|
Post by genesda on Apr 8, 2004 5:15:48 GMT -5
He didn't have to resign. Didn't the Republican leadership ask him to resign? And which Democrat are you saying is getting a pkmtyolp? Robert Byrd? No, Sen. Dodd. He did the exact same thing as Trent Lott did and it hasn't made a headline yet!! That's the partisan media at work! Even you should be able to recognize this. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 8, 2004 5:29:53 GMT -5
As I said previously, that is the inherrant risk of making generalizations. In yoour zeal to discredit Sen Kerry, you wish to minimize/trivialize all Navy personnel serving on ships. Very sad if you ask me. You're spinning the truth. even AFTER I clarified what I meant, you still accused me of minimizing the Navy, just as you're doing in this post. [/color] As someone with 2 nephews on the ground with the Marines (and a third who just graduated from Quantico), I would certainly prefer to see them on a ship right now. I don't fault you for that. I would feel the same way. [/color] But I would certainly not trivialize the duty of those serving on ships with the word "cushy". Compared to combat, it is cushy, and that was my original point. [/color] Navy corpsman who serve with Marine units are not considered "special ops". Again I agree. These guys are a special breed, but then again, this is not shipboard duty. [/color] Also, since the Navy delivers supplies to the troops on the ground, I would imagine there are large numbers of cargo specialists on the ground around the port cities. That's to name a few. But I'm sure who and what units of the Navy are in combat zones is cpkmtyollified. Again, I do not know the man personally. Whether he is a wimp, is determined by whether you accept the "political" hay that is being made about his military record. Anytime anyone has to run around reminding everyone what he did in the war, shows that he didn't do much of anything. By the way, you know that photo in his ad showing him coming out of the bush holding a rifle? Guess where that photo came from? answer, his home movies,LOL. He had to dig into his own personal stuff to get a photo of his doing something to run in an ad,LOL. [/color] You seem to be saying that his whole war record is fake. That is a pretty big indictment. You should refer it to the Pentagon for them to investigate. If true, he should be stripped of his awards. No, you seem to be saying that. I just don't think it is all that is being made of it. True, he served, but I just doubt the "hero" status that's being applied to him. When he retuned home, he became a liar and a traitor denegrating the men still in the field being shot at. That's the true Kerry. He's trying his best to run from that too. According to at least one crew member, running is what he does best. [/color] And finally, I just do not think it appropriate to denigrate the Navy with your generalization. There you go again. This is border line outright lying. You know what? Anyone who has read these posts can see this too! [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 8, 2004 6:32:45 GMT -5
He didn't have to resign. Didn't the Republican leadership ask him to resign? And which Democrat are you saying is getting a pkmtyolp? Robert Byrd? Rush explains it better than I did.[/color] RUSH: Well, the plot thickens here where it comes to Senator Dodd. On Sunday, December 15th of 2002 on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, there is this little post. "Democratic officials have been much quicker to criticize Lott, although to date only Senator John Kerry of pkmtyolmachusetts and Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin have called for Lott's resignation as majority leader. Senator Christopher Dodd came close Sunday on Late Edition. He said, 'If Tom Daschle or another Democratic leader were to have made similar statements, the reaction would have been very swift. I don't think several hours would have gone by without there being an almost unanimous call from the leader to step down.' Dodd said the problem lies with the Republican Party. 'Mainstream Republican thinking over the last 40 years has been opposed to an awful lot of the civil rights legislation. So this isn't just about Trent Lott, it's about a party that needs to come to terms with this view here, that you go to South, you say one thing to one group of people and another thing nationally.'" Who the hell is that talking about? Who is it that can't win down there? And, by the way, you know, this whole business of Republican thinking over the past 40 years has been opposed at an awful lot of the civil rights legislation, this fact continues to be overlooked were it not for Republicans in the Senate, the civil rights legislation, Civil Rights Act of '64 would not have pkmtyolped. A greater percentage of Republican senators voted for it than did Democrats in the Senate. Democrats even filibustered it and I think J. William Fulbright led the filibuster who was Clinton's mentor from Arkansas. This is such hocus-pocus, and this is how the whole context of this issue has been switched and turned around. The Democrats filibustered it, they opposed it, greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of '64 than did Democrats, and yet Dodd says here it's a mainstream Republican problem for the last 40 years. Dodd said that, "unless the Republicans address the issue of race relations head on they're going to pay an awful price politically, and it hurts the country terribly in my view." Dodd agreed the Republicans should make the decision about Lott but added, if the senator were to stay, a move to censure him takes on more of a reality, that it ought to be bipartisan, Dodd said, it ought not to be Democrats versus Republicans. So now we have the guy who jumped all over Trent Lott defending Robert Byrd as a man who would have been right even during the civil war. Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. From a Newsmax story at about the same time, here's a quote from Senator Dodd. "If a Democratic leader had made Lott's statements we would have to call for his stepping aside without any question whatsoever." Actually it was Peter Roth of UPI wrote this. Hey, let's throw this back at 'em. Because Christopher Dodd has just defined the terms for his own resignation. Of course you know what his out will be, he's not a leader. That's what he'll say, "I'm just an average run-of-the-mill senator. I'm not part of the leadership. So I'm exempt. I can say whatever I want because I'm not representing my party when I say it." That's what he'll say, but he said if a Democratic leader had made Lott's statements we would have to call for his stepping aside without any question whatsoever. In the meantime, the Democrats are hardly audible on this. You cannot hear them, the Democrats aren't saying much. RUSH: Well, the plot thickens here where it comes to Senator Dodd. On Sunday, December 15th of 2002 on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, there is this little post. "Democratic officials have been much quicker to criticize Lott, although to date only Senator John Kerry of pkmtyolmachusetts and Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin have called for Lott's resignation as majority leader. Senator Christopher Dodd came close Sunday on Late Edition. He said, 'If Tom Daschle or another Democratic leader were to have made similar statements, the reaction would have been very swift. I don't think several hours would have gone by without there being an almost unanimous call from the leader to step down.' Dodd said the problem lies with the Republican Party. 'Mainstream Republican thinking over the last 40 years has been opposed to an awful lot of the civil rights legislation. So this isn't just about Trent Lott, it's about a party that needs to come to terms with this view here, that you go to South, you say one thing to one group of people and another thing nationally.'" Who the hell is that talking about? Who is it that can't win down there? And, by the way, you know, this whole business of Republican thinking over the past 40 years has been opposed at an awful lot of the civil rights legislation, this fact continues to be overlooked were it not for Republicans in the Senate, the civil rights legislation, Civil Rights Act of '64 would not have pkmtyolped. A greater percentage of Republican senators voted for it than did Democrats in the Senate. Democrats even filibustered it and I think J. William Fulbright led the filibuster who was Clinton's mentor from Arkansas. This is such hocus-pocus, and this is how the whole context of this issue has been switched and turned around. The Democrats filibustered it, they opposed it, greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of '64 than did Democrats, and yet Dodd says here it's a mainstream Republican problem for the last 40 years. Dodd said that, "unless the Republicans address the issue of race relations head on they're going to pay an awful price politically, and it hurts the country terribly in my view." Dodd agreed the Republicans should make the decision about Lott but added, if the senator were to stay, a move to censure him takes on more of a reality, that it ought to be bipartisan, Dodd said, it ought not to be Democrats versus Republicans. So now we have the guy who jumped all over Trent Lott defending Robert Byrd as a man who would have been right even during the civil war. Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. From a Newsmax story at about the same time, here's a quote from Senator Dodd. "If a Democratic leader had made Lott's statements we would have to call for his stepping aside without any question whatsoever." Actually it was Peter Roth of UPI wrote this. Hey, let's throw this back at 'em. Because Christopher Dodd has just defined the terms for his own resignation. Of course you know what his out will be, he's not a leader. That's what he'll say, "I'm just an average run-of-the-mill senator. I'm not part of the leadership. So I'm exempt. I can say whatever I want because I'm not representing my party when I say it." That's what he'll say, but he said if a Democratic leader had made Lott's statements we would have to call for his stepping aside without any question whatsoever. In the meantime, the Democrats are hardly audible on this. You cannot hear them, the Democrats aren't saying much. When will the Democrats start action against Dodd for upholding Bryd's KKK ideas? [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 8, 2004 17:03:15 GMT -5
He didn't have to resign. Didn't the Republican leadership ask him to resign? And which Democrat are you saying is getting a pkmtyolp? Robert Byrd? Rush explains it better than I did.[/color][/quote] Sorry, but the "Rush" spin really does not do much for me. As I say to my child, "...put it in your own words". In any event, as I said in the other thread, you need to be careful about "cutting and pasting" transcripts from paid web sites. They having a little thing called copyright infringement that they get ansy about!
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 8, 2004 17:46:13 GMT -5
As I said previously, that is the inherrant risk of making generalizations. In yoour zeal to discredit Sen Kerry, you wish to minimize/trivialize all Navy personnel serving on ships. Very sad if you ask me. You're spinning the truth. even AFTER I clarified what I meant, you still accused me of minimizing the Navy, just as you're doing in this post. [/color][/quote] Did you or did you not make this statement in post #18 of this thread? The Navy today is a cushion compared to the foot soldier in the Army or Marines.[/color] I took issue with that blanket statement. And your "backtracking" does not change one iota your generalization. [/color][/quote] As I would expect. But being on ship during a time of war does not lessen the risk. And as you know, the Marines spend a great deal of time on ships. [/color][/quote] And I disagree with your original point. Combat is combat. Whether on land sea or air. The only time a ship is truly safe is when it is tied up in it's home port. [/color][/quote] And again, all those Navy corpman past and present thank you for your consideration. So let's review with what you do not consider "cushy" jobs in the Navy. Navy SEALS Navy fliers Navy corpman Navy gunboat crews (with the exception of Sen Kerry) Navy submariners The real "cushy" jobs are the one's that serve on ships. So let's try this one. It's pretty easy actually. How about the deck crew that support the landing and taking off on aircraft carriers. Think that job is pretty "cushy"? [/color][/quote] Actually I think it's ludricous to bring up the actions of anyone that occurred long before they even considered a political carreer. That's is why I consider Kerry's war record and Bush's fratertinity carousing moot in a political arguement. As far as "home movies", that's the first I heard that one. I'm sure I can find some of those of my own. Does that mean I might have a future is politics? [/color][/quote] Actually earlier is this thread you made an issue of it when you stated he did not desrve his "purple hearts" because he did not have "penetrating wounds". [/color][/quote] Unfortunately, he was one of many Vietnam veterans who felt that way. ( www.vvaw.org/ ) And since he was exercising one of the Freedoms he just fought for, he was within his rights to voice his opinion. [/color][/quote] That's the opinion of one crewman. Fortunately his other crewman did not feel that way. LOL...guess he should have vetted his crew a little better to weed out that one Republican. I mean he must have knew then that someday he would come back to haunt him when he ran for president in 2004. [/color][/quote] Liar? LOL!!! Yes, anyone reading these posts just need to back to your post #18 of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 9, 2004 16:23:38 GMT -5
<><
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Apr 9, 2004 16:55:27 GMT -5
genesda - "but let's get the anti-Christian teachings such as evolution out of the school system too."
No, let's kep it in the school system since it is both the best explanation for the physical evidence and in no way "anti-Christian."
--BDT
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Apr 9, 2004 18:26:28 GMT -5
genesda - "but let's get the anti-Christian teachings such as evolution out of the school system too."No, let's kep it in the school system since it is both the best explanation for the physical evidence and in no way "anti-Christian." --BDT Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 12, 2004 4:42:26 GMT -5
Sorry, but the "Rush" spin really does not do much for me. As I say to my child, "...put it in your own words". In any event, as I said in the other thread, you need to be careful about "cutting and pasting" transcripts from paid web sites. They having a little thing called copyright infringement that they get ansy about! If you would ever check out this website, you'd find that there is much that is free. Besides, what does it matter where you read the news? This is news, not someone's idea of what happened. It was taped and shown on t.v. I saw what was posted on the web site. There's nothing wrong with cutting and pasting what I would have said anyway. It just saved me some time.
Why don't you address the question of the partisan news media? That was the point of the article, or did you see that? [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 12, 2004 4:52:21 GMT -5
Did you or did you not make this statement in post #18 of this thread? The Navy today is a cushion compared to the foot soldier in the Army or Marines.[/color] I took issue with that blanket statement. And your "backtracking" does not change one iota your generalization. As I would expect. But being on ship during a time of war does not lessen the risk. And as you know, the Marines spend a great deal of time on ships. And I disagree with your original point. Combat is combat. Whether on land sea or air. The only time a ship is truly safe is when it is tied up in it's home port. And again, all those Navy corpman past and present thank you for your consideration. So let's review with what you do not consider "cushy" jobs in the Navy. Navy SEALS Navy fliers Navy corpman Navy gunboat crews (with the exception of Sen Kerry) Navy submariners The real "cushy" jobs are the one's that serve on ships. So let's try this one. It's pretty easy actually. How about the deck crew that support the landing and taking off on aircraft carriers. Think that job is pretty "cushy"? Actually I think it's ludricous to bring up the actions of anyone that occurred long before they even considered a political carreer. That's is why I consider Kerry's war record and Bush's fratertinity carousing moot in a political arguement. You think so? It just shows how naive you are. How did Kerry get picked to testify before Congress? There were hundreds of thousands who served in Vietnam, but he was singled out. Right! [/color] As far as "home movies", that's the first I heard that one. I'm sure I can find some of those of my own. Does that mean I might have a future is politics? Better question. Why would he want to take movies of himself coming out of the brush holding a rifle in the first place? He was on a river boat. This certainly wasn't in the middle of hostile action. [/color] Actually earlier is this thread you made an issue of it when you stated he did not desrve his "purple hearts" because he did not have "penetrating wounds". Unfortunately, he was one of many Vietnam veterans who felt that way. ( www.vvaw.org/ ) And since he was exercising one of the Freedoms he just fought for, he was within his rights to voice his opinion. That's the opinion of one crewman. Fortunately his other crewman did not feel that way. LOL...guess he should have vetted his crew a little better to weed out that one Republican. I mean he must have knew then that someday he would come back to haunt him when he ran for president in 2004. Liar? LOL!!! Yes, anyone reading these posts just need to back to your post #18 of this thread. In all of the special ops jobs you listed as dangerous, why don't you show where they are routinely dangerous while ship board, with the exception of fliers operating from aircraft carriers? You just won't face the truth. There is no real danger of military attack on the modern Navy, unless we would go to war with a military such as the Russians or the British or some country that has a capability to attack our Navy. Then you would have a legitimate point. It os obvious that you are only an apologist for Kerry the weakling.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 12, 2004 4:54:02 GMT -5
genesda - "but let's get the anti-Christian teachings such as evolution out of the school system too."No, let's kep it in the school system since it is both the best explanation for the physical evidence and in no way "anti-Christian." --BDT I'm only going to say that evolution is a Satanic lie and some have been fooled by it. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 12, 2004 17:23:19 GMT -5
If you would ever check out this website, you'd find that there is much that is free. [/color][/quote] I have gone there. From what I've seen, the "free" stuff is just the teaser. The rest of the story you have to pay for. [/color][/quote] Actually it's editted news, with Rush's spin on it. [/color][/quote] That is certainly your perogative. Just suggesting that you may wish to check with Mr Limbaugh's site to see what their policy is. [/color][/quote] You're not suggesting the Mr Limbaugh is not partisan, are you?
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 12, 2004 17:46:23 GMT -5
The Navy today is a cushion compared to the foot soldier in the Army or Marines. [/color] Actually I think it's ludricous to bring up the actions of anyone that occurred long before they even considered a political carreer. That's is why I consider Kerry's war record and Bush's fratertinity carousing moot in a political arguement. You think so? It just shows how naive you are. How did Kerry get picked to testify before Congress? There were hundreds of thousands who served in Vietnam, but he was singled out. Right! [/color][/quote] Now who is being naive? Do you think John Kerry was the only Vietnam veteran to testify before Congress during the Winter Soldier Investigations? There were more than a hundred who testified. How many of them went into politics I do not know. But at least one of them did. [/color][/quote] As I've said, I have not seen these "home movies". so I really cannot comment on them. Do you have a link to them? Did he shoot them himself with a tripod, or did someone else film him. This reminded me of the time I was about 8 or 9, and my older brother, his friends and I re-enacted the "Raising of the Flag on Iwo Jima". My uncle took a picture of it! Maybe I could go into politics! LOL!! [/color][/quote] So you think standing on a deck controlling a landing aircraft at full-throttle is "cushy"? [/color][/quote] Again, as I know a great many Navy men and women and I would not triavialize sea duty (the governmant doen't either as they receive extra pay while at sea). If you're trying to equate risk with naval battles of the World Wars, you've obviously never been to sea. [/color][/quote] As I've told you before, I do not know the man personally. As such, I cannot atest to his physical strength.
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 12, 2004 22:29:36 GMT -5
So you think standing on a deck controlling a landing aircraft at full-throttle is "cushy"? Touche' And how about the pilot landing that jet?? ...Quite amusing to witness someone demonstrate SO well their lack of knowledge on a topic, isn't it? ;D **sighs** Such is life when all you know is how to parrot.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Apr 12, 2004 23:18:26 GMT -5
genesda - "I'm only going to say that evolution is a Satanic lie"
It's a good thing that that's all you're saying, because all you've been able to show that you can do on the topic is make claims which have no evidence to support them, let alone any basis in reality. Keep living with your head in the sand if that's what floats your boat. Actually, the rest of us are a lot better off that way, as you make all Christians look ridiculous every time you sound off one of your absurd claims.
--DX TD
|
|