NCclimber

If he'd stayed safely on a destroyer or something offshore, that argument might have a bit of traction. But the fact remains that he volunteered for swift boat combat duty and was in combat. The claim that he volunteered for swift boat "combat duty" doen't seem to have much traction, either.

How about we do that right after Bush's criminal record is made public? Would only be fair don't you think? Why does it have to be conditional to unrelated factors?

This whole back and forth is silly. To claim an article is invalid only if all of its points can be proven wrong is inane. Practically all propaganda has some truth in it. The tricky part is mixing in half-truths or out and out lies, giving the audience a completely dishonest representation of the situation. Sometimes it's merely an omission of facts that can dramatically skew the picture. In my book, if someone misrepresents facts, especially if they present themselves as an objective party, then their credibility is shot. Just because someone is offering their opinion, that doesn't give them free rein to misrepresent the facts. And let's not kid ourselves in thinking this dynamic only applies to those you disagree with.

Tounge? I'm confused. Good thing you didn't go with foung tumble. Do you mean tongue?

Tounge fumble?

When it comes to Manic Depressive types, those manic swings are a hoot. Who the hell cares about factual accuracy? Just enjoy the show.

What possibly gave you that idea. Clinton was charged. Clinton was prosecuted. Clinton was acquitted. What more do you want? To know what were the key factors to the deal he cut, with federal prosecutors, on his last day in office???

Wow. Nice spin. On the one hand you have Foley, who sent inappropriate e-mails to young men but never had any kind of sexual contact with a minor, is now labelled a child predator and a pedophile. On the other, you have Jim Webb. His depictions of pedophilia and incest ("the man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down and put the boy's penis in his mouth") are being labelled as mere sexy fiction. Nothing more. Like "it's all good". Do I think Foley is worse? Hell yes! But let's present things as they actually are.

Here is what he said (I think) Way to take one for the team, Mr. Kerry. To those who think Kerry enlisted out of a sense of duty, don't kid yourself. He enlisted to be able to choose which service he wanted (Navy was considered much safer than the Army), only after his requests for deferment were denied and the chance of being drafted was a distinct possibility.

You just gotta laugh at this.

I bailed after 8 years in 1979 with a line number for a promotion...I decided to use all the GI Bill I had EARNED. You were up on Looking Glass Rock for 8 years?

Isn't there a physical you have to pass? I prefer to avoid the embarassment of getting laughed out of my physical. Too old. Too many broken (and mended) parts. Why did you bail? Weather factors are the only valid excuses.

Kerry tried. He just couldn't convince the draft board that playing in Paris for a year was a valid exemption.

The first amendment deals with different rights we used to have. You mean the about Free Exercise of Religion? That one's a sore spot with me, too.

While it may be true, it still showed Kerry to be the smug, elitist, asshole so many have come to loathe. He basically said - Hey, all you soldiers... you're a bunch of fuck ups". I wonder how it would play if he made similarly true (but offensive) statements about one of our protected classes???

Thank you so much. That made it much easier.

So what govt. programs are you willing to sarcrifice without being called anti ________________? Should we cut funding to NIH, NASA, Social Security etc.? Whose ox gets gored? I'm with you on cutting spending, but my point was that not all spending is bad when it goes to programs like medical research like stem cells. This whole "what should we cut" business takes me back to 1992, when that funny little man from Texas was running as an independent. He kept harping about government waste. In one of the debates, he gave an off the cuff explanation of how to cut 180 billion dollars of government waste. I remember debating the concept of auditing the federal budget with some friends. They all said it was impossible and we just had to except that we had so much government waste. A few years later we started to see some real changes. Funny how the Republicans in Congress, who fought Clinton tooth and nail for a responsible budget, have given Bush free rein. While I find the Dems to be the worse of two evils, I think a major shake up in Congress would be beneficial for the country.

I look forward to seeing studies that confirm the "success story" declared above.

Okay. How about some producing examples where the unofficial cause of death was secondhand smoke. Every year, there are hundreds of thousands of deaths that can be directly, easily linked to smoking cigarettes. Conversely, I've yet to see a study on ETS that produces actual deaths directly linked to to secondhand smoke. They all use statistical probabilities, but none (that I've seen) contain actual cases. Why?

Speaking of crappy analogies.

Trillions a year? No kidding.

When was the last time overall annual spending was reduced?

Let's ask Dan Rather.

WOW Talk about your alternate reality. I'd love to see some actual numbers, backing up your claims.

Then they should be excused for getting absolutely nothing done. I mean, four years is not that long. Some, around here, seem inclined to ignore primary points... instead trying to make issue with minor clarifications. Nice.