Kerry and Bush supporters. A question for y'all.

[peachgirl]

Best to find a source that has no bias or ax to grind. It's not as easy and it's harder to find facts to back up your claims with a source that isn't biased. But, if the source has a bias, then the "reputability" of that source is a matter of opinion.


If what one is saying is really true, then one should be able to find it somewhere else besides a conservative or liberal site.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by wvrevy
It would, if it were actually the truth. Kerry voted, first, for a bill that would roll back the top level tax cuts to actually pay for the 87 Billion, rather than running the defecit to record proportions. That bill was threatened with veto by the white house and did not pass. He lodged a "protest vote" against the second bill, knowing full well that his vote would not sway the end result.

So answer this: If Kerry's vote against the second bill was "failure to support the troops", why isn't the president's threat to veto the first bill exactly the same thing ?

It's all political games. Linking any two issues like that together makes it so. Vote on whether it's worthwhile to fund the $87 billion and vote separately on the tax increase. They should each stand on their own merits.

Linking the two together is similar to Saddam's ploy in the first Gulf War of trying to link the situation in Iraq with the Palestinian/Israeli issue. They are peripherally related, but should be dealt with independently.

 

[wvrevy]

Kendra, there is so much wrong and blatantly false in your post that I'm almost not sure where to start...

1 - Clinton and Carter didn't spend months at a time away from the White House. Bush has. Again, more vacation time away from Washington than ANY president in history.

2 - No, Bush HASN'T proven that he showed up for duty. The records he released show a significant gap in time (read the Boston Globe article linked earlier in this thread). Not only that, but the Associated Press has actually had to sue to get access to his full records, as he will not release them.

3 - So, they (his commanders) lied then on his performance reports and awards certifications, right ? They were either lying then or they're lying now, and now they have an agenda...

4 - Everybody keeps saying Kerry panders to his audience, but I've yet to see a real example of this, other than the one stupid comment about the SUV.

5 - You're right, there is a big difference in perspective. I see a world where terrorists can easily stage in Hamburg, travel to Canada through France, then cross the US border and find their way to our cities. To stop them, we could have had the active cooperation of any of those countries, but instead all three are annoyed with us for ignoring their opinions on Iraq and the "war on terror". Bush's "coalition" is just Newspeak...it doesn't exist. It's us and Britain going it alone, with our soldiers taking the brunt of the attacks against us. We DO live in a "world community", whether you want to admit that or not. It's a "community" because it is all too easy for the exact scenario I laid out above to happen.

6 - The Iraqis DO NOT WANT US THERE. Why is that so friggin' hard to understand ? If Bush and company thought we'd be greeted with flowers and hugs, then they're unbelievably incompetant and completely ignorant of that part of the world. Yes, they're mighty glad Saddam is gone. But that doesn't translate into gratitude for Americans when they can look around and see dead neighors killed by American shells.

7 - Again, Bush HAS lied, again and again, about his service, and he still has not proven that he actually fulfilled his duties. Even if he had fulfilled them, however, there is a world of difference (literally) between his "duties" and those of an active duty soldier in a combat zone. The two don't even remotely compare.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Actually, Kendra, the reason many disagreed with you on that other post is because you were quoting opinions and trying to bill them as facts.....a point which you seem unable to grasp, as you keep bringing up your "those durn demmies won't listen to my gosh-durned facts" arguement again and again. I'll say it again--just because you happen to agree with those opinions does NOT make them facts; and just because others refuse to take you at your word that those opinions are facts doesn't make them ignorant of the facts--it means they don't agree with those particular opinions.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Oops...sorry, Kendra, when you stated: "Bush flew dangerous supersonic interceptors during the Vietnam War to protect the country against a nuclear attack, actually intercepting Soviet bombers." I actually thought you meant: "Bush flew dangerous supersonic interceptors during the Vietnam War to protect the country against a nuclear attack, actually intercepting Soviet bombers." My mistake--won't let it happen again.

I asked for a link showing Bush's heroic activities intercepting Soviet bombers because I couldn't actually find one myself, and didn't have the book you quoted on hand here in my office, so I couldn't check the quote for accuracy. Of course, now I realize I couldn't find a source because he didn't actually intercept any Soviet bombers.

Although I've already accepted responsibility for unintentionally misstating accurate facts, and I will again here. . ..Let me rephrase it as I should have in the first place:

During the Vietnam War, Bush was trained to fly dangerous supersonic interceptors designed to protect our country in case of a Soviet nuclear attack.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
It's all political games. Linking any two issues like that together makes it so. Vote on whether it's worthwhile to fund the $87 billion and vote separately on the tax increase. They should each stand on their own merits.

Linking the two together is similar to Saddam's ploy in the first Gulf War of trying to link the situation in Iraq with the Palestinian/Israeli issue. They are peripherally related, but should be dealt with independently.

Why ? The bill was asking for money, so why should it not also say where that money is going to come from ? Ordinarily, I'd certainly agree that riders and such get attached to bills for political reasons, but this doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by jrydberg
It's all political games. Linking any two issues like that together makes it so. Vote on whether it's worthwhile to fund the $87 billion and vote separately on the tax increase. They should each stand on their own merits.

Linking the two together is similar to Saddam's ploy in the first Gulf War of trying to link the situation in Iraq with the Palestinian/Israeli issue. They are peripherally related, but should be dealt with independently.

The two points are entirely related. Everytime our representatives in Washington vote to spend money, whether its to arm our troops, subsidize our farmers or maintain our highways, they should also discuss how they are going to pay for it. The thing I am most critical of Bush about (and I suspect historians will be too) is that he has cut taxes while fighting this expensive war. I'm not always against deficit spending, but our children and grandchildren deserve the debate about how to pay for unplanned spending.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Actually, Kendra, the reason many disagreed with you on that other post is because you were quoting opinions and trying to bill them as facts.....a point which you seem unable to grasp, as you keep bringing up your "those durn demmies won't listen to my gosh-durned facts" arguement again and again. I'll say it again--just because you happen to agree with those opinions does NOT make them facts; and just because others refuse to take you at your word that those opinions are facts doesn't make them ignorant of the facts--it means they don't agree with those particular opinions.

No. And, I suspected you would say this. Please, let's make this brief, though, okay? In the other thread, I FIRST opined that Clinton hated Carter and wanted to know if you knew why. I then stated the reasons why. That, to me, was the crux of the issue. I had no idea you were looking for a quote that stated, "Clinton hated Carter". I didn't have one for that. I did, however, have article upon article referencing the the material that verified the reasons (which were much more important than Clinton's personal feelings) for Clinton's hate, or dislike, or "rift" (as my quote from Larry King referred to it as). So, while proving the meat of the issues I spoke of--what Carter did that Clinton found so distasteful--all of you refused to recognize and credit me for providing to you information you had been unaware of.

 

[bsears]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Actually, Kendra, the reason many disagreed with you on that other post is because you were quoting opinions and trying to bill them as facts.....a point which you seem unable to grasp, as you keep bringing up your "those durn demmies won't listen to my gosh-durned facts" arguement again and again. I'll say it again--just because you happen to agree with those opinions does NOT make them facts; and just because others refuse to take you at your word that those opinions are facts doesn't make them ignorant of the facts--it means they don't agree with those particular opinions.

Exactly !!!! Quoting words from an op ed piece proves nothing other than what someone else's opinion is. And opinions are like.......................................

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by bsears
Exactly !!!! Quoting words from an op ed piece proves nothing other than what someone else's opinion is. And opinions are like.......................................

Absolutely untrue and a manipulation of the facts. I do not want to get into this again, because I found that experience so unpleasant.

I did NOT quote op-ed except for one, MAYBE 2, articles that listed FACTS first, opinon about those facts SECOND.

You are totally mischaracterizing that exchange.

Furthermore, the Washington Post article was STRICTLY news, no opinion. The Frank Gaffney, Jr.--a Reagan Defense Department veteran, and currently the President of the Center for Security Policy article was FACT, not opinion.

I don't mind defending myself, but I have. And, I'm comfortable with how I've done it. If you disagree, that's fine. I understand how to conduct a debate and support my position. I did this. I'm through discussing this for a second time.

 

[GaryAdams]

thats just what i wanted to hear, i would luv to see just how many time you got a 9 when you should have got a 7 on your reports, or just how many times you gave a 9 when it should have been a 7?
you can posture here all you want, but by you being in the air force you know what im talking about.

funny how i bet your base comander couldn't pick your face out of a crowd, but he signed off on you if you were high enough on the food chain?no matter how many people were in your flight.

 

[jrydberg]

Here's the thing though... deficit spending has almost nothing to do with tax rates. Increasing taxes does not, by and large, increase revenue. Decreasing taxes does not generally decrease tax revenue. It is a spending issue.

Thus, the $87 billion appropriations bill is not really related to a tax increase proposal. They are separate issues.

 

[bsears]

Frank Gaffney, Jr. is a respected CONSERVATIVE columnist. He has an agenda and does not attempt to hide it. If you cannot see why that mattters, then you are correct, there is no point in discussing it.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Here's the thing though... deficit spending has almost nothing to do with tax rates. Increasing taxes does not, by and large, increase revenue. Decreasing taxes does not generally decrease tax revenue. It is a spending issue.

Thus, the $87 billion appropriations bill is not really related to a tax increase proposal. They are separate issues.

Exactly where else does the federal government get revenue besides taxes? Taxes are the major source of government revenue.

Bush cut taxes (and increased spending) and the deficit soared. The two are related.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by GaryAdams
thats just what i wanted to hear, i would luv to see just how many time you got a 9 when you should have got a 7 on your reports, or just how many times you gave a 9 when it should have been a 7?
you can posture here all you want, but by you being in the air force you know what im talking about.

I don't think there's ever been a soldier (be he airman, sailor, soldier or jarhead) that didn't complain about his preformance eval to some extent or another. So ? When I graded airman under me (only happened twice, as I was only in four years), I tried to be as fair as possible, and I drew on my own knowledge of their performance, as their supervisor. Yes, I talked to them about their opinion of their own performance, but I made the final judgement, as it's my name on that paper saying that this is true information. Sure, you try to make it as flattering as possible for the airman involved, but it also has to be TRUE. You're saying that it was completely made up in Kerry's case.

Originally posted by GaryAdams
funny how i bet your base comander couldn't pick your face out of a crowd, but he signed off on you if you were high enough on the food chain?no matter how many people were in your flight.

Well, since I worked at the Pentagon, I'm fairly certain he wouldn't recognize me (though the Chief of Staff of the Air Force would (General Ryan, back then) , since I was in his office quite a bit) I have no idea who ultimately signed off on my appraisal, to be honest...Would have to go back and check. But the point is, the person signing off on it has to trust the person beneath them, and in no way, shape, or form is a soldier in a combat situation going to be writing his own evals.

 

[jrydberg]

They are almost entirely unrelated. A more appropriate statement would be that Bush spent huge sums of money and the deficit soared.

 

[peachgirl]

The records he released show a significant gap in time (read the Boston Globe article linked earlier in this thread).

A fine example of actual fact that has no bias...

"Bush did no duty at all between April 16 and Oct. 28, 1972. Nor did he appear for monthly training in December 1972 or in February and March of 1973."

Nevermind though that he was a no show for much of his NG duty....

While Kerry is ridiculed for leaving VIETNAM 4 months early while only earning a bronze star, silver star and 3 purple hearts, Bush didn't even bother to finish his stint back in the safety of this country and chose to opt out early.

Do I particularly care that Bush got into the NG through his daddy's influence? No, not really. But if Kerry, a decorated war hero is going to get slammed, Bush deserves at least the same courtesy.


<center><IMG width="300" SRC="http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/images/11.jpg"></center>

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
They are almost entirely unrelated. A more appropriate statement would be that Bush spent huge sums of money and the deficit soared.

Long term, I agree with this. But over the period of a year or so, it most certainly does have an effect.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

*sigh* I didn't really want to get into this again, either, Kendra, but once again you're assertion that the OPINIONS you stated are FACTS is forcing me to.

Yes, you stated that Clinton hated Carter, and as your proof, you offered up that Carter had purposely undermined the Clinton administration, which had enraged Clinton. You linked to articles OPINING that Carter's actions in Haiti undermined Clinton. The facts were there--that Carter did, indeed, do work in Haiti--but your point of view was NOT supported by FACTS, but rather, by OPINIONS about the facts. You can tell yourself over and over and over and over--and, indeed, continue to tell all of us here over and over and over and over--that you stated the facts, and we ignored them, but that is simply not true. We disagreed with your interpretation of the facts.

Further, regarding the King interview, it DOES NOT prove your point. All it shows is that Carter wanted more of a relationship with Clinton than he had. That doesn't mean Clinton hated him; it means Carter wanted more. There's a pretty wide gap there. Heck, I wouldn't mind more of a relationship with Brad Pitt, but I haven't got one. Doesn't mean he hates me, though.

Like you, I'm comfortable with my position. And I'm willing to clarify it as many times as is necessary, as futile as it appears to be to do it.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy


6 - The Iraqis DO NOT WANT US THERE. Why is that so friggin' hard to understand ? If Bush and company thought we'd be greeted with flowers and hugs, then they're unbelievably incompetant and completely ignorant of that part of the world. Yes, they're mighty glad Saddam is gone. But that doesn't translate into gratitude for Americans when they can look around and see dead neighors killed by American shells.

you unfortunately are believing what you see on the news, which unfortunately only shows the negative side, the small percentage of Iraqis who don't want us there... when was the last time you talked to a soldier who's been there or read an email from a soldier that is there,,,

I have done both numerous times, and everyone has stated they believe in their mission, they are overwhelmed by the support and friendliness of the majority of the Iraqi people they encounter.....