If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
"WalterM140" wrote in message ... Senator Kerry's narrative portion of his fitness report: "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIAs. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training programs. During this period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards). 18 Dec 1969" An opinion shared by few of his fellow officers. |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
"Madelin McKinnon" wrote in message om... According to Salon.com, it's one George down and one to go. I guess that's reasonable, given the fact that they're in the same boat. The economy is strong and growing, the war is going well, and gas prices are dropping. Bush will be reelected. |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven
P. McNicoll" confessed the following: Totalitarianism is a bit extreme, but a vote for Kerry, or any other liberal, is certainly a vote against freedom. Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom? I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not. Robey |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:38:45 GMT, Robey Price
wrote: After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven P. McNicoll" confessed the following: Totalitarianism is a bit extreme, but a vote for Kerry, or any other liberal, is certainly a vote against freedom. Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom? I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not. Robey I've got to find myself on the same side of the fence (for this one instance) as Juvat. Certainly characterizing a vote for a liberal as a vote against freedom is ignoring the essentials of the two primary ideologies in America. Characteristically the liberal ideology is based on a belief that government is the best solution to societal problems. Taken further left we get to welfare statism, socialism and eventually at the extreme communism. Examples of liberal approaches are things like Social Security, Medicare, publicly funded education, etc. Often these solutions are very effective. Conversely the basic element of traditional convervatism is a free-market solution, focussed on individual responsibility. Want health care? Get insured. Want a retirement? Put something away. Don't expect government to do it for you. These approaches can work as well. Trends in liberal/conservative ideology is for liberals to support the workers (unions) and conservatives to support entrepreneurs and management. Liberals focus government spending on social programs while conservatives tend toward strong defense ("guns vs butter"). Inevitably government programs cost money, so a liberal administration will lead toward higher taxes, but this is usually balanced by including some element of "redistribution of wealth"--the progressive tax structure of the IRS, for example. This is acceptable to some point as folks weigh the cost/benefit of dollars paid in tax against service provided. The conservative side of American politics, however, is split between traditional (i.e. fiscal) conservatives and social conservatives. Quite clearly the social conservative side of the ideology actually can restrict freedom as much as the liberal in their desire to impose a standard of morality no society as a whole. Good example is liberals support gun control (loss of 2nd Amendment freedom) while social conservatives support censorship, prayer in school, campaign finance reform, and a high degree of homphobia--arguably losses of 1st Amendment freedoms. The reality of the situation is that both sides run to the extremes for the primary season and then back to the moderate middle for general elections. Both sides wind up compromising to build policies that can pass the legislative process. Clinton was arguably a fairly moderate Democrat and Bush 43 has espoused some clearly liberal positions such as steel and plywood tariffs or federally funded prescription drug programs. Illuminated yet? Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
WalterM140 wrote:
Just for the sake of accuracy, it wasn't a term, it was a commitment. Unless the definitions have changed, terms apply to enlistments and commitments apply to lengths of service. In any event, whatever you choose to call it, he didn't complete it. Can you really blame him? He was the son of an important family... Yes. He can easily be blamed. One of FDR's closest advisers -- Harry Hopkins, I believe -- had a 19 year old son killed on Iwo Jima. I believe all of FDR's sons went on active duty, and James was a full colonel of Marines and fought in Guadalcanal, where he made a Corps-wide name for himself by being required to wear his helmet at all times he was not under cover because his bald head would have created a target for the Japanese that would have endangered all of the Marines in his vicinity. George Z. Walt |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"WalterM140" wrote in message ... GWB did not "earn" a commission in the USAF. He didn't go to Officer Candidate School, or whatever the AF has. And his term was -six- years, not 4 1/2. It's sad that such a person could be the CIC. Did you find it sad that Clinton was CiC? I'm sad that he's no longer CiC. Clinton was the best US military leader since FDR. The Presidents before and after led and are leading the country from one expensive blunder to another. Were it not for the two term limitation, he'd still be President--with lots of Republican votes. Cheers --mike |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:Mwlwc.43930$pt3.19824@attbi_s03... Can you really blame him? He was the son of an important family with important things to do. Paying Bush to sip around in a Deuce was a waste of resources. There was no way that the Bush scion would ever find him self in harm's way. Didn't it make more sense to use that fuel and the airframe hours to train someone who might one day be willing to serve his or her country? Bush served his country then and is serving his country today. What country is that? Saudi Arabia? Or OPEC in general? Cheers --mike |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
WalterM140 wrote:
Just for the sake of accuracy, it wasn't a term, it was a commitment. Unless the definitions have changed, terms apply to enlistments and commitments apply to lengths of service. In any event, whatever you choose to call it, he didn't complete it. Can you really blame him? He was the son of an important family... Yes. He can easily be blamed. One of FDR's closest advisers -- Harry Hopkins, I believe -- had a 19 year old son killed on Iwo Jima. What a sad waste of good genes. Wouldn't it be better to conserve the best and the brightest for building a better tomorrow, rather than wasting them as cannon fodder? Are we not fortunate that the shrub survived to breed? Cheers --mike |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:rsqwc.5822$HG.1359@attbi_s53... I'm sad that he's no longer CiC. Clinton was the best US military leader since FDR. Clinton was not a leader of any kind. He was a follower, couldn't do a thing without running a poll first. |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:8vqwc.7101$4S5.1351@attbi_s52... What country is that? Saudi Arabia? Or OPEC in general? The United States of America. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Home Built | 3 | May 14th 04 11:55 AM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 10th 04 11:06 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |