Bush Admin. students of Nazi propaganda tactics?

on Jun 29, 2005

Agreed. Have you read Time's Eye yet? It is sort of a Time Odyssey version of the series co-written with Steven Baxter, Arthur calls it an orthequel to Space Odyssey

--Ypep, I personally liked "Timeship" better, long book though...

197

COL Gene

on Jun 29, 2005

IslandDog

When members of the Guard and Reserve who did not have the pull GWB had did not attend drills or follow regulations, they were placed on Active Duty and were subject to assignment to Vietnam in the late 1960's and early 70's! It is a BIG DEAL when a member of the military, especially an office, does not follow regulatuions. Following regulations and orders is the MOST BASIC requirement in the military!

198

-----

on Jun 29, 2005

When members of the Guard and Reserve who did not have the pull GWB had did not attend drills or follow regulations, they were placed on Active Duty and were subject to assignment to Vietnam in the late 1960's and early 70's! It is a BIG DEAL when a member of the military, especially an office, does not follow regulatuions. Following regulations and orders is the MOST BASIC requirement in the military

--Two things, so what, bush is not the only one who ran.....get it...and also, the most basic requirement in getting a point across is to concede to the other person that sure, you get their point, but that you respect their opinion, only that you still have your own, you have yet to do such... you are fighting a battle that can't be won...your're facing a tag team like debate (sucks doesn't it)....think about it...

199

drmiler

on Jun 30, 2005

drmiler

I am far from the only one talking about the Bush military service. The number of people talking about his service does not change the fact he did not obey regulations. I wonder what Buah would say if the military today did not obey his orders the same way he did not obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief (Nixon) that was in charge when he failed to get a REQUIRED physical and attend drills?

You say it doesn't change anything! I'll say it again because you must be hearing impaired. SO what? Prove this in a court of law or shut up about it. "Until" that happens what "you" and others say about it means less than nothing! Hey Dr. Bailey can I join the tag team?

200

bakerstreet

on Jun 30, 2005

"I am far from the only one talking about the Bush military service."

To that I certainly agree. I simply question, as do many in the mainstream Democratic party, the sanity in this constant bashing by folks like yourself when it accomplishes basically nothing. Other Democrats languish in anonymity, other causes go ignored, while you continue to drone on while no one listens.

It isn't that we believe you are the only one, Col. Perhaps you are the only one HERE, but the real meat of the matter is how seriously people take the argument, even in the mainstream Bush opposition.

If you are being marginalized, it isn't because you are a voice crying in the wilderness, but because what you're saying makes you look like all the other kooks crying in the wilderness...

201

COL Gene

on Jun 30, 2005

As an officer that spent 30 years taking and giving ordres, I resent a Commander -in-chief that when it was his turn to obey orders, choose to disobey the orders and regulations he was to follow. He then used his father's contacts to escape the consequences of not following orders. I have NO respect for a person that refused to meet his obligations but expects others to obey his orders now that he is the boss! This is a very BASIC flaw in GWB!

202

drmiler

on Jun 30, 2005

As an officer that spent 30 years taking and giving orders, I resent a Commander -in-chief that when it was his turn to obey orders, choose to disobey the orders and regulations he was to follow. He then used his father's contacts to escape the consequences of not following orders. I have NO respect for a person that refused to meet his obligations but expects others to obey his orders now that he is the boss! This is a very BASIC flaw in GWB!

You "still" have not grasped the obvious yet! Whether you or I respect him is immaterial! Your NOT even in anymore. For that matter neither am I. So whether or not we respect him is irrelevant! He's in office! NOTHING you say or DO will change that! And he's in until 2008! Get used to it. All your whining means nothing!

203

bakerstreet

on Jun 30, 2005

" I have NO respect for a person that refused to meet his obligations but expects others to obey his orders now that he is the boss! This is a very BASIC flaw in GWB!"

By all means, no one is saying you have to respect him. Heck, if he somehow is able to run in 2008, don't vote for him. Work to keep him from getting re-elected.

Outside that, I'm pretty much clueless as to what you hope to accomplish...

204

COL Gene

on Jul 01, 2005

The fact Bush was elected in 2004 does not change what he is or what he has done in the past. The reality is that if GWB had beed treated like ANY other officer that did not obey orders and regulations, he would NOT have been granted a "Honorable Discharge". That would most liklely have prevented GWB from running for President. Can you see a candidate running for President that received a "General Discharge", which is most likely what he should have been given. Rather he was allowed to get away with failing to meet the obligations he took upon himself when he was commissioned and escpaed punishment because of his fathers contacts. Then he is elected to the highest office in this Great counry. You may dismiss his behavior but to do so is dead wrong! That turns your back on the millions of our brave military who followed their orders even to the loss of their lives!

205

Island Dog

on Jul 01, 2005

Col you are just obsessed with Bush. You can't change anything about his service, and you can't change the fact that he was elected and re-elected. Get over yourself.

206

drmiler

on Jul 01, 2005

The fact Bush was elected in 2004 does not change what he is or what he has done in the past. The reality is that if GWB had beed treated like ANY other officer that did not obey orders and regulations, he would NOT have been granted a "Honorable Discharge". That would most liklely have prevented GWB from running for President. Can you see a candidate running for President that received a "General Discharge", which is most likely what he should have been given. Rather he was allowed to get away with failing to meet the obligations he took upon himself when he was commissioned and escpaed punishment because of his fathers contacts. Then he is elected to the highest office in this Great counry. You may dismiss his behavior but to do so is dead wrong! That turns your back on the millions of our brave military who followed their orders even to the loss of their lives!

It changes EVERYTHING! The reality is what he did or did not do in the past is a moot point. I dimiss NOTHING! Nothing tht YOU can say or DO changes anything! He's in until 2008! DEAL with it! And just an FYI do NOT EVER AGAIN question the way I feel about Americas dead! Not with the way you run your mouth.

207

COL Gene

on Jul 01, 2005

I did not question the way you feel. Your problem is that when the facts do not agree with how you think, you refuse to see the truth. I said to turn your back on how GWB failed to meet his military obligations is to say the hell with all those who did follow their orders, many of whom died in that effort! One of my best friends gave his life 10 days before he was to return to his family from Vietnam following his orders while Bush hid out in the Guard and did not even follow the orders and regulations of the National Guard! That is some Commander-in-Chief!

208

Island Dog

on Jul 01, 2005

Your problem is that when the facts do not agree with how you think, you refuse to see the truth.

That is so funny coming from you. How many times has the truth through real facts, not polls, been shown to you? How many times have you admitted your mistakes?

It doesn't matter what happened in the National Guard. He was elected and re-elected. Get over it.

209

drmiler

on Jul 01, 2005

One of my best friends gave his life 10 days before he was to return to his family from Vietnam following his orders while Bush hid out in the Guard and did not even follow the orders and regulations of the National Guard! That is some Commander-in-Chief!

What is it with you? I never saw anyone complaining about Clinton. And what he did is considered faaaar worse than what you claim GW did. Clinton met absolutely NO military obligations! And BTW you can stop dodging the reasoning I put forth.

It changes EVERYTHING! The reality is what he did or did not do in the past is a moot point. I dimiss NOTHING! Nothing that YOU can say or DO changes anything! He's in until 2008! DEAL with it!

Even though you do not agree with the above quote, it matters not!

210

COL Gene

on Jul 03, 2005

Clinton and Cheney were far more honest then Bush about not wanting to be sent to Vietnam. They used deferments to stay out of the military while Bush used daddy's contacts to get him in the National Guard, which during Vietnem, was a very good way not to be sent to fight while giving the illusion of military service! Add the fact Bush did not meet the committments he agreed to when he was commissioned in the Guard, makes Bush is far more dishonest then either Cheney or Clinton!