LucidDreamer Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 How' date=' precisely, did George Bush behave honorably? [/quote'] He joined the National Guard during war time. His unit could have been called into duty. Who would want to join the infantry during Vietnam? I think I would respect Bush less if he wanted to go into the rice patties and blow away Vietnamese villagers. I am sure he was scared. Who wouldn't be--only a fool. I bet he was given preferential treatment. How does the son of a congressman and a senator avoid it? It would take more character to avoid preferential treatment than most people have at that age. I'm not sure that I see anything there that I can criticize him for. I'm not sure if I would have done anything differently in his situation. The difference is that I also would not have sent in troops into Vietnam. Yet I would have been the first one to sign up during WW2. And I also would have sent the U.S. forces during WW2. But I just said I wouldn't have gone to Vietnam. Does that make me a hypocrite? The point of all that rambling is that it’s not so cut and dry. Just because Bush didn't want to run off to Vietnam doesn't make him a coward. Just because someone doesn't believe in one war doesn't mean that he can't lead another. I personally don't think that Bush is the man for the job, but I also believe that we are trying to make too much of this small part of the man's history. It was a complicated time just like it is now. There are plenty of other things to concentrate on that have more relevancy to the real issues. Whether or not Bush went to Vietnam is not the sole defining moment of the man's character. There is plenty to go on from the last 4 years that make it clearer. In my opinion his character and tact are lacking. But I don't need to go searching through old documents to try to piece together the thoughts of a scared kid to make that decision. It's just something to throw around to affect people's emotions. It's just a rhetoric trick to persuade certain people who don't spend a lot of time thinking, just like the Swift boat thing. People understand the word coward. They understand the word privileged. They understand liar. Politicians know this and they try to associate these words that have negative connotations with the opposite side, regarless of where there is any truth behind them. Honourable' date=' say, in the same way as Brave Sir Robin? And there was much rejoicing.[/quote'] I love that movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 He joined the National Guard during war time. His unit could have been called into duty. not with his daddy defending him. the fact of the matter is that the national guard was hardly used in the vietnam war and he was placed in a division that was of little use to the military. bush was going to be sent in as a footsoldier, but his daddy saved his life and let some other poor child die. meanwhile kerry decided to defend his nation and volunteered when he could have taken the bush approach (he was priviliged too you know). ah, and bush didn't serve honorably; he almost never showed up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 I bet he was given preferential treatment. How does the son of a congressman and a senator avoid it? It would take more character to avoid preferential treatment than most people have at that age. It's just something to throw around to affect people's emotions. It's just a rhetoric trick to persuade certain people who don't spend a lot of time thinking' date=' just like the Swift boat thing. People understand the word coward. They understand the word privileged. They understand liar. Politicians know this and they try to associate these words that have negative connotations with the opposite side, regarless of where there is any truth behind them. QUOTE'] I agree with your post, but the thing that Irks some is that Bush and the Repubs attack veterans when he avoided serving. Clinton didn't serve, but he didn't say "hey Dole really didn't get shot, he hurt himself" etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 He joined the National Guard during war time. His unit could have been called into duty. Who would want to join the infantry during Vietnam? I think I would respect Bush less if he wanted to go into the rice patties and blow away Vietnamese villagers. I am sure he was scared. Who wouldn't be--only a fool. He was a pilot in the National Guard. His 'unit' was a domestic squadron. The only way it would have been called into duty (notice how even you don't class the national guard as a duty) would be if the entire United States Air Force was decimated. Plus, the decision to activate the National Guard would have to have been passed by George Bush Snr. I bet he was given preferential treatment. How does the son of a congressman and a senator avoid it? It would take more character to avoid preferential treatment than most people have at that age. Pat Tillman managed it, and people actually knew who he was. In fact, all it takes is not to sit crying on daddys bedside everytime someone asks you to do some work. Even Churchill managed to fight in the trenches. I'm not sure that I see anything there that I can criticize him for. I'm not sure if I would have done anything differently in his situation. The difference is that I also would not have sent in troops into Vietnam. Yet I would have been the first one to sign up during WW2. And I also would have sent the U.S. forces during WW2. But I just said I wouldn't have gone to Vietnam. Does that make me a hypocrite? S'not the point. Bush jnr advocated the Vietnam war, he thought it was a good thing. Bush Snr is the war hero, his son is the washout. I personally don't think that Bush is the man for the job, but I also believe that we are trying to make too much of this small part of the man's history. Well, the rest of this mans life involves drug and alcohol abuse, buisness fraud and a mild spell of drooling. It's just something to throw around to affect people's emotions. It's just a rhetoric trick to persuade certain people who don't spend a lot of time thinking, just like the Swift boat thing. People understand the word coward. They understand the word privileged. They understand liar. Politicians know this and they try to associate these words that have negative connotations with the opposite side, regardless of where there is any truth behind them. That's true, it is all wild generalizations about character. Bush just seems to have given the opposition more ammunition than he can find to throw back. That whole mudslinging method of election isn't something we see much in UK politics, and it's certainly a spectacle. I love that movie. It teaches us so much about ancient Britain and the African Swallow. What's not to love Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1dermon Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 exactly, at one of bush's speaches they handed out purple hearts with bandaids...WTF...i want to hear sean hannity say how good of an american john kerry is. the reason that kerry has to keep coming with his war record is because the "swift boat vets for truth" keep making up lies. now, bush says that he thinks kerry served honorably, but yet, he hasn't come out to denounce the 255 vets who werent even serving with kerry where they are making things up about. seriously, i think only one of those 255 vets for truth served with kerry. EVER. and kerry has 7 veterins on his side, who ACTUALLY served with him. oh, and then there's ollie north. you want to talk about a piece of crap, oliver north is the biggest liar i've ever seen in my life. im sure that he would be the first to start clammoring about someone diminishing his general status(because there have been plenty of generals, its not really a special thing, he didnt have to do much to get that ranking) but he comes out of the woodwork(which he never served with kerry either, he was on the river where kerry got one of his purple hearts in ONE battle with kerry) he said that kerry go his by friendly fire, and it wasnt that bad, and that no shots had been fired and there was no enemy...HAH, good job ollie north, even though after that battle your boat had bullet holes in it. idiot. typical GOP liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 At least he didn't ask daddy to protect him from the nasty draft, then go awol like a complete pussy You must be reading this in the London press...or TV, It's all BS Bush was in the Air National Guard, he flew an F-102 Delta Dagger, which was one of the most dangerous aircraft to land, it became very unstable at lower speeds. Furthermore, almost everyone in the country respects Kerry's service in Vietnam, including all the politicians. There are some fringe people that are out to get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 no, he didn't fly an F-102 Delta Dagger, because he never showed up for duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Bush was in the Air National Guard, he flew an F-102 Delta Dagger, which was one of the most dangerous aircraft to land, it became very unstable at lower speeds. So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 So what? I'm saying that Bush served in the National guard and that his unit was not called up, which is the reason he never served in Vietnam. Also, the liberal media calls him stupid, of course, they called Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr stupid too. You can't be too stupid to fly an F-102 Also...... The comparatively small amount of attention paid by the political press to the President’s Harvard MBA partially reflects a generalized ignorance of, and hostility toward, the degree itself. More importantly, acknowledging that he learned any valuable intellectual perspectives would contradict the storyline that young W was a party animal, who coasted through his elite education, scarcely cracking a book. In other words, as the left never tires of claiming, he is too “stupid” to have picked up any tricks across the Charles River from Harvard Square. This is patently incorrect. Having attended Harvard Business School at the same time as the President, graduating from the two-year program a year after he did, and then serving on its faculty after a year’s interval spent writing a PhD thesis, I am intimately familiar with the rigors of the program at the time, and the miniscule degree of slack cut for even the most well-connected students, when their performance did not make the grade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 I'm saying that Bush served in the National guard and that his unit was not called up, which is the reason he never served in Vietnam. Also, the liberal media calls him stupid, of course, they called Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr stupid too. You can't be too stupid to fly an F-102 There's absolutely no evidence of where Bush actually was between May 1972 and May 1973 (unless you care to enlighten me). The man just doesn't know enough to qualify him as being President of the USA - for one thing, good communication is essential, and the amount of times he's just talked a load of complete nonsense is just wrong. He's controlled by the big corporations and just plain doesn't care about your average Joe. The fact that he can (or could) fly a plane bears little on his current occupation. As for the others, I don't know enough about them to comment. Reagan was controlled by his wife (that much was obvious), but selling arms to Iran/Iraq was a big mistake, you can't possibly protest that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 There's absolutely no evidence of where Bush actually was between May 1972 and May 1973 (unless you care to enlighten me). The man just doesn't know enough to qualify him as being President of the USA - for one thing' date=' good communication is essential, and the amount of times he's just talked a load of complete nonsense is just wrong. He's controlled by the big corporations and just plain doesn't care about your average Joe. The fact that he can (or could) fly a plane bears little on his current occupation. As for the others, I don't know enough about them to comment. Reagan was controlled by his wife (that much was obvious), but selling arms to Iran/Iraq was a big mistake, you can't possibly protest that.[/quote'] You cannot produce any evidence that he was not in the Air National Guard. your quote...."The man just doesn't know enough to qualify him as being President of the USA". Based on what, Jimmy Carter's knowledge ? Communication? example please!! Controlled by big corps? Proof please!! Do you think that Kerry's 31 year old military service has anything to do with being a president......That was what the DNC was all about....his great experience in foreign affairs, because he was an ensign in the navy 31 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted September 18, 2004 Author Share Posted September 18, 2004 http://www.dubyaspeak.com. with audio samples. hehe. he makes enough mistakes speaking. Compare him to tony blairs eloquence for Any other world leader. I am sure Saddam Hussein himself spoke better english than Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 How' date=' precisely, did George Bush behave honorably? Honourable, say, in the same way as Brave Sir Robin?And there was much rejoicing.[/quote'] What does an honorable discharge imply ? Besides the war on terrorism, Bush is 1 up on everything about the economy. One example.....his plan for social security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 You cannot produce any evidence that he was not in the Air National Guard. if he has nothing to hide, why is he concealing almost all of his military records? Controlled by big corps? halliburton, lockheed martin, raytheon that was what the DNC was all about pardon me while i laugh. tell me, oh wise one, did you watch the dnc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 What does an honorable discharge imply ? That daddy pulled some strings to get him out of it. Besides the war on terrorism' date=' Bush is 1 up on everything about the economy.[/quote'] Objectively look at the statistics. Compare what Clinton did for the ecomony to what Bush is/isn't doing for your economy. I'm not even a US citerzen and I know enough to realise the only positives in the US economy are in the high end of town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 if he has nothing to hide' date=' why is he concealing almost all of his military records? halliburton, lockheed martin, raytheon pardon me while i laugh. tell me, oh wise one, did you watch the dnc?[/quote'] Sorry, you got the names mixed up, it's Kerry who has not released his records Your quote: "halliburton, lockheed martin, raytheon" Where's the evidence? It's more nonsense from the liberal press. You bet I watched the DNC....Kerry shot himself in the foot, and came out of the DNC with little or no gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 It doesn't matter what we say, tbh. Your just going to dismiss it using handwaving. We are not here to try and justify our views to you, nor is your complete lack of evidence going to convince us. Your wasting everyones time, and trying peoples patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Not to mention highlighting the extent of your naivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Thales, you got to be joking. Everyone knows that the Clinton economy wasn't produced by Clinton, It was the computer boom, the internet boom and the .Com boom. Wake up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted September 18, 2004 Author Share Posted September 18, 2004 can someone just lock this thread. this is unfortunately turning into another Reps vs Dems flame war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts