Re: Wesley Clark. vs. McCain


I just saw this...

Pardon the top-post but you've convinced me Jim. Let me summarize:

1.
Short of running away to Canada, Kerry did all he could to avoid serving in Vietnam, but unluckily for him he had to deploy there in the end. Once he got to Nam he did his best to find a cushy, safe assignment but unfortunately he managed to drift into a combat zone. There he collected a couple of scratches from flying shrapnel and then used this to lobby hard for a Purple Heart. Once he succeeded in this he came back to the States and spent the rest of the duration of the war giving anti-war speeches that focused on calling his fellow vets "baby killers."

George W. Bush on the other hand, bravely risked his life flying missions for the Air National Guard over the killing fields of Texas.

2.
Bush is a down-to-earth, regular, you-and-me type of guy because he owns many pairs of blue jeans and because he looks so natural clearing brush - much more so than any other dude in this chatroom (except maybe Hendryx...).
Obama on the other hand, is an out-of-touch, elitist, yuppie, who likes designer clothes and eating arugula at the Ritz Carlton while vacationing in the Virgin Islands.

Got it!

Disculpa Senora Jim Gysin, pero did you really mime the following on 7/7/2008 11:58 PM???
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:59:14 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
<victor.king1.NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Jim Gysin presented us with the following on 7/3/2008 12:09 AM:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:54:44 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
<victor.king1.NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jim Gysin presented us with the following on 7/2/2008 12:14 AM:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:55:18 GMT, Zaphod Beeblebrox
<victor.king1NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Disculpa Senora Jim Gysin, pero did you really mime the following on 7/1/2008 9:28 PM???
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 10:55:57 -0700 (PDT), Huck Kennedy
<tempehuck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 1, 10:29 am, Tom Enright <freddy_ha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:52 pm, Zaphod Beeblebrox <victor.king1NOS...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Disculpa Senora Google Beta User, pero did you really mime the following
on 7/1/2008 9:39 AM???
Why do Democrats always have to hide from their positions (gun-
control, pro-choice) but you never see Republicans apologizing for
aversion to gays, or immigrants, for example?
I hope that Dems show some backbone in this election:
"Since 2000, Democrats have made a conscious decision to avoid
alienating gun owners and Second Amendment enthusiasts, as many in the
party believe a NRA-stoked backlash cost Al Gore his home state of
Tennessee , as well as West Virginia and Arkansas, in the 2000
presidential election. In the days leading up to Election Day four
years ago, Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) even went so
far as to symbolically court gun owners, donning camouflage and
hoisting a 12-gauge in what turned out to be a goose hunt in more ways
than one.
And Obama is now charting a similar course, never raising the gun
issue on the stump except, when asked, to say that he respects Second
Amendment rights. Indeed, the day Heller came down, he issued a
carefully worded statement that indicated neither support nor
opposition to the decision but clarity on a broader point meant to
assure gun owners that he’s not a threat. McCain voiced enthusiastic
support for the Heller decision."
The Dems are running an even wimpier campaign than they have in the
recent past. It's just amazing how they bend and submit to the
Republican spin machine.
In the last election we had on the one hand a decorated war hero who put
his ass on the line and went to Nam and got shot up and down, while on
the other hand we had a guy who used pappy's influence to slime out of
seeing any action while playing flyboy in Texas (and he couldn't even
stick with that...). Well, guess whose military service was a bigger
issue in the election. Unbelievable!
In this election we have a guy who grew up as in a single parent
household and came from a modest middle-class background. And he's
being called an "out-of-touch elitist." Funny, but I don't recall the
term being used to discuss a guy from a blue-blood family who went to
one of the nation's most expensive prep schools and grew up as rich,
privileged kid.
And we have a guy who went to two Ivy league schools and served as the
editor of one of the most prestigious law journals, and people are
implying that he got in because he was black or because of his father's
alumnus status, and with his "gaffes" he's actually being made out to be
the second coming of Dan Quayle. Again, unbelievable!
If the Democrats don't show a little more spine and fight back they're
fucked in this election.
It's like a bait delivery truck collided with a freight train full of
chum just as a aircraft carrying 100 contenstents in a Bass Master
fishing contest crashed into the whole mess and the end result was
this post.

You've got to pace yourself.
Translation: "Excellent points, GBU, I can offer nothing
substantial in response, so I'll just rub my belly with one hand and
honk my red bozo clown nose with the other, while I dance a little jig
of distraction, so maybe nobody will notice."
Since I was the one who posted this "bait" as you call it, permit me to elaborate.

Why, Ralph, I'm shocked--shocked, I tell you!--that someone as
nonpartisan and fair-minded as yourself didn't take issue with any of
the following, which stood out right away to me as obvious bate:

"decorated war hero who put his ass on the line and went to Nam and got
shot up and down"

That was John Kerry. Please tell me what's inaccurate about the above statement.
Regarding your Rambo-like hero spin, you don't seem to make any attempt
to account for the fact that Kerry (like Bush below) joined a reserve
unit, and you also don't account for the fact that he only did *that*
after the draft board shot down his request to spend a year studying in
Paris. ("Non? Pourquoi? Sacre bleu!") Furthermore, you also gloss
over the fact that he *chose* swift boats because, at the time he chose
them, they were one of the relatively safest options in-country for
someone in his position. As he himself put it, "When I signed up for
the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were
engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to
be doing."

And while I don't like to disparage what *anyone* had to deal with
in-country (especially away from any base), it *is* all relative, and
the fact remains that Kerry's three medals came over the course of three
months or so, and none of the injuries even required hospitalization,
IIRC. And he was out of the country within four months or so. So
compared to your average guy over there (let alone your Rambo-type "shot
up and down" creation above), he got off very easily.

NONE of this contradicts anything I said.
In your opinion. You left out the "in my opinion" part. That's the
beauty of subjective hyperbole.
It's not my "opinion" that Kerry put his life on the line in Vietnam,

But that's not what you said. You said that he "put his ass on the line
and went to Nam." This means that you think that he put his ass on the
line even *before* he went to 'Nam, and I've pointed out that he tried
to go to Paris, and then he went with the reserves *and* then went with
the swift boats because, as he admitted, he didn't want to be too close
to the war, or words to that effect.

nor is it my "opinion" that he got shot up and down,

Yes it is. There is hearsay supporting both sides of this debate, and
you choose one side's hearsay over the other's. Therefore, it's your
opinion, not fact. There *is* no readily-knowable "fact" in this
regard, and there probably never will be.

nor is it my "opinion" that he was wounded,

No, but it's your opinion *how* he was wounded, and whether he was
wounded sufficiently to justify putting himself up for medals.

nor is it my "opinion" that he was decorated for his valor.

See above.
All of these are facts.

No, they are personal conclusions reached on the basis of choosing
between conflicting sets of information.
He went to Nam, he put his life on the line, he DID get shot up and down and injured in combat, and he WAS decorated. You might buy into what the Swiftboat campaign spewed out but there's just as strong sentiment adhering to the contrary viewpoint.
Actually, the basic facts that I point out above come from non-swift
boat sources, and all of it has been confirmed by multiple sources.

Your facts don't contradict the facts that I pointed out - that was my point.

And as for the Swiftboat stuff - I was just pointing out that you strike me as someone who might be willing to buy their stuff (now *that* is my opinion).

And you're willing to "buy" Kerry's stuff, and the stuff of *his*
supporters.

And while you start with a disclaimer that you don't want to disparage anyone's service that's precisely when the essence of your post is that Kerry going to Vietnam and getting injured in combat was "no big deal."
Because that's the hyperbole/bate part, and it would have been hard to
explain myself (you did ask, you know) without broaching the subject.
Still, I did try to keep it brief, and I did stick to non-swift boat
sources, as I already said.
OK - I can buy that.

In the end, Kerry spent far more time smearing his fellow veterans as
"baby killers" et al than he ever spent dodging bullets in Viet Nam.

You may see it that way, but I don't see him as "smearing" his fellow vets - there were LOTS and LOTS of people who came back from the war utterly disgusted with what they saw.
If you don't like "smearing," feel free to substitute "discussing." My
point is still the same on the time matter.
If by "time matter" you're saying that the amount of time he spent opposing the war was greater than the amount of time he spent fighting in it, you're absolutely right (and frankly, I don't see any problem with that at all). I do take exception to your bit about "smearing" his fellow vets as "baby-killers." Did he ever call any vet a baby killer?

I'm not sure if he did explicitly, but his comments led his
detractors--including others in the military still fighting in
Vietnam--to use the term to summarize his claims. A quick Wikipedia
search alone shows the following:

QUOTE
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions,
in the burning of villages.
END QUOTE

From this alone, and given the fact that he says nothing about safely
escorting surviving civilian adults and children to safety, it's easy
for me, at least, to see why his detractors even then would have felt
justified in using the phrase.

My position? He certainly said that innocent babies were killed by
troops, even if he never used the phrase "baby killer."

I don't know, but there *were* some vets who fell into this category. I certainly don't think Kerry ever implied that most vets fell into this category or even that many of them did.

In this phrase alone, he indicts "thousands" of fellow soldiers.
vs

"a guy who used pappy's influence to slime out of seeing any action
while playing flyboy in Texas (and he couldn't even stick with that...)"

That was George W. Bush. Please tell me what's inaccurate about the above statement.
"Slime out of" is bate and such a double standard as to be hysterically
entertaining. Or is there some other reason for why it was "slimy" for
Bush to enter the Guard but somehow heroic for Kerry to aim for Paris
and then settle for the reserves and a swift boat? Also, "playing
flyboy" is bate, as the training was serious and did invoke casualties
and fatalities. Lastly, Bush completed his requirements, so your
"couldn't even stick with that" is also inaccurate.

There is no "bate" here - it's a direct expression of my contempt for Bush.
You seem confused here as to what bate is and isn't. Bate doesn't have
to be something false; it can also just be something inflammatory. And
while what you said didn't "inflame" me (I'm a pretty laid-back guy), I
did see it for what it was.

OK - fine. I wasn't setting out to inflame anyone, but my opinion of Bush is no secret and if (unlike you...) some Bush fan *did* get inflamed I couldn't care less!

And where Kerry wound up was infinitely more dangerous than where Shrub did - you can't be serious when you talk about "casualties and fatalities" in Texas as opposed to Vietnam!
Dead is dead, whether Guard or Reserves, and whether VN or a crater in a
stateside field.
Yeah, but a couple of dozen dead don't equate to a gazillion dead.

Dead is still dead. Risk is still risk.
And as far as "completing his requirements" I'm not going there. That horse has been beaten to death - even in this forum...
Oddly enough, I'm just gonna go with what's in the written record and
ignore the hearsay, as I do with Kerry's record.

I'm hoping that you knew all of this, but I'm beginning to wonder...

Or the suggestion that one is (or isn't) an "elitist" based upon one's
upbringing, as opposed to one's current situation and personal lifestyle
choices.
Well, of course. After all Bush rolls up his sleeves and whacks away at the trees on his ranch like a regular good ole boy, while Obama gorges on arugula.
Obama's Easter 2008 locale: Ritz-Carlton, US Virgin Islands

Bush's most-recent private trip: Crawford, TX
Before that: Crawford, TX
Before that: Crawford, TX
Before that: Crawford, TX
Before that: Crawford, TX
Before that: Crawford, TX
Before that: Crawford, TX
Before that: Crawford, TX
Before that: Crawford, TX
Before that: Crawford, TX

Maybe there was a family or working trip to see mom and dad in
Kennebunkport in there , but still...you do the math.

What on earth does this have with elitism?
Elitists try not to dirty themselves with us common folk. And if you
don't know that the Ritz caters to the well-heeled crowd, someone should
fire the chain's marketing director.

Does the fact that Obama was in the Virgin Islands make him less able to identify with the hoi-polloi any more than the fact that Bush was in good ole Crawford make him more able to do the same?
For starters, Obama appears to have no clue about what folks in southern
Illinois are like despite being their representative, or that they're a
lot more like Kentuckians than they are like Chicagoans.

I am pretty certain that Obama has been inside a grocery store and paid his own bills and pumped his own gas more recently and many many more times than George Bush. And please don't ask me for a cite - it's MY opinion.
Well, hey, and we all know that opinion is as good as fact, right?

No. But you I defy you to *prove* the contrary claim as fact - in the end it's just as much perception/opinion on your part as it is on mine.
Right. And perception/opinion presented as hyperbole is bate. That's
where all of this started.
You of course are free to disagree and contend that Bush identifies more easily with the common schlub than does Obama.
If there were any way to actually prove it one way or the other, I would
gladly bet you any amount of money that, say, Bush owns more pairs of
blue jeans than Obama does.
So what?!
For starters, I'm suggesting that Bush has more places that he likes to
visit in jeans than Obama does, and I'm suggesting that it's at least in
part because Obama's haunts are less likely to allow jeans in the first
place. You know. The more elitist places.

This is the silliest argument I've heard in this thread. You're saying that the fact that Bush has more jeans than khakis (or whatever) means he is more like you and me than Obama? Please...

It's one indicator, among many.
And do you honestly think that Obama would
know the first thing about clearing prairie brush? Would he own a
pickup truck? But yeah, Bush is the elitist...

You seem to be confused by the term elitist as it's being used here. You view it based on whether someone prefers a hamburger to arugula, or the Ritz-Carlton to a ranch, or blue jeans to preppy khakis or driving a pickup truck to driving a BMW.
Yes, since elitist tastes and an elitist lifestyle tend to go hand in
hand if the person in question can afford the lifestyle.

I view it as describing someone who is so far removed from the common man that he is unable to identify with issues or factors that are important to the common man.
"Elitist" and "out-of-touch" are not the same thing.
Perhaps, but most elitists do tend to be out-of-touch *because* of their elitism.

Yeah, I'd tend to agree with that. But in Bush's case, I'd still insist
that if he's out of touch to some degree, it's because of his job, not
because of his personal lifestyle beyond the job.

Again, the guy isn't faking his lifestyle in Crawford. You can tell
when a person is out of his depth and faking it, and Bush looks natural
in that setting, and more competent than I would be when clearing brush,
etc.
Having said that,
I don't think he's either one, or at least no more of the latter than
one would expect from someone who's had his job for the last seven-plus
years and has had a lot on his plate during that time.

Do you have any examples that signify this out-of-touch business?

No more or no less than you have about Obama. We're back to opinions again.
True enough. At least you're not calling yours "facts" anymore.
Or the fact that Obama's frequent gaffes are somehow not comparable to
Quayle's.

They are not. Quayle was a certified dumnass, Obama is not.
Even though (in just the most recent example) he misstates the "first
lines" of the Declaration of Independence.

Are you serious - you think someone with a law degree from Harvard is actually unaware of this?
Based on what he said and my understanding of English, yes.
Sorry - I completely disagree.

Fair enough.


--
I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis.
I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.
.