to SN for the cross thread post.

If any young ladies would like to audition for the part of the stripper come homicidal maniac, please come by my room.

you end the audition before she gets to the "grand finale".
--
A precariously balanced mixture of myopic optimism and rampant paranoia.

Ya got me, I'm really Al Shapton. No, John Kerry. Wait, I'm Wes Clark, yeah that's right, I'm a retired 4 star who believes in time travel.

So, you're bashing Clark because you think he believes in time travel, but you support a President who believes in Trickle-Down Economics?

*shakes head*

Oh, and by the way...even Stephen Hawking agrees that the possiblity of time travel hasn't been ruled out. Also, what General Clark really said was that he believes that FTL travel will someday be possible.

The apology for the misquote can be found here. Wouldn't it be nice to have a President that reporters don't understand because he's smarter than they are, rather than one that's not bright enough to speak properly? What can I say? I dream big.

As usual, it took me all of about 30 seconds to Google the actual facts on the issue - but since when would anyone want facts to muddy up the waters of a political diatribe, eh ParU?

-Jn-
Efreeti Sophist

I got my 'facts' from David Letterman and you KNOW how reliable late night TV is as an arbiter of news... Methinks I've been flamed by an Efreet...
It's Amino world without Chemists

If the flames fit, burn. Run Clark down because he doesn't have political experience--okay. Run him down because you don't like what he's said--fine and well. Run him down for something he never really said, and not even having the grace to say mea culpa when you find out you're wrong--not cool. The major media owes him a very public retraction, but no one will ever give it...after all, it's more fun to make fun of him than to admit ignorance, right?

A Mea Culpa by explaining that I hadn't researched the statement but gotten my information from a tertiary source.
And of course it's more fun to make fun of a politician than to make a retraction. I ain't saying Clark's Bad. Or anything else negative about him. Hell, my aunt's a friend of his! Please dinna flame me for repeating some Late Night jokes.
** Harummmpphhh*** *g*
It's Amino world without Chemists

I'm more critical of the media, who rushed to spread the misquote but aren't exactly falling over themselves to spread the retraction. Sorry if it came off as a more personal attack.

One of our local newspapers ran its daily poll this morning, asking people who they trusted the least. The results:

Car salesmen: 32.4%
Journalists: 11.8%
Lawyers: 10.4%
Politicians: 45.4%

I might put lawyers a little higher, but I pretty much agree.

Along a similar line, my mom has said to me for years, "There are three kinds of people in this world: salesmen, engineers, and the rest of us." I'd add politicians to that list, but yeah.

What's funny (not funny: hah, hah; funny: hmmm) is the goods I sell cost nearly as much as a typical car, but I don't feel anything like a car salesperson. It's more like, "Here. Take home five or six of these $8000 carpets, try them out for a week, and see if you like any of them in your home. If not, bring them all back and we'll try again."

Journalistic bias is inevitable. The degree of bias, however, is more manageable than people may realize.

I think I'm going to shut up now and read my Al Franken book in peace.

"There's something wrong with this carpet. I mean, it just doesn't move. Not even a hover. It would help if there were some gauges, or warning lights, or something, you know? Do I need a key? Cause, you know, you didn't give me any keys. I just figured they just...you know...started. Like, magic, or something? You know? Why are you looking at me like that?"

-Jn-
Efreeti Sophist

I'm voting for Pepe the Prawn!

"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves." — George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003

Wow, Yuri. And to think, all this time, I thought Dubya was just a nincompoop. Come to find out, he's a complete idiot who can't even string a simple sentence together while he admits that he has an attention span shorter than the average Sesame Street watcher.

Not only a nincompoop and an idiot, but a big fat lying liar.

Here's a link about his speech the other day, cluttered up with inconvenient corrections:

I only wish I had more space to refute these bogus claims.

The recession started with the dot com bubble burst of the 90's (Clinton's years)

Most erroneous behavior of Corporations that worsened the recession (which started in the late 90's) occured within and under the leadership of the Clinton administration.

it is not fair to blame Bush for the recession and resulting downturn in job creation simply because a person doen't want to face the truth that their guy was responsible. This society has been degraded to the point where a person is no longer responsible for their actions, but rather has envitronment or someone else to blame. Bad decisions are bad decisions. Period. decisions were made in the 90's that brought about a recession starting in or around 99, lasting through a few months ago when the economy began chugging again (cooincidentally coinciding with the tax cut, hmmm).

I am voting for Bush because, simply, the Democratic candidates have each taken a position that, in my view, would harm America in the long term. Most of them wish to raise taxes 'for the wealthy'. What they Don't tell you is the 'wealthy' is anyone making 60k or more, combined household income, per year. I'm sorry, I like my tax cut. I like the extra money in my pocket every week, I like that it has generated greater freight traffic on the roads because people are spending their extra money on the things I haul, which makes me more money. I like the JOB SECURITY the tax cuts have given me. I like that the war in Iraq has caused other nations to stand up and take stock of how the world sees them ( Libya, anyone?)

I could go on and on.

While Bush is not perfect (and even if he were, people wouldn't like him because he's a man of conviction and believes in holding people accountable for their actions, i.e. there is a true right and wrong, not to mention he's a republican), he is far, far better than any candidate the democrats have yet produced, and we all know there's no viable third party candidate. So while I disagree on some issues, I feel he is still the best choice for the job.

DISCLAIMER: The following contains graphic and sometimes politically oriented commentary. Reader discretion is advised. Small children should be sent to bed without any Jell-O (do you know what they make that stuff out of?!). The views of this sophist in no way reflect the views of InPassing.org, it's site-Goddess, or any affiliated hedgehog combatants.

Okay, first of all...I get the impression that the "bogus claim" in question is my comment about Trickle-Down Economics. That's not a bogus claim, or some whacky leftist opinon...that's the Bush Administration's economic plan. Really. Ask them.

Clinton had the strongest economy in decades during his administration. Bush merely claims to while Rome burns. Don't believe everything you hear about the economy "chugging again". Bush (who you claim is a champion of truth) has a way of spinning the facts in his favor...like taking credit for dropping the unemployment rate to 5.7%, when really there were only 1,000 new jobs created and 310,000 people aren't counted as unemployed anymore cause their benefits ran out.

Continuing:

While Bush is not perfect (and even if he were, people wouldn't like him because he's a man of conviction and believes in holding people accountable for their actions, i.e. there is a true right and wrong, not to mention he's a republican), he is far, far better than any candidate the democrats have yet produced, and we all know there's no viable third party candidate. So while I disagree on some issues, I feel he is still the best choice for the job.

Oh. My. Dog.

A man of conviction who believes in holding people accountable for his actions? Are you serious?

The man deserted his post in the Texas Air National Guard during a time of war. He's been arrested for theft, disorderly conduct, and drunk driving...that we know of, because he's had his criminal records sealed. While working at Harken, he was involved in insider trading and had very strong and suspicious ties to Enron. Someone high in his staff who also had need-to-know access to CIA operations just happened to leak the cover of the wife of one of his enemies, and the investigation has gone nowhere in over six months.

Need I go on? Cause I could.

As for Iraq, maybe it's time for people to stand up and see how the world sees us. We invaded a sovreign nation without provocation, insisting that we had "irrefutable proof of weapons of mass destruction". That was a lie. Not only have we squandered any good will felt for the US in the days following 9/11, but this administration is behaving just like the terrorist leaders want them to - we're offending our friends and scaring our own population while increasing support for the bad guys.

Here's a free bit of info - Saddam isn't being sent to the Hague for trial because if he stood before a world court he'd point the finger. The US put him in power back in '63, the US gave him the means to stay in power, the US helped him build his weapons programs, and the US stood back and let him invade Kuwait (stating that the US "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait”) then took the moral high ground after the fact. These aren't whacko conspiracy theories - it's world history.

Anyway - refocusing on the topic...

In summary - No. Just...no. Bush is a thug. A convict, not a hero or a man of ethics. If I had done even one of the things he's been arrested for, I wouldn't have been eligible to hold either my last job or my next one, because I would have been considered to have poor judgement, to be untrustworthy, to be a security risk, and to have a blatant disregard for the rule of law.

But, apparently, I could do whatever the @#$% I want, and still be President.

Greeeeat.

-Jn-
Efreeti Sophist

...just shakes head and wonders why...

if only people knew...

if only people knew...


and now i go silent on politics again, because i want to be king for a year, and pass unrepealable laws, and fix this country, and scrap ....ugh, nevermind.

Just remember, if we lose that which made us great, we lose our identity. If we lose our identity, we lose our culture. If we lose our culture, we lose our nation. There was a foundation for this country for a reason. If the foundation is destroyed or forgotten, the building upon it crumbles....wait, there i go again...

just make me king for a year. you'll like the change, really...(evil grin). I'm done, no more politics please, okay???? you're all a much happier bunch when politics doesn't enter the picture, so all of you political activists, campaign helpers ( i KNOW you hear me), and other misc. pundits. Please, make me king and let's move on. You want to express your opinion? Vote.


P.S. Write in voters, it's Man. Apple Man.

This country was founded on the responsibilty of educating the populace and keeping them well enough informed to select their own leaders.

The current administration may say it reveres the Founding Fathers, but in reality they've dedicated themselves to destroying everything this country is meant to stand for.

Have you read the Bill of Rights? Calling something the "Patriot Act" doesn't make it patriotic...the fact that it removes half of the rights granted to us by the people who established the system to protect us from our own government shouldn't be overlooked.

The way our government was constructed was to prevent any one person from holding too much power, to have a system of checks and balances to prevent the abuses inherent in the forms of government that the people fled Europe to escape.

Your comment that you would like to be King for a year shows that you're not really interested at all in the values this country was founded on...you just want to beat the drum of nationalism...fascism, really...and call it patriotism.

As for losing our cultrual identity - our cultural identity is based on diversity. Xenophobic reactionary intolerance is exactly what people came here to escape.

You may think I'm a blazing liberal, but actually I make a great effort to merely state the facts. I may add my own point of view and analysis, but at the foundations of what I'm expressing are facts. Before you go about fixing the foundations of this nation, you should perhaps take a look at the blueprints.

-Jn-
Efreeti Sophist

Not to be a jerk or anything, but if you have any specific response to Joe, spit it out. Just shaking your head and acting like he's just too "out there" even to be reasoned with doesn't cut it. He's supporting himself with research (you did read the links, right?) and making his points coherantly; if you don't answer in kind, it doesn't exactly make you look good in a discussion.

I'm really not interested in looking good. I'm equally uninterested in his links. I read approximately 30 different web sites, and innumerable links on a daily basis. I've seen his links before, and most of it is old news to me. I'm not trying to belittle it, mind you, but I sincerely feel there is sufficient evidence to both support and refute each side of the political argument. It's the way the system is set up and manipulated. This way, noone ever really is supposed to know what really goes on, and the political parties can spin any given story or sets of reports any given way they want to. It's mostly a matter of how you view the world. Conservative or liberal? Why divide by party lines when the real issue is c-v-l?

My point is this:

Noone is really going to be convinced to change their viewpoint on politics. Really. If Joe or anyone else came to me in person tomorrow with God Himself at his side and God told me that things are the way Joe and Marinerd and those who support their view really is, I would still probably doubt it and wonder how much the Liberal Agenda's leadership paid Him. If the shoe was reversed ( I took God to any number of people), I would expect the same response. We all claim to be open minded, but when the discussions start and links to sources fly and tempers flare, the reality is we're all pretty closed about our political views. Now, if you really want me to start posting links again every time I want to make a point, I won't because as I said, I'm pretty much done with politics on this site. It's pointless to claim 'debate' as a reason to forward political agenda and belittle and minimalize the opposite view. Okay? Am I coming in clear now to everyone? Are we clear why I didn't respond specifically to Joe's claims? I don't really care if I look good in the discussion, as long as you still write in 'Apple Man for King' on your November ballot.


PS: You should all be watching Dennis Miller on Leno. Good times.

There's very few political points on which my opinion cannot be swayed. If you put your points out--if you actually made solid points instead of slippery "we're losing our nation" generalities, I might see where you're coming from. And I might change my mind--it's been known to happen, more than once. But, no offense of name-calling intended, you come off like a conspiracy theorist, distrusting of everything but without the evidence to prove your view of the truth. I'm not asking for links; I'm just asking for specifics and maybe facts. Like what, specifically, do you have in mind when you talk about us getting away from our foundations, losing our culture, etc? You say "If only people knew, if only people knew"--well, why don't you tell us?

If you're tired of debating, that's fine. Most of the people on IP stay the hell away when the political fur starts to fly, and I myself have nothing much to say on it. But, if you don't want to debate, don't come in here and start making accusations about other people's "bogus" points of view, then act like they're too stupid and crazy even to talk to when they try to explain why their viewpoints aren't bogus. You say you don't like the way discussions reduce to belittling your opponant, but that is belittling your opponant--what else do you call it when you dismiss an entire supported argument with a "you'll just never get it, will you, you poor dumb sod" shake of the head?

I think this may be the first time in my entire life I've ever been accused of being close-minded. I'm willing to at least consider just about anything, as long as there's actually some evidence to support it.

If we can't establish a civil dialog about something as important as politics...well...that's pretty barbaric. How do you expect to see through the spin if you refuse to discuss the facts? This is why we have the First Amendment.

My only "agenda" is to make people think about what they believe (if you can't debate and defend why you hold a certain point of view, how can you, in good faith, be an an advocate it?), and maybe shed a little light on the basis of the American Constitution, which many people today seem woefully unaware of.

I'm not at all interested in trying to preserve a vision of a past that never really existed in the first place. I don't mind being called "liberal" - in the sense that I'm a firm believer in freedom.

And yes, it is indeed clear why you don't wish to respond to any debate.

-Jn-
Efreeti Sophist

If you know you are right and everyone else is wrong why even bother? Or are you so sure that we are so "close-minded" that your rational and well thought out positions are going to be summararily ignored.

God knows that I rarely ever agree with ParU but I feel that he and I have shared and discussed issues in a rational tone that didn't debase into a sarcastic rant. Yes you do reach a point where you feel that you understand the other persons position and that you have explained your position but that is no excuse for delving into a bitter diatribe about how the otherside won't listen.

Isn't it your duty as a cultural bastion to explain why the system that we have is the correct one? We have many young readers that are still learning and if you ignore them what other recourse are they going to have but to believe the "liberal" side because that's all they are going to be taught. Especially since it does look good, in this case rational with supporting documents. When you throw up your hands and say that you don't care, how can that possibly be good for discussion. Isn't that what this country was founded on? Debates and the protection of those ideas?

Anyhow I'll take my closeminded self and go now.

well, to be fair, the discussions I have had in the past with hypoxic and paru have been that,,, discussions. Some of what has happened in the following weeks and months have often delved into the realm of belittling the opponent by minimalizing and rationalizing away the facts as they are presented, which has kept me silent for a long time. I'm not really worried about the 'younger base'. I feel confident that the younger base is doing the research and decision making for themselves. In fact, a recent poll ( the exact source escapes me at the moment, sorry) indicates that the younger generation is actually MORE conservative than the generation of their parents, and even the first time voters of ten years ago. See, the youth of this country are seeing that the direction America is taking with regard to (forgive me if I sound Savage-like) our borders, language, and culture is a death spiral, they are waking up to the fact that the media, and the political spin doctors on both sides have been manipulating the truth and rewriting our history to reflect their viewpoints. I admire anyone who has the guts and stamina to spend the time to do their research on their own, formulate what they feel is the way things should be, and explore their identity as a voter and member of a free society. I feel scared that so many people simply believe what is put forward on popular mediums of information, such as The Daily Show, Saturday Night Live, various blogs online (including this one, no offense intended to site goddess) as gospel and allow a few scattered links peppered throughout to form the basis of their opinion. True knowledge is not accepting someone else's definition of truth, but exploring and discovering it for yourself. This is what the younger generation is doing, and hence, they are actually more conservative in their views than the previous generation. America is in a world of hurt, more from whithin than without, exascerbated by both the GOP and the DNC. If the course of our current progress is not reversed soon, irreperable damage will be done. the youth see this and are responding..

Was that a rant? 'Cause I think I just ranted unintelligibly. You really want my views politically? Aside from that GW is better than anything the Dems have thus far offered? Then perhaps I should post what I would do if I could be King of America for one term. I bet you'd vote for me (even you, marinerd, lol) Voting for one man does not a lock step Republican make.

One more thing:

This is a whole lot bigger than whether Bush lied, weather there was WMD, is the economy good or bad, etc. There is so much going on in the political system that most people know nothing about. Every politician ahs a hidden agenda, belongs to various clubs, societies and organizations, each of which has a hidden agenda. The way I feel is much bigger than whether Bush should be President. That's really thinking too small. American politics is more than what goes on in the oval office.

"I admire anyone who has the guts and stamina to spend the time to do their research on their own, formulate what they feel is the way things should be, and explore their identity as a voter and member of a free society."

That's very nice. That's exactly what I'm trying to get people to do.

But, didn't you just say:

"If Joe or anyone else came to me in person tomorrow with God Himself at his side and God told me that things are the way Joe and Marinerd and those who support their view really is, I would still probably doubt it and wonder how much the Liberal Agenda's leadership paid Him. If the shoe was reversed ( I took God to any number of people), I would expect the same response. We all claim to be open minded, but when the discussions start and links to sources fly and tempers flare, the reality is we're all pretty closed about our political views."

Forgive me if this appears like an attempt to "spin" something, or anything like that. I'm just trying to see how these two comments can possibly reside peacably in the same skull.

-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate

because most people (yes, we know the regulars here aren't 'most people' - put the pitchforks DOWN, already), even those who claim they want a reasonable discussion, are more dogmatic about their political views than they'd ever dream of being about their religion. and, it's really, paralyzingly maddening.

now, in this case, judging from the length and a sampling of content of the political thread (it is NOT lost, i saw it yesterday, wandering around looking dazed with its fly down and brandishing a baseball bat), there likely is reasonable discussion and amiableness all 'round. but, also judging from the length, there's no real change of opinion going on. given past knowledge of the view of some, i'm kind of surprised they were accused of name-calling and narrow-mindedness... but i'm also a bit surprised that the non-lethally intended sarcasm flew by said 'them'.

in any case, withdrawing in disgust is not the same as apathy. just because most of us aren't jumping headlong into these things doesn't mean we're not thinking and/or don't care, nor does stating that we're no longer taking part in them mean same (if i can presume to speak for anyone but me). sometimes, it just means we're tired. we're very, very tired.

To assume that political discussions are pointless because the most vocal participants never seem to shift from their points of view is missing the point, however.

Of course I realize that I'm not going to convince any dogmatic party hardliners to change their colors. You'd as soon convince a football hooligan to denounce his favorite team.

However, there's plenty of folks out there who do care but choose to abstain from debates because they're not really familiar with the topics. Invariably these threads get started because someone starts in with something such as the Clark misquote that sparked this one off - how many people would have just walked away believing that Clark really did say he believed in time-travel if nobody bothered to set the record straight? Sure, there's probably a faction that still believes it in the face of the facts, but it's likely a very small minority.

The purpose of most true debating isn't to necessarily convince the opposing debater of your point of view. Even if no dramatic swings of opinion take place, neither participant is totally unaffected by the process - both sides, by the act of debating, refine and re-evaluate their positions. Also, those observing their debate can arrive (hopefully) at their own logical conclusions.

If you have a disagreement with someone, discussion is a reasonable and civilized approach. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you're arguing...even if you happen to emphatically disagree. It's no wonder that we as a nation have such a horrible record when it comes to solving problems if we must view every disagreement as something that can only resolved by a belligerent conflict or by hoping if you don't talk about it the bad stuff will somehow just go away.

I've always been taught that critical thinking and deductive & indcutive reasoning are vital skills. Jingoistic mantras or playing ostrich are hardly effective substitutes, even if they are more comfortable.

-Jn-
Efreeti Sophist

For myself, I found that I was fitted for nothing so well as for the study of Truth; as having a mind nimble and versatile enough to catch the resemblances of things … and at the same time steady enough to fix and distinguish their subtler differences; as being gifted by nature with desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and as being a man that neither affects what is new nor admires what is old, and that hates every kind of imposture.
-- Sir Fracis Bacon

I am in no way playing ostrich, or attempting to chant any mantras, or the like. I just recognize when attempts at debate in order to further one's view reach an impasse, and inevitably, begin to descend into more, um, dubious, waters.

Maybe 'king' is too strong a word, but I stand by my opinion that I would love to be able to pass a few unrepealable laws. I also stand by my opinion that the current government does not work for the people, nor did the previous administration, nor the one before, nor the next one, or the one after that. My opinion is that a major government wide overhaul of the system is warranted. Not so much a 'starting over' but a redifining of what the government's role is and how to go about achieving it. The current system no longer functions due to ambition, infighting, bacjkbiting, the politics of destroying your opponent publically and privately, bribery, threats, manipulation of the media, etc, etc. It is exceedingly and irreparably corrupted in ways that most people do not even realize, and my OPINION is we needa major overhaul and that I have at least some of the solution and could easily surround myself with people that would help me achieve the remainder. Such as Joe Napalm and ParU. One has somewhat similair views and one has radically different views, but they are both highly educated, and could provide valuable insight.

Now, before I get off into cuckoo land again, and say things that are misconstrued as contradictory, I will summarize.

I want to be President, with unfettered lawmaking ability for one to three years. I would also like to carefully evaluate my cabinet choices in order to facilitate concensus from all sides.

No more! Respond in any way you all see fit. Call me a copout, quitter, opponent of open debate, whatever. What I really am, is aman who has decided to focus on the things I can more directly influence, like my local community, and the people I come into face to face contact with, ie= grassroots work. Farewell. More light hearted threads are out there. Perhaps I'll post now and again there, where we are all in better moods, but not here, nor any other political thread anymore.

On a totally different note (kind of like pointing at the blue canary in the corner of a room ful of red ones), what are your thoughts on faster than light travel? The element bismuth and its apparent properties in the realm of developing propulsion? Ie- a gravity driven propulaion system?

(After all, even in Star Trek, their way around Einsteinian limits was to actually warp the ships into subspace, where the Einsteinian laws don't apply... or something like that, basically.)

Anyway, actually, on time travel (to tie things back in, sort of) I recall seeing a number of things by various physicists, basically the consensus of which is that travel forward might be possible (or at least, what appears to be travel forward, via relativistic effects), but travel backwards in time not too likely (at least, not with anything we yet know).

-There's someone in my head, but it's not me.-

saint! *grabs her by the shoulders* you... you looked directly into his eyes, didn't you?

...didn't you??

never, ever look directly into his eyes! i'm sorry. i can't help you now. *wanders off muttering about ignored warning labels*

Since this has now become the political thread, I will put my 2 cents of nonsense in. I have read about the allegations on Bush's record in the Air National Guard. Perhaps it is the sources that I have read, but I have become convinced that he was not guilty of desertion. I also believe that the allegation that Mr Dean was a draft dodger are ill-founded, as he had a demonstrated medical reason which would exclude him from active service.

I have already explained my perspective on most Iraq issues. I will agree to disagree.

As to "putting Saddam in power" and such, I feel that is a dangerous path to follow. There was a high degree of interventions that the US and former Soviet Union had in various countries during the Cold War. To completely hold to the "do not interfere with countries where you established the the ruler at any time, you would essentially have to stick to an isolationist policy for much of the world. Would that be an accurate statement? Please correct me if I have analyzed the situation inaccurately.
Preparing to get schooled by the Efreeti

*notices Jon's preperations*

Wow, dude...is that a new Trapper-Keeper? Sweet!

*Grin*

I'm not suggesting, Jon, that we shouldn't ever intervene with the buisness of the psychotic dictators that we've put in power around the world. The list of them is long and distinguished. What I am saying is that we did not go in there for humanitarian reasons, as the spin-doctors would have you believe. That was not the grounds that were given to Congress at the start of this war, nor was it the reason sold to the American public.

We put the son of a bitch in power, we gave him the means to oppress his people so he could stay in power, and when it became beneficial to us - we gave him tacit approval for the invasion of Kuwait. We Lee Harvey'd his ass...and it wasn't to remove him from power. That wasn't on the agenda, the first time, obviously...which kinda narrows the list of possible reasons for setting the whole thing up, neh?

Now, I'm not saying that Saddam's a nice guy. Certainly not. I'd go so far as to suggest that maybe we shouldn't be empowering sociopathic murderers like Sadddam, Pinochet, and Bin Laden (let's not forget who was responsible for turning Osama into the man he is today).

As for Bush's desertion - he was absent without leave from National Guard duty for at least a year (May '72 - October '73). AWOL for more than 30 days is desertion. If you can direct me to any sources that actually dispute that, and can document him serving a single day of duty during that period, I'd be happy to take a look at them...I've tried, and the best efforts that I've come across are basically "Come on, it's not like he was in a combat unit!" or "He was on duty, we just lost all the records (for just him, mind you, not anyone else serving at the same time and place) and not a single living soul ever saw him"...not exactly powerful refutations, methinks.

-Jn-
Efreeti Sophist

Not to beat a dead horse, but I saw on the news the other day a story about Osama somebody.. what was his name? Well, they were saying the reason we haven't found him yet was that it's a "low priority". The military man speaking said if we committed the resources to finding him that we had to finding Hussein, we would surely be successful. Now, wasn't Mr. Bin Laden responsible for 9/11? Shouldn't the U.S. be looking for him? I mean really looking? He wasn't even mentioned in the Big Speech the other day.

Instead all effort was put into finding Hussein, for motives I think were more personal than anything else. Maybe since the Bin Laden and Bush families were business partners for so long, that's why the "search" isn't going forward as enthusiastically. After all, remember that a couple days after 9/11, a military jet picked up all the members of Bin Laden's family who were in the U.S., and got them safely out of the country.

Go figure.

Whitewater, Vince Foster, lying under oath, hummers in the oval office.
I don't get involved in the political threads because it all boils down to a matter of opinion....but Clinton??
Jaysus!
And he still rubs the country's face in it every time he appears on TV.
" Hey ya'll I lied under oath, obstructed justice and I'm Still here smiling and waving like a celebrity"
None of them ( politicians) is perfect...no party is the correct party...but Clinton?? gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! The man is just an oily liar with a fetish for ugly women with big noses
--" The torture never stops"--

I agree with you, tim - ol' Bill shoulda been held in contempt of Congress for lying under oath. Of course, one has to ask, why was he even asked that question in the first place? What buisness is it of Congress, or even the nation, whether the guy is unfaithful to his wife? Last I checked, that wasn't really illegal.

Bush lied to Congress so he could start a war. Tens of thousands dead because he told them he had evidence of weapons of mass destruction and of Iraq's intent to sell them to terrorists. Evidence that didn't exist.

I know which guy I'd hold in contempt of Congress...though I'm pretty sure I'll just have to settle for the regular variety of contempt.

-Jn-
Efreeti Sophist

Well said, Joe. Bravo.

If memory serves, we already have a political thread somewhere on here, any chance you guys could stick to that one instead of starting a whole new one?

Thanks.

-There's someone in my head, but it's not me.-

Don't mind me, I've been having a bad post day, running off my fingers without thinking for some reason. Nothing to see here, go back to your political debates :D

-There's someone in my head, but it's not me.-

Wait...we're supposed to think first?

I'm always the last to know.

*buys umrguy a beer*

-Jn-
Efreeti Sophist

No, I'm pretty certain that there's really no chance of that whatsoever.

I know some people get all squicky when politics come up, but I included a disclaimer...specifically for the politically and/or attention-span impaired. If yallall don't wanna read it...don't.

If we can't openly discuss this stuff, then why are all of these nice people dying to defend our right to do so? Almost seems like we should maybe feel obligated to exercise what few rights we've still got left, neh?

-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.