| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/21/2004 08:30:36 PM · #76 |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 08:33:05 PM · #77 |
This was pretty ugly too
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 08:40:31 PM · #78 |
| But not as ulgy as the railroading by CBS and their "cohorts". |
|
|
|
09/22/2004 05:56:47 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
 |
Is this Dan Rather's replacement, Dan Slather? :) |
|
|
|
09/22/2004 05:58:55 PM · #80 |
|
|
|
09/23/2004 05:37:47 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
|
This cow should have a pretty good time, what with all this bull around here.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/30/2004 11:09:18 AM · #82 |
From a Talon News story:
"CBS News is again under fire for a story which aired Tuesday evening by CBS News Correspondent Richard Schlesinger purporting to compare the views of President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry on the possibility of reinstituting the military draft.
"It's no secret, the all-volunteer U.S. military, especially the Army, Marines, and many Reserve units, are stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan," CBS News anchor Dan Rather said leading into the segment. "So what about bringing back the draft? A lot of Americans are worried about that. Where do the presidential candidates stand?"
The story was presented as part of a continuing series on the election and featured a Philadelphia woman named Beverly Cocco who was characterized by Schlesinger as someone who "has spent most of her life protecting children in Philadelphia" and as "a Republican, but also a single-issue voter."
"I go to bed every night, and I pray, and I actually get sick to my stomach," the story quoted Cocco as saying. "I'm very worried; I'm scared. I'm absolutely scared; I'm petrified."
Cocco's fears center around her two draft-age sons and her stated fear that the Bush administration is about to reinstitute a military draft.
CBS failed to mention the background of the "worried mother," Beverly Cocco in the on-air report. Although labeled simply as a "Philadelphia voter" by Schlesinger, Cocco is a political activist involved with the Philadelphia Lancaster/Bucks County affiliate of "Parents Against the Draft" (web site)."
The full story can be read here
|
|
|
|
09/30/2004 01:01:59 PM · #83 |
| Let's not forget that we already have a draft and it is no longer an all volunteer army. By extending the end dates for a soldiers term of service and by calling up retired reserves we are drafting from a pool of military personel. My son is a marine on his second deployment in Afghanistan. I would rather have one of my other children drafted than for him to spend more of his young life at war overseas. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 08:10:56 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by SoCal69:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
I don't think the measure of a leader, or the measure of who will make a good president, is necessarily how many bills you write as sole author or coauthor as a Senator. |
True, nor is the measure of a leader whether he completed a few hours of National Guard Service 30+ years ago or how he served a few months in Vietnam 30+ years ago or anything else that is unrelated to service in public office.
No,but I think it offers us a look into a man's character, which was the most important evaluative characteristic of republicans when they criticized Clinton as a candidate. And, since Bush continues to lie, obfuscate, and obstruct the uncovering of the truth of this (as you say) unimportant matter, I feel our conclusions about his character remain valid.
The measure of a good leader is how they have served the public good in recent years and their positions on issues of importance to their potential constituents (read: the Nation). Despite what you say, reasonable minds will differ on such service based on individuals' views on issues that are important to them.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Kerry has proven himself a leader of men on the battlefield. We know he thinks and responds well and bravely under stress. And we know he is not afraid to do the wildly unpopular thing when he feels it is the right thing to do - look at his testimony about the Viet Nam war. |
And how exactly do we know that he has proven himself as a leader of men?? Do you have specific personal knowledge of how he conducted himself in the field?
Well, yes. He was a highly decorated officer in the Viet Nam war, who received glowing recommendations from his commanders for his leadership and bravery under fire. He won a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, three Purple Hearts. He served two tours, volunteering for his second, much more dangerous assignment. His shipmates admire him to this day.
And nothing the Swift Boat vets , who have been shown to be demonstrated liars and closely connected to the Bush campaign, can say will change those facts.
A leader of men who has admitted about committing war crimes, who turned his back by testifying against those with whom he served?
Kerry had the guts to stand up for the right thing and tell it like it was. He told about the war. If HE is guilty of war crimes, MOST of our boys in Nam are guilty of it. Seems nobody was prosecuted for it, so "war crimes" doesn't seem to be the issue, except now that it is election season and we all get kinda hyperbolic :D
And he didn't turn his back on anybody he served with - his criticism was with the people in Washington who were directing the war, not the men on the ground who were actually fighting it.
A leader of men who can't seem to decide exactly where he stands on the important issues? Puhlease.
Actually, Kerry has been perfectly consistant on the issues. Right wing pundits have lied their butts off distorting his statements, but the facts do not bear this out. I'm sure this statement of mine will change your opinion? :D
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Perhaps a better measure of how a Senator might prognosticate to a President is not how many bills he sponsors alone, but the opposite. How many people he can persuade to to commit to his cause. Or how well he can get a group to reach concensus. |
I don't know that this would necessarily be indicative of a strong leader. Perhaps. On the other hand, perhaps what is indicative of a strong leader is the fact that he will take action which he/she believes appropriate without waiting for the popularity contest results.
Agreed. Again, I think Kerry demonstrateed this with his testimony to Congress about Viet Nam. If you have not read it, check it out if you have the time - it is pretty moving and it impressed me a lot.
Everyone will see it differently. However, I don't see that Kerry has had any great success in pursuading anyone to reach a concensus. If you're holding your breath thinking that Kerry will be able to "unite the world" over Iraq, think again. It really doesn't matter who is at the helm. The "world concensus" will likely remain as is. |
I disagree with you on this. I think it does matter who is at the helm. And, I think the leaders of the rest of the world have pretty much been saying so for the past two years, every way they can - some of them pretty outright about it too.
Bush is despised around the globe. Most of the world is scared to death of him, feels he is a stupid, head-strong, over-religious cowboy and they want him defeated.
When Kerry is elected ( :) ), I feel confident the world leaders will stumble over each other to embrace him and make things work for us, just like they did for Clinton. You will be able to hear the whole world go "Phew!" I believe.
Whenever Clinton travels around the world - enormous cheering crowds. Whenever Bush does - enormous protests
Message edited by author 2004-10-01 08:21:47. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 06:53:09 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by RonB:
From a Talon News story:
"CBS News is again under fire for a story which aired Tuesday evening by CBS News Correspondent Richard Schlesinger purporting to compare the views of President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry on the possibility of reinstituting the military draft.
....
The full story can be read here |
And the deception goes even deeper. The following is from the end of the CBS story:
The head of the Selective Service believes he could start drafting people quickly.
"I think we could do it in less than six months if we got the call," says Selective Service Director Jack Martin.
This time, Martin says there would be no long deferments for college students and a lot more people could be eligible for the draft than before: men and women ages 18 to 26 could be called up.
There hasn't been a draft since 1973, but that's not much comfort to Beverly Cocco.
So she is keeping a sharp eye on the political traffic. She's a Bush supporter today, but if she doesn't like what she hears between now and November, she could easily cross over.
The lesser inference here is that the Selective Service (and by inuendo the administration) is gearing up for a draft. Acording to Jack Martin, "I think we could do it in less than six months if we got the call." Sounds like people have been very busy behind the scenes preparing for this possibility, right? Turns out, these words were spoken by Jack Martin months ago, in an interview unrelated to this story. It was an answer to the general question of how long it would take the selective service to get up to speed, if a draft were ever called for. That's their job, for decades: to be prepared to institute a draft if and when it becomes necessary. But its spun here to make it sound like this is not business as usual, but something that's come about recently.
But the more direct insinuation comes in the last paragraph. Supposedly, dear old Bev is "a Bush supporter today, but if she doesn't like what she hears between now and November, she could easily cross over." This directly links Bush as the one to worry about when it comes to a draft. The only time Kerry is mentioned in the story is early on, quoting his statement "I will give us a foreign policy that absolutely makes it unnecessary to have a draft for this country." (There's that fantasy coalition again.) But who is it poor Bev is worried about? Who is it that specifically better watch his step, or Bev will be changing her vote? Only Bush.
But who is it Bev really needs to be concerned about? Who has actually gone so far as to introduce legislation to reinstitue a draft? Must be those evil, brown-shirted republican neo-cons, right? Nope. It would be the democrats:
Senate Bill S.89 was introduced in January 2003 by Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) and had no Republican co-sponsors. A companion bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in January 2003. It was sponsored by Democrats Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), John Lewis (D-GA), Pete Stark (D-CA), and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI).
(from the Talon article linked by Ron)
[Stepping off my soap box for a moment, I will confess that, according to that article, these bills were introduced as "protests" to the war. Pretty lame, but what else can you expect.]
Another fine example of media bias twisting and forming the "stories" you hear from the network news. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 10:23:28 PM · #86 |
| Well I be, Scott. Who'd a thunk it. |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 10:20:45 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
The lesser inference here is that the Selective Service (and by inuendo the administration) is gearing up for a draft. Acording to Jack Martin, "I think we could do it in less than six months if we got the call." Sounds like people have been very busy behind the scenes preparing for this possibility, right? Turns out, these words were spoken by Jack Martin months ago, in an interview unrelated to this story. It was an answer to the general question of how long it would take the selective service to get up to speed, if a draft were ever called for. That's their job, for decades: to be prepared to institute a draft if and when it becomes necessary. But its spun here to make it sound like this is not business as usual, but something that's come about recently.
|
Hi Scott
I can tell you that there has been a lot happening of late at the Selective Service. Quietly, they have been filling 10,000 spots on local draft boards all across the country.
They will be ready to draft soldiers given the word.
And the word will likely come if Bush is elected, as nearly every able-minded military man - which doesn't include Rumsfield ;) - has concluded we need a draft badly - as long as we keep following the Bush agenda.
Meanwhile, the Kerry/Edwards campaign has already made a public campaign promise NOT to institute a draft if they are elected.
As the father of a 19-year old I have been following this issue closely.
Message edited by author 2004-10-02 10:21:48. |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 10:31:11 AM · #88 |
The most interesting thing to me in the debate Thursday was Bush's closing statement. I found it odd that he felt the need to stress that we would have an all volunteer army.
Realistically we are really pushing the limits of what the Army can sustain. Notice I say the Army, not the other branches. For example, Fort Carson in Colorado has troops on their second deployment, and in some cases third. It's had a very noticable impact on the local economy in the south part of town.
A better solution than, " we will win the war" needs to be addressed.
Clara
|
|
|
|
10/02/2004 10:41:11 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Meanwhile, the Kerry/Edwards campaign has already made a public campaign promise NOT to institute a draft if they are elected. |
Do you really believe that campaign promises will be kept? If so, please explain how this happened:
-Bill Clinton ( campaign promise, 1992 )
Γ’...IΓ’ve offered a comprehensive plan...[that] starts with a tax cut for the middle class.Γ’
-Bill Clinton, in his first campaign ad, January 1992
Γ’We will lower the tax burden on the middle class...Γ’
-Bill Clinton, in Putting People First, September 1992
Γ’I will not raise taxes on the middle class.Γ’
-Bill Clinton, October 19, 1992
Γ’From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle class tax cut. I never did meet any voter who thought that.Γ’
-Bill Clinton, January 14, 1993
(After inauguration, Clinton originally asked for a raise in the Federal gas tax of 7.5 cents and 8.3 cents per gallon, for gasoline and diesel, respectively. This was eventually bargained down to 4.3 cents per gallon for both gasoline and diesel. He also proposed taxing Social Security benefits at 85 percent, a huge increase from the current 50 percent, for couples earning more than $32,000, and single people earning more than $25,000. Even the Democratic Congress thought that was too harsh, and raised the minimum incomes to $44,000, and $34,000, respectively. Both plans significantly raised taxes on the American middle class.)
But Kerry is different, I know. He intends to keep his promises. |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 10:55:13 AM · #90 |
I think it's hard to hold any candidate to their promise during a campaing. That's republican or democrat. Your evaluation of what needs to be done will change once elected. You have access to different information.
If we blamed every candidate for broken promsies we'd have a really, really long list.
Clara |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 11:34:39 AM · #91 |
I am opposed to a draft. I also am unsympathetic to whining volunteers that discover that they have serious work to do....sometimes fatal. Kind of like; if you do not want to face burning fires, then don't become a fireman. If you CHOOSE to receive the man's money (by joining the military), then expect to be asked to go to work. For those soldiers that are serving nobly and honorably, you have my prayers, respect and gratitude. I do believe in a strong volunteer military, without bureaucratic burdens.
The near future, if it includes another terrorists attack here, will almost surely mandate a massive callup. Regardless of whether it is Kerry as president blaming Bush W's war, or Bush W blaming porous borders, we will have an enlarged military if the world deteriorates.
The reason is very simple and has litterally nothing to do with the Afgan/Iraq war on terror. It has to do with the proliferation of lawlessness. As in international crime. Al Queda has already contacted members of MS-13. MS-13 is the largest growing gang within the US, with substantial numbers in at least 28 states. The Mexican and Canadian borders have a "free flow" of illegals, some of which want to do irrepairable harm to this country. Add in the international mafia's (of various country origins), Outlaw motorcycle groups, a plethora of street gangs (many with direct links to prison's) corrupt Mexican Police/Military, Native American Reservations with 48% unemployment aiding the smuglers, and the list continues. It could be soon, that we have a major military buidup; regardless who is elected.
In this particular homeland event however, I predict a HUGE volunteer out pouring of middle aged persons, ready to contribute. Perhaps they will be a far cry from warrior material, but serve they will. With dignity, honor and pride.
I oppose a draft. However, I do stand ready to volunteer. Although I pray it will not be necessary. Ever! |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 02:12:53 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Meanwhile, the Kerry/Edwards campaign has already made a public campaign promise NOT to institute a draft if they are elected.
As the father of a 19-year old I have been following this issue closely. |
The president has also made that same promise. But how exactly is John Kerry going to increase the armed forces by 40,000 troops? I Guess you better vote for Nader.
Message edited by author 2004-10-02 14:15:05. |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 02:43:55 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Meanwhile, the Kerry/Edwards campaign has already made a public campaign promise NOT to institute a draft if they are elected.
As the father of a 19-year old I have been following this issue closely. |
The president has also made that same promise. But how exactly is John Kerry going to increase the armed forces by 40,000 troops? I Guess you better vote for Nader. |
He says in his speeches he will do it with new volunteers. Perhaps they will be enticed because, unlike Bush Kerry will:
* not send them into battle without armored vests
* not send them into battle without armored vehicles
* not send them into battle with enough bullets
* not try to take away their battle pay
* not try to take away their health benefits
*not try to take away their kids educational funding
* not try to take away their veteran health benefits
* actually provide them enough clean laundry in the field
* actually provide them enough drinking water in the field
* not stop-draft them into essentially being conscripted against their will.
It blows my mind that people are not willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt that he is NOT a liar and can actually be competent. Tell me, just how could he do a WORSE job than Bush?
Perhaps we are all too jaded ? What is up with this?
Message edited by author 2004-10-02 14:45:27. |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 04:09:11 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
It blows my mind that people are not willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt that he is NOT a liar and can actually be competent. Tell me, just how could he do a WORSE job than Bush?
Perhaps we are all too jaded ? What is up with this? |
Indeed one would think; after what has happen in the last 4 years and especially considering that Mr. Bush says if he knew there were no WMD's and knew Iraq had no connection to the 9/11 attacks, he would still do it all again. Even his premature ejaculation of a victory dance on the carrier with the "mission accomplished" sign.
Message edited by author 2004-10-02 16:09:44. |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 04:21:55 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
As the father of a 19-year old I have been following this issue closely. |
gingerbaker,
I hope also, that your son is spared the draft.
Been curious as to your location and surmise from your two photo entries that you reside in Vermont. Both photos BTW did quite well with average votes above 6 and both above 90 percentile. One finished in the top 10 at 97%. Work to be proud of. Vermont was the last I knew, the only state in the nation that did not require its citizens to obtain a permit to carry a firearm in public. That may have since changed, but that freedom of choice always demonstrated to me a great respect for the residents of that state. I believe more state governments should be so respectful of their citizenry. This also should serve as an example at the Federal level. Although not a prominent issue in this national campaign season, the freedom of choice to be armed, is only allowed a select few. Vermonter's are the sole claimants to that right, without paying costly fees (taxes).
Is there room in Vermont for a Libertarian? ;-] |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 04:40:39 PM · #96 |
| I have a 20 year old son who has already been drafted. He is a marine and his term of service has no end date. I would rather one of my other children be drafted than for him to spend even more of his young life in these wars. Seventeen to twenty one is enough. We HAVE a draft. It is an unfair draft. More unfair than a general draft would be. |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 06:39:27 PM · #97 |
Hundreds of former soldiers fail to show up for duty
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:25 p.m. ET Oct. 1, 2004
WASHINGTON - The Army is getting a grudging response Γ’ or none at all Γ’ from hundreds of former soldiers it ordered back into uniform for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, although none has been declared AWOL. Continue reading...
Numbers are getting thin :/
Message edited by author 2004-10-02 18:40:09. |
|
|
|
10/03/2004 01:41:45 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
As the father of a 19-year old I have been following this issue closely. |
gingerbaker,
I hope also, that your son is spared the draft.
Been curious as to your location and surmise from your two photo entries that you reside in Vermont. Both photos BTW did quite well with average votes above 6 and both above 90 percentile. One finished in the top 10 at 97%. Work to be proud of. Vermont was the last I knew, the only state in the nation that did not require its citizens to obtain a permit to carry a firearm in public. That may have since changed, but that freedom of choice always demonstrated to me a great respect for the residents of that state. I believe more state governments should be so respectful of their citizenry. This also should serve as an example at the Federal level. Although not a prominent issue in this national campaign season, the freedom of choice to be armed, is only allowed a select few. Vermonter's are the sole claimants to that right, without paying costly fees (taxes).
Is there room in Vermont for a Libertarian? ;-] |
Thanks, Flash! :)
Yes, we're lucky here in Vt - we can actually carry a CONCEALED weapon without a permit - so long as it is a pistol.. A rifle or shotgun, however, must not be loaded within 100 feet of a road - and that includes inside your car. :D
I had no idea we Vermonters were in such a unique position as far as our gun rights go. I hope it stays this way - we are seeing more and more nut cases letting loose with their weapons in stand-offs with the police. They wind up getting killed.
I think our gun laws came from a time when violent crime in vermont was very rare indeed. This is not so much the case now, yet almost never is a crime committed and a gun is discharged. (Except for spousal murder and the above-mentioned swan songs).
So, ironically, although I hunt and have quite a few hunting weapons - no handguns. Yet if I lived in NYC, where I would definately want one, I understand it is nigh impossible to get a permit. Go figure. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 08:22:39 AM · #99 |
Theory that CBS document scandal engineered by Karl Rove bolstered:
//www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=324 |
|
