Are the Republicans hypocrites when it comes to Rush?

[PuppetMaster]

The below thread had me thinking, if the Repubicans truely feel as strongly about drugs as they say they do, then why hasnt Bush and other strong-hold republicans come out publically and condemn Rush for his addiction? Why havent they hit him with the book? Why not make an example out of him, show that no one is above the law. Show just how serious they are about the drug war?

But none of this happened. So it is almost as if George and John A. are laughing behind our backs.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The below thread had me thinking, if the Repubicans truely feel as strongly about drugs as they say they do, then why hasnt Bush and other strong-hold republicans come out publically and condemn Rush for his addiction? Why havent they hit him with the book? Why not make an example out of him, show that no one is above the law. Show just how serious they are about the drug war?

But none of this happened. So it is almost as if George and John A. are laughing behind our backs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should take a refresher course in criminal law. Rush is being investigated by the state of Florida not for a Federal crime. Additionally in case you missed it he is being prosecuted for a crime (Dr. shopping) that is rarely (if ever) prosecuted criminally in Florida.

Wake

[adios]

If Limbaugh was anything more than a self appointed Republican guru, I'd say yes. But since that's all he is I vote no.

[Taxman]

That is a completely irrelevant argument. I'm inclined to disagree that prominent party leaders should comdemn Rush for the same reasons that adios gave: he's nothing more than a self proclaimed Republican guru. Nevertheless, nitpicking about minor points that are not related to the spirit of the question is no way to respond to it. This seems to be a common practice for you.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
That is a completely irrelevant argument. I'm inclined to disagree that prominent party leaders should comdemn Rush for the same reasons that adios gave: he's nothing more than a self proclaimed Republican guru. Nevertheless, nitpicking about minor points that are not related to the spirit of the question is no way to respond to it. This seems to be a common practice for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taxman WTF are you talking about? Just mumbling in the dark again? If you have a relevant comment please do not be so cryptic, spell it out where it can be easily understood.

[Taxman]

Here we go again.

[Utah]

Are you refering to the type of hypocracy where the Democrats are blasting Bush for not serving in the military well enough but they were fine will Clinton avoiding service all together?

I don't think that I have heard a single Republican or conservative that has asked for Rush to be treated special. If I am wrong please point out one. If the ACLU is correct, not a single person has ever been prosecuted in Florida for what Rush supposedly did.

then why hasnt Bush and other strong-hold republicans come out publically and condemn Rush for his addiction?

Please give me one person that the Republicans have ever publically condemned for drug use.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you refering to the type of hypocracy where the Democrats are blasting Bush for not serving in the military well enough but they were fine will Clinton avoiding service all together?


[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that Clinton had a high draft number and was never drafted. Yet I have heard him called a draft dodger. Huh? Bush, like Quayle, used his daddy's influence to get accepted in the Guard, probably to avoid being drafted and sent to Nam. What's more, the complaints about Bush are not only that he benefitted from this influence, but also that he didn't do that duty, and avoided much of his responsibilites. The insults to injury are the alleged lies that brought us to war and the prancing around on that aircraft carrier dressed like a service man claiming victory (yet more GIs have been killed afterwards).

I don't know what the actual facts are but the allegations against Bush are far worse than those against Clinton.

An interesting web site that shows which politicians served and which did not. It's from the point of view of the left, so you may want to ignore some of the "opinions" contained therin. But it does show their military service and you will be surprised how many in the Republican leadership did not serve! So much for the self proclaimed patriots.

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you refering to the type of hypocracy where the Democrats are blasting Bush for not serving in the military well enough but they were fine will Clinton avoiding service all together?


[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that Clinton had a high draft number and was never drafted. Yet I have heard him called a draft dodger. Huh? Bush, like Quayle, used his daddy's influence to get accepted in the Guard, probably to avoid being drafted and sent to Nam. What's more, the complaints about Bush are not only that he benefitted from this influence, but also that he didn't do that duty, and avoided much of his responsibilites. The insults to injury are the alleged lies that brought us to war and the prancing around on that aircraft carrier dressed like a service man claiming victory (yet more GIs have been killed afterwards).

You really should get your facts straight regarding Bill Clinton and his professional application of draft dodging 101. See the letter at the bottom of this post:

I don't know what the actual facts are but the allegations against Bush are far worse than those against Clinton.

In that case perhaps you should refrain from commenting. Just yesterday dental records were released showing dental work Lt. Bush received in Alabama during his duty there. One of his fellow guardsman also spoke on national TV stating Lt. Bush was present for 100% of his drills.

An interesting web site that shows which politicians served and which did not. It's from the point of view of the left, so you may want to ignore some of the "opinions" contained therin. But it does show their military service and you will be surprised how many in the Republican leadership did not serve! So much for the self proclaimed patriots.

I served my country in Vietnam and do not begrugde those who chose either the reserves or the Guard. Why should you?

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton Draft Dodging Explanation Letter

Dear Colonel Holmes,

I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have had to have some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to England I have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to say. First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been. One thing which made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat palatable to me was my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, it seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC. Let me try to explain.

As you know, I worked for two years in a very minor position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary, but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I did not take the matter lightly, but studied it carefully, and there was a time when not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did. I have written and spoken and marched against the war. One of the national organizers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a close friend of mine. After I left Arkansas last summer, I went to Washington to work in the national headquarters of the Moratorium, then to England to organize the Americans here for demonstrations here October 15th and November 16th.

Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did not begin to consider separately until early 1968. For a law seminar at Georgetown I wrote a paper on the legal arguments for and against allowing, within the Selective Service System, the classification of selective conscientious objection, for those opposed to participation in a particular war, not simply to, quote, participation in war in any form, end quote. From my work I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.

The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea, an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above.

Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe die for their country, that is, the particular policy of a particular government, right or wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a letter which I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I know. His country needs men like him more than they know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.

The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do not think our system of government is by definition corrupt, however dangerous and inadequate it has been in recent years (the society may be corrupt, but that is not the same thing, and if that is true we are all finished anyway).

When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against, and that is why I contacted you. ROTC was the one way left in which I could possibly, but not positively, avoid both Vietnam and resistance. Going on with my education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to join ROTC. I am back here, and would have been at Arkansas Law School, because there is nothing else I can do. In fact, I would like to have been able to take a year out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some community action project and in the process to decide whether to attend law school or graduate school and how to be putting what I have learned to use. But the particulars of my personal life are not nearly as important to me as the principles involved.

After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect myself from physical harm. Also, I began to think I had deceived you, not by lies - there were none - but by failing to tell you all the things I'm writing now. I doubt that I had the mental coherence to articulate them then. At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1 - D deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of self-regard and self-confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by eating compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally on September 12th, I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying to help me in a case where he really couldn't, and stating that I couldn't do the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.







[Note: After the draft letter, below, there is a transcript of a February 1992 Nightline program in which then-Governor Bill Clinton discusses the controversial draft letter with Ted Koppel.]
"Dear Colonel Holmes,

I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have had to have some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to England I have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to say. First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been. One thing which made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat palatable to me was my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, it seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC. Let me try to explain.

As you know, I worked for two years in a very minor position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary, but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I did not take the matter lightly, but studied it carefully, and there was a time when not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did. I have written and spoken and marched against the war. One of the national organizers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a close friend of mine. After I left Arkansas last summer, I went to Washington to work in the national headquarters of the Moratorium, then to England to organize the Americans here for demonstrations here October 15th and November 16th.



After one week of answering questions about allegations of draft-dodging and one week before the New Hampshire primary, a letter surfaces in which a young Bill Clinton thanks a colonel for "saving me from the draft."Clinton defends the letter and questions the motives of his accusers. (2/12/92)




Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did not begin to consider separately until early 1968. For a law seminar at Georgetown I wrote a paper on the legal arguments for and against allowing, within the Selective Service System, the classification of selective conscientious objection, for those opposed to participation in a particular war, not simply to, quote, participation in war in any form, end quote. From my work I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.

The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea, an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above.

Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe die for their country, that is, the particular policy of a particular government, right or wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a letter which I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I know. His country needs men like him more than they know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.

The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do not think our system of government is by definition corrupt, however dangerous and inadequate it has been in recent years (the society may be corrupt, but that is not the same thing, and if that is true we are all finished anyway).

When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against, and that is why I contacted you. ROTC was the one way left in which I could possibly, but not positively, avoid both Vietnam and resistance. Going on with my education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to join ROTC. I am back here, and would have been at Arkansas Law School, because there is nothing else I can do. In fact, I would like to have been able to take a year out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some community action project and in the process to decide whether to attend law school or graduate school and how to be putting what I have learned to use. But the particulars of my personal life are not nearly as important to me as the principles involved.

After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect myself from physical harm. Also, I began to think I had deceived you, not by lies - there were none - but by failing to tell you all the things I'm writing now. I doubt that I had the mental coherence to articulate them then. At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1 - D deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of self-regard and self-confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by eating compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally on September 12th, I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying to help me in a case where he really couldn't, and stating that I couldn't do the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.

I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it on me every day until I got on the plane to return to England. I didn't mail the letter because I didn't see, in the end, how my going in the Army and maybe going to Vietnam would achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished myself and gotten what I deserved. So I came back to England to try to make something of this second year of my Rhodes scholarship.

And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal. Forgive the length of this letter. There was much to say. There is still a lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Colonel Jones for me. Merry Christmas.

Sincerely,

Bill Clinton"

[Utah]

You really should get your facts straight

George Rice [or submit any liberal's name] says,

"Don't confuse me with the facts! I'm a liberal!"

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
In that case perhaps you should refrain from commenting. Just yesterday dental records were released showing dental work Lt. Bush received in Alabama during his duty there. One of his fellow guardsman also spoke on national TV stating Lt. Bush was present for 100% of his drills.


[/ QUOTE ]

He had dental work done while he was stationed in Alabama. I'm not sure this proves anything other that he was in Alabama while he was stationed there. The fellow guardsman is more to the point. I am a little skeptical that someone would remember something like that 30 years later. That Bush was at drills, sure. 100% of his drills? How could he remember something like that. How does he know what drills Bush was scheduled for? Seems to me it would have been more credible if the "witness" claimed that he saw Bush participating at drills while the witness was there, and gave the dates the witness was there. THAT would be something someone might remember. Whether someone else participated in 100% of their drills is something that the average person would hardly know, let alone remember.

Of course everything may be on the up and up. The thing that bothers me about the whole thing is that Bush and his supporters are vague about what they say about it. They use Clintonesk explanations. When asked about it Bush falls back on "I did my duty" and that he received an honorable discharge. And.....?

If Bush just says that he participated in all of his responsibilities as required and when scheduled, the whole thing would go away, if substanciated. Or if he claimed he missed a few and made them up later and explained it, fine. But he won't do that. He's keeping the thing going himself. And everyone is wondering why? The only thing that makes sense is that he feels that being ambiguous is better than telling the full truth or lying about it (being caught lying is worst of all). This may not be accurate, but many people get that impression. At the very least it's bad politics.

[ QUOTE ]
I served my country in Vietnam and do not begrugde those who chose either the reserves or the Guard. Why should you?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. Many of them were called into service. But the fact of the matter is that many chose the reserves or the Guard to minimize the chances they would go to battle. And I don't blame them. If I was a few years older I would have had to make a similar choice (compare that with today where there is no such benefit of joining the reserves or the Guard and those who do so are doing it solely to serve their country above and beyond). But this is the problem. Very few were accepted into these positions and the rest had to take their chances with the draft. If some used connections to get preferred treatment, then others who would have otherwise been appointed to these reserves and Guard positions were drafted and sent to Viet Nam. Some of them were killed or wounded. Do you see the problem? In other words, some had to roll the dice, and for others the dice were fixed in their favor and others lost in their place.

Also, the point of showing who served and who didn't wasn't to disparage the reserves or Guard. It's that if you ask the average person on the street who was more likely to have served his nation in time of war, they would assume the republican leadership, when if fact more of the democratric leadership served. Given the republican attitude towards the military I'm left wondering if they only love the military when it's someone else's butt on the line.

On to the Clinton letters.

[ QUOTE ]
First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft,

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton acknowleges that he was saved form the draft.

[ QUOTE ]
The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

His motivations revealed. A sign of things to come.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally on September 12th, I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying to help me in a case where he really couldn't, and stating that I couldn't do the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

He recants and requests to be drafted.

This letter speaks for itself and is no doubt damaging with respect to avoiding the draft. Not quite draft dodging though. He somehow talks his way into getting a 1-D deferrment (under what justification we don't know--the ROTC?). Then he dicides he wants to be drafted, possibly for future political points. But you have to give him some credit for doing it all on his own. In my eyes it's a notch or two higher than your daddy pulling strings for you to get a position that looks good on paper but risks very little.

[George Rice]

I'm always open to facts. But I can see through BS fairly well. So don't quote BS and half-facts to me and expect me to buy your song and dance. No sale.

[Cyrus]

Once again you pretend not to understand. Most disingenuous.

Well, it's actually very simple : The question is why didn't the Republican Party blowhards denounce Rush Limbaugh when his drug abuse came out? It is irrelevant whether Rush was indicted, arrested, prosecuted or jumped bail. Completely irrelevant! The GOPsters should have denounced Rush in any case, if they were indeed true to their ideology.

(It's a rhetorical question, Wakey. I know that the Republican blowhards cannot denounce a fellow hypocrite.)

Take care.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is why didn't the Republican Party blowhards denounce Rush Limbaugh when his drug abuse came out?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should they?

[ QUOTE ]
It is irrelevant whether Rush was indicted, arrested, prosecuted or jumped bail. Completely irrelevant!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok

[ QUOTE ]
The GOPsters should have denounced Rush in any case, if they were indeed true to their ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]

To what GOPsters are you referring to? President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Senator Frist for example? Should there have been commentary by journalists? The posters on this forum? Whom?

[adios]

My take on your apparent vexation over commentary regarding Clinton is that his record regarding Viet Nam and the draft don't preclude him from being a patriot. I agree with that point if that's indeed what it is. I think the same goes for Bush.

[George Rice]

If he avoided the draft then he avoided the draft. I could give a damn if Clinton or Bush consider themselves patriots. I, for one, don't think in those terms. It's just a label people wear to prove they're superior to "non patriots", whatever that is.

[Utah]

The question is why didn't the Republican Party blowhards denounce Rush Limbaugh when his drug abuse came out?

Hm.....you mean the way the liberals and democrats denounced Clinton for banging an intern on the job, committing adultry, dragging their party through the mud, lying to the American Public, trying to destory a woman's life, and committing a felony?

Yeah, those Democrats were vicious!!! Of course, Clinton didn't hold as high a position as Rush. I mean, Rush is a radio commentator and Clinton was only the president on the United States.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
you mean the way the liberals and democrats denounced Clinton

[/ QUOTE ]

But they did. They just didn't kick him out of office. Were you asleep?

[adios]

You originally wrote in which you used the term patriots:

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting web site that shows which politicians served and which did not. It's from the point of view of the left, so you may want to ignore some of the "opinions" contained therin. But it does show their military service and you will be surprised how many in the Republican leadership did not serve! So much for the self proclaimed patriots.

[/ QUOTE ]

The implication to me in your use of the word patriot that people who didn't serve in the military are hypicritical if they proclaim themselves patriots especially if they denigrate Clinton for not serving.

You replied to my post in part:

[ QUOTE ]
I could give a damn if Clinton or Bush consider themselves patriots. I, for one, don't think in those terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're the one who used the term in criticizing those who didn't serve. So apparently you do think in those terms at least you have some notion of what patriotic actions should be, at least that's how I read your post. If you judge someone as a hypocrite for their actions then IMO you must believe there is an alternative course of actions where you wouldn't judge them that way. If you think some Republicans are being hypocritical for calling themselves patriots when they don't fess up to their military obligations and/or seek special treatment, then in order for one to truly call themselves a patriot then they must fess up to their obligations and refrain from seeking special treatment. If you don't care that someone calls themselves a patriot or think it doesn't matter why criticize? I think you made a good point but I can see your intolerance for viewpoints that don't match your own.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
But you're the one who used the term in criticizing those who didn't serve. So apparently you do think in those terms at least you have some notion of what patriotic actions should be, at least that's how I read your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally, I don't care who served or not (I didn't). But lately (since 9/11) many, mostly republicans, have been falling all over themselves praising the military and pressuring others to do the same or be considered something less than a full american--sometimes accusing others who also praise the millitary of not being sincere. And I find it hypocritical that people who do this avoided serving themselves, or finagled a "safer" way to serve. I assumed those who are so pro-military have always been that way, or at least most have always been that way.

[ QUOTE ]
The implication to me in your use of the word patriot that people who didn't serve in the military are hypicritical if they proclaim themselves patriots especially if they denigrate Clinton for not serving.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or if they imply that, whether or not they use the term patriot. Clinton was not relevant. That paragraph was meant as an aside.

[ QUOTE ]
If you judge someone as a hypocrite for their actions then IMO you must believe there is an alternative course of actions where you wouldn't judge them that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

The alternate course of action would be to shut up if you did the same thing you're criticizing someone else for doing. So your opinion would be right in that sense.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think some Republicans are being hypocritical for calling themselves patriots when they don't fess up to their military obligations and/or seek special treatment, then in order for one to truly call themselves a patriot then they must fess up to their obligations and refrain from seeking special treatment.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, to call themselves patriots they should have acted the way they deem patriots would act. If they didn't and are claiming they've changed, fine, fess up and don't criticize others who did the same.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't care that someone calls themselves a patriot or think it doesn't matter why criticize?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they run my country and I have to live with their decisions, prejudices and politics. And they try to prevent others from getting their power by asking us to hold them to higher standards than they could survive themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you made a good point but I can see your intolerance for viewpoints that don't match your own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. But your conclusion applies only if you define intolerance as being critical of something else. I don't. I think I am more tolerant that most people I know. I may not embrace different opinions like I do my own, but that's not intolerance.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Generally, I don't care who served or not (I didn't).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok

[ QUOTE ]
But lately (since 9/11) many, mostly republicans, have been falling all over themselves praising the military and pressuring others to do the same or be considered something less than a full american--sometimes accusing others who also praise the millitary of not being sincere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but this is what's called a loaded statement. How many is many? Really it's just your impression with no quantification. IMO what you're stating is how you feel about something which is fine but your statement comes across as you stating that it's an incontrovertible fact. Some would call that arrogance. For instance I haven't read or heard any statements from Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, or Rumsfeld making such statements that you claim many Republicans are making. Do you have any data to back it up?

[ QUOTE ]
Or if they imply that, whether or not they use the term patriot. Clinton was not relevant. That paragraph was meant as an aside.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok then I stand corrected and I then interpret it as a cheap shot at Republicans in general.

[ QUOTE ]
The alternate course of action would be to shut up if you did the same thing you're criticizing someone else for doing. So your opinion would be right in that sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
No, to call themselves patriots they should have acted the way they deem patriots would act. If they didn't and are claiming they've changed, fine, fess up and don't criticize others who did the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you point me to the place where it is stated that Republicans say how a patriot should act? Where does George Bush or any member of his administration state how a patriot should act? In fact can you point me to a place where a leading Republican stated that anyone who didn't serve in the military is not a patriot? Again it's your impression and opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
Because they run my country and I have to live with their decisions, prejudices and politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean our country don't you? And Democrats have no influence on decisions made at any level of government? That's baloney Democrats influence decisions and policies at all levels of government.

[ QUOTE ]
And they try to prevent others from getting their power by asking us to hold them to higher standards than they could survive themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? For instance how does Bush do this?

[ QUOTE ]
But your conclusion applies only if you define intolerance as being critical of something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

No what I mean is that my impression of you is that you fail to acknowledge the opinions and ideas that differ from yours may indeed be reasonable and valid.

[ QUOTE ]
I may not embrace different opinions like I do my own, but that's not intolerance.

[/ QUOTE ]

True but failing to acknowledge that someone else with a reasonable arguement and/or discourse that differs from yours may have validity is intolerance. I may be wrong but that's my impression of you. You don't seem to acknowledge reasonable arguements that don't share your point of view.

[George Rice]

This is all getting rather absurd.

You have no idea what ideas that differ from mine that I may or may have not have given validity. My life didn't start with the last few posts I made.


[ QUOTE ]
For instance I haven't read or heard any statements from Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, or Rumsfeld making such statements that you claim many Republicans are making. Do you have any data to back it up?

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't heard them praise the troops? Also, not all republicans are in the administration. Not all republicans hold national office. Not all republicans hold elected office. I wasn't informed that I was required to submit data to you to express my opinions on this forum. Next time I'll keep records for you--not.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO what you're stating is how you feel about something which is fine but your statement comes across as you stating that it's an incontrovertible fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm stating my opinions and impressions. Aren't we all? I'm not privy to all the facts and neither are you (unless you're in the inner circle). Also, I have to determine which "facts" are really facts, and which are exagerrations or lies. And I watch and hear politions and pundits and get an impression of their biases and prejudices. They usually don't come out and say it.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok then I stand corrected and I then interpret it as a cheap shot at Republicans in general.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interpret it any way you like. That's your right. But it's my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
You mean our country don't you? And Democrats have no influence on decisions made at any level of government? That's baloney Democrats influence decisions and policies at all levels of government.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I meant my country. I have no idea where you live (you hide both your name and location). And where have I stated that democrats don't influence government?


[ QUOTE ]
No what I mean is that my impression of you is that you fail to acknowledge the opinions and ideas

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
True but failing to acknowledge that someone else with a reasonable arguement and/or discourse that differs from yours may have validity is intolerance. I may be wrong but that's my impression of you. You don't seem to acknowledge reasonable arguements that don't share your point of view.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your impressions of me are based on your impression that I fail to acknowledge reasonable agrument . . . What reasonable arguments you're talking about, I have no idea. You are a funny guy.

My impression of you is that you like to be contrary. It wouldn't matter what I said. The only opinion you expressed on this thread not directed at me was:

[ QUOTE ]
If Limbaugh was anything more than a self appointed Republican guru, I'd say yes. But since that's all he is I vote no.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that I disagreed with that. Frankly, his drug use just demonstrates that he's a hipocrite, which most unbiased people knew already. If he broke any laws he should be treated the same as anyone else.

And if you don't agree with that I don't care. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I have to determine which "facts" are really facts, and which are exagerrations or lies.

[/ QUOTE ]

George I have found your main problem. Facts are facts whether you believe them or not.

Wake

[George Rice]

Facts are facts. What an observation. I suppose you believe everything you're told. Or believe what YOU want to believe and expect everyone else to believe the same as you.

Have you ever been lied to, or had a "fact" exaggerrated to you?

Someone once said not to believe anything you hear and only half of what you see. There's some truth in that.

[ QUOTE ]
George I have found your main problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, but you have exposed one of yours.

[Wake up CALL]

George discussing a subject with you is about as useful as paying attention to Cyrus. Have a great life.

Wake

[George Rice]

Sorry I'm not buying your BS. But hey, others might. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Chris Villalobos]

This is slightly off subject, but don't we all believe that the biggest reason the "Drug War" is still running is because there are so many powerful people in the US government that make their living off it. How much of our tax money for law enforcement goes to drug prohibition? 70%, 80%?

I'm all for letting adults turn themselves into "Druggies" if that is what they want to do, just as long as they know the consequences.

Chris V

[George Rice]

Newbie? Chris, you used to post all the time way back when. Welcome back!

[dandy_don]

[ QUOTE ]
if the Repubicans truely feel as strongly about drugs as they say they do, then why hasnt Bush and other strong-hold republicans come out publically and condemn Rush for his addiction?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a conservative, I was troubled by his addiction, but I also understand that his addiction to "prescription drugs" came from the prescribed use of these drugs following multiple surgeries. This happens and he wasn't the first or the last to get addicted this way. I don't believe he was using drugs to "escape life's everyday problems".

Why is it that conservatives should scold their leaders for wrongful actions (i.e. drug use, adultery, draft dodging, etc.) and liberals are praised for theirs? I've said all along that John Kerry shouldn't hide the fact that he has a young mistress hiding over in Africa, OUT OF AFRICA: KERRY PREPARES RESPONSE TO MEDIA PROBE OF RELATIONSHIP (http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk5.htm) if he wants to get elected by the liberals in this country, he should announce that he has a whole harem of concubines in waiting, and then the Democrats would jump on the bandwagon and praise him as a living god.

[Chris Villalobos]

Yeah, thanks George. I had to take a brake for a while.

I'm the type that focuses on one hobby until it consumes me, but once I hit a plateu I get bored and have to find something new. Lately it's been motorcycles, and I got the broken bones to prove it.

I started playing again to help fund my college education, but I also found that the platue I hit had broken up.

Anyway, I glad to see that some of the same people are still here.

Chris V

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm the type that focuses on one hobby until it consumes me, but once I hit a plateu I get bored and have to find something new. Lately it's been motorcycles, and I got the broken bones to prove it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do the same thing. But poker has probably been my most consistant interest over the past several years, although I've rarely played the past couple of months. And I've noticed that I lose a lttle off my game when lay off for a while, but come back even stronger after a short time.

No broken bones here, but I too discovered motorcycles a few years ago. Great fun riding around. I have a Kawasaki Nomad.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
John Kerry shouldn't hide the fact that he has a young mistress hiding over in Africa,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is old news that's been disproved, so far. Even Drudge has another link on his site to an article quoting the alleged mistress, who denies it (I think she dated someone on his election committee). Of course, there are others who may fit the bill. But apparently, not this one.

[Chris Villalobos]

I really like the looks of the Nomad, very retro. I'm running around on a Triumph Speed Triple, sort of a modern cafe' racer.

My project bike right now is a Yamaha RZ350. It was the last street-legal, two-stroke, sports bike made for the US. With a full tank of gas it only weighs 350 lbs. and produces about 65 to 75 hp. That and it emits clouds of blue smoke and sounds like a giant hornet's nest. I also is a kickstart only, which is pretty cool.

If I was closer to a legal cardroom I would probably have played a lot more these last few years. There are some underground games, but they want to rake at least as much as ligitamate cardrooms and don't offer any security that you won't get cheated. I won't play just because they rake; I take it as an insult.

Actually, I would play if they only took tips, but it's disgusting to see how much money flows off the table to the operator, especially with such a small pool of players.

Chris V

[PuppetMaster]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again you pretend not to understand. Most disingenuous.

Well, it's actually very simple : The question is why didn't the Republican Party blowhards denounce Rush Limbaugh when his drug abuse came out? It is irrelevant whether Rush was indicted, arrested, prosecuted or jumped bail. Completely irrelevant! The GOPsters should have denounced Rush in any case, if they were indeed true to their ideology.

(It's a rhetorical question, Wakey. I know that the Republican blowhards cannot denounce a fellow hypocrite.)

Take care.

[/ QUOTE ]
you have better vocabulary and diction(sp) than me, /images/graemlins/smile.gif, that was my main point!

[snakehead]

too bad this isn't a separate thread. the rz is a great bike. it has great handling, and was used as a race bike by many when they were starting out. I remember races in the 70's that were all rz350's. I also used to ride a triumph triple, but being a little older than you (ahem), it was an original trident. very scary bike. it went like a bat out of hell, handled like a garbage truck, and braked like a speed boat.

now I ride an old man's bike. bmw r1100rt. not too fast, but it handles great and has anti-lock brakes and lots of attached luggage.

[George Rice]

A friend of mine has an old Yamaha two-stroke in his garage. He's blind now and can't ride it and offered it to me before I got the Nomad. It looked like a ton of work to get it going, so I went for a new bike instead. I don't remember the engine size, but it would be funny if it's a 350.