18 total posts
(NT)Trying to continue the diversion, are we?
Re: (NT)Trying to continue the diversion, are we?
Maybe trying to continue it, but not start it by anymeans.
Dave, I'll grant you seem to draw a lot of ire, and you do get dogpiled on. But I will not ignore this one facet.
But this fiasco was started by Democrat campaign trying to make Kerry a Vietnam battle hero compared to alleged missed reserve meetings by Bush.
When others started responding, the heat was too high and they are trying to get out of the kitchen, but there's too many standing in the door.
Tell me, what is Kerry running as? how well he balence the budget while doubling government aid programs, make the world save while bring all the US troops home, and so forth.
It's maybe all politics.
But if you sincerely believe that Kerry and his campaign didn't first flout his medals as a contrast to their allegations of Bush's missing meetings to "prove" he'd be better on the war on terror as commander in chief, if you truly believe that.......
Well, even when thinking you were way off base, I thought you better than that.
Neither side is all saints or demons.
click here to email email@example.com
"Every hour spent debating what happened in Vietnam more than 30 years ago is an hour not spent debating what's happening in Iraq right now. Not to mention Afghanistan right now, the economy right now, the environment right now, the schools right now.
Yes, politics is a dirty business. Yes, third party groups and candidates from both major parties spend millions on advertising designed to make the other candidate look like an ax murderer. Still it seems to me that some things are simply beyond the pale."
Not really but a good example of Liberal...
In a TV ad and a best-selling book, the boaters claim Kerry never plucked a fellow sailor from the water while under enemy fire, never chased down and killed an armed Viet Cong soldier, never was seriously wounded by the enemy, never was a hero.
What is wrong with that statement? Nothing! It is pretty factual EXCEPT that the Swift Boat Veterans have not been saying those things.
Rassman, a Green Beret, was NOT a fellow sailor and the consensus is that there was no enemy fire other than the initial mine. They admit that he did get off his boat (against SOP by the way) and that he chased a wounded VC and returned with an RPG launcher without grenade. Kerry himself admits that none of the wounds were serious although the second purple heart was the ONLY ONE the casualty report agrees with and that Kerry's journal also agrees with. A Hero? Rassman thinks so but the rest of the personnel in the 4 boats that remained in the area didn't think it so heroic to return to pick up a man who went overboard because of eratic boat handling and after the personnel from the stricken boat had already been recovered.
The issue here is not ads, but ad -- a specific campaign from a specific group.
And again the author appears to be horified about an ad funded by a Republican businessman with $200,000 but the ads funded by Soros, a Democrat, with 16,000,000 are inconsequential despite their lack of any semblance of truthfulness.
It's a matter of honor.
Agreed so why isn't he upset that Kerry cannot refute the charges (well documented in the book AND in Kerry's own journal and his "Tour of Duty" bio as well as his Boston Globe bio and Senate Speeches) and has backed down on calling his crew and self war criminals although that is what he testified in '71?
Not really a good example of Liberal. Y, thank you.
"Swift Boat Veterans have not been saying those things." . Good. I haven't read the book but I take your word for that.
I'll grant you that I've seen one of 'swift boaters for truth' on tv, and that he was only saying that there was no enemy fire at that specific time. Elsewhere on the web and tv and even in some of your own more lathered up rantings (please return the complement any time you like) there's been much much broader indictments. Even up to and including the authors words and far beyond.
So the story is(?): he p'ed his pant's, swerved the boat dumping a guy in the water, ran off and hid for five(?) minutes, then came back, picked him up and got a bronze star and purple heart for it? The toned-down version sounds believable to me. Of course, the same story with bullets flying sounds believable too. How are we supposed to know? Hell, he got the medals. Is the navy the liars here?
Ah-hum. We're coming up on 700 repetitions in dog years here. Let's 'move-on' and let the wheels turn.
Re: Democrats are Different
Do you know of any farmer who pays that wage to workers? I grew up on a farm. If you had a good many working for you, you would want to keep him. You cant do it by paying peanuts like that. Other farmers would lure him away with better offers.
Yup! Dems do a great job equating apples & oranges.
And they never grasp the concept.
Teachers and Education
Pell Grants for low-income students increased from a maximum of $2,300 in 1993 to $3,300 in 1999. These grants now amount to a $7.6 billion investment that benefits over 3.8 million students. In addition, by continually expanding the Federal Work-Study program and by launching the national service initiative, AmeriCorps, in 1994, the Administration has enabled millions of students to earn money for college while working and serving their communities.
George W Bush
Bush has cut $400 million from the Texas Retirement System for teachers, reducing the state contribution to the retirement fund from 7.31 percent to 6 percent. This, despite Bush's pledge, when first campaigning for governor in 1994, that he would "oppose any effort to reduce contributions to the Teacher Retirement System or decrease the state's contribution rate."
Still don't get it?
What has President Bush done for education? It seems to me he and Teddy Kennedy pushed through a high profile education bill. Are you saying Teddy cut education spending?
You folks just can't admit that President Bush has done good things. Trying to compare Federal Pell grant spending with state teacher's pensions is, unfortunately, typical. We don't know the background of either event. We DO know that the Federal spending increase came from a Republican Congress, not Clinton or Gore.
Oh there has been Federal spending increase
from a Republican Congress alright!!!
No one will argue that.
Too bad it's been for an unnecessary war.
Re: Democrats are Different
The only reason Clinton and Gore enjoyed the luxury to raise benefits and have lowered unemployment and all was that they were riding the tech boom wave...and administration would have done the same, well similar, things under the same circumstances.
As for the minimum wage bills...I'm always cautious to accept such simple definitions of bills like the ones you gave. The virtue of a bill is in its details, not some label a politician or biased media pundit gives.
Re: Democrats are Different
And Democrats ARE different, from my experience many claim to be Democrats simply because they resent Republicans.
Oh, and Democrats have a greater tendency to smell bad...
Lets look at that unemployment rate...
1993-1995 Unemployment Rate: 6.2%---------President William J. Clinton
2001-2003 Unemployment Rate: 5.5%---------President George W. Bush
Of course that doesn't really show that Clinton inherited an improving economy while the reverse was true for Bush. The improving economy was based on vapor however and began evaporating in Clinton's last year in office leaving very little of the vapor for Bush.
JANUARY, 1991----------6.4%---------President George H. W. Bush
JANUARY, 1992----------7.3%---------President George H. W. Bush
JANUARY, 1993----------7.3%---------President William J. Clinton (sworn in)
JANUARY, 1994----------6.6%---------President William J. Clinton
JANUARY, 1995----------5.6%---------President William J. Clinton
JANUARY, 1996----------5.6%---------President William J. Clinton
JANUARY, 1997----------5.3%---------President William J. Clinton
JANUARY, 1998----------4.6%---------President William J. Clinton
JANUARY, 1999----------4.3%---------President William J. Clinton
JANUARY, 2000----------4.0%---------President William J. Clinton
JANUARY, 2001----------4.2%---------President George W. Bush (sworn in)
JANUARY, 2002----------5.6%---------President George W. Bush
JANUARY, 2003----------5.8%---------President George W. Bush
A careful look shows that it was only the "doomed to failure" intangible economy of the dot coms that helped Clinton at all.
Re: Lets look at that unemployment rate...
and the unemployment rate is based upon how many are collecting benefits....as the benefits run out per person, those people drop off the tallies completely, whether they are finally back to work or NOT. And surprisingly enough, there are many, many people who are refused unemployment benefits if they are already collecting from any other government source...such as worker's comp or social security.
I happen to be one of those ones who lost her job and couldn't collect unemployment benefits because I was already collecting from social security...all done legally, but the benefits were denied for that reason alone.
Re: Lets look at that unemployment rate...
"A careful look shows that it was only the "doomed to failure" intangible economy of the dot coms that helped Clinton at all."
At all? As I recall, the market took great heart and soared when Clinton showed he was willing to cut expenditures and hold the line on tax cuts. In other words, he made some sacrifices towards cutting the debt and the market responded favorably. Some called Clinton more Republican than Bush 41. Remember "it's the economy stupid"? Remember Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin and Robert Reich? A far cry better group for the old confidence than the bushies, if you ask me.
Your man Kerry is so different that a wound in his *** caused his arm to bleed.
Now THAT IS DIFFERENT!