posted on June 4, 2001 06:19:02 PM new Thank you, Helen. I enjoyed having Deuce on the board for his short duration. It was unfortunate that the service that he dearly loves also binded his hands when it came to fully expressing his own opinion. I felt that if he wanted to participate on this board - and I was happy that he did, I wanted to bring up something to discuss that affected him directly. I did that because his reason for voting for Bush, even though he knew how bad a president he would make, he was concerned only with his pocketbook and not the good of the country. Typical poor judgement that got us into this mess. I didn't expect anything less from a Republican who voted for Bush instead of their conscience.
I really do not want to get this thread de-railed, but Borillar, I am quite disappointed in your opinion of our discussion.
From my first post: [i]Borillar, because you asked in another thread why anyone could vote for Bush, as a military man, it's quite difficult for me to vote for the Gore team when his Vice-Presidental candidate tried to paint a rosy picture of the current state of the US military. Nothing could have been further from the truth. There are several Senior NCOs in my unit who waited to retire until 2001 so they would not have the name William Jefferson Clinton on their retirement paperwork.
It's unbelieveable how many of my peers are separating; my promotion opportunity to Major will be, at a minimum, 90%. This used to be 70%. The simple fact remains that tomorrow's leaders of the US military will not be the leaders you'd really like to see; those guys got out and joined the civilian life. I voted for the Republican party for what it can do for myself and my family, both my immediate and military one.[/i]
I never mentioned my paycheck until later. My initial post clearly showed my vote was a vote for a stronger military, something I felt/feel is in the best interest of our country.
You asked how was it going to get better now that Bush was in office. I used as an example the increase in pay.
Again, I apologize for getting off-topic, but I had to reply to this.
And Helen, while I very much enjoy reading the threads here, as well as the varying opinions, please don't qualify my earlier discussion as representative of the USAF in your post:
I loved the manner in which you and krs handled the USAF.
They handled me; there are far too many talented Airmen who haven't had the opportunity to weigh in.
v/r
Deuce
spelling...and why won't the UBB work in the 3rd & 4th paragraphs?!?
[ edited by deuce on Jun 4, 2001 06:21 PM ]
I seem to remember that you identified yourself as a Captain in the USAF and both Borillar and Krs considered this fact when asking and answering your questions. They were considerate of the fact that it is a violation of the UCMJ for a comissioned officer to say anything that could be construed as negative regarding the US President and his office.
That is why, in my brief comment, I simply referred to the thread as the USAF.
Forgive me if you were offended, but I just assumed that you were representative of this organization.
Helen
spelling
[ edited by Hjw on Jun 4, 2001 07:21 PM ]
Perhaps it is me who should be asking forgiveness...one thing about these boards is things can come off not entirely the way one intends.
No offense taken by me at all...
And yes, while I am a Capt in the USAF, by no means do I represent all the Air Force (thank goodness!)
In regards to the UMCJ, and I initally put in the comment with light regard, I really have nothing to say with regards to the current acting President that would be a violation. Do I disagree with some of the faux pas (is there a plural for this?) we've seen and how they've been handled, I'm not quite worried (yet) about a cell in Leavenworth.
posted on June 4, 2001 07:27:58 PM new
hjw,
"I loved the manner in which you and krs handled the USAF"
[i]"that you identified yourself as a Captain in the USAF and both Borillar and Krs considered this fact when asking and answering your questions. They were considerate of the fact that it is a violation of the UCMJ for a comissioned officer to say anything that could be costrued as negative regarding the US President and his office.
Please do not continue to enfold my name into your interpretations of happenstance. I'm quite able to speak for myself should I see a need to do so, and in this case I do not feel that I participated in any "handling" either of Deuce or of the USAF, nor do I find anything complimentary in the fact that you did think so.
My remarks were directed to Deuce, not to you. Wow, you are really uptight! I don't believe that I intended to compliment anyone
in my response to Deuse.
posted on June 4, 2001 08:00:21 PM new
Well, it's a mystery to me...what precipitated that attack. I was simply trying to explain my comment to Deuce.
I will refrain from using your name, krs, in the future. Please accept my apology for offending you...although how I managed to do this, I do not know.
Helen
sp. deuce
[ edited by Hjw on Jun 4, 2001 08:08 PM ]
posted on June 4, 2001 08:17:13 PM new
It's OK Helen -- you just don't want anyone to notice that you've joined my fan club.
Deuce, with "he was concerned only with his pocketbook and not the good of the country." I was speaking figuratively, not literally. It would be sheer folly for me to attempt to figure out all of your reasons, stated or otherwise. I can understand voting for one's own self-interest, but in the case of this president, it does not also equate to the best interests of the country. Voting for someone Intelligent, Experienced, Mentally Stable, Foreign Policy Wiz, has a great handle on all current events to weight-in on critical decisions with -- and most importantly, someone who would obviously not promote the interests of corporations over the health and welfare of this country's citizens -- that would have been voting for the best interests of the country. In your case, I remarked that I felt that you used poor judgement in voting for Bush -- was I right? Our kids get to play some more on toxic waste dumps turned into playgrounds -- playgrounds that are meant to hide the crimes of the corporations. Did you not even stop to think of the children of this country when it came to your increased chances for promotion to Major? I wonder.
Edited for sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Jun 4, 2001 08:19 PM ]
I still strongly disagree with your characterization and interpretations of my voting record and my reasons for doing so.
You've once again generalized to such a degree with Did you not even stop to think of the children of this country when it came to your increased chances for promotion to Major?
One, I have fathered four sons, thank you, the last two weeks ago, and I have nothing to be ashamed of.
Two, you're back yet again, with the promotion jab, focusing solely on my self-interests. Once again, [b]I put the future of our military above foreign policy, et al[b/]; if you don't agree, fine. If you think it's all about $$$, trust me, I could be making more outside the military.
You can't begin to tell me that Democrats never served big business. There's so many examples of right and wrong with practically every politician. I found it amusing that those opposing the leftists' views on other threads brought up Monica Lewinsky. What I found even better was folks rationalizing what happened! Do people really think that everything someone who represents their party does is appropriate, and everything anyone does from a differing party is inappropriate?
That's one disturbing trend I see on these political threads is that people with opposing views (and political affiliations) must be the enemy, and everything they think/say must be wrong. Is it not possible for some common ground? Are there really no registered Democrats who oppose abortion? Dare I find a Republican thanking the Clinton administration for their new-found wealth in the stock market? I know these are very general statements, but I think it represents the climate of these boards.
That's all for me on this subject in this thread. It should be about Trent Lott's comments, which I'll admit, are over the top.
posted on June 4, 2001 08:42:56 PM newBorillarDid you not even stop to think of the children of this country when it came to your increased chances for promotion to Major? I wonder.
Borillar, I have to ask. When you make these commentaries that come across like a mother speaking to an idiot child are they jest or are you serious?
If they are in jest let me know and I'll appreciate the humor in them. If they are honest and sincere thoughts then I'll probably find them even more humorous, for reasons I'll never be able to convey to you.
Personally in the exchanges I've seen deuce has you outclassed. I'm no authority on this, but that is my honest opinion.
posted on June 4, 2001 09:01:01 PM new"Personally in the exchanges I've seen deuce has you outclassed." -uaru-
Sorry, you must have me confused with someone who wants to play one-upmanship games. Too macho and childish for me to play. However, continue to believe that it's a game and you're the scorekeeper ...
In the light of Lott's comments, and in consideration of several other post election revelations and programs by the new administration, do you now still feel that your vote was cast in the best interest of the country?
posted on June 4, 2001 09:14:41 PM new"You've once again generalized ..." -deuce-
Who's doing the generalizing?
"That's one disturbing trend I see on these political threads is that people with opposing views (and political affiliations) must be the enemy, and everything they think/say must be wrong. Is it not possible for some common ground? Are there really no registered Democrats who oppose abortion? Dare I find a Republican thanking the Clinton administration for their new-found wealth in the stock market? I know these are very general statements, but I think it represents the climate of these boards."
I can't speak for other posters on this board, but I do not see opposing viewpoints as someone who is "the enemy." I see it as an opportunity to have a thoughtful discussion and a good debate -- see where I'm right and wrong about things. You can't get that with posters who only sit around and criticize you with little icons rolling their eyes upwards. I do it for my own edification and entertainment. As I stated before, I do not believe that the energy expenditure necessary change someone else's mind is worth it. If I am wrong, explain to me where I am wrong and how I am wrong. I reserve the right to come back and present my arguments once again in a different, hopefully more intelligible method.
"I am quite disappointed in your opinion of our discussion."
I'm sorry, deuce, but I long ago gave up trying to live up to anyone else's expectations. I see that as a mental illness -- trying to live up to anyone else's expectations. I try only to live up to my own, harsh expectations and no one else's. Of course, I don't have quarterly evaluations from a "superior" to worry about either. Nice, how I've arranged my life in that way, don't you think?
edited for sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Jun 4, 2001 09:17 PM ]
Well, Trent Lott has been around way before W., and while he has indeed provided some embarassment for losing his position, and in regards to the other headlines which seem to spotlight our newspapers, I still feel I made the correct decision. You know that any "cause for pause" that would occur by an elected Al Gore & cabinet would make the same headlines; Rush would eat it up, and you'd probably be defending it the way you see it on these boards. While the frequency of such occurrances does worry me, I feel 6 months is not a sufficient evaluation period.
That said, I do challenge you (like you'd give up) to continue the criticism of this regime, especially with a Democratic-run Senate. They will have to take some of the brunt of this criticism, in all fairness. Of course they'll get no credit for any positives that do come out...
And one other thing, a personal one...do you feel it would be hypocritical, for someone (I won't name any names) that opposes the current White House, to cash that refund check from the treasury come later this summer?
Borillar
I can't speak for other posters on this board, but I do not see opposing viewpoints as someone who is "the enemy." I see it as an opportunity to have a thoughtful discussion and a good debate -- see where I'm right and wrong about things. Telling me time after time how I voted was poor judgement and for all the wrong reasons doesn't back this up. While perhaps "the enemy" is too strong a word, you seem that you have little to no room for any compromise
I'm sorry, deuce, but I long ago gave up trying to live up to anyone else's expectations. You don't need to live up to my expectations at all...just don't expect me to want to continue down any further path of discussion with you when you simply sum it up, figuratively or literally, with I felt that if he wanted to participate on this board - and I was happy that he did, I wanted to bring up something to discuss that affected him directly. I did that because his reason for voting for Bush, even though he knew how bad a president he would make, he was concerned only with his pocketbook and not the good of the country I deserve better than that.
posted on June 4, 2001 09:39:20 PM new
Helen, I have been "done", not next, for some time now. See any tears? Join the club. But dont forget your mouse ears at the next meeting.
posted on June 4, 2001 09:46:17 PM newdeuce: I think that you have me confused with somebody who likes the Democratic Party. I know that you have only been on this board for a short time and so, have nbot seen my various blasts at the Democrats and the rants about how criminal the Democrats are lately. I do. But I also dislike the Republican politicians to a greater extent. And right now, it's the Republican politicians that are the biggest thorn in this country's side and it would have been less of a pain with the Democratic ticket. that said, I choose Al Gore over Dumbya any day.
"... you seem that you have little to no room for any compromise ..."
I compromise my stance everytime that I am presented with indisputeable facts or relevant logic.
"I deserve better than that."
Exactly what reasons do you have for preferential treatment? Republicans have been beating us over the head about "personal responsibility" for as long as I can remember (Eisenhower). I refuse to blame Bush and Cheney for being what exactly Republican voters knew they were ahead of time. Since you voted these criminals into the White House, I place the responsiblility squarely where it belongs -- on the people who voted them into office. Bush rolls back pollution protection standards and kids get sick and killed from it -- that's your fault! Every crummy thing that Bush has done -- an evil deed a day for his first 100 days in office http://www.100daysofbush.com/numbers/index.html and wioll do, it's on the head of voters who knowingly voted in these people. I know that you don't like to be generalized, but really, you put yourself there by voting for them.
