Syria Leone

[gallo]

Quote by: Chancellor But I would expect Americans to know where a well-known major American city is located.

I would too except when I realize that so many Americans think that the universe is only 6000 years old and was created out of nothing in 6 days. And you expect them to actually learn geography?

But, my God! Syria Leone? In front of the General Assembly? How often is this moron going to humiliate our country? With his approval ratings hovering around 33% it seems that people are wising up. History will rank Dubya as one of the worst Presidents of all time.

If you know whose responsibility it is then why are you still blaming Bush?

Because he is the chief executive that set the tone and the pace of the response. He ignored the problem, or at least viewed is only from above 30,000 ft. until a week or so late. And then he thought an incompetent was doing a bang up job.

So what if Presidents have done so for as long as you can remember.

Because they are expected to provide leadership and show that those who manage our government resources should allocate them to relieve the disaster.

I would prefer that Presidents just stay the hell away and let the local folks do their job.

Right. Without resources.

Hence my earlier comment that you saw fit to report.

It was an insult. You demonstrate shallow thinking and then respond with insult when your feelings are hurt.

Is it really your contention that the only way a person can show interest in a disaster is to show up at the disaster site?

Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent what I said? That is at best, dishonest. It is my contention that Bush set the tone of the national response by showing no interest.

Considering all that goes into the President going anywhere, do you really think it would have been helpful to the relief workers for the President and his entourage to show up (not to mention all the security precautions beforehand)? It doesn't matter that presidents "traditionally" do this or that.

Yes it would have been worth it. It might have shown the governmental workers who that it was an important matter. It might have provided some leadership to the do nothing bureaucrats.

Why should he? There is nothing in Article II of the Constitution that lists straightening out governors as one of the President's duties. Maybe the people of Louisiana should have given their governor the collective swift kick in the backside she so clearly needed.

Obviously you and the President both agree that he shouldn't provide any sort of leadership. He certainly didn't and you defend him. I disagree.
[quote]And why did it take the Governor of Louisiana so long to make the request?[quote]I don't know that. Stupidity? Panic? Lack of leadership? Certainly the Governor of Texas offered the Texas NG troops.

He had no real reason to even go there and his presence there would have placed an undue burden on all concerned.

Then why did he finally go there when bang up Brownie had screwed up an already disastrous situation.

The best thing he or any President could do was to stay away from the disaster site.

Well, you might be right when you say that the best thing Bush could have done was to stay away. When he finally did go all he did was to highlight the terrible job that the government was doing by praising an incompetent. Someone from the same mold as he. Other Presidents have offered support and set the tone. Other Presidents actually cared.

Yes, well, Bush is one of those global interventionists that feels the United States must butt its nose into other countries' internal affairs.

Then you lied. You implied that Bush served in the NG in order to avoid serving in an illegal war. He served in the NG because he was afraid to go to VN and his daddy and cronies pulled strings to get him into the NG. Reserve and NG enlistment without prior active duty was shut off at least by Jan of 1967. I know because I specifically went to reserve and NG armories and told them that I was interested in joining. "Not interested." was my answer until I explained my service history. "Glad to have you," was the response.

And how many other rich kids were able to get in? I suspect plenty.

Doesn't change the fact that warmonger Bush is willing to send other people's children to was without feeling any obligation to do his part. I don't know about how many others - I do know that I served and my two brothers served (one shot down over the highlands and the other overrun in an assault at Cam Ranh.)

The issue is the nature of the wounds and how long he actually spent in Viet Nam.

No. The issue is that he served in Vietnam in combat and was wounded. Bush ducked out of service - didn't serve and wasn't wounded. And yet he thinks we should have stated in Vietnam (when he said "we" he obviously didn't include himself in that term.)

Maybe you should get your eyes checked. Considering that I started kindergarten in 1968, I wasn't quite old enough to support or not support our troops.

But your silly comment does raise the question of whether one must support the government's unconstitutional military actions in order to support the men and women who choose to serve in the armed forces.

From the tone of your posts, I surmise that you think that the answer is yes. But that actually isn't the point. The point was that you implied that Bush avoided real service that was mandatory for others because he opposed the war. In fact, he supported the war and only opposed his participation.

See above. Since I don't equate an individual's choice to serve in the military (or conscription into the military) with the government engaging in unconstitutional miltiary adventures, your statement is unwarranted.

But military service by the able bodied was mandatory at that time. Your thinking is too shallow.

I slight Kerry's service because of information about the nature of that service (and because he later testilied to Congress).

He served in Vietnam and was wounded. You seem to somehow slight that sort of service. That is why I felt that you would be one to spit on the uniforms of those who served. You are doing so metaphorically.

Bush didn't duck military service by serving in the National Guard and if you check the records, he fulfilled his service obligation.

No. Bush ducked active service by getting his daddy and cronies to get him into the NG. He them moved out of the state, did not report in the other state, and failed to attend the meetings he swore to attend.

That depends on the nature of the wounds and how they were received. Even snopes.com revealed that Kerry's wounds were not very serious and not enough to take him off duty

Kerry served in combat in Vietnam and was wounded. Bush did not. Bush ducked it.

I'm not giving credence to the swiftboat group that opposed Kerry in the 2004 election. It seems to me that the Purple Heart was given out way too liberally during the Viet Nam war.

The Purple Heart was given out for any injury that was the result of enemy action that received medical attention. It always was, and it still is. Kerry received legitimate Purple Hearts. Bush received none. Kerry served. Bush did not. Kerry opposed the war. Bush supported it.

I was in the Navy and I was in the Gulf during the Gulf war. The closest I came to combat was scud missiles flying overhead. However, given my location at the time, if those who fired the missiles at the barracks in Dharan, Saudi Arabia had aimed just a hair to the left, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. And, no, it is not hypocritical to condemn a man like John Kerry whose wounds were so minor that he wasn't even prevented from returning to duty.

Common practice. There were lots of wounds like that.

It is still hypocritical to disavow one who served and was wounded in favor of one who did not serve. It is also hypocritical to claim that Bush joined the NG because he opposed the war when he did not. You just say anything to support that total embarrassment to our country. MY GOD! "Syria Leone" in front of the General Assembly? What a moron.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: gallo I would too except when I realize that so many Americans think that the universe is only 6000 years old and was created out of nothing in 6 days. And you expect them to actually learn geography?

I'm not quoting the rest of your post because of these ridiculous limitations on the number of characters you're allowed to type! Since most of them (including the ones that don't know where New Orleans is) were taught in government indoctrination centers (public schools) that teach evolution and an earth of 4.5 billion years age, maybe I shouldn't expect them to know geography. After all, it's more important for them to be taught that they and monkeys have the same ancestors than it is to actually know how to find New Orleans or Sierra Leone on a map. :rolleyes:

History may very well rank him as one of the worst presidents of all time. I've had this sense, ever since Bush was running in 2000, that the guy isn't exactly the brightest crayon in the box. And, yes, I do expect someone who graduated from college to be able to pronounce most words correctly.

Get it through that thick skull of yours that the primary responsibility for responding to disasters is at the local level. The one who sets the tone and the pace of response is the local government (personified in the mayor of a particular city or town). The best thing any president could do in a situation like that was to just stay the hell out of the way.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to amass these resources you think Bush should have personally provided. It's the responsibility of the local and state governments to do this; the local governments weren't entirely without resources and the state government did have a responsibility to help.

Let's take a closer look at what I actually said (which you felt was an insult) instead of you taking it out of context: "This little bit of stupidity on your part" (your ridiculous comment about Bush) "shows that you really don't know that dealing with the aftermath of hurricanes is the primary responsibility of affected local and state governments...If you want to blame someone, blame Mayor Nagin for not evacuating people (the man who referred to New Orleans as 'chocolate city' and intended to establish a predominantly black population there after the hurricane)." I don't happen to like Bush and I didn't vote for the guy but I do damned well expect people to know what they're talking about when criticizing him.

Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent what I said? That is at best, dishonest. It is my contention that Bush set the tone of the national response by showing no interest.

Why do you insist on showing that you don't know the difference between a statement and a question? Notice that I asked a question and that question was "Is it really your contention that the only way a person can show interest in a disaster is to show up at the disaster site?" Instead of accusing me of making statements try answering the question!

I take it you've never had to do the work of preparing for a dignitary's visit. Again, the best thing the President could have done was just stay away and let the relief workers do their jobs.

And, no, I don't agree that the President shouldn't provide "any sort of leadership;" I just reject this stupid notion of yours that it's the federal government's job to run local disaster relief.

Quote by: Chancellor And why did it take the Governor of Louisiana so long to make the request? I don't know that. Stupidity? Panic? Lack of leadership?

Yet I don't see you criticizing her - and she had more responsibility in it than Bush!

And who are you referring to as "bang up Brownie"? Is this your way of making a racist remark or of accusing Bush of being racist? Keep in mind that it was the black Mayor of New Orleans who referred to the city as "Chocolate City" in reference to black people being the predominant population there.

You don't have to actually go there to offer support. You don't have to go on television and make a speech. You can do your job and let others do theirs.

Oh and I did not lie (say something I know to be false). As I've said in numerous posts in numerous threads: I DON'T IMPLY - EVER! If you're going to disagree with me then disagree with what I wrote and not what you think I wrote. I expressed no opinion whatsoever as to why Bush served in the National Guard. I did say that the Viet Nam War was unconstitutional. Whether he served because he was afraid to go to Viet Nam, I don't know and I really don't care. He wasn't the first rich kid to get out of being drafted - just ask Democrat Congressman Charlie Rangel who wants to bring back the draft.

You accused Bush of being a warmonger (a reasonable conclusion) who is willing to send other people's children to war but seem to forget that Slick Willie Clinton did the same damned thing except he tried to put American troops under the authority of NATO and/or the UN. Oh, and Slick Willie didn't serve in the military at all - he managed to dodge the draft.

Oh, I guess I will quote you some more.

From the tone of your posts, I surmise that you think that the answer is yes. But that actually isn't the point. The point was that you implied that Bush avoided real service that was mandatory for others because he opposed the war. In fact, he supported the war and only opposed his participation.

Your skill in surmising is sorely lacking. The fact of the matter is that I oppose the federal government sending our military into any action that is unconstitutional. And, again, I don't imply - ever! Bush served in the military (even if I accept your notion that his serving in the National Guard was in order to get out of going to Viet Nam); but at least he served in the military, which is a whole lot more than we can say for Slick Willie Clinton. Of course, I suspect that if you told those in the National Guard presently serving in Iraq that their service is not "real service," you'd likely end up in a hospital bed within an inch of your life.

But military service by the able bodied was mandatory at that time. Your thinking is too shallow.

Oh, I'm well aware of the policy of conscription and its unconstitutional use in the 1960s and early 1970s.

He served in Vietnam and was wounded. You seem to somehow slight that sort of service.

He didn't serve very long and his wounds were not very serious - not even serious enough to take him off duty.

That is why I felt that you would be one to spit on the uniforms of those who served. You are doing so metaphorically.

There you go again, reading into what people write. I was referring to one individual and his "service." It has no bearing whatsoever on anyone else who served.

No. Bush ducked active service by getting his daddy and cronies to get him into the NG.

Yes, and you make it sound as if that was somehow unusual. How many other rich kids did something similar. You're the one saying Bush joined the NG to get out of serving in Nam but later in your post you accused me of saying it.

He them moved out of the state, did not report in the other state, and failed to attend the meetings he swore to attend.

His record shows that he met his service obligation and that's all that matters.

Kerry served in combat in Vietnam and was wounded.

See my earlier comments. In any event, he spit upon his own service when he testilied before Congress and became one of those hippie war protesters.

Bush did not. Bush ducked it.

I don't dispute the fact that Bush did not serve in Viet Nam.

The Purple Heart was given out for any injury that was the result of enemy action that received medical attention. It always was, and it still is.

Then the Purple Heart is a joke!

Kerry received legitimate Purple Hearts.

Since they were being given out like candy, the Purple Heart is pretty much meaningless.

Bush received none.

There are a lot of other veterans who have never received a Purple Heart. Maybe I should infer from your statement that you think their service is not valid. Of course, you'd tell me I'm wrong but, hey, if you can make ridiculous claims about what I'm saying then I should be free to make ridiculous claims about what you're saying.

Common practice.

Since America's involvement in Viet Nam was started by presidents that were WWII veterans, your comment is meaningless.

It is still hypocritical to disavow one who served and was wounded in favor of one who did not serve.

I disavow John Kerry. I don't favor Bush. I do, however, expect you to get your facts straight and stop spewing all this anti-Bush leftist propaganda.

[gallo]

Quote by: Chancellor There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to amass these resources you think Bush should have personally provided.

I didn't say that Bush would personally provide anything but leadership. According to your statement FEMA is unconstitutional.

Let's take a closer look at what I actually said

So it is necessary for you to try to justify an insult when you realize that you have been talking foolishness? And then you go on to misrepresent what I said. Why not be honest?

Why do you insist on showing that you don't know the difference between a statement and a question? Notice that I asked a question and that question was "Is it really your contention that the only way a person can show interest in a disaster is to show up at the disaster site?" Instead of accusing me of making statements try answering the question!

But your statement is a mischaracterisization of anything that I said. It is dishonest. We were talking about the President who actually didn't care.

I take it you've never had to do the work of preparing for a dignitary's visit.

Not true but irrelevant. I was just saying that Presidents offered leadership and set the tone for government.
[quoteAgain, the best thing the President could have done was just stay away and let the relief workers do their jobs.[/quote]In Bush's case that is true. I concede that point. When he finally did figure out where New Orleans was, he screwed up the situation by telling everyone that the incompetent that was screwing up FEMA efforts was doing a "bang up job". Thus Bush set the tone as slipshod, uncaring, and ineffective.

And, no, I don't agree that the President shouldn't provide "any sort of leadership;"

Then you really are a Bush supporter.

Yet I don't see you criticizing her - and she had more responsibility in it than Bush!

Then you can't read. That's what I was doing - criticizing her. That's just more shallow thinking on your part.

And who are you referring to as "bang up Brownie"? Is this your way of making a racist remark or of accusing Bush of being racist?

Typical that you would even comment on the topic when you seem to be so unaware of the events. I was talking about Michael D. Brown who was Director of FEMA and so mishandled the relief that Bush was eventually forced to fire him (after saying what a "bang up job Brownie is doing).

Keep in mind that it was the black Mayor of New Orleans who referred to the city as "Chocolate City" in reference to black people being the predominant population there.

So are you admitting that you are a bigot? Notice, I'm asking a question.

Oh and I did not lie (say something I know to be false). As I've said in numerous posts in numerous threads: I DON'T IMPLY - EVER! If you're going to disagree with me then disagree with what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.

You constantly imply and then claim that you were only asking a question. You misrepresent often.

I expressed no opinion whatsoever as to why Bush served in the National Guard.

Let's see. I said that I knew where Vietnam was and Bush didn't. You stated that some people who objected to the was as illegal served in the NG. The clear implication is that Bush objected to the war. You're being quite disingenuous again.

I did say that the Viet Nam War was unconstitutional. Whether he served because he was afraid to go to Viet Nam, I don't know and I really don't care.

But you implied it. All I said was that I knew where Vietnam is.

You...draft.

Snip of irelevant clap-trap.

Oh, I guess I will quote you some more. Your skill in surmising is sorely lacking. The fact of the matter is that I oppose the federal government sending our military into any action that is unconstitutional. And, again, I don't imply - ever!

What nonsense. You rarely make clear statements. By the way, Clinton isn't relevant to this discussion.

Of course, I suspect that if you told those in the National Guard presently serving in Iraq that their service is not "real service," you'd likely end up in a hospital bed within an inch of your life.

Do you ever actually think about what you are saying? ALL of our troops that are serving in Iraq are serving in active military forces. The have been activated. Do you know what that means? They have been called into active military service. Kerry was in active military service. Bush was not.

Oh, I'm well aware of the policy of conscription and its unconstitutional use in the 1960s and early 1970s.

Oh? The implication in your words was that you weren't. But since you don't imply ever, it seems that you actually weren't aware of the draft.
[quoteHe didn't serve very long and his wounds were not very serious - not even serious enough to take him off duty.[/quote]He served on active duty in a combat zone and was wounded. Bush did not.

There you go again, reading into what people write. I was referring to one individual and his "service." It has no bearing whatsoever on anyone else who served.

Then why did you bring up Clinton? Is it a matter of do as I say and not as I do?

Yes, and you make it sound as if that was somehow unusual. How many other rich kids did something similar. You're the one saying Bush joined the NG to get out of serving in Nam but later in your post you accused me of saying it.

I thought it was an implication but since you don't imply that must have been what you meant since we were talking about Bush.

His record shows that he met his service obligation and that's all that matters.

Except that he ducked active service. Kerry did not.

In any event, he spit upon his own service when he testilied before Congress and became one of those hippie war protesters.

I served and I opposed the war. My brother served (and was shot down over the highlands) and he opposed the war. My younger brother also served, went hand to hand when overrun at Cam Ranh, and he opposed the war. Bush ducked active service and he supported the war.

I don't dispute the fact that Bush did not serve in Viet Nam.

But you continue to imply that his service was more honorable than those who did.

Then the Purple Heart is a joke!

Why don't you disrespect the service of a few million service men. Why don't you go ahead and spit on some uniformed soldiers.

Since they were being given out like candy, the Purple Heart is pretty much meaningless.

Good. More disrespect of our service men.

There are a lot of other veterans who have never received a Purple Heart. Maybe I should infer from your statement that you think their service is not valid.

No. The implication from your remarks, since you think that Kerry's service isn't "valid", you would have an even lower opinion of those who didn't receive a Purple Heart.

Of course, you'd tell me I'm wrong but, hey, if you can make ridiculous claims about what I'm saying then I should be free to make ridiculous claims about what you're saying.

You have been doing so all along with your ridiculous misrepresentations and implications.

Since America's involvement in Viet Nam was started by presidents that were WWII veterans, your comment is meaningless.

What does your objection to the criteria for award of the Purple Heart have to do with WWII veterans? Do you ever think about what you say?

I disavow John Kerry. I don't favor Bush. I do, however, expect you to get your facts straight and stop spewing all this anti-Bush leftist propaganda.

And I expect you to stop with the misrepresentation and distorted implication. Yet again, you spit on one who served and down grade that service because you don't like him. At the same time you have defended Bush and his non-service. Perhaps you should learn facts before you speak. I dispise those who disrespect our servicemen and denigrate their service. If you disagree with Kerry for other reasons, why do you find it necessary to mention only his service. It takes someone really low to do so.

[gallo]

Some additional considerations about Vietnam service. John Kerry served two tours in combat. He began as an Ensign and left as a Lieutenant. (hopefully it isn't necessary to explain those ranks to Chancellor, since he claims to have served in the Navy) He was awarded a Silver Star (only awarded for gallantry in action), a Bronze Star (may be awarded for bravery, acts of merit, or meritorious service) - (Kerry has a "V" for valor on his), and 3 Purple Hearts. So, when he received a minor wound late in his second tour, his commander chose to reward his service with a 3rd Purple Heart (whether a minor wound or not) and send him home according to regulations. Why is that a problem for Chancellor?

But Chancellor prefers to spit on Vietnam service. Awards were handed out like candy.

A friend of mine was in the 82nd Airborne and was shot in the Dominican Republic and spent some considerable time in the hospital. Of course, he was given a Purple Heart as "candy," according to Chancellor. He was then assigned to C Co, 1st Bn, 7th Cav Reg, 1st Cav Div (Airmobile). The division was deployed to Vietnam and he took part in the action at Ia Drang. He was part of the relief force for the "lost platoon". During that action, he he was hit by a piece of shrapnel that a medic extracted with forceps, bandaged and he was returned to action (by necessity). But Chancellor believes that such wounds do not merit a Purple Heart since they are nothing more than candy, since my friend was never removed from combat duty. Thus, his Purple Heart was not earned. Later, in an action subsequent to Ia Drang, my friend stepped on a pungi stick. It penetrated through the top of his boot. He was, of course hospitalized, where the massive infection was successfully defeated. He was returned to his unit. He was also awarded his 3rd piece of candy. Unfortunately for him, only two were earned in Vietnam, so he wasn't eligible for return to the states. He finished his tour.

But, of course, two tours in Vietnam do not deserve respect because awards were passed out like candy. Silver stars, bronze stars, purple hearts - there was no merit or valor involved.

So, Chancellor, you must have lots of this candy. How about a silver star? No? How about a bronze star? No? (My brothers). How about a commendation medal? No? (my brothers, myself, and my son) How about a Purple Heart? No? (My brothers - both returned to duty after medical attention). How about an achievement medal? No? (my older brother and my son). But it's all just candy, isn't it? So do you have anything above a service ribbon for you valiant service off the coast where you were not actually in any sort of danger?

Far be it from me to slight any one's military service. Any service that ends honorably is to be respected. I am saddened that you, a veteran (or so you claim), would slight the service of one who did considerably more than you. You lounged on a ship off shore. Kerry was in combat for more considerably more than a year. And yet, you disrespect his service.

How low can one go? You imply that you have no pride in your military service since you condemn those who did more than you. Is it some sort of a guilt trip? If you have a political disagreement, then why not say so and express your reasons? It seems that you are more interested in spitting on those who served in combat, while you didn't. Is this some sort of a guilt trip? I suspect so.

Chancellor is a spitter.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: gallo I didn't say that Bush would personally provide anything but leadership. According to your statement FEMA is unconstitutional.

Your whole tirade has been about Bush and Bush alone. You blamed Bush for the recovery effort. You blamed Bush for not visiting the disaster area sooner. And, yes, FEMA is unconstitutional!

So it is necessary for you to try to justify an insult when you realize that you have been talking foolishness? And then you go on to misrepresent what I said. Why not be honest?

You're the one who claimed it was an insult. Now you're accusing me of misrepresenting you - even though you seem to have no problem misrepresenting me.

But your statement is a mischaracterisization of anything that I said. It is dishonest. We were talking about the President who actually didn't care.

IT WASN'T A STATEMENT, IT WAS A QUESTION!!!! Why the hell can't you tell the difference between the two?

Not true but irrelevant. I was just saying that Presidents offered leadership and set the tone for government.

But your assumption is that just because Bush didn't personally go down to the site until later that he wasn't displaying leadership. And it is in that assumption that you are simply wrong. The best thing any President could have done was to stay the hell out of the way and let people do their jobs. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

]In Bush's case that is true. I concede that point. When he finally did figure out where New Orleans was, he screwed up the situation by telling everyone that the incompetent that was screwing up FEMA efforts was doing a "bang up job". Thus Bush set the tone as slipshod, uncaring, and ineffective.

I don't know of very many modern Presidents that didn't say things they didn't mean. If Bush based his comments on what little he saw and on what he was told (you do realize that Presidents have advisors that report things to them), then maybe the problem is in what little he saw and in what his advisors told him.

Then you really are a Bush supporter.

No and you damned well had better knock off this nonsense! You were complaining about Bush not providing leadership and then when I agreed that a President should provide at least some leadership you accuse me of being a Bush supporter.

Then you can't read. That's what I was doing - criticizing her. That's just more shallow thinking on your part.

Actually, I read a whole lot better than most people. You didn't criticize her at all. You answered my question regarding her and you speculated (did you notice the question marks you put after each of those little speculations you gave?).

Typical that you would even comment on the topic when you seem to be so unaware of the events. I was talking about Michael D. Brown who was Director of FEMA and so mishandled the relief that Bush was eventually forced to fire him (after saying what a "bang up job Brownie is doing).

I'm well aware of the events and of the poor job the Director of FEMA did. However, since you didn't even mention FEMA in your comment about "Brownie," I took it in the context of Bush's visit to New Orleans and the fact that the mayor of New Orleans was black.

So are you admitting that you are a bigot? Notice, I'm asking a question.

I admit nothing except that you have this strange way of reading into what people write.

You constantly imply and then claim that you were only asking a question. You misrepresent often.

I do not imply - ever!

Let's see. I said that I knew where Vietnam was and Bush didn't.

What proof do you have that Bush did not know where Viet Nam was located on a map?

You stated that some people who objected to the was as illegal served in the NG.

Well, no, that isn't what I stated, it's what you read into it.

The clear implication is that Bush objected to the war. You're being quite disingenuous again.

Get this through that thick skull of yours: I DO NOT IMPLY - EVER!

But you implied it.

See above.

All I said was that I knew where Vietnam is.

No, you said a whole lot more than that.

Snip of irelevant clap-trap.

Nothing that I say is ever irrelevant.

What nonsense. You rarely make clear statements. By the way, Clinton isn't relevant to this discussion.

My statements are clear, you just have this annoying habit of reading between the lines and looking for things to be implied, inferred, etc. And Clinton is entirely relevant to the discussion because he was a president, he is from the same generation as you, Bush and Kerry, and he sent American troops into combat even though he managed to dodge the draft during Viet Nam.

ALL of our troops that are serving in Iraq are serving in active military forces. The have been activated. Do you know what that means? They have been called into active military service. Kerry was in active military service. Bush was not.

Being called to active service doesn't change the FACT that they are still in the National Guard.

Oh? The implication in your words was that you weren't. But since you don't imply ever, it seems that you actually weren't aware of the draft.

There is nothing implied in anything I post. But, you're right: back then in the late 1960s and early 1970s I was not aware of the draft!

He served on active duty in a combat zone and was wounded. Bush did not.

So what? You make it sound as if Kerry was some sort of great war hero! His injuries were minor and not even worth mentioning. As for Bush, he did what a lot of rich kids did - Democrat and Republican. That he just happens to be President now and carrying out the neoconservative foreign policy he was duped into adopting by Wolfowitz and company is really irrelevant.

Then why did you bring up Clinton? Is it a matter of do as I say and not as I do?

I brought up Clinton because you were making a big deal about Bush sending other people's kids to war when he himself got out of going. I was pointing out that Slick Willie did the same thing (except Slick didn't even join the National Guard).

I thought it was an implication but since you don't imply that must have been what you meant since we were talking about Bush.

Why do you insist on looking for everything to be implied? Why the hell can't you just READ THE DAMNED WORDS???? I meant exactly and only what I said. Now, stop taking what you're saying and attributing it to me!

Except that he ducked active service. Kerry did not.

So what? He wasn't the only rich kid that did so.

I served and I opposed the war. My brother served (and was shot down over the highlands) and he opposed the war. My younger brother also served, went hand to hand when overrun at Cam Ranh, and he opposed the war.

So what? The war should have been opposed: it was unconstitutional.

Bush ducked active service and he supported the war.

Did he support the war? Even if he did, so what? Just because he hypocritically did what a bunch of other rich kids did, what difference does it make? You make it sound as if he was the only one who did such a thing.

But you continue to imply that his service was more honorable than those who did.

Again, I do not imply - ever!

Why don't you disrespect the service of a few million service men. Why don't you go ahead and spit on some uniformed soldiers.

I'm only disrespecting the service of one man: John Kerry!

No. The implication from your remarks, since you think that Kerry's service isn't "valid", you would have an even lower opinion of those who didn't receive a Purple Heart.

You are really pissing me off! I DO NOT IMPLY - EVER! I MEAN EXACTLY AND ONLY WHAT I POST! And, yes, I have a really low opinion of John Kerry's service. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the service of anyone else.

You have been doing so all along with your ridiculous misrepresentations and implications.

I've misrepresented nothing and I've implied nothing.

And I expect you to stop with the misrepresentation and distorted implication.

And I expect you to stop accusing me of implying things. I DO NOT IMPLY - EVER!

Yet again, you spit on one who served and down grade that service because you don't like him.

Yes, ONE who served - and only one: John Kerry.

At the same time you have defended Bush and his non-service.

I haven't defended anything.

Perhaps you should learn facts before you speak.

I am aware of the facts. Just because they don't happen to support your hate-filled tirade against Bush, well, I can't do anything about that.

I dispise those who disrespect our servicemen and denigrate their service. If you disagree with Kerry for other reasons, why do you find it necessary to mention only his service. It takes someone really low to do so.

Well, I don't know what it means to dispise someone but the only serviceman I despise is John Kerry. Get it through that thick skull of yours that criticizing one man's service is not criticizing every man's service!

[Matt W]

And on that note, I suggest the two of you back off.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[The Decider]

Quote by: ruksak Well at least Achmindinijinidinihinijad sounds "eloquent and educated" when denying the holocaust and preaching the genocide of many cultures.

Did the Iranian president mention the Holocaust in his UN speech? Nope. Hence, he "sounded" more eloquent and educated than our dear leader. And that's embarrassing.

Quote by: ruksak I again must ask which is more of an egregious error. Geographical errors in nations that change their name every 10 years. A mad man with nuclear aspirations that preaches death to all Non-Islamic peoples. If you can find Sierra Leone on a map I would certainly not call you stupid.

But, you see, the president of the world's most powerful nation SHOULD know the precise names of every nation, ESPECIALLY when those names are conveniently spoon-fed on a teleprompter! There is no excuse for such a diplomatic faux paux when addressing the world. None. And I'm not calling Bush stupid (and never have). If he was stupid or a moron, he would actually have a valid medical/genetic reason for screwing up.

Quote by: ruksak If you say that the holocaust was a lie perpetuated by Jews and Zionist, I will not only call you stupid. I will call you abhorrently, dangerously, retarded.

And so would I. Unfortunately for Bush, the Iranian president was on his best behavior at the UN. Bush was his usual inarticulate and embarrassing self.

Iranian dictator 1, Bush Jr. 0.

[ruksak]

Nothing changes the fact that you, and many others, seem to care more for Bush's stammering linguistic errors, than you care about Mahmoud's open policy of murdering homosexuals, his desire to exterminate Jews and his desire for nuclear weaponry.

You dodged when I presented this to you, choosing rather to continue to poke fun at Bush for being a poor speaker. As well holding Mahmoud's hand high in the air and proclaiming him the better man.

Iranian dictator 1, Bush Jr. 0.

Yes, the queer killing, nuclear Jewish exterminating madman 1, stuttering jackass 0

[The Decider]

Quote by: ruksak Nothing changes the fact that you, and many others, seem to care more for Bush's stammering linguistic errors, than you care about Mahmoud's open policy of murdering homosexuals, his desire to exterminate Jews and his desire for nuclear weaponry. You dodged when I presented this to you, choosing rather to continue to poke fun at Bush for being a poor speaker. As well holding Mahmoud's hand high in the air and proclaiming him the better man.

I never said or implied agreement or praise for the man I called an "Iranian dictator." The guy is pathetic; I agree with everything the president of Columbia University said about him. But the issue on this thread is Bush's UN diplomatic faux pax, NOT the Iranian dictator.

Quote by: ruksak Yes, the queer killing, nuclear Jewish exterminating madman 1, stuttering jackass 0

Unfortunately, that is the perception. In the hands of a better US president, the UN speech would have been a credit, not an embarassment, to our country.

[gallo]

Quote by: The Decider I never said or implied agreement or praise for the man I called an "Iranian dictator." The guy is pathetic; I agree with everything the president of Columbia University said about him. But the issue on this thread is Bush's UN diplomatic faux pax, NOT the Iranian dictator. Unfortunately, that is the perception. In the hands of a better US president, the UN speech would have been a credit, not an embarassment, to our country.

Indeed. What a disaster that our President, claimed to be the "leader of the free world", can't even get the names of countries correct in his speeches. It's not like he wasn't prepared and coached, rehearsed, and then prompted with correct information. This moron still talks about "Syria Leone". My God! Bush couldn't have shamed our country any more if he wanted to do so.

Some who wish to make excuses for the idiocy of our President make comments about countries that change their name so fast the it is impossible to keep up. But Sierra Leone has been known as such since 1961. I guess that's just too fast for Dubya to keep up with. And, of course, a country that has been known as Myanmar since 1989, was referred to as Burma. According to Bush supporters, all of these rapid changes in country names are too much to keep up with. I wonder if Bush supporters are confused because "the American colonies" are now known as the United States.

Doesn't matter. The President needs to be aware of the international situation. When he stupidly refers to "Syria Leone", after he makes himself and his country look foolish. What an embarrassment for our country. And this after reading, rehearsal, coaching, more rehearsal, and considerable re-reading and practice for a major speech, our dimwit of a President still screwed it up and make himself look foolish and stupid and embarrassed our country.

My God! In front of the General Assembly! What a frickin' moron!