Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 91
  1.    #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    Uhh...Rumsfeld was in the Navy from 1954-57.
    Sorry, that was my error.
  2.    #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I think the info on Clinton is appropriate. See cause nobody cares. Kerry started this whole thing and is whining cause there are some inaccuracies in what he has been saying for years. If he didnt make it the centerpiece of his entire campaign...nobody would have cared. But he did, and now they do.
    Thats fine, when you don't have an argument, jush bash Clinton, it works every time.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Thats fine, when you don't have an argument, jush bash Clinton, it works every time.
    Thats a pretty silly comment. You brought up Cheney's lack of military service. He was legally deferred, Clinton needed to be pardoned by Carter cause he was a criminal.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Thats fine, when you don't have an argument, jush bash Clinton, it works every time.
    Actually cell her argument was valid. If we are talking about government officals who served or dodged military service, then Clinton is a relevant case.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  5.    #65  
    I am not his defender of what he did in the draft, it was convoluted, but not illegal.

    And I would just like to point out that Clinton was never AWOL, never guilty of failing to report, was never a criminal under public law and, thus, was not among those pardoned by President Carter in 1977.

    Here is what he really did (by the way I am sorry again about what I said about Rumsfeld):

    Eighteen-year old Bill enters Georgetown University and registers for Selective Service, as required by law. His status as a full-time student earns him a deferrment.

    In his senior year, Bill receives a Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford University.

    In February of 1968, the Federal Government eliminates draft deferments for graduate students and Bill once again becomes eligible in March of that year.

    Clinton obtains a Navy Billet from the local naval reserve unit and temporary draft protection from the Garland County Draft Board, allowing him to start at Oxford - special treatment that was not uncommon for Rhode's Scholars of the day.

    Clinton completes his first term at Oxford in December, 1969, and is ordered to report for a physical in January, which he did.

    In April 1969, Bill was ordered to report for induction. However, delays in International mail delivery resulted in Clinton receiving his orders after the induction date had passed. By this time, he had begun his second term at Oxford. Regulations allowed him to complete the term, but he must report for induction by July 28, 1969.

    Clinton gets accepted into the University of Arkansas ROTC program on July 17, nullifying his draft notice. Clinton would not have to enroll until he completed basic training the following year.

    In the fall of '69, Clinton opts to return to Oxford, rather than enroll in the University of Arkansas Law School. While at Oxford, Clinton contacts the draft board to drop his ROTC deferment and return to active status. By this time, regulations had changed, allowing graduate students to complete their schooling before reporting for military duty. Clinton had a high enough draft number to virtually ensure he would not be called.

    So in summary, as far as dodging the draft, I would put Bush high at the top, because he did fail to report for duty as his physical and was absent at his training in Alabama, which is AWOL to me. Clinton second because he acted like a lawyer about it. Cheney a distant third because he deferred the usual way, and Rumsfeld I take out of this discussion alltogether, learning more about his history, I have more respect for him even though I strongly disagree with his policies.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/13/2004 at 12:13 PM.
  6. #66  
    You should really come up for some air. IAs I was reading that I was even out of breath. Problem is you recount of the events is not quite accurate. Check your facts here along with supporting media information. http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  7.    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by TxDot
    I checked the CBS web site but couldn't figure out where they got the memos.
    How did Robert Novak get the name of Joe Wilson's wife? I am still waiting for that one too.
  8.    #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Check your facts here along with supporting media information
    clairgrrl you may be conservative in your views, but you sure are liberal in what you you call media, the link is nothing more than a one sided hate diatribe. The one link it refers to is just a better produced right wing one sided rantathon website.

    no wonder you can't get your facts straight, why don't you take a breath of reality sometimes and read some unbiased sources?
  9. TxDot's Avatar
    Posts
    892 Posts
    Global Posts
    916 Global Posts
    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    How did Robert Novak get the name of Joe Wilson's wife? I am still waiting for that one too.
    Huh? What does that have to do with my pointing out that I couldn't figure out from the CBS web site that I couldn't find their source for the memo? I also followed my comment with a question asking if anyone else knew what their source was? A legitimate question but ignored by you. How about an answer to my question?
  10.    #70  
    I bring it up because it is the same reason, journalists are protecting their sources. I dont like it either, I would like to know more about the CBS and about the Wilson, but it is the same situation. Sorry if I was being cryptic, it was nonintentional
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    clairgrrl you may be conservative in your views, but you sure are liberal in what you you call media, the link is nothing more than a one sided hate diatribe. The one link it refers to is just a better produced right wing one sided rantathon website.

    no wonder you can't get your facts straight, why don't you take a breath of reality sometimes and read some unbiased sources?

    I would like a list of these 'unbiased sources'.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  12.    #72  
    Actually I do like the 1st Cav Medic RAdio station from Claire's link above. It is pretty good actually. http://www.live365.com/stations/170834.

    Unbiased sources? well look at the Annenberg Foundation, www.factcheck.org, that is a good site to go to when you want to dispell misinformation from the right or the left. Check it out, I think you will like it. And it is fair, and has a good rep.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Actually I do like the 1st Cav Medic RAdio station from Claire's link above. It is pretty good actually. http://www.live365.com/stations/170834.

    Unbiased sources? well look at the Annenberg Foundation, www.factcheck.org, that is a good site to go to when you want to dispell misinformation from the right or the left. Check it out, I think you will like it. And it is fair, and has a good rep.

    This thingy at the bottom of the page bothers me.

    Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  14.    #74  
    I respect your healthy skepticism.

    Well, why don't you tell me some good unbiased sites?

    Just remember, what you tell me now, may be used against you later

    Oh, wait, I get it, you are going to tell me there are no unbiased sites, it is a trick question right?
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I respect your healthy skepticism.

    Well, why don't you tell me some good unbiased sites?

    Just remember, what you tell me now, may be used against you later

    Oh, wait, I get it, you are going to tell me there are no unbiased sites, it is a trick question right?

    I don't believe there are any unbiased sites. Your unbiased may lean one way and mine might lean another, but there is always bias.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    This thingy at the bottom of the page bothers me.

    Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center
    "The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

    The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by an endowment from the Annenberg Foundation."
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  17. #77  
    Anneberg Fondation is not anything close to being middle of the road.

    270 of Kerry's military buddies say he is a liar. Are all 270 of them fibbing?

    Gosh, Clinton's skipping out is still a hot topic. Shame on him.

    And shame on those people at CBS for what has turned out to be a sham. Poor Dan Rather going out in a flame. His sources say he did not present it as it was, mislead them, saw only copies instead of originals, that copies cannot be used to determine in an accurate manner whether the signature is original or not, that wife and son said dad did not type, did not have access for personal use to anything capable of producing the papers CBS is saying are real. Poor Dan Rather claiming that the Internet bloggers are ..........

    Fraud and since it also involved the US mail - gosh, Poor Dan Rather is ....

    It's a shame. Reminds me of a 70s song not written by Kerry.

    Ben
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    It's a shame. Reminds me of a 70s song not written by Kerry.

    Ben
    Hey Benny...which song??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  19.    #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Anneberg Fondation is not anything close to being middle of the road.

    270 of Kerry's military buddies say he is a liar. Are all 270 of them fibbing?

    Poor Dan Rather going out in a flame. His sources say he did not present it as it was, mislead them
    Ben
    Ben, I certainly admire your chutzpah, but you make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, and I am wondering, if you do not think the Annenberg Foundation is middle of the road, where you are getting your "reliable" information.

    Could you please list some references about all of Kerry's 270 military buddies calling him a liar?

    Also, the information about Dan Rather's sources saying he mislead them? I mean, do you have proof who these sources were?

    I would most appreciate it if you could, in the future, could you please list some references to your claims. It would add clarity to our discussions.

    Thanks
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/14/2004 at 11:17 AM.
  20. #80  
    Boy...it sure got quiet here

    "The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves."

    "There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals. "

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
    Well behaved women rarely make history
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions