Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Dean admits using deferment to skirt draft.

Nov 24, 2003 11:37AM PST

Is this another Democrat candidate for Commander-in-Chief? According to the Chicago Sun Times, Dean has admitted "obtaining a medical deferment for a back condition and then spending 10 months skiing." Do we need another former governor with this kind of record?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:I would agree with you if....
Nov 25, 2003 11:36PM PST

Hi, KP.

I don't think either of us knows about Ted Kennedy's charitable contributions, so that slur is baseless. As for the Clintons, THEY PAID for private school for Chelsea. And for security reasons, no public school wants a Presidential child -- all typically go to much smaller private schools where security is much easier to maintain.
-- Dave K.

- Collapse -
That's part of the point.
Nov 26, 2003 3:58AM PST

The Clintons were able to PAY for private schools, and there was certainly no reason why Chelsea should not have gone to a public school if the Clintons were so opposed to private schools for those who could not afford to PAY for them. The public schools don't get to choose who attends.

As for Teddy, who said anything about charitable giving? Why doesn't Teddy voluntarily give his money to the government as he expects me to do, but at a much higher rate as befits his philosophy? I know when a rich man has his hand in my pocket. Perhaps we should contemplate the hero of Chapaquidik ranting about neanderthal judges. At least we're pretty sure that that happened.

- Collapse -
Don't you find it interesting ...
Nov 26, 2003 1:23AM PST

... that those who are only enlisted in the Guard and complete fighter pilot school (as in prepare for a pretty hefty combat duty role) during war time can even be snubbed by those who claim they didn't properly serve? Amazing!

I think the war and military background of any of the candidates on the Democrat side is a moot point. Bush has proven himself to be an excellent Commander in Chief to all but the most partisan who will vote Democratic anyway. Of those who might go toe to toe with Bush on the military issue, Kerry has proven no leadership capabilities in his persistant stance changing re: the war in Iraq, and Clark's credibility is falling faster than Clinton's pants in the Oval Office!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:Don't you find it interesting ...
Nov 26, 2003 3:30AM PST

Hi, Evie.

If Bush is such an excellent Commander-in-Chief, why is approval for his handling of Iraq now under 50%? It's hardly just partisan Democrats who are questiong why he led us into that quagmire.
-- Dave K.

- Collapse -
Because the polls are contrived...
Nov 26, 2003 6:52AM PST

and the Democrats have always had an EXCELLENT spin machine.

If the Current Admin had the media just telling the truth rather than the one sided "tell only the bad things and exagerate whenever possible" even the stacked polls would show his rating much higher.

- Collapse -
Re: Because the polls are contrived...
Nov 26, 2003 11:42AM PST

Hi, Ed.

Interesting that you never complained about the polls being contrived when they showed 60%+ support for Bush and his policies -- then you were using them to show how out of touch liberals were...
-- Dave K.

- Collapse -
Interesting that you never complained about the polls being contrived ...
Nov 26, 2003 9:08PM PST

Possibly interesting but not accurate Dave.

I find it even more interesting that you fail to note that I have made the same comment about polls all along--every one is biased and dependant on what those authorizing/conducting them want the results to be and will inevitably reflect their desires.

Pretty much the same as the majority of those "peer evaluated studies" by "publish or perish" academics--they are not representative of facts or normal and observable life and are so easily discredited.

YOU Dave are the one who, like Clinton, glory in and live by poll results and like Clinton you see but can't recognize the exagerated differences in polls asking for the same general information released by each and every polling group. There are NONE that are completely unbiased.

A helpful hint for you -- one can almost arrive at a semi-reliable figure by AVERAGING the differences in numbers between the polls.