The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Is this a contrast, or what? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next]
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
[quote]On 2011-05-21 16:26, Cyberqat wrote:
[quote]On 2011-05-21 11:46, ed rhodes wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-21 08:48, irossall wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-21 08:39, Woland wrote:
When you consider the things that President Bush did for and with military personnel and their families, the things that he continues to do, behind the scenes, often with with no press allowed, you realize that the press coverage of something like the visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln was a sideshow.


Bush stood behind our troops...

the poor enlisted ***s at the bottom of the ladder at Guantanamo went to prison while Bush, Chaney and their cronies hid safely behind them.

And I suspect this whole sub-thread violates the politics rule on all sides.

But it wasn't the bush administration that did these...

HR 3219, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2010

(April 23, 2010), the United States Congress passed the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act, giving severely wounded warriors and the family members who care for them some much-needed support to ensure the warriors receive the highest quality of care available and remain out of nursing homes.

Quite a list here of all the things that the democrats are doing for Veterans, Service People and their families:
http://www.goldstarmoms.com/News/Legislation/Legislation.htm

And then there is this...

Military Families United Backs Presidential Initiative
John Ellsworth, Chairman of Military Families United and Gold Star father, released the following statement in regards to an initiative put forward by President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, and Dr. Jill Biden that establishes a coordinated and comprehensive Federal approach to supporting military families.
http://www.militaryfamiliesunited.org/re......411.html

Ofcourse, facts weigh pretty lightly when compared to preconceptions in most peoples perceptions. And apparently the latest right wing marching lie is that somehow only they care about our appreciate our men and women in arms.



Lets also not forget that great president that stood behind our troops..in fact so far behind them that he avoided the draft competely by being a draft dodger...do you remember slick willie..aka clinton? Now there is a typical left winger isn't it? He really respected the American Soldier. It is a disgrace that he was ever called the commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Draft dodger? Oh, you mean typical left wingers like Trump, Gingrich, Rumsfeld and Cheney, who, like Clinton, had student deferments, or like George W., who managed to avoid Viet Nam by using his connections to get into the Air National Guard and then rarely showed up for duty?
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
1) Secretary Rumsfeld served as a Navy pilot. He was on active duty from 1954 - 1957 and continued in the active reserve until 1975.

2) Based on his stated positions, Donald Trump is a liberal.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
And thank you, balducci and landmark, for informing me that (unlike every other writer in this forum) I am not allowed to change the subject . . . .
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2011-05-23 06:09, Woland wrote:
And thank you, balducci and landmark, for informing me that (unlike every other writer in this forum) I am not allowed to change the subject . . . .


Now where did either of them say that?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
By claiming that I wasn't writing a post about Richard Nixon because the discussion started about Barack Obama . . .
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5017 Posts

Profile of landmark
By all means, I look forward to more Richard Nixon posts. Aside from perhaps Abe Lincoln, to me, he is the most intriguing President from a psychological point of view.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Nobody's down with Buchanan anymore.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2011-05-23 05:57, Woland wrote:
1) Secretary Rumsfeld served as a Navy pilot. He was on active duty from 1954 - 1957 and continued in the active reserve until 1975.

2) Based on his stated positions, Donald Trump is a liberal.


I stand corrected on Rumsfeld. You are right. My only point was that getting deferments (or "draft dodging" as it was put) was not the sole province of 'liberals.' I guess I could be called a 'liberal' but that didn't stop me from enlisting in 1968.

As for Trump - I don't think the liberals want him any more than the conservatives do. Smile

Best-

Bob
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20537 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2011-05-23 12:21, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-23 05:57, Woland wrote:
1) Secretary Rumsfeld served as a Navy pilot. He was on active duty from 1954 - 1957 and continued in the active reserve until 1975.

2) Based on his stated positions, Donald Trump is a liberal.


I stand corrected on Rumsfeld. You are right. My only point was that getting deferments (or "draft dodging" as it was put) was not the sole province of 'liberals.' I guess I could be called a 'liberal' but that didn't stop me from enlisting in 1968.

As for Trump - I don't think the liberals want him any more than the conservatives do. Smile

Best-

Bob


Wait a second. Lets at least use the term right. A "draft dodger" is a term for one who simply refused to go and ran to Canada. If Clinton had a deferment, or anyone did, then whatever. Why call names anyhow?

I for one simply wish we could oppose people on ideology. It would be a much better world.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I agree with you totally, Danny. I was annoyed that Clinton was referred to as a 'draft dodger' simply because he had a student deferment, when deferments were common across the political spectrum.

BTW, Danny, while we will probably never agree on most political matters, I have always had the utmost respect for you as a performer and agree with just about everything you post in other areas of the forum (the hypnosis forum for example). That's one of the things I like about this place- our common love for the art seems to override everything else.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Yes, landmark, Richard Nixon is a profoundly interesting character. In only one active term as President, almost half of which was pre-occupied with "Watergate," look at what he accomplished - now I'm not saying I agree with any or all of it, but the list is impressive -


    Successfully "Vietnamized" the war, withdraw all US combat troops.
    Then successfully negotiated an armistice with the D.R.V.
    Ended the post-WWII draft.
    Established the E.P.A.
    "Detente" with the U.S.S.R.
    SALT agreements.
    Established diplomatic relations with the P.R.C.
    Wage & price controls.
    Revenue sharing with the States.
    Appointed Chief Justice Rehnquist.
    The first moon landing occurred during his Presidency.
    Defeated George McGovern by an historic margin.


I think Nixon is a truly tragic figure, whose own inner demons drove him. The story is worthy of the stage. It is a pity that John Adams's opera is so shallow, and the music so migraine-inducing.

Woland
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I think that the film FROST NIXON pretty well captured the tragic side of Nixon. I don't agree, though, with the notion that his appointment of Rehnquist was "impressive." But, then again, that's the liberal in me.
Best-

Bob
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Yea he had a deferrment and then became the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. I think every soldier that ever saluted him, after doing so probably puked.

An interesting read: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/felon.asp
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20537 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2011-05-23 12:34, mastermindreader wrote:
I agree with you totally, Danny. I was annoyed that Clinton was referred to as a 'draft dodger' simply because he had a student deferment, when deferments were common across the political spectrum.

BTW, Danny, while we will probably never agree on most political matters, I have always had the utmost respect for you as a performer and agree with just about everything you post in other areas of the forum (the hypnosis forum for example). That's one of the things I like about this place- our common love for the art seems to override everything else.

Good thoughts,

Bob


Well thank you. I think even within the performance areas, there is room for other opinions. I TRY to be "fair" as I see it at least. Not easy because we all bring our own bias to the table. But hey I TRY! Thanks again.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2011-05-23 19:52, acesover wrote:
Yea he had a deferrment and then became the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. I think every soldier that ever saluted him, after doing so probably puked.


Yep - don't let them pesky facts get in your way:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BillC......d/390592
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2011-05-23 21:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-23 19:52, acesover wrote:
Yea he had a deferrment and then became the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. I think every soldier that ever saluted him, after doing so probably puked.


Yep - don't let them pesky facts get in your way:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BillC......d/390592



Yea the clintons have so much going for them. He is a liar and wife cheater, lied to the grand jury and she will sell her soul to gain public office. No wonder everyone loves them. Shows the mentality of the public. The clintons are definitely role models. Got to love those libs...they are just so liberal with their morals.

I was in the military and almost every one in the military that I know hated his guts along with his twofaced ambitious wife. To me they are just a step above and I might add a small step above trash.

Speaking about pesky facts did you forget about Monica and the dress and the cigar and the phone sex...yea great role models and should be looked up to. What the heck is wrong with you?

Now cover the other eye and choose not to see them as they really are.

Is there anything I said here a lie?
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Quote:
On 2011-05-24 09:33, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-23 21:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-23 19:52, acesover wrote:
Yea he had a deferrment and then became the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. I think every soldier that ever saluted him, after doing so probably puked.


Yep - don't let them pesky facts get in your way:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BillC......d/390592



Yea the clintons have so much going for them. He is a liar and wife cheater, lied to the grand jury and she will sell her soul to gain public office. No wonder everyone loves them. Shows the mentality of the public. The clintons are definitely role models. Got to love those libs...they are just so liberal with their morals.

I was in the military and almost every one in the military that I know hated his guts along with his twofaced ambitious wife. To me they are just a step above and I might add a small step above trash.

Speaking about pesky facts did you forget about Monica and the dress and the cigar and the phone sex...yea great role models and should be looked up to. What the heck is wrong with you?

Now cover the other eye and choose not to see them as they really are.

Is there anything I said here a lie?
No, but there's a lot that's opinion.

Clinton hardly holds a monopoly on infidelity. Remember- Newt Gingrich, the man who was pushing to impeach Clinton, was, at the same time, having infidelity issues of his own... including serving his wife divorce papers on what he thought was her death bed.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
A few posts above, I made reference to President Nixon's style of speechifying. Well, it seems that the manes of Richard Milhous Nixon are being invoked again. Marc Thiessen writes in the Washington Post:

Quote:
In a television interview last October, President Obama accidentally let slip a key element of his political philosophy: “We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

Obama later apologized — not for the underlying sentiment, mind you, but for his word choice. “I probably should have used the word ‘opponents’ instead of enemies,” the president declared.

This incident is worth remembering as the president prepares to issue a far-reaching executive order that would require the government to collect detailed information about the political activities of anyone applying for a federal contract. The proposed order would require businesses to furnish, with each contract proposal, a list not only of their contributions to political candidates and committees, but also their contributions to groups that do not under current law have to reveal their donors. The president’s order would force anyone seeking a federal contract to declare whether they are a friend or an enemy — excuse me, “opponent” — of the Obama White House. Worse still, it would set up a central database listing those contributions at a federal government Web site — creating what amounts to an electronic, searchable “enemies list.”

Why is this a bad idea? Recall that in August 1971, Richard Nixon’s White House counsel John Dean penned a confidential memorandum in which he proposed creating a list of “our political enemies.” The purpose of the exercise, according to Dean, was to “determine what sorts of dealings these individuals have with the Federal Government and how we can best screw them (e.g., grant availability, federal contracts.. . . etc.)” Since then, enormous steps have been taken to clean up the federal contracting process and ensure that government contracts are granted solely on the basis of merit. Obama’s proposed executive order would undermine that progress, reverse years of effort to remove politics from contracting decisions and create incentives for impropriety.

Even if no corrupt action is ever taken by the president’s political appointees, just the existence of these new rules would have a chilling effect on free speech. Businesses that disagree with the president’s policies would be discouraged from exercising their right to free expression for fear that doing so would jeopardize their chances of being awarded government contracts. Meanwhile, there would be an unspoken incentive for businesses seeking contracts to contribute to candidates and causes supported by the White House.

The proposed executive order is so bad that even some senior Democrats on Capitol Hill are refusing to go along. Last week the second-ranking House Democrat, Rep. Steny Hoyer, broke ranks with the administration, declaring “The issue on contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractors’ bid and capabilities. I think there are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political implications in the context of awarding contracts.” Meanwhile Sens., Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate subcommittee responsible for contracting oversight, joined Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) in writing a bipartisan letter warning that the proposed order “risks injecting politics into the contracting process” and urging President Obama to reconsider. “The requirement that businesses disclose political expenditures as part of the offer process creates the appearance that this type of information could become a factor in the award of federal contracts,” the senators wrote.


Of course, there is no evidence that being on President Nixon's "Enemies List" ever did anyone any harm. A close frind of my mother's was on the list, and told me that he had never been subjected even to an IRS audit, much less any governmental interference as a result. For him, as for most of the people on the list, it was a point of pride, a source of free drinks from their comrades, and a welcome affirmation. What the current administration proposes does seem far more sinister -- even to Democratic Party politicians.

Woland
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2011-05-24 10:04, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-24 09:33, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-23 21:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-23 19:52, acesover wrote:
Yea he had a deferrment and then became the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. I think every soldier that ever saluted him, after doing so probably puked.


Yep - don't let them pesky facts get in your way:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BillC......d/390592



Yea the clintons have so much going for them. He is a liar and wife cheater, lied to the grand jury and she will sell her soul to gain public office. No wonder everyone loves them. Shows the mentality of the public. The clintons are definitely role models. Got to love those libs...they are just so liberal with their morals.

I was in the military and almost every one in the military that I know hated his guts along with his twofaced ambitious wife. To me they are just a step above and I might add a small step above trash.

Speaking about pesky facts did you forget about Monica and the dress and the cigar and the phone sex...yea great role models and should be looked up to. What the heck is wrong with you?

Now cover the other eye and choose not to see them as they really are.

Is there anything I said here a lie?
No, but there's a lot that's opinion.

Clinton hardly holds a monopoly on infidelity. Remember- Newt Gingrich, the man who was pushing to impeach Clinton, was, at the same time, having infidelity issues of his own... including serving his wife divorce papers on what he thought was her death bed.



I absoutely agree that no one holds a monoply on infidelity. However not everyone has such a great approval rating nor are they the past president of the United States or lied to the grand jury. Also we are not talking about Newt are we? We are talking about clinton and his approval rating. That is the part I do not understand. However I stand by what I said they are a small step above trash and he has the same morals as an alley cat.

Also I do not think Newt was pushing to impeach clinton on his affair or whatever you want to call it. Probably more on the lying to the grand jury under oath. Which I believe is a felony. I may be wrong in this not really sure. However if I were you I would not try it. I think it would turn out different for you. Like prison time.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Is this a contrast, or what? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.38 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL