[Rhodes22-list] This day in history
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Fri May 2 22:25:12 EDT 2008
1) I'm sure you meant you "implied" that. But, as I said, there was no
argument being giving. Just name-calling.
2) I don't know. Maybe you should ask him sometime. I certainly wouldn't
assume the worst without some sort of evidence though.
3) I didn't say I directly saw it, but I inferred from your statement
that you were implying that it jut wasn't happening. I took the soldiers
words for it that it happened. My guess is that if your lib friends were
spitting on troops, they would be careful about who they "bragged" about
it to. However, if you want to see some direct action against troop
"wannabe's", go look up the pink ladies in Berkely.
4) You kinda left out the rest of your implication, even if the
statement was true - what does that have to do with the discussion.
5) Says who? YOU? C'mon, you do know that FDR was wiretapping Americans
during the war, right? And, your facts are incorrect. He was NOT
wiretapping Americans. He was ordering wiretapping overseas, and some of
those calls were to Americans. But, if you think he's broken the law, I
suggest that you and yours get together and charge him. I suspect
though, that it's much easer for you to spew your BS without actually
DOING something about it.
6) Pete, you missed my point. You and I would probably both be part of
that 80%. However, we'd have widely divergent views of what "the wrong
track" means. Besides, I'm skeptical of any CBS/New York Times poll.
One of the little phrases you used in your quote is typical - "a
presidential election posing a serious challenge for the incumbent
party" somehow implying that this is different than the past. It's not.
Almost all lame duck presidencies are followed by "a presidential
election posing a serious challenge for the incumbent party." And, of
course (because it's from the NY Times), the information seems to relish
(and imply that's all there is to it) the "Presidential" aspects of it
all, while leaving out that the polls for Congress were actually lower.
Maybe THAT'S the real source of the discontent, but nah, can't say that
- it wouldn't fit the message they wanted to give.
petelargo wrote:
> 1) I didn't say that your "remarks" towards Rob were offensive or off charter
> and I don;t care what you say. My exact post said that I thought they were
> 'unnecessary' and I inferred that their use weakened your arguments and
> basically they were beneath you.
>
> 2) Why would Bush make his war records confidential?
>
> 3) I said I have personally never seen any hate directed at troops in 7
> years. But Herb, if you say you directly saw someone spit on a serviceman
> once in 7 years, I will take your word for it.
>
> 4) February 04, 2008 3:19 PM The Center for Responsive Politics, which
> tracks campaign cash, looks at the 2007 money-raising and finds the
> following: In 2007, the 2008 presidential candidates raised $582.5 million
> and spent $481.2 million. In the 4th quarter of 2007, individuals in the
> Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services the No.
> 13, No. 18 and No. 21, contributing industries, respectively. War opponent
> Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, received the most from donors in the military,
> collecting at least $212,000 from them. Another war opponent, Sen. Barack
> Obama, D-Illinois, was second with about $94,000.
>
> 5) oh puh-leez. ordering wiretapping of american citizens without a warrant?
> illegal
>
> 6) More than 80 percent of Americans surveyed say the country is headed in
> the wrong direction, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll --
> recording the highest measure of discontent since this poll started asking
> the question in the early 1990s. The survey finds 81 percent saying "things
> have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track." That is up from 69
> percent a year ago, and 35 percent in early 2002, the Times reports. This
> gauge of the spring of our discontent comes amidst a housing crisis that has
> rocked Wall Street and roiled the economy. And it comes on the ramp of a
> presidential election posing a serious challenge for the incumbent party.
> The president's approval rating: 29 percent. It's widespread, too: With a
> majority of Democrats and Republicans, men and women, residents of cities
> and rural areas, college graduates and those who finished only high school
> saying the United States is headed in the wrong direction, the Times reports
> of the findings. The newspaper reports that Americans are more dissatisfied
> with the country's direction than at any time since the poll's inception in
> the early 1990s. Only 21 percent say the economy is in good condition, the
> lowest measure since late 1992.
>
>
>
> hparsons wrote:
>
>> 1) Ahhh, so racial comments are OK, as long as they're jokes. And if
>> someone takes offense, the "joke is on them".
>>
>> 2) You're just flat wrong about Bush's service. Yes, he probably didn't
>> want to go to war. Yes, he probably pulled every string he could find to
>> get in the National Guard instead. That's fine, he didn't break any
>> laws. He served in the Guard, he served honorably. Jerks who sit on the
>> sidelines and disparage that are service are losers (see Rob, you WERE
>> wrong about the "nobody"). I'll count you among those losers. I'm
>> curious, did you serve?
>>
>> 3) That's laughable Pete. I've been to airport to see the troops off,
>> I've been to the airport to welcome them home, and I've ridden at the
>> funerals of their friends. They have actually been spit on by some folks
>> when they've come back. Not as bad as it was in the 60's, but it's
>> happened. One was called a rapist because he wore the uniform.
>>
>> 4) What does the monetary donations of the troops have to do with the
>> discussion? Surely you're not going to try to draw the inference that
>> because they, as a group, donate more to Ron Paul (though you never
>> indicated your source, I doubt it's true), that means it was because one
>> particular view he holds? Surely not... Oh wait, you're a lib. I forgot,
>> draw the make the facts fit your conclusion...
>>
>> 5) What claptrap. There were no crimes against the constitution. Unless
>> you name specifics, maybe should pull that particular pickle out.
>>
>> 6) Where did you get your number that 81% of Americans think we're on
>> the wrong track? And, wrong track about what? If you mean that 81%
>> percent of American's think we're on the wrong track about SOMETHING,
>> I'd say the number is probably closer to 100%.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> petelargo wrote:
>>
>>> 1) That specific line is purely a joke based on the current political
>>> musings. If you don't get it (no matter how bad it might be) then I guess
>>> the joke is on you.
>>>
>>> 2) Please do not tout Bush as some great 'serviceman'. He was a silver
>>> spoon
>>> 'bubba' that was a war dodger, period. In fact I would hold up Rev
>>> Wrights 6
>>> years of Marine service over Bushes questionable Texas Air Guard. Hey, he
>>> is
>>> the one that classified the information. If you are so proud why hide it.
>>>
>>> 3) I am connected to many people that are lefties, righties, libertarians
>>> and just plain crazies. I have yet to meet even one person amongst them
>>> that
>>> doubts the sincerity and efforts made by the our armed forces. So unless
>>> you
>>> have specifics and not generalizations of 'lefties against the troops' ,
>>> you
>>> can finally pull that particular pickle out.
>>>
>>> 4) Early in the primaries (Feb) the troops themselves number one
>>> candidate
>>> per actual monetary donation (not easy on military pay) was Ron Paul, who
>>> never supported Iraq and wants them out immediately. Second was Barack
>>> Obama.
>>>
>>> 5) I am extremely proud of our military, but not the Commander in Chief.
>>> He
>>> should be held accountable and tried for Crimes against the Constitution
>>> (the document he swore to uphold) and he is already in serious legal
>>> trouble
>>> now trying to cover his personal ass. Even many mainstream conservatives
>>> were mind blown that the President gave a tax cut to the wealthy at a
>>> time
>>> during wartime (unprecedented in US history) when documented evidence of
>>> lack of troop supplies and equipment existed. Ridiculous.
>>>
>>> 6) Finally, many of us (81% and rising) feel the country is on the wrong
>>> track. Nationalistic pride without any reflection on errors, is the
>>> hallmark of a "true-believer". Time to grow up and realize that America
>>> can
>>> and does make mistakes and healthy reflection, criticism and correction
>>> are
>>> not only patriotic, but morally necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>> Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pete,
>>>>
>>>> You wrote, "I denounce that type of angry pulpit-banging white-bread
>>>> rhetoric."
>>>>
>>>> That's the second time you've used the expression "white-bread".
>>>> Exactly
>>>> what-the-hell is that phrase supposed to mean? If it is supposed to be
>>>> an
>>>> insult then you should be proud, it's working. Please define it further
>>>> so
>>>> instead of thinking I might be torqued at your simple-mindedness I'll
>>>> know
>>>> for sure.
>>>>
>>>> It is entirely possible that I'm a "loser" and if so, it was a choice.
>>>> If
>>>> I'm "white-bread" (whatever that means) I may be the victim of racism.
>>>>
>>>> Brad
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:43 AM, petelargo <petelauritzen at earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Herb,
>>>>>
>>>>> Are your views and opinions so weak that you have to resort to personal
>>>>> name
>>>>> calling? I denounce that type of angry pulpit-banging white-bread
>>>>> rhetoric.
>>>>> The full truth is that the sign was the NAVY'S idea for that specific
>>>>> carrier's mission. HOWEVER, the White House was involved and DID
>>>>> actually
>>>>> have the sign made and had Bush positioned for maximum photo op. Any
>>>>> politician will jump in front of a parade. And Bush did say "that major
>>>>> combat operations were over in Iraq. In the battle of Iraq, the United
>>>>> States and our allies have prevailed." Bush's speech originally did
>>>>> have
>>>>> "mission accomplished" in it. Rumsfeld had that taken that out and it
>>>>> was
>>>>> semi-watered down to the above quote.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob, you're pathetic. Bush did exactly what he said he did, and you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> want
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to berate him for that. You're a loser.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob Lowe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No smoke being blown by me of course, just by Bush.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Brad Haslett" <flybrad at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 5:02 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] This day in history
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rob,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I remember the moment well - watched it live during the afternoon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> launch
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with a bunch of Navy pilots and a substantial number of Air Force
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> pilots
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> commenting on how easy it must be to land on a target that's always
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> into the wind. First, as a pilot, Bush 43 proved his stripes flying
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>> difficult and unforgiving aircraft. He earned his flight suit and
>>>>>>>> looked
>>>>>>>> good in it that day! You may have a political point you want to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> score,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>> be it. Just don't blow smoke your asshole hasn't earned!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brad
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Rob Lowe <rlowe at vt.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Five years ago, today, President Bush declares victory in Iraq
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> aboard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> aircraft carrier bearing a victory banner.
>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/This-day-in-history-tp17009109p17020937.html
>>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list