Could the Press Grow a Spine?

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:46:22 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes

Any questions?

Yes, but they're quibbles rather than arguments. I'd argue details of
many of those statements while agreeing with them overall.

But, then you've proven yourself to be a rational individual who
offers greater depth to the discussion than simple name calling or
sloganeering.

As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
convictions. The hard part is to rise above the pig-wrestling and
listen to the other side's argument, demand that both sides offer fact
and reason, then make objective rather than subjective choices.

Ain't easy.


But thank you, very sincerely, for telling that to your students. If
only that reasoning could extend to USENET posters...

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
...
As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
convictions. ...

It is unfortunate that you perpetuate the myth that political
questions may be sensibly reduced to a mere dichotomy.

--

FF

In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message
. ..
...
As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
convictions. ...

It is unfortunate that you perpetuate the myth that political
questions may be sensibly reduced to a mere dichotomy.

He didn't say that, now, did he?

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message
. ..
...
As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
convictions. ...

It is unfortunate that you perpetuate the myth that political
questions may be sensibly reduced to a mere dichotomy.

He didn't say that, now, did he?

Well, yes, he did. I think his words were "two opposing positions" which is how
my dictionary defines "dichotomy".

George Z.

I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH.

George Bush has neither SSM, DFC or PH.

In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.

-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA veteran
like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.

Walt

From: (WalterM140)
Date: 6/24/2004 5:28 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH.

George Bush has neither SSM, DFC or PH.

In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.

-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA veteran
like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.

Walt

Show me ONE case where Bush did that. The only people who consitantly bring up
military service are on the Kerry side. Please note how when the other side
brings up Kerry's congressional voting record your side brings up Kerry's
military service and accuse the Bush side of questioning Kerry's patriotism.

Please come up with logical arguments if you can. Examples would be nice.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH.

George Bush has neither SSM, DFC or PH.

In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.

-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA
veteran
like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.

Walt

Show me ONE case where Bush did that. The only people who consitantly bring
up
military service are on the Kerry side.

I don't have a source, but the Bushies got someone, I believe a Navy corpsman,
to come forward and say that Kerry's third wound was just a scratch.

And I know they've had people come forward and belittle the fact that he took
the third wound reassignment option.

But Bush -- Bush has a 16 month gap in his chronilogical record of service.
And the 10/01/73 entry is just adminstrative. Bush can't prove he was present
for duty for a two year period.

He and his surrogates have no right to belittle the service of a decorated WIA
veteran.

It's working though. There are decorated verterans on this NG that will
belittle the hero and support the shirker.

Maybe the reason Art's generation is called "the Greatest Generation" is
because he sees through Bush's bull**** screen.

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

(Snip)

But Bush -- Bush has a 16 month gap in his chronilogical record of service.
And the 10/01/73 entry is just adminstrative. Bush can't prove he was present
for duty for a two year period.

There seems to still be some life left in the old girl. I heard a piece on the
tube the other day to the effect that the Associated Press had just filed suit
against the US Government under the FOI Act to require it to produce ALL of the
paperwork in its possession pertaining to the service of one 1st Lt. George
Walker Bush (Texas ANG).

Let's see how that plays out in the courts.

George Z.

On 25 Jun 2004 09:50:23 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.

-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA
veteran like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.

Walt

Show me ONE case where Bush did that. The only people who consitantly bring
up military service are on the Kerry side.

I don't have a source, but the Bushies got someone, I believe a Navy corpsman,
to come forward and say that Kerry's third wound was just a scratch.

I've twice posted a list of more than twenty Navy officers from the
Swift boat program who discredited Kerry's record. A meeting in April
in Washington at the National Press Club brought together more than
120 former Navy Swift personnel who pointed out the problems with
Kerry's service. You choose to ignore that evidence. You "don't have a
source..."

And I know they've had people come forward and belittle the fact that he took
the third wound reassignment option.

But Bush -- Bush has a 16 month gap in his chronilogical record of service.
And the 10/01/73 entry is just adminstrative. Bush can't prove he was present
for duty for a two year period.

We have repeatedly demonstrated to you in this forum evidence that
Bush had five years and three months of six year commitment. The
records show his administrative posting to Montgomery was reasonable
and proper. There is no "two year" or "16 month gap".

He and his surrogates have no right to belittle the service of a decorated WIA
veteran.

Of which you "have no source" but "believe a Navy Corpsman" is the
source? That's your support of "He and his surrogates"? Your case
seems a bit unsupported.

It's working though. There are decorated verterans on this NG that will
belittle the hero and support the shirker.

I've repeatedly stated that while I think his service was minimal, the
issue I have is his conduct afterward. And, now his desire to profit
from the service and ignore the lies that he told in Senate testimony.

Maybe the reason Art's generation is called "the Greatest Generation" is
because he sees through Bush's bull**** screen.

They are called the Greatest Generation because they fought when it
was necessary to defeat an unspeakable evil. They subordinated their
fears and politics to support their elected leadership. They made
great sacrifices to defend this nation when it was attacked without
provocation and half the number of people killed on 9/11 died at Pearl
Harbor. FDR didn't have a military record in any form, but folks
didn't crawl out from under rocks to attack him for that. They fought
for their country.

Consider the difference today.


Walt


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jun 2004 09:50:23 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.

-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA
veteran like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.

Walt

Show me ONE case where Bush did that. The only people who consitantly
bring
up military service are on the Kerry side.

I don't have a source, but the Bushies got someone, I believe a Navy
corpsman,
to come forward and say that Kerry's third wound was just a scratch.

I've twice posted a list of more than twenty Navy officers from the
Swift boat program who discredited Kerry's record. A meeting in April
in Washington at the National Press Club brought together more than
120 former Navy Swift personnel who pointed out the problems with
Kerry's service. You choose to ignore that evidence. You "don't have a
source..."



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

I think you are wasting your words. Walt's postings are about creating left
wing propaganda, not facts.

Jarg