|
| Thread: Bush: Is he a hotheaded idiot or did he save us from a nuke? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Mercy_Severity
Adventuring Hero
answer seeker
|
posted May 16, 2003 09:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Typical liberal course of action...taking the easy way out, thus avoiding the situation altogether. When you can find the time to respond intelligently to my post, I look forward to reading your writings. So please tear away. Anxiously awaiting your thoughts...
I took the time to once and it wouldnt recognize my username as the same one that posted and it was lost, I would not think that you would use a technical difficulty as a base to make a point about the work ethic of liberals but your the stereotype of conservative so it doesnt surprise me too terribly.What can a conservative say about taking the easy way out rather than responding intelligently. All i have to say to you is "fuzzy numbers". Conservative ignorence frustrates me to no end. They never have a justification for what makes their way of thinking right, they just talk about how liberals are wrong. Rather than talk about an issue and how they think on it, they talk about how their opponent (in the conservatives opinon) think about it and how thats somehow tied into liberal lazyness, thieving, satan worship, bad upbringing. Using a conservative style of debate is equivilent to pointing the finger at the other guy so the audience isnt watching you.
Ps. If at times I sound like im getting angered or am seeming hostile, dont take it personally or anything this is just politics, you seem intelligent enoguh that you probably realise im not just being an snow, but incase im coming off that way to you just know it isnt personal.
____________
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted May 16, 2003 10:04 PM |
|
|
The Omnipotent Excuse...
Quote:
You know, there a hole other than your ass that you can talk out of. I took the damn time once and it wouldnt recognize my username as the same one that posted and it was loss, and what can a conservative say about taking the easy way out rather than responding intelligently. All i have to say to you is "fuzzy numbers"
Nice post. Here is my question to you, Mercy_Severity. How can you be an "Omnipitent Being" like your avatar description says you are, when you can't even spell OMNIPOTENT? 
There's a saying that goes "Excuses are like a**holes, everybody has one." This really applies to liberals such as yourself. Take another five minutes and re-write your post when "it wouldn't recognize [your] username." While you're at it, please have a fundamentally conservsative nice day. 
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted May 16, 2003 11:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Conservative ignorence frustrates me to no end. They never have a justification for what makes their way of thinking right, they just talk about how liberals are wrong. Rather than talk about an issue and how they think on it, they talk about how their opponent (in the conservatives opinon) think about it and how thats somehow tied into liberal lazyness, thieving, satan worship, bad upbringing. Using a conservative style of debate is equivilent to pointing the finger at the other guy so the audience isnt watching you.
I have an opinion about this too...
Libewral ignorence frustrates me to no end. They never have a justification for what makes their way of thinking right(left), they just talk about how conservatives are wrong. Rather than talk about an issue and how they think on it, they talk about how their opponent (in the liberal opinon) think about it and how thats somehow tied into conservative lazyness, thieving, satan worship, bad upbringing. Using a liberal style of debate is equivilent to pointing the finger at the other guy so the audience isnt watching you.
That's what I have to say...and it's true too.
____________
|
|
Mercy_Severity
Adventuring Hero
answer seeker
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 11:11 PM |
|
|
If everyone has them how does it really aply to liberals? Nice use of a cliche. What i had typed out took a lot longer than 5 minutes, and i dont feel like going through it again because ive realised, well its been reconfirmed, that debate with a conservative is like debate with a brick wall. The debate could be with the conservative saying the sky is pink, and the liberal saying its blue. The liberal could take a picture showing the sky is blue. The conservative would look at the picture and say: Look what a bad shot that is? The poor photography is a result of liberals poor sense of responsibility. Thats the nature of being conservative, close minded. I realise fully that you will be posting something after this, saying how this shows liberals just give up when somethings difficult or some other conservative slander , but i do not care. Debating with you is reminisant of arguments in the first grade in which the other person would just repeatedly say "nu uh" untill the correct person gets frustraded and gives up. So enjoy your percieved victory, you earned it.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 11:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I have an opinion about this too...
Libewral ignorence frustrates me to no end. They never have a justification for what makes their way of thinking right(left), they just talk about how conservatives are wrong. Rather than talk about an issue and how they think on it, they talk about how their opponent (in the liberal opinon) think about it and how thats somehow tied into conservative lazyness, thieving, satan worship, bad upbringing. Using a liberal style of debate is equivilent to pointing the finger at the other guy so the audience isnt watching you.
That's what I have to say...and it's true too.
Not really, you're making a common mistake in debates known as GENERALISING. IMO this should be avoided at all costs. Saying what you said is akin to seriously suggesting that all conservatives are warmongers, all americans are thick, all french are arrogant, all russians are communists, all communists are evil and so on. It just doesn't wash, you clearly do not know every person who would consider themselves liberal and therefore cannot make such a statement about them no more than I can about americans or the french.
Of course there are liberals who debate in such ways, but then again there are conservatives who's solutions to crisis rarely involve diplomacy, or who will cling to old "values" and institutions long after they are no longer relevant also. (not saying you are one but...) By all means debate that Mercy seems to fit your assumption of a liberal, but to start with an assumption about a set group of people and as soon as someone fits loosely that group assume things about them is quite close-minded.
We all of course do this to some lesser or greater extent, but I think it's better if we at least attempt not to do it too often don't you?
So no, it's not true, no more than me saying that because you are an american you:
A) Eat too much
B) Are far too arrogant other nothing
C) Have no knowledge of history or geography
And since that is not true, neither is your generalistion
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 11:41 PM |
|
|
How do you spell hypocrite? Here's a hint...it starts with an R and ends with an n
I'm so angry right now I don't know who or what to start with.
For educational purposes only, I'll start with you Damacon_Ace.
Clinton wasn't clean before the '96 election. He was dirty. And these dirty facts were known about him by the american public during the '92 campaign.
He had had a decade long affair with Gennifer Flowers.
He admitted to smoking pot back in the 60s.
He used a bit of influence to get a high lottery number for the draft.
It was these actions that led Republican strategist Mary Matalin to call him a, "Philandering, pot-smoking, draft dodger."
Yet, for all of his supposed character defects, he still defeated an incumbent president who at one time enjoyed the highest job approval rating in the history of the presidency.
Facts are facts, and the fact that Bush Sr. lied to the american public about raising taxes eventually came back to bite him in the keister.
Wolfman and Khayman, you two have leveled some pretty outlandish accusations about former President Clinton. Let's take a real, hard look at them.
First, the U.S. military is a very conservative institution. It is insulated from the rest of society and extremely resistant to change. Also, the vast majority of the military is Republican.
The military's hostility towards Clinton started with the fact that he was a Democrat.
You 2 want to make waves about him downsizing it? Tell me, what was the reason for having a 2 million strong peacetime military in the first place?
When you finally answer, "The Russians", we can go to the next step.
The iron curtain fell and communism imploded. There was no reason to maintain the kind of manpower that we had during the cold war. Furthermore, it took the army 10 years after the fact to figure out that it's grand strategy of fighting a land war in Europe was obsolete.
Clinton inherited a bloated military. We were in the midst of a severe recession. He made choices that to me and a number of other people were only too obvious.
Second, and this is to you Wolfman. The ABM treaty of 1972 expressly forbade the development technology to stop ICBMs. Both Russia and the U.S. were beholden to it. Please forgive Clinton for actually honoring a treaty.
And tell me, what is the point of a missile defense system that can stop x amount of missiles when the enemy has twice that number at their disposal?
Third, and I'm still focusing on you Wolfman. The military's policy of not letting anyone leave, called stop-loss to us, was not instituted until we were preparing for our war with Iraq.
Your logic tying Clinton's downsizing of the military to events that didn't even happen until late last year/early this year is dubious at best and only shows your pro-republican bias.
I'm just about done with you, young'un. Isn't the real reason why you hate Clinton so much due to the fact that when Clinton refused to approve a raise for the military, your daddy couldn't go out and buy you the bicycle that you had always wanted?
Khayman, I wish I could say I'm surprised at your words.
I watched the Whitewater hearings transform to Paula Jones to eventually Monica Lewinsky.
I watched an open-ended investigation consume some $40 million and ended with what--infidelity?
Give me a break.
What business did Ken Starr,who was only supposed to investigate WhiteWater, have with Lewinsky?
Not a god damn thing.
What happened between Clinton and Lewinsky was a personal issue. The american people did not have a right to know what was going on in his personal life.
What the Republicans did was create a witch hunt against a man who routinely beat them at budget battles.
As for lying under oath, he didn't.
What he did was take the literal definition of 'sexual relations' and use it to his advantage. Was he evasive? Yes he was. But he didn't lie. What kills me with Republicans is that they find his evasiveness more offensive than these famous words, "I can't remember."
Let's take a look at the hypocrites who repeatedly cast stones at him.
Quayle, in an effort to get out of harm's way, joined the National Guard during the Vietnam era. Pop quiz Khayman. What other famous american did just that? Just to nudge you in the right direction, he's the son of a former president.
While Republicans were screaming for Clinton's head about his pot-smoking during college, Quayle's personal coke dealer during his college days was incarcerated and held in solitary confinement during the '92 campaign.
Also, our commander-in-chief admitted to using cocaine. But for some reason, he was able to pass it off as a 'youthful indiscretion'.
How many heads rolled with the Lewinsky fallout? Larry Flynt personally exposed Bob Livingston's and Gingrich's affairs. He also said that there were many more but decided that he wasn't going to ruin any more careers. Where I come from, we call that Old Testament justice.
Heh, let's not forget Henry Hyde's decade long + affair. He also dismissed it as a 'youthful indiscretion'. Why do the Republicans get this copout and crucify Democrats for their own 'youthful indiscretions'?
The president of the united states is a civilian. He is NOT beholden to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He is NOT beholden to our law. There has always been that separation for our commander in chief. That's a good thing for the Republicans because I'm sure the American people would not have wanted to witness former president Bush and former president Reagan answering a military tribunal on the charge of treason because of Iran Contra.
My last comment is about the man who Dargon has described as,"One of the most important political commentators of our time." Wolfman has also espoused his virtues. This man's name is Rush Limbaugh.
This is man an evil, gum-flapping fool. I used to watch his show. One time he was telling his audience, "You know that the Clintons have a cat. But did you know that they have a family dog as well?" He then proceeded to hold up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who at that time was maybe 13.
Ladies and gentlemen. We do have fascists in this country. I call them the Republican party. Sometimes I just want to say <expletive deleted>'em. <expletive deleted>'em all.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 11:45 PM |
|
|
Did you read what what's his name put? All I did was switch out words. It was a joke, so lecture "him" not me. Thank you.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 11:51 PM |
|
|
You need to work on getting your sarcasm aspect across in posts then wolfie, it sure wasn't clear there 
Oh and I leave lecturing the anti-war and/or liberals to you and Dargon, why bother when you two are so good at it huh? The comments I made though could be turned on him yes and should be, generalising is pointless.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted May 17, 2003 12:10 AM |
|
|
Just need to bow down and kiss the toes of Gootchy there.
We're not worthy! We're not worthy! We're not worthy!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 17, 2003 12:23 AM |
|
|
Thank you, PH.
Quote:
It was these actions that led Republican strategist Mary Matalin to call him a, "Philandering, pot-smoking, draft dodger."
He's still a "draft dodger", and he went to Great Britan and Ireland and rallied protestors against the US.
Quote:
Wolfman and Khayman, you two have leveled some pretty outlandish accusations about former President Clinton. Let's take a real, hard look at them.
First, the U.S. military is a very conservative institution. It is insulated from the rest of society and extremely resistant to change. Also, the vast majority of the military is Republican.
Yes, the military is mostly Republican, and that is probably why Al Gore in 2000 didn't want to count the military's absentee ballots.
Quote:
You 2 want to make waves about him downsizing it? Tell me, what was the reason for having a 2 million strong peacetime military in the first place?
"Speak softly, and carry a big stick" - Teddy Roosevelt I think that's enough.
Quote:
When you finally answer, "The Russians", we can go to the next step.
I wasn't going to say the Russians, that is a rotting corps of a country, almost.
Quote:
Second, and this is to you Wolfman. The ABM treaty of 1972 expressly forbade the development technology to stop ICBMs. Both Russia and the U.S. were beholden to it. Please forgive Clinton for actually honoring a treaty.
And tell me, what is the point of a missile defense system that can stop x amount of missiles when the enemy has twice that number at their disposal?
I don't remember saying anything about that.
Quote:
t about done with you, young'un. Isn't the real reason why you hate Clinton so much due to the fact that when Clinton refused to approve a raise for the military, your daddy couldn't go out and buy you the bicycle that you had always wanted?
I wasn't talking about raises, I was talking about Clinton letting the moderatly-experianced group out. And setting the military up for problems later, which became apparant right after 9/11.
Quote:
My last comment is about the man who Dargon has described as,"One of the most important political commentators of our time." Wolfman has also espoused his virtues. This man's name is Rush Limbaugh.
This is man an evil, gum-flapping fool. I used to watch his show. One time he was telling his audience, "You know that the Clintons have a cat. But did you know that they have a family dog as well?" He then proceeded to hold up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who at that time was maybe 13.
He is not a "gum-flapping fool". If you want to see one of those, watch Crossfire on CNN with James Carville on it. He won't shut his mouth for the Republican guests to answer his questions. And I have said before that he shouldn't do the Clinton thing, and I never saw it so I don't know if it's true.
Quote:
Ladies and gentlemen. We do have fascists in this country. I call them the Republican party. Sometimes I just want to say <expletive deleted>'em. <expletive deleted>'em all.
That's just immature. Republicans are not fascist, fascism is tyranny, totalitarianism and so on. If Republicans were fascist you wouldn't be allowed to say what you just said.
Bort: We're not worthy? maybe you...
____________
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted May 17, 2003 12:59 AM |
|
|
Whoa! Tell us how you really feel, Gootch!
Very solid points and a great post, man. I do think that you probably spent too much time in the Wing though, unless of course, you were a mechanic on the ground side.
I figured you, more than anyone, would know and understand the qualities, characteristics, and traits that a leader should possess. Everyone's leadership style is different, but there are the basic fundamentals that all leaders should possess if they want to be effective and followed. As a subordinate to the Commander-In-Chief, I am bound to follow him, unless of course, he issues an unlawful order. I am obligated to respect his position as my Commander-In-Chief, but that does not mean that I have to respect him as a person. I would not follow Bill Clinton out of a burning building, because I do not trust his judgment, nor do I trust his decisiveness. Being a leader means that sometimes you have to make the unpopular decision and do what you think is the right thing to do, and not 'check the polls' to see how your decision will affect your popularity or ratings. How difficult of a decision do you think it was for Bush to go to war with Iraq and go against the recommendations of the United Nations and against the opinion of about 70% of the rest of the world? All the while, knowing that the lives of his soldiers and the lives of innocent women and children would be at stake? You know what, right or wrong, depending upon your stance on the 'justness' of the war, the man did what he believed was the right thing to do. I can already hear the backlash coming from opponents of Bush and the war in Iraq, so please start typing now. Anyway, that is what leaders get elected and paid to do, make those tough decisions when nobody else is willing to make them. Bill Clinton was soft, and he was a weak president. You are correct, his greatest opposition was Ken Starr, and he was made to look like the undisciplined, slick-tongued, sneaky individual that he truly was. As a politician, has Bush faired any better? Maybe, maybe not. As my Commander-In-Chief, however, I think he has done a good job so far.
Let me ask you this question, Gootch. If you were about to enter a combat situation and your platoon commander, who is supposed to be leading you into combat, is too busy taking care of his personal affairs to draw up a plan of attack, would you be worried? If he is too busy trying to explain to his commander about all of his questionable actions and unethical behavior, are you going to have the faith and confidence in him to place your squad in harm's way for him? I would hope not, but that is your decision. I am far from the smartest person in the world, and I would probably consider myself an average platoon commander; however, I am in the business of leading Marines, and I know what type of person I would follow if I was given the choice. I want a leader I can trust. I want someone who won't compromise his judgment because of popularity or peer pressure, and who holds himself to the same set of standards and principles as his troops. Bill Clinton never was and never will be that type of person.
I wish that September 11th never took place; however, I thank my lucky stars that tragic event took place with our current president, because I dread to think how Bill Clinton would have dealt with that situation. Did Bush handle the situation perfectly? I would have to see no, he did not. What do you think Clinton would have done? Sent out a memo to the leaders of the governments of terrorist nations asking them to please try and find those responsible, and if they don't mind, perhaps we could speak with those responsible to see what it is they would like for us to do so this never happens again. As I said in an earlier post, I do not hate Bill Clinton, I just question his judgment, decision making, and his ability to lead our nation.
Yes, he did scale back the military primarily because the Cold War was over. Agreed, hands down. In spite of that, the guy still had the audacity to send his troops all over the globe, for both peacekeeping missions and military action (see the list in my prior post of military action the U.S. was involved in during the Clinton era). Not only did he scale down the military, but he gave pay increases that were an insult to the defenders of our freedom and way of life. The cost of living each year was more than his annual pay increase. I had Marines in my units on food stamps and government assistance because they could not live on their paltry salaries, while over half of them had second jobs just to support their families. When I was a Lance Corporal, after I got home from work, I would deliver pizzas in my free time just to make ends meet. What was the first thing that George Bush did when he entered office? You are darn right, HE TOOK CARE OF HIS TROOPS, as any good leader would do. He got them better housing and increased their pay and quality of life. He looked out for the welfare of his men and women in his military, but when it came to mission accomplishment, he did not hesitate to send them into battle wheh he felt it was necessary. That is why we are more willing to follow him than Bill Clinton. I could give a rats a** whether Clinton or Bush is a Democrat or a Republican. What I care about is how he takes care of my Marines, because that is my number one priority as a leader. He needs to be a role model and set the example for his armed forces, and in that department, I think he has done quite a good job so far. In my eyes, from my 'limited' leadership experience, Bush has earned my loyaly and trust, and for that I respect him, not just his position.
As always, just my humble opinion. Gootch, by the way, I look forward to meeting you someday and having a beer or two when I get back from over here. Maybe we can talk some other peeps (they know who they are) into joining us so we can all laugh about how upset we would get over each others' posts on the HC message boards. Peace!
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
whinie_the_b...
Adventuring Hero
grrrrr!
|
|
posted May 17, 2003 05:14 AM |
|
|
|
you`re right about what you say khayman, but the president should be good in both aspects. but then how many presidents in the world are?
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted May 17, 2003 06:18 AM |
|
|
Khayman, reasonable post there, but I disagree with your saying that Bill Clinton was a "weak president" because he was in fact one of the most influential presidents in the global sense. I do however, agree with you that Clinton was less of a militarist than George W. Bush is now.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 17, 2003 11:43 AM |
|
|
Point Well Taken
Quote:
Khayman, reasonable post there, but I disagree with your saying that Bill Clinton was a "weak president" because he was in fact one of the most influential presidents in the global sense. I do however, agree with you that Clinton was less of a militarist than George W. Bush is now.
Point well-taken, Damacon. I probably should have chosen a better word, but you know how we military peeps have a limited vocabulary.
Thank you for being objective and taking the time to read my ranting post. I am going into lurk mode for a little while, as I have been getting a little to wrapped up in these awesome topics and debates. You guys are all rock stars and I love reading everything you write, except of course, Hudson's posts, because it makes me feel as if I am back in Western Civilization 101. Just kiddin', PH!
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted May 18, 2003 05:38 AM |
|
|
Yeah, that's what I expect from an American military grunt.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 18, 2003 05:07 PM |
|
|
Forgot something?
Quote:
Yeah, that's what I expect from an American military grunt.
I am hoping you forgot the JK! or smiley face at the end of you post.
Respectfully,
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted May 22, 2003 12:06 AM |
|
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted May 22, 2003 12:21 AM |
|
|
This is gonna be so much fun! LOL
OMG! That is a trip! I will be having a lot of fun with that over the next few days. Very cool, Romana. I can't wait to tell my buds. Thanks for sharing.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted May 23, 2003 05:37 PM |
|
|
I was afraid you'd make those points, Khayman
But first, I'm gonna deal with Wolfman.
Since I don't like to use quotes, you'll have to reread your post.
I see this liberal use of 'draft dodger'. How the hell was he considered a draft dodger when his number wasn't even called up? Riddle me that Batman. As for going overseas...he went to study at Oxford University for crying out loud. Rallying protesters? What are you trying to do...make him out to be some kind of radical? How many protests against 'nam were already going on during that time?
My father graduated high school in 1960. When a young man graduated during that time, he had 2 choices--go to college or enter the draft. By your reasoning, my father is a draft dodger because he opted for higher education. Let me tell you something. At his 25th high school reunion, he found more holders of master's degrees and doctorates than he would have ever imagined. Were the rest of his classmates draft dodgers as well?
You quote Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt didn't live during the age of the superiority of air power.
If you don't understand that our military was geared to fight the Soviet Union, then I shouldn't even be addressing you.
Take a look at your previous posts and look for your accusation about Clinton leaving us to the mercy of a missile attack. It's right there in black and white.
Clinton didn't have a direct hand in deciding who stayed and who left. That was up to the individual branches. And also, he was continuing a policy the Bush Sr. had started.
Limbaugh is still a gum-flapping fool. He isn't as noisy anymore because Republicans control Congress and the presidency.
As for my last statement, you are haven't done your research. Go back and take a look at good old Joe McCarthy. Do some homework and tell me the meaning of the phrase, "Only Nixon could go to China." Take a look at how Republicans gouged the NEA. Read into such colorful characters as Helms, Lott, Thurmond, Armey, and Schafly. Try to tell me with a straight face that the religious right doesn't have a strangle hold on the Republicans.
Now shoo, I've got a bigger fish to contend with.
Khayman, you finally made valid points about Clinton that are hard to counter.
He certainly had the appearance of being a poll-driven pansy. At times, he did lack decisiveness. Launching cruise missiles into Afghanistan, for example, to take out terrorist camps made out of tents was a huge blunder. Yes, you are correct in that.
I do want to clarify some things, however.
It is interesting how 2 people can watch something unfold--in this case, Whitewater-- and have 2 very different opinions about it.
I saw very rich and powerful people make Clinton's ability to govern extremely difficult. You say that Ken Starr exposed Clinton for being sneaky, etc. I say it exposed Republican hypocrisy. Starr didn't have anything with Whitewater. How he was allowed to juxtapose his investigation to Paula Jones is beyond me.
You want to talk about audacity? I find audacity in troops who knowingly and willingly volunteered for military service...with the understanding of the lean lifestyle they would be living, complaining indirectly about choices they made.
Noone made you stand on those yellow footprints Khayman. Noone made you take a knee before the UCMJ. You say that you had to take a second job as a lance corporal to make ends meet? Let me guess, you were married. I was there too. It sucked. But it was the choice that I made when I signed on to wear the EGA.
Why does Clinton get so much blame for low pay when we had 12 years of Republicans in power prior to him that could have done much to change our pay scale. Need I remind you that it was Reagan that changed the retirement scale starting at 20 years? He was the one who changed it from 50% of the highest 3 years to 40%.
You make waves about his annual pay increase. That statement is flat out wrong. The president's salary was increased one time from a little more than $200,000 to $450,000. And you know what? I still think that the president is under-compensated. If we want to attract the best and the brightest for the job, then we need to be willing to shell out the bucks for it.
Clinton had the military go to war and get involved in peace-keeping missions, yes. First of all, you need to strike Somalia from your list. Clinton inherited the Somalia mess from Bush Sr. You may criticize his decisiveness, and even rightfully so, but Clinton did decisively get us out of Somalia.
You can't be serious about Bosnia. That is a conflict we should have gotten involved in sooner. Europe couldn't take care of its own backyard and we were the ones called upon to bomb Serbia into submission. Do you really believe that because we weren't operating at a cold war strength and weren't getting enough money because of our president...that we shouldn't have done that?
At least when Clinton got us involved in military conflicts, he did it for the right reason.
And that brings me to your analogy about going into battle. Yes, I'd prefer my commander to not have personal issues taking up his time and energy. But, I'd prefer the commander with personal issues to the commander who is sending me to fight with a cloud looming over the reasons for going to fight.
Again, I need to reiterate the military's initial hostility to Clinton. David Hackworth, a retired colonel and prominet writer whom I used to enjoy, called for Clinton's impeachment if he succeeded in allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military.
Again, you mentioned being underpaid and being called into action. Your feelings are more or less a microsm of the military as a whole. I find that funny because when the military was called into action in Grenada, Panama, and eventually Desert Storm, there was no grousing about being underpaid. But we were still underpaid, weren't we?
Clinton may not be in the upper echelons of presidents as far as his handling of military matters. But he had a brilliant domestic agenda. He took good ideas and made them policy, be they Democrat or Republican. He was a brilliant statesman.
As for our current president, I have strong opinions that I'm not able to voice right now. I do admire his decisiveness. I do appreciate his raising of the quality of life for me as an enlisted man. But, I won't be in the military forever. I am going to have a life beyond the Corps. His domestic policy is in my opinion, awful. We have walked down this road of trickle down economics as a nation and we met with disastrous results. Yet we are doing it again. His views on wealth and taxation policies are not inline with mine. These are the things that matter to me most because they will affect me for a much longer time than whether or not I get a couple of extra dollars a paycheck right now.
And that, I think, is the biggest difference between you and I. I refuse to look at these issues from the narrow scope of a military man.
On a lighter note, I'd love to have a beer with you some day, hopefully several in a row in fact. Those nasty fraternization rules, though...we might have to wait until I put my uniform on for the final time.
Until then, to quote Dave Allen, "May your god go with you."
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 24, 2003 03:13 AM |
|
|
Good points Gootch, I tend to get annoyed at those who whine about draft dodgers. Nam was NOT a national emergency where the US was desperately in need of troops. Given that there was no national emergency, people have the right to decide that the war, or any other like it is not something they support and therefore will avoid. Had clinton avoided fighting in say WWII (assuming he was older of course) then I would consider that pretty unpatriotic due to the situation. It's also a little rich criticising Clinton for it when bush himself spent his time in Texas in the National Gaurd rather than Nam.
Bush may not have protested against the war, but in critcising Clinton for such things you are all but saying that you make the assumption that protesting against the war was in some way unpatriotic which is just wrong. Democracy and freedom of choice and specch has to continue in the event of conflict unless the country is in danger. As it was not, people had and have the right to exercise those freedoms.
Quote:
If you don't understand that our military was geared to fight the Soviet Union, then I shouldn't even be addressing you
Hmmm yes, basically the argument would be that you did need a large millitary under the cold war situation due to the stregnth of Russia, now you don't, so wolfman saying Russia is a rotting corpse of a country is irrelevant, because he's talking about now, not back then, which was your reference. Same thing with Russia, armed forces geared for a cold war In mid Europe, when they sold their tanks, deigned for the plains of germany, so low and without desert specialties to the likes of Egypt they were next to useless.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
