about real things that matter
like wars and stuff.
Gordo
You got it.
MnMikew
"annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1191268651.6...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
SteveB
Sounds to me like he was talking about Sen. Kerry.
Steve
William A. T. Clark
"Ben." <kom...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Which he will do very shortly. Again.
William Clark
Carbon
Actually considering the source it wasn't that bad. I am assuming that
"Dopeocrats" is an attempt at humor and not a misspelling. It is sometimes
hard to tell with Mike.
Ben.
It's a safe bet that most of the time with Mike it's either a
misspelling or a grammatical misstep. With that said, I was not
referring to "Dopeocrats", yuk yuk; I was referring to "unusuall" and
"condeming".
Carbon
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709290002?f=h_top
I don't really follow Rush's career. Is he still hooked on drugs?
John van der Pflum
You water your lawn? Why? Just so you can spend more time cutting?
--
jvdp
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
Bow Tie
Bret, the Democrats are the ones making a big deal of this and the
supposed transgression of OReilly with Juan Williams on his radio
show.
The phony soldiers to which Rush referred were indeed phony soldiers.
He was not referring to any Iraq/Afghan vet who disagreed with
policy.
Ken
Bow Tie
state.edu> wrote:
> In article <1191268330.824472.51...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Which he will do very shortly. Again.
>
> William Clark
LOL!
Ever notice how leftists don't have a sense of humor?
Ken
Bow Tie
Poor delusional me can beat you like a stepchild at golf. I guess I go
into my golf zone when I'm delerious.
Ken
William A. T. Clark
Bow Tie <ken_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On the contrary, Ken, I think you are hilarious. No one could possibly
take the stuff you post seriously, now could they?
William Clark
William A. T. Clark
Bow Tie <ken_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's "delirious", Ken. But you are probably the other thing, too.
William Clark
annika1980
> The phony soldiers to which Rush referred were indeed phony soldiers.
They were soldiers and there ain't nothn about being a soldier that is
phony.
Rush should stick to things he knows about like doctor-shopping, pill-
popping, fried chicken-eating, and ragging on Donovan McNabb.
John B.
And dodging the draft.
Bow Tie
I served for four years during VietNam. To most vets there is nothing
lower than someone claiming rank and honors which they have not
received.
Did you serve?
Ken
Bow Tie
You mean like Clinton? And the way he defrauded his draft board?
Back in those days we had a thing called the lottery. I got a low
number so I enlisted in the Navy. Rush and I are about the same age.
Maybe he was luckier than me.
Tell us about the nature of your service before you start bleating
"chicken-hawk".
Ken
Bow Tie
wrote:
> In article <1191340822.592077.186...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Are your graduate degrees in Spell Checking? No, wait. Probably Social
Work like Dalecki.
Ken
Bow Tie
Media Matters, yeah they're really objective. My question is, why does
Rush have to mention Macbeth or any other phony by name when
referencing them? Those morning updates are done in 30 seconds or a
minute.
Take the time to read the article I cited. Somebody has it wrong.
Are you still hooked on drugs?
Ken
MnMikew
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47019418$0$32540$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
You can both blow me. There, one sentence, no misspellings. Happy? Effing
spelling queens.
MnMikew
about..........................................
Ben.
> You can both blow me. There, one sentence, no misspellings. Happy? Effing
> spelling queens.
Mike, my god man! That was actually like, what, 3.5 sentences?
Congratulations!!!!
Ben.
> Poor delusional me can beat you like a stepchild at golf. I guess I go
> into my golf zone when I'm delerious.
Maybe so, maybe not - I am no threat to break par, but I can keep the
ball in play. Regardless, I wouldn't step foot on a golf course with
you for all the Vicodin in Rush's medicine chest. Something I've
heard about you - you barely say peep to anyone at RSG events; that
you're a painfully shy, introverted, almost uncomfortable presence.
Yet you really yell and scream around here. Weird how things like
that go...
John B.
I did not serve and was too young to go to Vietnam. Had I been old
enough and been drafted, I wouldn't have gone. I am not a conservative
blow-hard who tries to align himself with those who serve whole having
bagged out of serving himself.
Bow Tie
>
> - Show quoted text -
You would have screwed up the rest of your life. I chose the Navy
because I scored very high on their aptitude tests, was able to choose
electronics and was virtually assured of being on board a ship. I
didn't believe in what was being done (either fight to win or forget
it), so I was able to serve and not get killed in the process.
Who says he bagged out? Remember that lottery I mentioned?
Ken
Bow Tie
Ask John Pflum or David Laville or Chris Bellomy or Bobby Knight or
Greg Schoenberg (dene) or Rob Hamilton or Teresa Williamson what they
think. Even ask Annika1980.
I have over 10 rounds under par and one of them was at RSG Atlanta
with Annika1980, Randy and Dalecki watching me like hawks.
"Uncomfortable presence"? You must be talking to Koenig.
Don't worry. You don't have to play golf with me if you don't want
to.
Ken
the Moderator
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191354452....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> I did not serve and was too young to go to Vietnam. Had I been old
> enough and been drafted, I wouldn't have gone. I am not a conservative
> blow-hard who tries to align himself with those who serve whole having
> bagged out of serving himself.
You would not serve your country?
Wow.
William A. T. Clark
Bow Tie <ken_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, but if you're going to start talking about how you can "beat you
like a stepchild", it's best to get the other details correct, too.
William Clark
Ben.
> Ask John Pflum or David Laville or Chris Bellomy or Bobby Knight or
> Greg Schoenberg (dene) or Rob Hamilton or Teresa Williamson what they
> think. Even ask Annika1980.
Bingo.
> Don't worry. You don't have to play golf with me if you don't want to.
Thanks, I thought I already said that...
Dene
Where did you hear nonsense like that? Independent thinkers should
derive their own opinion first hand.
I've played two rounds with Ken before he moved out of Oregon. He's
both easy and interesting to talk to. Helluva golfer....helluva nice
guy. You would enjoy playing with him...and learn some about the game
if you asked him.
-Greg
Ben.
> Where did you hear nonsense like that? Independent thinkers should
> derive their own opinion first hand.
I didn't say it was my opinion. I've heard it said, from more than
one person, that Pitts seems like that serial killer next door type -
quiet, keeps to himself, doesn't say peep, isn't dislikeable or overly
likeable. Perhaps it was exaggerated, perhaps it isn't true. If not,
mea culpa.
Dene
I've only played casual rounds with him. Perhaps in a tourney, he's
quiet and intense. No problem for me. I prefer that to some guy
downing Heiney's at 8 am. or a yacker-hacker.
-Greg
Ben.
> You mean like Clinton? And the way he defrauded his draft board?
There's that, and then there's Dubya who didn't honor his (cushy and
politically influenced) "commitment" to the ANG, and then lied about
his status, pay and physical examinations. Dishonesty cuts both ways,
Ken, the left doesn't have a monopoly on it.
Personally, I respect Clinton more for having the courage to get out
of fighting a bullshit war more than I do Dubya for fiddle-fucking his
way around a cush ANG assignment, and then quitting altogether,
refusing to take his 1972 physical to retain his pilots status, all
while being AWOL. How fucking hard is it to merely "be ready" to
serve your country in case of the call to active duty? A call we all
know would never have come to he or anyone in his silver spoon unit.
He's a turd.
John B.
I know plenty of people who evaded the draft in in one way or another
and their lives aren't screwed up. It's the people who went - or some
of them - that have problems.
I chose the Navy
> because I scored very high on their aptitude tests, was able to choose
> electronics and was virtually assured of being on board a ship. I
> didn't believe in what was being done (either fight to win or forget
> it), so I was able to serve and not get killed in the process.
>
> Who says he bagged out? Remember that lottery I mentioned?
If he supported the war, he should have enlisted.
>
> Ken
John B.
wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
South Vietnam was not my country.
Carbon
You are correct.
> Are you still hooked on drugs?
What manners you have. I can see why you get so indignant over Tiger.
SteveB
"Bow Tie" <ken_p...@yahoo.com> wrote
> The phony soldiers to which Rush referred were indeed phony soldiers.
> He was not referring to any Iraq/Afghan vet who disagreed with
> policy.
>
> Ken
You can't expect a lot from folks who depend on "drive by journalism" to get
their "news". In order to understand Rush Limbaugh, one must listen long
enough to get the gist of the commentator. And to know when he's
intentionally overstating or phrasing things in a way that makes logical
sensible people think for themselves. People who don't understand Rush
Limbaugh are unable to state why without going emotionally ballistic. They
can't say, "When he stated thus and that, he was totally mistaken. On the
other hand, what really happened was ..........." and so on. They attack
his drug experience, and other personal facets of the man.
Anyone who has an IQ higher than room temperature would have to agree that
the man does have his facts straight, and in debate with NORMAL humans, can
hold his own against ANYONE.
Tom Harkin is a prime example. Taking potshots that would border on libel
in any other forum, he chose to use his "rights" as a member of government
to fire fusillades in a public forum that only made him a laughingstock, and
showed how desperate the Democrats are in their posturing and positioning.
When you're as weak as the Dems are, and have the likes of Hillary, Kerry,
Obama, et al as the best of the bunch, you're in deep shit. And you'll do
ANYTHING to shift the focus or the topic du jour.
Steve
Carbon
I would if the war was legitimate.
SteveB
Wow. Just what we need. Soldiers who only obey commands they agree with.
A new battalion of the equivalent of jail house lawyers. Sure sounds to me
like it would work to the benefit of the national defense. I wonder down
through history just how many of the men who fought (and died) in the
service of their country actually thought the wartime activities they were
serving were "legitimate".
As Bill would say, could you define "legitimate"?
Steve
John B.
> "Bow Tie" <ken_pitt...@yahoo.com> wrote
As weak as the Dems? Were you away from Earth on Election Day of 2006?
John B.
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4702fcbc$0$16445$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:45:12 -0500, the Moderator wrote:
> >>news:1191354452....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> I did not serve and was too young to go to Vietnam. Had I been old
> >>> enough and been drafted, I wouldn't have gone. I am not a conservative
> >>> blow-hard who tries to align himself with those who serve whole having
> >>> bagged out of serving himself.
>
> >> You would not serve your country?
>
> >> Wow.
>
> > I would if the war was legitimate.
>
> Wow. Just what we need. Soldiers who only obey commands they agree with.
> A new battalion of the equivalent of jail house lawyers. Sure sounds to me
> like it would work to the benefit of the national defense. I wonder down
> through history just how many of the men who fought (and died) in the
> service of their country actually thought the wartime activities they were
> serving were "legitimate".
>
> As Bill would say, could you define "legitimate"?
>
> Steve
A "legitimate" war is one that has nothing in common with the one
we're now fighting.
annika1980
> Ask John Pflum or David Laville or Chris Bellomy or Bobby Knight or
> Greg Schoenberg (dene) or Rob Hamilton or Teresa Williamson what they
> think. Even ask Annika1980.
>
> I have over 10 rounds under par and one of them was at RSG Atlanta
> with Annika1980, Randy and Dalecki watching me like hawks.
Don't forget David Hayes, the USGA official who was also in our group.
-Annika -----> hates fivesomes !
annika1980
>
> I've only played casual rounds with him. Perhaps in a tourney, he's
> quiet and intense. No problem for me. I prefer that to some guy
> downing Heiney's at 8 am. or a yacker-hacker.
>
Let's leave Big Tex and The Hammer out of it.
annika1980
>
> >http://mediamatters.org/items/200709290002?f=h_top
>
>
> Media Matters, yeah they're really objective.
Yes they are, unlike Rush and that right-wing whacko crap you read.
> Take the time to read the article I cited. Somebody has it wrong.
Yes. Rush lied about it after the fact. He claimed the "phony
soldiers" comment was a reference to the McBeth guy he was discussing,
but he didn't mention McBeth until minutes after the phony soldiers
comment.
But I guess things get confused easily in his drug-riddled mind.
Carbon
Certainly. A recent example: The invasion of Afghanistan was legitimate
because the criminals behind 9/11 were holed up there with the support of
the Taliban. The invasion of Iraq was illegitimate because Saddam had
nothing, zero, to do with 9/11. He did not attack us and was no threat to
us. The reasons given, he had WMD (he didn't), he mistreated his own
people (we didn't care about the condition of the Iraqi people then and we
don't care now), he was responsible for 9/11 (he was secular and had no
patience with fanatics) were obviously fraudulent.
War is serious business. A rational person doesn't go and shoot people
just because someone tells them to. If the justifications given are
obvious lies then it is a moral duty not to participate.
SteveB
Is that the best you can come up with? That answer is as vague as a Harry
Reid or Nancy Pelosi speech. Or a Hillary Clinton answer when asked about
universal health care.
Steve
William A. T. Clark
"SteveB" <desertt...@hi-speed.us> wrote:
That's what they are supposed to do. Adolf Eichmann was hanged because
the court did not accept that he was just following orders in killing
jews. There are moral absolutes that the soldier still must obey.
William Clark
William A. T. Clark
"SteveB" <desertt...@hi-speed.us> wrote:
Is that the best you can come up with? A vague slash at any Democrat you
can think of, but not one shred of substance?
William Clark
Bow Tie
Thanks pard. I knew that one wouldn't stand unchallenged for too
long.
Best regards to you and yours.
Ken
Bow Tie
>
> - Show quoted text -
Forget Iraq for hypothetical. What about Afghanistan? Your answer will
tell me a lot.
Ken
John B.
I was 100% in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan. It was the right
response to 9/11. Too bad the administration has screwed everything up
so badly since then.
John B.
No, actually, I could do a lot better than that. Unfortunately,
though, I don't have time to write a thesis on "legitimate" vs.
"illegitimate" wars. Sorry.
Bow Tie
> On Oct 2, 12:19 pm, Bow Tie <ken_pitt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You mean like Clinton? And the way he defrauded his draft board?
>
> There's that, and then there's Dubya who didn't honor his (cushy and
> politically influenced) "commitment" to the ANG, and then lied about
> his status, pay and physical examinations. Dishonesty cuts both ways,
> Ken, the left doesn't have a monopoly on it.
>
> Personally, I respect Clinton more for having the courage to get out
Bush did 2 years of active duty, was a commissioned officer and
earned wings on the F102. That is hardly "cush". It is actually
dangerous because that plane was a notorious lead sled. He could have
been deployed at any time like the rest of us. As a vet of that era, I
have no problem with his service. Was it squeeky clean? No. (Neither
is mine). Did he muster out with an honorable discharge? Yes.
The reserves back then were a joke. I know. I was a reserve for a
while after my 4 year tour on active dute.
If you want to look into someone with questionable service, look at
Kerry's record. Why was it ten years (almost the end of the 70's)
before he was released from service and given an honorable discharge?
Why is it so hard to get a copy of Kerry's book from that era, The New
Soldier? Could it be that it is so radical in its tone that he and his
minions have bought up every copy they can find?
YMMV.
Ken
annika1980
> If you want to look into someone with questionable service, look at Kerry's record.
Yeah, let's compare a guy who actually fought and was in the shit and
got medals for it with someone who went AWOL from the fucking Alabama
National Guard.
The Chicago Seven had a better war record than George Bush!
John B.
>
> > On Oct 2, 12:19 pm, Bow Tie <ken_pitt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > You mean like Clinton? And the way he defrauded his draft board?
>
> > There's that, and then there's Dubya who didn't honor his (cushy and
> > politically influenced) "commitment" to the ANG, and then lied about
> > his status, pay and physical examinations. Dishonesty cuts both ways,
> > Ken, the left doesn't have a monopoly on it.
>
> > Personally, I respect Clinton more for having the courage to get out
> > of fighting <snip>
>
> Bush did 2 years of active duty, was a commissioned officer and
> earned wings on the F102. That is hardly "cush". It is actually
> dangerous because that plane was a notorious lead sled. He could have
> been deployed at any time like the rest of us.
Bullshit. Natl Gaurd did not get deployed to Vietnam.
As a vet of that era, I have no problem with his service. Was it
squeeky > clean? No. (Neither is mine). Did he muster out with an
honorable discharge? Yes.
>
> The reserves back then were a joke. I know. I was a reserve for a
> while after my 4 year tour on active dute.
>
> If you want to look into someone with questionable service, look at
> Kerry's record. Why was it ten years (almost the end of the 70's)
> before he was released from service and given an honorable discharge?
> Why is it so hard to get a copy of Kerry's book from that era, The New
> Soldier? Could it be that it is so radical in its tone that he and his
> minions have bought up every copy they can find?
Or maybe, like the huge majority of books published more than 20 years
ago, it's out of print?
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/002073610X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_olp_1...
>
> YMMV.
>
> Ken
SteveB
"William A. T. Clark" <clark...@masceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clarknospam-2B29...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
I'm sorry you didn't read my post.
Steve
Bow Tie
> On Oct 3, 9:52 am, Bow Tie <ken_pitt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If you want to look into someone with questionable service, look at Kerry's record.
>
> Yeah, let's compare a guy who actually fought and was in the shit and
> National Guard.
>
> The Chicago Seven had a better war record than George Bush!
One more time. Bush was a reserve. He met his hours of flight time
while he still had two years left. He plane (the F102) was
decommissioned in the mean time. If he was not going to extend, what
function does he serve? He missed some meetings right at the end of
his 6 year commitment. So what? I was a reserve. I can tell you first
hand that the punishment involved might be (at the most severe)
forfeiture of some wages and perhaps some extra duty. Whoop-de-doo!
Absolutely an issue for non-judicial punishment. Not an issue for
court martial.
Medals that Kerry submitted himself to receive. Kerry's former CO
related how that went. He was shot down on the first request. One of
which involved shooting a 15 year old kid in the back.
If it was up to me, the issue of service records of both 2004
candidates would have been as follows. Did they serve? Yes. Did they
receive honorable discharges? Yes. End of story. It was the Dems who
opened this can of worms. What goes around comes around. And it is
only fair.
I never was in combat. Would you care to throw rocks at my service? I
went where I was ordered and did what I was given to do.
Ken
Bow Tie
> On Oct 3, 9:52 am, Bow Tie <ken_pitt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 6:18 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 2, 12:19 pm, Bow Tie <ken_pitt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You mean like Clinton? And the way he defrauded his draft board?
>
> > > There's that, and then there's Dubya who didn't honor his (cushy and
> > > politically influenced) "commitment" to the ANG, and then lied about
> > > his status, pay and physical examinations. Dishonesty cuts both ways,
> > > Ken, the left doesn't have a monopoly on it.
>
> > > Personally, I respect Clinton more for having the courage to get out
> > > of fighting <snip>
>
> > Bush did 2 years of active duty, was a commissioned officer and
> > earned wings on the F102. That is hardly "cush". It is actually
> > dangerous because that plane was a notorious lead sled. He could have
> > been deployed at any time like the rest of us.
>
>
> As a vet of that era, I have no problem with his service. Was it
> squeeky > clean? No. (Neither is mine). Did he muster out with an
> honorable discharge? Yes.
>
>
>
> > The reserves back then were a joke. I know. I was a reserve for a
> > while after my 4 year tour on active dute.
>
> > If you want to look into someone with questionable service, look at
> > Kerry's record. Why was it ten years (almost the end of the 70's)
> > before he was released from service and given an honorable discharge?
> > Why is it so hard to get a copy of Kerry's book from that era, The New
> > Soldier? Could it be that it is so radical in its tone that he and his
> > minions have bought up every copy they can find?
>
> Or maybe, like the huge majority of books published more than 20 years
> ago, it's out of print?
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/002073610X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_olp_1...
>
> > YMMV.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
They could have been, just like me as a sailor, I could have been sent
into the middle of the chit and issued a rifle just like any Marine or
infantry puke. At any time and with no recourse to change it. Report
or go UA and miss movement. Your only choices.
Ken
the Moderator
"annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1191381127.0...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
He did a segment on McBeth two days before the 'phony comment.
William A. T. Clark
"SteveB" <desertt...@hi-speed.us> wrote:
I did, and I had already replied to the nonsense in it.
William Clark
the Moderator
>
> Bullshit. Natl Gaurd did not get deployed to Vietnam.
Uh, yes they did.
John B.
wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191421162....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Bullshit. Natl Gaurd did not get deployed to Vietnam.
>
> Uh, yes they did.
You're right. Sorry. I was thinking of reservists.
>From a history of the National Guard:
As the decade progressed, President Lyndon Johnson made the fateful
political decision not to mobilize the Reserves to fight the Vietnam
War, but to rely on the draft instead. But when the bombshell of the
Viet Cong Tet Offensive struck in 1968, 34 Army National Guard units
found themselves alerted for active duty, eight of which served in
South Vietnam.
Ben.
> Bush did 2 years of active duty, was a commissioned officer and
> earned wings on the F102. That is hardly "cush". It is actually
> dangerous because that plane was a notorious lead sled.
And he flew that F102 about as well as he ran his professional
business career and now the country: "...logs also show that in March
and April 1972, Bush twice needed multiple tries to land the F102
fighter."
> He could have been deployed at any time like the rest of us.
No he couldn't have been deployed. National Guard units were not
called up from 1968 - 1974 per Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. Want
to venture a guess as to when Bush enlisted? By the way, it was
widely considered that National Guard assignments were for those who
didn't/wouldn't go fight in Viet Nam...and the waiting list made those
of Studio 54 in 1977 look tame. It has been widely reported that
political favors were called in to get the young 'un at the top of
that particular list.
> As a vet of that era, I have no problem with his service. Was it squeeky clean? No. (Neither
> is mine). Did he muster out with an honorable discharge? Yes.
I wonder If you yourself had gone AWOL, didn't honor your commitment,
and conducted yourself in the manner which Bush apparently did, if you
would have the same level of discharge as Dubya? Or would you have
become familiar with the inside of a military court/prison?
> The reserves back then were a joke. I know. I was a reserve for a
> while after my 4 year tour on active dute.
Which is why it's all the more frustrating that Dubya couldn't even
complete a "joke" assignment w/o fucking it up somehow. Just follow
this guy's career - he's "middle management/softball coach of the
Wednesday night beer league" material. He is not executive material,
and we all know it.
> If you want to look into someone with questionable service, look at
> Kerry's record. Why was it ten years (almost the end of the 70's)
> before he was released from service and given an honorable discharge?
Could be his radical anti-war stance upon his return, during which
time he was still in the Navy Reserves. The overlapping of his
visibility in terms of the VVAW movement w/ still being in the
Reserves probably didn't sit too well with brass. But, like you said
about Dubya, he "mustered out" an honorable discharge - which
according to you is sufficient.
> Why is it so hard to get a copy of Kerry's book from that era, The New
> Soldier? Could it be that it is so radical in its tone that he and his
> minions have bought up every copy they can find?
Wow, that's some serious paranoia there. But I don't know, Ken, and
I'm not really worried about John Kerry's _book_. Wanna know why?
Kerry ACTUALLY served in Viet Nam! He earned every right to form a
radical opinion on the subject. Or is that not allowed in your right
wing worldview? Idiot. Oh, and here's a little more salt in your
wound - another radical thinker*, Al Gore, ACTUALLY decided not to
take a National Guard assignement and served in Viet Nam! As a field
reporter....but he was there. But George Bush is the straight arrow?
Sure thing, buddy.
* by "radical thinker" I don't mean good or bad, nor do I necessarily/
blindly subscribe to his current crusade of global warming.
Along these lines, I was at the gym the other day, and some guy was
getting in a heated, _very_ heated, discussion about Bill Clinton.
The best this guy could come up with, and I'm not kidding, is that he
"was a lying asshole." This pretty much sums up the right's problem
with the left, Clinton in particular, - the perceived lack of morality/
honesty/integrity - it's like the communist witch hunts of the 50's.
The red under the bed syndrome*. Though in Clinton's case, I would
concede a degree of virtuous liberties. Regardless, who would you
rather have running the country - a brilliant philanderer who gets the
job done or a solid C student with strings? When you hear people like
Newt Gingrich say Bill Clinton is "the most brilliant politician we've
seen in our generation" or words to that affect, you know there's
something there.
* As we speak, Dubya has just vetoed the State Childrens Health
Insurance Program due to the inclusion of the word "State" I can only
assume.
> YMMV.
It does. Green goes further...
Bow Tie
FWIW, Gore probably has the best service record of any of them. His
daddy was a Senator (unlike GHW Bush - a one term Congressman, not yet
CIA Director) and he volunteered for Vietnam anyway. I'm sure that
there was a secret agenda, but the facts are what they are.
Bush has not vetoed enough giveaway programs during his two terms and
has initiated too much spending. Excessive speding has always been the
problem, not the solution.
Ken
Ben.
> FWIW, Gore probably has the best service record of any of them. His
> daddy was a Senator (unlike GHW Bush - a one term Congressman, not yet
> CIA Director) and he volunteered for Vietnam anyway. I'm sure that
> there was a secret agenda, but the facts are what they are.
"Secret agenda" only because he is a Democrat. In your little mind,
that's all it takes.
> Bush has not vetoed enough giveaway programs during his two terms and
> has initiated too much spending. Excessive speding has always been the
> problem, not the solution.
Yes, you outlandish buffoon:
- insuring children for healthcare = BAD
- spending half-a-trillion on a war with tenuous connections to it's
purported purpose = GOOD
I wonder which one of those STATE SPONSORED activities would have the
most positive impact on the economy in the long run?
Bow Tie
Government trying to dictate health care issues has a long history of
disrupting the very things that are supposed to be getting fixed. Look
at the messes (long queues and poor care) in Canada and Great Britain.
Prices here are high now because the is no competition. Health care
should be a private enterprise, not state sponsored and mandated.
Refer to the 10th Ammendment to the Constitution.
More personal insults. What a surprise. You want to compare IQ's? name
your test.
Ken
Ben.
> Government trying to dictate health care issues has a long history of
> disrupting the very things that are supposed to be getting fixed.
What does spending half a trillion on a vague war fix? What has it
gotten us thus far?
> Look
> at the messes (long queues and poor care) in Canada and Great Britain.
> Prices here are high now because the is no competition. Health care
> should be a private enterprise, not state sponsored and mandated.
The Children's Health Insurance Program is by no means a mandate for
state run healthcare as you portray it. It is for families with kids
who don't qualify for Medicaid but can't afford health insurance
otherwise. The horror.
> More personal insults. What a surprise. You want to compare IQ's? name
> your test.
You really are insecure, aren't you?!?
Bow Tie
What are the reasons they can't afford the coverage? Could it be
cigarettes, beer, bass boat, $30K pickup truck, mortgage, trips to
casino, golf, shopping at the mall, cable TV with premium
channels, ................ etc etc etc? Living large and not meeting
real responsibilites? Insurance for children in nominal. The reason
these middle class people are not getting it is because they choose to
do so. What we don't need is another "entitlement" program. This is
one more incremental step toward socialized medicine.
Ken
Dene
>
> - Show quoted text -
You nailed it, Ken. In Oregon, Blue Cross's BEST plan for a child is
$90. If a family cannot afford that, then they qualify for assistance
for the whole family, not just the child. Insuring your child is
usually a matter of priorities, not economics.
-Greg
Bow Tie
>
> - Show quoted text -
We just heard from a real world expert on health insurance. Imagine
that.
Ken
Ben.
No, he didn't. He made a bunch of broad sweeping allegatons and
accusations against a program with which he disagrees politically.
And to classify the prospective participants of the SCHIP as geared
towards greedheads in the middle class who refuse to look after their
kids' health care is prima facie ridiculous.
> In Oregon, Blue Cross's BEST plan for a child is
> $90. If a family cannot afford that, then they qualify for assistance
> for the whole family, not just the child. Insuring your child is
> usually a matter of priorities, not economics.
First of all, $90 is $90/month, not a year, not a decade, not a
lifetime. Let's say you are an honest, upstanding single mother of
two working a job making $28,000/yr (and that is generous for
argument's sake). After taxes, you are left with, what, maybe $16 -
$17k? Just a ball park, I could be lean, I could be rich on that one.
Take $90 hard a month out, and you are left with less than $16k.
That $16k has to provide housing, clothing, food, car, gas, a nominal
sum for education related accessories, and all of the other expenses
related to raising a family on a single income. As far as Oregon
offering assistance for the whole family goes, we are talking about
Oregon here - would you say that Oregon is one of the more progressive
states in the union, or not?
I really do have a hard time believing that you two are of the opinion
that there is some cabal of middle class degenerates out there buying
boats, cars, vacations, and any other number of luxury items while
their kids stay sick and infirm w/o insurance! Most middle class
individuals have insurance through their employers...that is part of
the reason why they are called middle class, for Chrissake! Not to
mention the SCHIP participants, I would wager, would be beholden to
their W2's, wouldn't you think?
Bow Tie
>
> - Show quoted text -
First of all, nobody who makes $28K has a $10K tax bill. If they do
and they have children, they had better run - not walk - to see a tax
specialist.
Duh, of course it's $90 a month. $90 a month for something that should
be a #1 priority is a nominal cost. Anyone who makes enough to not be
on the public dole can afford it. Period. Otherwise, sell the bass
boat or the Suburban.
This whole plan and idea is bogus. You want something and can't make
it fit? Take on another job. My dad worked three jobs until he retired
from the Fort Worth school system. He didn't look to Uncle Sugar for
handouts when we needed something. He earned it.
Ken
John B.
Only if the real world consists only of Oregon. Take a look at the
Medicaid thresholds in Alabama or Mississippi or Louisiana or New
Mexico sometime. No "expert would imply that health insurance is
affordable for anyone with their "priorities" in order.
John B.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Spot on, Ben.
Ben.
> This whole plan and idea is bogus. You want something and can't make
> it fit? Take on another job. My dad worked three jobs until he retired
> from the Fort Worth school system. He didn't look to Uncle Sugar for
> handouts when we needed something. He earned it.
The world has changed since 1955, Ken. Join us. Buh-bye now.
Bow Tie
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, it's not.
>From form 1040 EZ for 2006. Single person making $28K owes $3826 in
taxes. With spouse and children and maybe mortgage, that goes down
close to zero. And voila!!!! You have just paid for your children's
health insurance.
Give me a break!
Ken
Bow Tie
I prefer to pay my own way as people (our parents) from the "greatest
generation" do. I will not be joining you and the rest of the
freeloaders.
Ken
sfb
"Ben." <kom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191433317.8...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Ben.
> > The world has changed since 1955, Ken. Join us. Buh-bye now.
>
> I prefer to pay my own way as people (our parents) from the "greatest
> generation" do. I will not be joining you and the rest of the
> freeloaders.
I know it's poor form to say bye, and then respond, but I feel it
incumbent to set you straight: I am not a freeloader, nor is anyone
in my family. My wife and I both work to pay for our kids' insurance
and their astronomically expensive daycare tuition...to the tune of
$1800/month Alabama dollars. By calling me a freeloader, w/o knowing
even the first minute detail of my life, you have effectively shown us
your inability to think further than your nose...or belly in your case
- I've seen pics, KP! ;)
Sooooo...GOODNIGHT NOW!
Bow Tie
No doubt I am fat and I am doing something about it. For the benefit
of my health and to stay around for my wife.
http://www.sarimellman.com/home.html
You seemed to be saying that values of the 50's (self reliance) were
not up to date. You should be opposed to this bill, like any self
reliant person would be.
Dene has it exactly right. And you and your fabricated tax rates do
not make a good counter-point.
Ken
Dene
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben,
Ken already corrected you on the amount of tax paid. I still maintain
that it is a matter of priorties, regardless of the state you live
in. I think your's and Ken's examples are exagerrated. Regardless, I
understand your perspective and appreciate the fact that you and your
wife are busting your butts to provide for your kids, not relying on
others to do it.
My biggest problem with the vetoed program is that it's a bandaid
measure. The real solution lies with Romney's plan that was
implemented in Mass. It gives strong incentives/penalties to the
young/irresponsible to acquire legitimate health insurance instead of
freeloading in the emergency room. It maintains healthy competition
between health insurance companies. Finally, it aids those who cannot
afford health insurance.
Even Hillary's plan has commendable elements to it. Implementing a
national solution by instituting mandates, evening the playing field,
and addressing the illegal alien situation will go a long ways to
stabilizing both health insurance premiums and the overall cost of
health care.
-Greg
Bow Tie
>
> - Show quoted text -
As Greg said, if they can't afford $90 a month, they would probably
otherwise be on public assistance.
There are many good jobs at all skill levels in the casinos that
abound in NM, MI and LA.
Here in Texas, I can't go 50 ft without seeing a "help wanted" sign. I
know Alabama is not doing badly at all. Your argument does not hold
water.
NEXT!
Ken
Lee O.
>I prefer to pay my own way as people
> (our parents) from the "greatest
> generation" do. I will not be joining you
> and the rest of the freeloaders.
>Ken
I assume this means that when the time comes you will refuse (as all
rich people should) to accept your Social Security "entitlement."
Thanks for the noble gesture, it is much appreciated by those poorer of
us who cannot afford to live without it.
John B.
I admire your ability to delude yourself into thinking you've shot
down an argument when in fact you have presented no evidence that it's
wrong. There are "many good jobs" all over the United States that
don't offer health insurance. There are millions of people who have
those jobs. Most of them don't live in Oregon. I can remember when I
didn't have $90 per month to spare and it wasn't because I had my
priorities wrong. This is a very complicated subject and both you and
Greg are in way over your heads. And you've proven it beyond any doubt
by calling the 45 milion people who don't have health insurance
"freeloaders." Grow up.
Chris Bellomy
> You seemed to be saying that values of the 50's (self reliance) were
> not up to date.
There is zero chance this program would have been cut in the
1950's. There was another value back then called compassion.
It has long since faded from our national culture.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
Ben.
> Bow Tie <ken_pitt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You seemed to be saying that values of the 50's (self reliance) were
> > not up to date.
>
> There is zero chance this program would have been cut in the
> 1950's. There was another value back then called compassion.
> It has long since faded from our national culture.
And this was what I was referring to all along. Not the hard working
values or anything else - simple compassion. What has not
satisfactorily been explained to me, by anyone - not just Ken, is how
it is OK to throw half a trillion and counting at this war, but $35
billion for health insurance for children is unacceptable. Staggering.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:45:12 -0500, the Moderator wrote:
>> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1191354452....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> I did not serve and was too young to go to Vietnam. Had I been old
>>> enough and been drafted, I wouldn't have gone. I am not a conservative
>>> blow-hard who tries to align himself with those who serve whole having
>>> bagged out of serving himself.
>>
>> You would not serve your country?
>>
>> Wow.
>
>I would if the war was legitimate.
The war was legitimate, but the way the US fought it wasn't.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>> Bush did 2 years of active duty, was a commissioned officer and
>> earned wings on the F102. That is hardly "cush". It is actually
>> dangerous because that plane was a notorious lead sled. He could have
>> been deployed at any time like the rest of us.
>
>Bullshit. Natl Gaurd did not get deployed to Vietnam.
John, why don't you actually check things out before you post things
like this. You have a habit of doing this and always look foolish.
"Although most of the reservists were used to strengthen America's
depleted strategic reserve force, four ANG fighter squadrons were
dispatched to Vietnam. On 3 May, F-100s from the 120th Tactical
Fighter Squadron (Colorado) arrived at Phan Rang Air Base. By 1 June,
all of the 120th's pilots were flying combat missions. In the
meantime, the 174th (Iowa), 188th (New Mexico), and the 136th (New
York) had all deployed to Vietnam with their F-100s. In addition, 85
percent of the 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron -- on paper a regular
Air Force unit -- were Air Guardsmen."
"On May 13, 1968, in response to the Lunar New Year (Tet) communist
attacks on South Vietnam, President Johnson activated 20 Army National
Guard combat units and 12 combat support and combat service support
units. Of the 12,234 mobilized, 2,729 reported to Vietnam with their
units. Of the 9,505 initially remaining in the United States, 4,311
subsequently were assigned to Vietnam, bringing the total number of
mobilized Army Guard members in the Republic of Vietnam to 7,040. All
Army Guard units were released from active duty by December 12, 1969.
Included among the more than 4,000 awards earned by Army Guard members
in Vietnam were 55 Silver Stars, 681 Purple Hearts, one Distinguished
Flying Cross, 16 Distinguished Service Medals, six Legions of Merit,
and over 1,000 Bronze Stars."
Jack Hollis
>No he couldn't have been deployed. National Guard units were not
>called up from 1968 - 1974 per Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson.
In fact Air National Guard units were deployed to Vietnam in 1968.