Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 10, 2004 I believe it; Democrats are delusional. And I'm going to remind you of this on November 3rd. I'm always winning to believe that things could change drastically between now and November, and if such a thing happens, my mood is willing to change. But if the course is maintained, good luck to ya. Though, to be honest, I also think the man is a blemish on our nation who needs to be removed with anyone, even the bum down the street, for the good of the country. So even if I feel Bush will win, I'll still hope he loses. =b You know what's ironic? Let's say Kerry wins. He's going to get EVERY inch of this same crap thrown back at him. He'll be the victim of "irrational hatred" and the country will be every inch as "divided". He'll get no judicial nominees through without MAJOR compromises with the GOP. And, let it be said, Gore is a fucktard. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 Well, of course, that happens to every president. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 You know what's ironic? Let's say Kerry wins. He's going to get EVERY inch of this same crap thrown back at him. He'll be the victim of "irrational hatred" and the country will be every inch as "divided". He'll get no judicial nominees through without MAJOR compromises with the GOP. Cool! And will he stop approving of every bill Congress sends his way that doesn't deal with restricting patriot act powers or gay marriage bans? Even more awesome! I don't vote Democrat in this race because I like to vote for Democrats. I vote Democrat in this race because government so gridlocked that it can get little done (in the beauracracy, not talking military here) would be better than what we've got going right now. If Dems had more control of the legislative branch than they do, I'd be more afraid of these Howie Deans and their health care reform, etc, but I don't think that has a very good chance of happening at all. No new judicial nominees? Great. A divided country? Wonderful. Partisan politics restricting spending and expansion (or, in Medicare's case, retraction) of government power? Now we're talking! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Well they released Bush's records that show he served and all that. Democrats continue to bitch about it though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 12, 2004 Well they released Bush's records that show he served and all that. Democrats continue to bitch about it though. They could have Bush run sorties through Afghanistan and personally drop the bomb that kills bin Laden --- they'd still claim he wasn't really a pilot. I hope this shows Bush that trying to reason with his opposition is a losing proposition. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted February 12, 2004 Excellent column by Richard Cohen. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...8-2004Feb9.html From Guardsman . . . By Richard Cohen Tuesday, February 10, 2004; Page A23 During the Vietnam War, I was what filmmaker Michael Moore would call a "deserter." Along with President Bush and countless other young men, I joined the National Guard, did my six months of active duty (basic training, etc.) and then returned to my home unit, where I eventually dropped from sight. In the end, just like President Bush, I got an honorable discharge. But unlike President Bush, I have just told the truth about my service. He hasn't. At least I don't think so. Nothing about Bush during that period -- not his drinking, not his partying -- suggests that he was a consistently conscientious member of the Texas or Alabama Air National Guard. As it happens, there are no records to show that Bush reported for duty during the summer and fall of 1972. Nonetheless, Bush insists he was where he was supposed to be -- "Otherwise I wouldn't have been honorably discharged," Bush told Tim Russert. Please, sir, don't make me laugh. It is sort of amazing that every four or eight years, Vietnam -- that long-ago war -- rears up from seemingly nowhere and comes to figure in the national political debate. In 1988 Dan Quayle had to answer for his National Guard service. In 1992 Bill Clinton had to grapple with the question of how he avoided the Vietnam-era draft. Now George Bush, who faced this question the last time out, has to face it again. The reason is that this time he is likely to compete against a genuine war hero. John Kerry did not duck the war. But George Bush did. He did so by joining the National Guard. Bush now wants to drape the Vietnam-era Guard with the bloodied flag of today's Iraq-serving Guard -- "I wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard," Bush warned during his interview with Russert -- but the fact remained that back then the Guard was where you went if you did not want to fight. That was the case with me. I opposed the war in Vietnam and had no desire to fight it. Bush, on the other hand, says he supported the war -- as long, it seems, as someone else fought it. It hardly matters what Bush did or did not do back in 1972. He is not the man now he was then -- that by his own admission. In the same way, it did not matter that Clinton ducked the draft, because, really, just about everyone I knew at the time was doing something similar. All that really matters is how one accounts for what one did. Do you tell the truth (which Clinton did not)? Or do you do what I think Bush has been doing, which is making his National Guard service into something it was not? In his case, it was a rich kid's way around the draft. In my case, it was something similar -- although (darn!) I was not rich. I was, though, lucky enough to get into a National Guard unit in the nick of time, about a day before I was drafted. I did my basic and advanced training (combat engineer) and returned to my unit. I was supposed to attend weekly drills and summer camp, but I found them inconvenient. I "moved" to California and then "moved" back to New York, establishing a confusing paper trail that led, really, nowhere. For two years or so, I played a perfectly legal form of hooky. To show you what a mess the Guard was at the time, I even got paid for all the meetings I missed. In the end, I wound up in the Army Reserve. I was assigned to units for which I had no training -- tank repairman, for instance. In some units, we sat around with nothing to do and in one we took turns delivering antiwar lectures. The National Guard and the Reserves were something of a joke. Everyone knew it. Books have been written about it. Maybe things changed dramatically by 1972, two years after I got my discharge, but I kind of doubt it. I have no shame about my service, but I know it for what it was -- hardly the Charge of the Light Brigade. When Bush attempts to drape the flag of today's Guard over the one he was in so long ago, when he warns his critics to remember that "there are a lot of really fine people who have served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq," then he is doing now what he was doing then: hiding behind the ones who were really doing the fighting. It's about time he grew up. Err... uh... so wait... Bush's paystubs prove what now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 12, 2004 Err... uh... so wait... Bush's paystubs prove what now? He served. The left looks like a bunch of blithering idiots (well, moreso than usual) in attempting to claim he didn't. But, hey, keep it up. God knows baseless character attacks with no real policy ideas ALWAYS does well at the polls. Ask Dole, Bob. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted February 12, 2004 Just because he received his pay checks doesn't mean he served. Even if he DID do his duty he landed his self a cushy number. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 12, 2004 Just because he received his pay checks doesn't mean he served. Even if he DID do his duty he landed his self a cushy number. He served. All your doing now is petty moaning about the facts. -=Mike ...It's not like he has rumors of him having an affair with an intern Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C Dubya 04 0 Report post Posted February 12, 2004 Honestly, I really don't care what Bush did in 1972. He could have been drunk, doing lines of coke off of teen prostitutes for all I care. It doesn't affect his ability to be president. But, wasn't there a large gap in the paystubs from the period? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Satanic Angel Report post Posted February 12, 2004 But, wasn't there a large gap in the paystubs from the period? An Absence in Alabama There was also an article from CNN detailing the gap in the paystubs, but I can't find it right off hand. I'll edit it in if I do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted February 12, 2004 "We do not need to divide America over who served and how." Who said that? John Kerry, defending Bill Clinton's apparent draft-dodging. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 12, 2004 "We do not need to divide America over who served and how." Who said that? John Kerry, defending Bill Clinton's apparent draft-dodging. Oh, that was a youthful indiscretion. You can't hold him responsible for statements made when he was in his, well, 50's. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
