Text 3626, 296 rader
Skriven 2006-07-07 14:54:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4099.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <50pra258ncq5rduhji4ki3nhh2ivkgoh5g@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <12mga2lb49rec8oc9k848ipkhl9un3eo7r@4ax.com>
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 23:15:15 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f6koa2pq4kao1nd91r2l1535oatm3k4brb@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 17:26:05 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> >And Welfare is a government program, right?
>>
>> Which makes it good or bad how?
>
>Government money is money that belonged to other folks, taken from 'em
>without much choice in the matter.

We get to vote. No taxes if you really don't want them . . .

>> >> >> despite having scored poorly on the qualifying exam, took time off
>to
>> >> >> work on a political campaign, didn't even bother to show up at his
>new
>> >> >> posting, then lied about it and had the military destroy both the
>> >> >> original records /and/ the microfilmed backups.
>> >> >
>> >> >Got proof he had the military destory the records? :-)
>> >> >Or just a guess?
>> >>
>> >> At least one former officer claims to have witnessed it. Given that
>> >> the originals disappeared and the backup microfilms er were destroyed,
>> >> I'd say there's a pretty good chance he was right:
>> >
>> >Oh? I'd like to see the story.
>>
>> Do a search. Lots of stuff has been written on it.
>
>I did - didn't find "former officer witnessed destruction fo records"

Here's a mention:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/21/politics/main644719.shtml

And check this out:

W telegraphed this in the Russert interview when asked if he would
release all the records:

Russert: "When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley Clark
on their military records, they opened up their entire files. Would
you agree to do that?"

President Bush: Yeah. Listen, these files I mean, people have been
looking for these files for a long period of time, trust me, and
starting in the 1994 campaign for governor. And I can assure you in
the year 2000 people were looking for those files as well. Probably
you were. And absolutely. I mean, I..."

Russert: "But would you allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show
that you were serving during that period?"

President Bush: "Yeah. If we still have them, but I you know, the
records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the
records."

So, we are to believe the Colorado archives were scoured for
information beginning in 1994 that would substantiate W's service
claims, but just discovered in July 2004 they were "inadvertently
destroyed" back in '96 or '97 ?

Just f***ing impeachably outrageous !

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=28200


>> >> "Military records that could help establish President Bush's
>> >> whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air National
>> >> Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently destroyed,
>> >> according to the Pentagon. It said the payroll records of "numerous
>> >> service members," including former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in
>> >> 1996 and 1997 by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service during a
>> >> project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies
>> >> could be found, it added in notices dated June 25."
>> >>
>> >> Calling Rosemary Woods . . . calling Rosemary Woods . . .
>> >
>> >So no proof that "Bush had the records destroyed".
>> >Check. Microfiche can deteriorate - incuding some that were made in the
>> >1960-early 1970s.
>>
>>http://www.naa.gov.au/recordkeeping/rkpubs/advices/advice8.html#deteriorati
>on
>>
>> (sigh)
>>
>> We have testimony from an eyewitness who claims that he watched
>> records being destroyed.
>
>So you've said.
>
>>
>> We know that both the originals and backups disappeared.
>>
>> And we know that Bush wasn't there, and that he's lied about it.
>
>We don't "know" that.

Sure we do. No one remembers him.

So no one remembers him, the evidence disappears, and we have
testimony from someone that they were destroyed (albeit someone who
committed fraud by attempting to re-create them) and testimony from
Col Killian's secretary that the sentiments in them were accurate.

Just how much do you want? Clinton sneezes and the Republican world
concludes he has bird flu.

>>
>> Oh, the witness could be lying and the records could have disappeared
>> and the backups could have been damaged by accident. But I'm not
>> holding my breath on this one.
>
>I rarely do.
>
>>
>> >> >I could likely ague what e;lse was said, but doubt it'd do any good.
>> >>
>> >> Not really: no one who served on the guard base at the time remembers
>> >> Bush as having been there.
>> >
>> >Bill Calhoun does, though there are some questions as to whether he's
>> >telling the truth about those meetings.
>>
>> Exactly, such as the fact that no one else remembers him and that as I
>> recall the time he claimed Bush was there was totally wrong.
>
>And some folks do get a bit hazy on specific dates.

Sure, but in this case he did give dates and they were /way/ off. And
the White House as I recall was too embarrassed to take advantage of
his "testimony."

>> He just wasn't there. You can't be a pilot in a National Guard unit
>> and have no one -- or only one person -- remember you. Just think of
>> the people you've worked with over the years, even briefly. That kid
>> with the funny hat that you went to camp with for eight weeks when you
>> were seven. The woman who gave you petty cash. You remember them, or
>> most of them -- may have to fish for a name when you see an old
>> picture, but basically, you remember them. We all do.
>
>Currently, not that many - at least for me, anyway.

Well, I remember pretty much all of them, as do most of the people I
know -- we still have discussions about such and such a teacher or
that guy who worked in the wood shop or what have you. So even if one
person forgets someone, others will. It just isn't credible that an
entire group would forget, save one guy who gets the dates entirely
wrong. Hell, people come up to me occasionally and say the likes of
"Hey, I'm ---, we used to play see-saw together." 

>> >> >> Oh, and smeared at least two genuine war heroes, John McCain and
>John
>> >> >> Kerry.
>> >> >
>> >> >Don't recall Bush "smearing" either one.
>> >>
>> >> You haven't read about Bush's smears of McCain in South Carolina,
>> >> which included a phony push poll designed to convince the voters that
>> >> he had fathered an illegitimate black child? Read up on it, and on
>> >> what McCain himself said about it. You don't remember the Swift
>> >> Boating of John Kerry, the illegal White House connection, and the
>> >> hurried resignation? Dude, what planet you /been/ on lately?
>> >
>> >Bush was calling these folks in South Carolina?
>> >No, don't think so.
>>
>> And that is significant how? Do you think that "Turd Blossom" and the
>> other Bush campaign operatives came up with this on their own and did
>> it knowing that Bush would explode in wrath and fire them when he
>> heard about it?
>
>Sure.
>
>That was the excuse, IIRC, used when folks illegally got the credit report
>from Michael Steele.
>
>IIRC there are folks who brought up tire slashings, vandalism of Bush
>offices, etc.
>Should we blame Kerry, personally, for those?

You're attempting to equate local political events in a national
election in a country of 300 million with an organized push poll smear
campaign run by Bush's chief political advisor in a state primary
campaign. Of course he knew. We'd know that even if he hadn't let
something slip (too lazy to look it up at this point).

>> I've a question for you, Dennis. Why not just accept the fact that
>> Bush, like his father before him, is a dirty campaigner? It's like the
>> National Guard business, a done deal.
>
>Because I don't think that's the case.

You know, my jaw just dropped. I mean, I can understand political
loyalty, and partiality, but we aren't talking about subtleties here
-- we're talking about a father and son and political advisor --
nicknamed "Turd Blossom" by Dubya -- who are notorious for smear
campaigns (in fact, Rove was fired by the elder Bush for hitting too
far below the belt).

I saw Bush Sr. being asked once about his infamous smear campaign
against Dukakis -- the chief architect of which spent the rest of his
short life apologizing for what he'd done -- looking guilty, nodding
his head, and saying "Hardball, yes."

There are endless accounts of Dubya saying the likes of "we may have
to get a little tough," even of smearing students and professors who
had bothered him in business school. And of course there are the
smears themselves, which follow the Bush campaigns the way a cloud
follows Pigpen-- gay smears, what have you. So the evidence is
overwhelming.

I assume that you're familiar with at least some of these facts. So it
amazes me that you would choose to dismiss them, just as it amazes me
that you claim Bush showed up at the National Guard, when that just
isn't possible, given that he isn't remembered. Why would someone try
to alter reality reality that way?

You'll never hear me saying that Clinton was an honest man: that
assumption disappeared before he was even elected, when he admitted
that he'd lied about his own National Guard business. I wasn't happy,
but I accepted it. It's just a fact.

Not that I'm unbiased, not that I never catch myself being partisan.
And I understand the desire to justify one's own guy and marshal
arguments in his favor. But at some point, I think you have to accept
overwhelming evidence: Clinton lied about events that might have
embarrassed him or hurt him personally, Clinton perjured himself,
Clinton was a compulsive womanizer. Johnson lied about the war, Carter
is a decent man but was a fairly dreadful president, Kennedy got drunk
and drove a woman off a bridge.

And, you know, what I hold against the Bushes more than anything else
is precisely what you refuse to acknowledge, the way they smear their
opponents; I think it's a pretty low character trait and I think it's
done the nation's political process serous harm. So I begin to feel
that communication is hopeless, since you just don't /want/ to
acknowledge what you don't want to acknowledge. And it's not just you,
it's a core constituency of Republicans, a significant minority that
just won't hear any wrong about the least competent president in
living memory.

>> Yes, I'd say that it is. Because when someone hands you those slips of
>> paper, you're receiving the right to part of the group's property, and
>> part of its production. In the days of aristocracy, the lord owned the
>> land and took rent -- taxes. As time went on and government became
>> representative, the formal right of taxation shifted to the
>> legislator. But today, the land/lord/ still receives rent, some of
>> which he uses to provide services, and some of which he keeps himself.
>> The capitalist, whether he's a Big Bad Heir or just someone who has a
>> few dollars in a savings account that his bank lends out at interest,
>> does much the same. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that
>> when the capitalist has done something to earn that right, but I do
>> think it's to some extent economically and morally counterproductive
>> when he's inherited the right from his ancestor rather than earning it
>> on his own -- out of keeping with this nation's traditions of personal
>> opportunity, responsibility, and advancement through hard work.
>>
>
>But well in keeping with this nation's traditions of private property and
>limited government.

But at the same time out of keeping with its egalitarianism and
distaste for hereditary aristocracy . . .

-- 
Josh

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about
the debilitating
effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a
lifetime and beyond
of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer.
And instead
of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

- Warren Buffett
                                                                               
                            
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)