Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the Kerry thing has moved through lots of people, both parties, to be completly unfounded.

I find myself sort of in agreement with this, just as I wonder exactly what it is that led Bush to be so slow in releasing what documentation he had. I guess it's either all fair game (in which case, both sides need to stop bitching that something shouldn't become "news" until there is acceptably precise evidence available), or the press should just go for it all the time, and let the chips fall where they may (i.e., the papers that consistently report too early and too wrong will eventually get that reputation, and become Enquirers. I would feel better about this second course if the Enquirer wasn't one of the most profitable newspapers in the world.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The Kerry thing should be out of bounds (excluding this board) whether or not there is real evidence. This is a private matter and there is no pending lawsuit in anyway relating to it.

You don't buy the "window into his view of honesty" idea?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
I would feel better about this second course if the Enquirer wasn't one of the most profitable newspapers in the world.

But bacon tastes good!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But bacon tastes good!

Great. You figured out I'm Jewish, and you hit me with this antisemitic crap. What a mensch.

(I hope that means something bad. I would hate to find out I just called you a hubcap, or pretty, or something.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
You don't buy the "window into his view of honesty" idea?

In a perfect world, yes. But given the amount of philandering that goes on on both sides, I don't think it's relevant. I also don't think that those who don't cheat are more likely to be truthful politicians or vice versa. Rather, they are all a bunch of conmen and women.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Great. You figured out I'm Jewish, and you hit me with this antisemitic crap. What a mensch.

(I hope that means something bad. I would hate to find out I just called you a hubcap, or pretty, or something.)

if you want to hurt, call me "shayna punim" which is something actually true about me.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if you want to hurt, call me "shayna punim" which is something actually true about me.

I'm calling bullshit. Maybe before the grey wig, but not any longer.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Do you think that will get you by the fundies' unwillingness on the "spousal benefits" issues? Or, are you thinking that the ability to differentiate their own, "proper, gawd-fearin"" marriage from the blasphemous unions will be enough? (I'm thinking not - I'm thinking they don't want any money going the "wrong" way, and that that's a significant part of the fight.)

There really isn't much I can see that will make this issue go away for the religiously hyper (and it's not limited to the religious right - in Boston, there have been some promiment black clerics ready to battle to "defend marriage" from the fearsome onslaught of domesticated gays). My sincere hope is that over time it is limited to their issue, with most of the populace giving it the yawn it deserves - I mean, who really cares about whether someone else is married?

And, yes, I think those who rise to the level of bigots are offended at the notion that some gay guys might be filing joint returns, passing on assets without gift taxes, and even getting surviving spouse social security benefits. Amazing.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Retired Brigidier General William Turnipseed, who commanded the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery, Alabama, told the Associated Press in May of 2000 that he didn't recall Bush reporting for duty there, "To my knowledge he never showed up." But on Tuesday, Turnipseed told the AP that he was not sure whether he was even on the base during the time Bush was assigned there. Moreover, he said, "In 1972, I didn't even know he was supposed to come, I didn't know that until 2000.

Turnipseed starts with "he wasn't there."

Then says "to my knowledge he never showed up." This certainly doesn't refute the first statement.

Then says "I didn't even know he was supposed to come." Still no refutation.

Then says "I'm not saying he wasn't there. If he said he was there, I believe it. I don't remember seeing it." Still no refutation; in fact he confirms that he didn't see Bush, or doesn't remember it. He does say that, if Bush says he showed up for duty, then Turnipseed won't call him a liar, but that's hardly a refutation of the original point.

I view this, combined with Bush failing to show for a physical, combined with the favorable treatment he received throughout his service, as sufficient objective, non-biased evidence to ask questions.

It clearly is NOT enough to reach a conclusion -- as you point out, Turnipseed (I just love typing that name) doesn't remember whether he was assigned to the base. Though if he weren't, that would seem pretty easily established.

If Kerry's commanding officer were to say "I don't remember ever seeing that guy" and he were found not to have showed up for a physical, I suspect you would see that, too, as a basis to question his military service. And I would too.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Great. You figured out I'm Jewish, and you hit me with this antisemitic crap. What a mensch.

(I hope that means something bad. I would hate to find out I just called you a hubcap, or pretty, or something.)

You complimented him.

It very loosely translates to "stand up guy". Better stick to the Swedish, Olaf.

S_A_M

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Much more basic. "You do this all of the time, but we know that, when we do this same thing, it's going to drive you to a frantic kind of bonkers, and we always like to watch that."

Right. I agree -- that's exactly what they are doing.

Which seems inconsistent with the sincere belief that doing it is wrong. As I said, if we assume that they have the sincere belief that any discrimination is wrong, then their apparently believe that "tit-for-tat" trumps that "sincere" belief.

Taking us back to the original "idiotic" point.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Turnipseed starts with "he wasn't there."

Then says "to my knowledge he never showed up." This certainly doesn't refute the first statement.

Then says "I didn't even know he was supposed to come." Still no refutation.

Then says "I'm not saying he wasn't there. If he said he was there, I believe it. I don't remember seeing it." Still no refutation; in fact he confirms that he didn't see Bush, or doesn't remember it. He does say that, if Bush says he showed up for duty, then Turnipseed won't call him a liar, but that's hardly a refutation of the original point.

I view this, combined with Bush failing to show for a physical, combined with the favorable treatment he received throughout his service, as sufficient objective, non-biased evidence to ask questions.

If Kerry's commanding officer were to say "I don't remember ever seeing that guy" and he were found not to have showed up for a physical, I suspect you would see that, too, as a basis to question his military service. And I would too.

this is such a non-issue. Clinton lied and draft dodged and it didn't hurt him- you all burned the issue, combined with what Kerry said about the soldiers in Vietnam you guys are better off running
very fast from any discussion of military service.
Would John-John rather that W had gone to Vietnam and assisted when the US soldiers "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads.....cut off limbs,...randomely shoot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminescent of Genghis Khan..."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
I find myself sort of in agreement with this, just as I wonder exactly what it is that led Bush to be so slow in releasing what documentation he had. I guess it's either all fair game (in which case, both sides need to stop bitching that something shouldn't become "news" until there is acceptably precise evidence available), or the press should just go for it all the time, and let the chips fall where they may (i.e., the papers that consistently report too early and too wrong will eventually get that reputation, and become Enquirers. I would feel better about this second course if the Enquirer wasn't one of the most profitable newspapers in the world.

The "urban legends" site has any number of persistent rumors that are not true on it. Mere repetition does not result in a rumor being true.

You do know, don't you, that there have been persistent rumors about a Bush senior affair before and while in the White House, and that the name of the women is well-known inside the beltway? It has received a few mentions in the press over the years but is generally ignored. I have no idea if it is true, but it is a persistent rumor. And it is one the press has ignored because they both never had evidence and it never seemed relevant.

The Bush AWOL rumor, on the other hand, seems to have legs in part because of the documentation -- he clearly was discharged before serving his full time, and he clearly got preferential treatment in getting into the Guard. Those are the big issues; then in looking at those issues the press finds that he can't even show he did the service he was supposed to, asks a few questions, and gets nothing but more questions when they do.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You complimented him.

It very loosely translates to "stand up guy". Better stick to the Swedish, Olaf.

S_A_M

bilmore knew that. bilmore knows ALL.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Which seems inconsistent with the sincere belief that doing it is wrong. As I said, if we assume that they have the sincere belief that any discrimination is wrong, then their apparently believe that "tit-for-tat" trumps that "sincere" belief.

Not if their main point is that they can never seem to get an acknowledgement that race-driven behavior is racist in and of itself. By doing this, they (I'm assuming - I've never sold a cookie myself - well, not counting GS cookies) are forcing the issue. "So, what's wrong with this sale?" Answer - "it's racist." "Ah, but . . . " If you engage in behavior that the other "side" sees as racist, but only when you do it to certain races, I think it becomes a valid and effective way to make someone confront a central issue that maybe has been slipped aside in public debate.