T1B

I only hope that if Cheney requires hospitalization that he's admitted to Walter Reed. :mad:

Martyred wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:...we didn't do much to stop it, but we didn't initiate it.

The 80's...AKA "Tom's Long Nap".

The horrors you Yanks visited on Central America may be long forgotten by fat, comfortable dullards such as yourself,
but I assure you, they remember.

You sure the different factions down there weren't already maiming each other at will in a "Saw" like version of the Hatfields and McCoys.


The U.S. didn't invent evil, or torture, Marty.

mvscal wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Actually, I consider Clinton a draft dodger also.

Then you are an idiot. Draft dodging is a criminal act. Obtaining a deferment is not a criminal act.

Obtaining a deferment under false pretenses as Clinton did, could be considered a criminal act.

False Pretenses? No. Illegal, criminal? Not at all. Morally, ethically he did nothing more than any other favored son. Perhaps not a flag waving grunt, but ten again, it was vietnam, it was Nixon. Tough call there on where the moral ground actually was.

Mister Bushice wrote:but ten again, it was vietnam, it was Nixon.

LBJ and JFK get off scott free in your eyes ?

Tom In VA wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:but ten again, it was vietnam, it was Nixon.

LBJ and JFK get off scott free in your eyes ?

Christ you can be a whiny bitch.

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:but ten again, it was vietnam, it was Nixon.

LBJ and JFK get off scott free in your eyes ?

Christ you can be a whiny bitch.

Since when is asking for a bit of integrity and intellectual honesty, not to mention historical accuracy ... "whining".

I know you don't mean that B, you're a lib. A sensitive new age guy lib. :thumbingnoseatyou:

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:False Pretenses? No.

Uh, yes. When you obtain a deferment by promising the commander of the University of Arkansas ROTC that you will be attending the school and joining ROTC and then you go to an entirely different school and do not join ROTC, you are a liar who obtained a deferment under false pretenses.

Pretty simple.

So what if he changed his mind and went to another school? There's a paper trail indicating he communicated with his ROTC commander. Was his avoidance shit all that different from Bush II? Not much. Was he a typical 20 something irresponsible kid? Yep. Was he pardoned? Yes.

End of story. Find a politician with no shit in his past and get back to me when you do.

Mister Bushice wrote: There's a paper trail indicating he communicated with his ROTC commander.

You mean the "I loathe the military" letter? That communication?

Be sure and wipe down the plunger after you get it pried loose from your mangash, Babshice

Justa Heel wrote:

trev wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote: Because Saddam was in Iraq, and Cheney affected Americans.

So? The Jews, gypsys and disabled were in Europe. Do we just sit back and let a tyrant torture and kill them?

We do in most parts of the world without oil you dumb fat bitch. In fact, in many places, we support it and teach the locals how to do it. These are things you won't learn though from Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or the Hostess Ho-Ho wrappers scattered around your couch.

So we shouldn't try to help anyone ruled by an insane tyrant?

It shocks me that returned troops would be so vocal against the surge and here's why, it seems as if they are turning their back on their comrades in Iraq, many of whom say more people and more equipment are needed. These notions of pursuing a more binding resolution and/or attacking the "purse strings" to stifle the President's ability to wage war appear to me to make one group of people suffer .....

The grunts in the field right now.


Personally, I wish we could, as mvscal's brothers have said either quit playing paddy cake OR just withdrawal completely.

I'd much rather we "turn tail" and run, as it were, then have those guys out there right now suffer the "death of a thousand cuts".


Let 'em fight or bring 'em home.

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote: LBJ and JFK get off scott free in your eyes ?

Christ you can be a whiny bitch.

Since when is asking for a bit of integrity and intellectual honesty, not to mention historical accuracy ... "whining".

You weren't asking for "intellectual honesty", you were propping up strawmen. It's pretty much your stock in trade to demand a full accounting of all Democratic sins whenever anyone, even in passing, slights a Republican President.

BSmack wrote: You weren't asking for "intellectual honesty", you were propping up strawmen. It's pretty much your stock in trade to demand a full accounting of all Democratic sins whenever anyone, even in passing, slights a Republican President.

I interpreted the dude attributing Vietnam to Nixon. Perhaps I was wrong in that interpretation but Bushice opted to ignore me and my request.

And no that is not my stock in trade, I'm more objective in most internal issues than you have ever displayed yourself to be.

Tom In VA wrote:I interpreted the dude attributing Vietnam to Nixon.

In that case, you're either being disingenuous or you're retarded. I'll give you some credit and go with the former.

Perhaps I was wrong in that interpretation but Bushice opted to ignore me and my request.

As well he should have. You and your request made no fucking sense whatsoever.

And no that is not my stock in trade, I'm more objective in most internal issues than you have ever displayed yourself to be.

Is Paul writing your posts for you? Because I'm about ready to que up some Wilbert Harrison in your honor.

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:I interpreted the dude attributing Vietnam to Nixon.

In that case, you're either being disingenuous or you're retarded. I'll give you some credit and go with the former.

Perhaps I was wrong in that interpretation but Bushice opted to ignore me and my request.

As well he should have. You and your request made no fucking sense whatsoever.

And no that is not my stock in trade, I'm more objective in most internal issues than you have ever displayed yourself to be.

Is Paul writing your posts for you? Because I'm about ready to que up some Wilbert Harrison in your honor.

My post must have made no sense because of my declining writing skills. MAYBE, I'll do better here but this is my final shot.

It did seem to me he was attributing that all that was "wrong" with Vietnam was Nixon and that's why Clinton was avoiding the draft. Number one, Nixon wasn't president when Clinton received his first draft notice if it was right after High School. I found his clumping of "Nixon and Vietnam" to be one of blatanty bias. I stand by that opinion.

My request was "So as it relates to Vietnam, JFK and LBJ get a pass in your eyes" ? To which the answer is either yes or no. Again within context of Clinton avoiding the draft, chances are it was during LBJ's tenure and prosecution of the war. Why bring "Nixon" into the mix ..... again within contect of Clinton avoiding the draft.

Paul ? So you're going the overplayed and overused "I said you were insert assertion here" card. Okay. You said I was subjective first, you win this round. But you're wrong.

mvscal wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:There are millions of Americans who would like to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for the long list of high crimes and misdemeanors that have been associated with the names of these errant executives over the past six years.

Name one.

John Nichols.

Goober McTuber wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:There are millions of Americans who would like to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for the long list of high crimes and misdemeanors that have been associated with the names of these errant executives over the past six years.

Name one.

John Nichols.

Okay I laughed. Nice one, you sir are on a roll.

mvscal wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:There are millions of Americans who would like to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for the long list of high crimes and misdemeanors that have been associated with the names of these errant executives over the past six years.

Name one.

Going 5-Hole on Condi Rice

Tom In VA wrote:It shocks me that returned troops would be so vocal against the surge and here's why, it seems as if they are turning their back on their comrades in Iraq

Twist the knife deeper into the backs of actual vets, Tom. Enjoy redecorating your rec room this comfy weekend.

Tom In VA wrote:Let 'em fight or bring 'em home.

You're not supposed to be fighting, you're supposed to be keeping the peace, as any occupying army should.
What a sad, fucking lousy job you're doing of it. A complete mess.
America has failed.
F-

Martyred wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:It shocks me that returned troops would be so vocal against the surge and here's why, it seems as if they are turning their back on their comrades in Iraq

Twist the knife deeper into the backs of actual vets, Tom. Enjoy redecorating your rec room this comfy weekend.

How so ? All I said is I don't understand their not wanting to send more people to help their buddies still in-country. You of all people have no clue and really aren't qualified to shed any light on that for me. Further there are even more initiatives in the works to cut funding and kill the war effort "by a thousand cuts", meanwhile the guys that are still in-country are left holding the bag. Short-handed and if things go the way the dems like murtha want, short of money and resources to do their jobs. Once again, you aren't really qualified to comment because you'd have to have served to shed light on this matter for me.

Oh, but nice try at a cheap shot Marty. "Enjoy your jelly donut" was always one of my lines are you "Pauling" it these days as well ?

If they were more inclined to their associates and less inclined to violence there wouldn't be such a problem.

mvscal wrote:Maybe we've just been going about this all wrong. We should try flooding Iraq with truck loads of chewing gum, wire and rocks.

Sigworthy.

Tom In VA wrote:My post must have made no sense because of my declining writing skills. MAYBE, I'll do better here but this is my final shot.

It did seem to me he was attributing that all that was "wrong" with Vietnam was Nixon and that's why Clinton was avoiding the draft. Number one, Nixon wasn't president when Clinton received his first draft notice if it was right after High School. I found his clumping of "Nixon and Vietnam" to be one of blatanty bias. I stand by that opinion.

Only someone with an overactive persecution complex could possibly read that Bushice was attempting to lay all the blame on Nixon. Referring to the time (1969-70) when Clinton's deferment was a political issue in the making, he said "Perhaps not a flag waving grunt, but then again, it was Vietnam, it was Nixon. Tough call there on where the moral ground actually was."

I read it as a very narrowly constructed statement referencing the exact moment in time that Clinton was wresting with how to avoid getting sent to that God forsaken hellhole. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that it certainly was not an endorsement of the policies of JFK or LBJ that led to that moment in time.

My request was "So as it relates to Vietnam, JFK and LBJ get a pass in your eyes" ? To which the answer is either yes or no. Again within context of Clinton avoiding the draft, chances are it was during LBJ's tenure and prosecution of the war. Why bring "Nixon" into the mix ..... again within contect of Clinton avoiding the draft.

Because Nixon was the President at that time. But with you around nobody can utter even the faintest of condemnation towards a Republican without you demanding a full and complete accounting of all relevant or irrelevant sins committed by Democrats be they real or imagined.

Paul ? So you're going the overplayed and overused "I said you were insert assertion here" card. Okay. You said I was subjective first, you win this round. But you're wrong.

There's nothing wrong with being subjective. This world would be a boring place without advocates. You were just wrong in your interpretation of the subject.

Thanks for the time B. I suppose you're right, I do tend to get defensive, especially when people such as yourself continue to try and prop ONE party as somehow the only bastion of righteousness and goodness. I don't view either party as that but I do tend to be subjective and biased towards the Republican side due to their strengths as it pertains to ... defense ... I was a linebacker ... defense ... odd pattern developing here (laugh dammit). But you're right, I was wrong, my entire knee jerk reaction was based on the assumption that Clinton's draft issues occurred right after H.S., which would have been before Nixon.

Thanks again.