The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

crazyhorse1 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Politicians lie.

As for a "liar" and "broken by the Cong," we have no idea what he went thru. I have friends that haven't been captured and are having a seriously hard time since back from this current war, so being captured and tortured for "only 2 years" is more than I want to imagine. It's quite easy to sit behind a screen and critique a war veteran and I despise anyone who trivializes being a PoW of any length of time. I wish this society would have more respect for the sacrifices the veterans have made to have the right to dump on their elected officials.

I don't remember you standing up for Kerry. Maybe you trivialize his risking his life to save a fellow soldier. I remember Bush/McCain destroying the career and reputation of vet Max Cleland, who lost both his legs. Was that trivial? By the way, both of those guys and thousands of other American soldiers managed to make it through prison camps without signing false confessions for propaganda purposes or attempting suicide. I'm related to a few.

I wish McCain had respect for the above veterans and for the thousands of veterans whom he constantly votes against in matters of benefits and decent health care. The man doesn't give a damn for vets. Why should I care about him.

By the way, don't pretend you know my personal history in regard to wounds and past pain. Been there. Done that.

As anyone knows who has half a brain, I don't participate in the particulars of politics. I addressed the point that irked me. As for pretending that I know anything about you, I insinuated nothing except the fact that you have no respect for a war veteran.

There's no need for a reply, you've already painted your picture...

VetSkinsFan wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Politicians lie.

As for a "liar" and "broken by the Cong," we have no idea what he went thru. I have friends that haven't been captured and are having a seriously hard time since back from this current war, so being captured and tortured for "only 2 years" is more than I want to imagine. It's quite easy to sit behind a screen and critique a war veteran and I despise anyone who trivializes being a PoW of any length of time. I wish this society would have more respect for the sacrifices the veterans have made to have the right to dump on their elected officials.

I don't remember you standing up for Kerry. Maybe you trivialize his risking his life to save a fellow soldier. I remember Bush/McCain destroying the career and reputation of vet Max Cleland, who lost both his legs. Was that trivial? By the way, both of those guys and thousands of other American soldiers managed to make it through prison camps without signing false confessions for propaganda purposes or attempting suicide. I'm related to a few.

I wish McCain had respect for the above veterans and for the thousands of veterans whom he constantly votes against in matters of benefits and decent health care. The man doesn't give a damn for vets. Why should I care about him.

By the way, don't pretend you know my personal history in regard to wounds and past pain. Been there. Done that.

As anyone knows who has half a brain, I don't participate in the particulars of politics. I addressed the point that irked me. As for pretending that I know anything about you, I insinuated nothing except the fact that you have no respect for a war veteran.

There's no need for a reply, you've already painted your picture...

I give "due" respect to vets-- one of my brothers was a copter chief in Korea, another a Marine in Nam. I was in the army, my father in the air force and my mother and grandmother built planes for the Navy. Further, I had two uncles in the Marines in World War II and seven great uncles who fought in WWI.

It's McCain who doesn't respect Vets. He gives a thumbs down to every Veteran's bill that hits congress. By the way, when I say McCain was tortured for two years I don't mean he was tortured continuously for two years. His group of some sixty prisoners was subject to torture for two years while he was there. Cong then adopted a new "no-torture" policy for propaganda purposes. Most in McCain's group were tortured one or two times over that period, some not at all. We don't know how many times McCain was tortured. We do know that the damage to his body (his broken and ill-mended arms) was a result of the crash of his aircraft and almost non-existent care afterward, not torture.

The Cong officer in charge of McCain during that period still claims that McCain wasn't tortured but spent a lot of time with him in his office talking politics. A fellow prisoner says that he saw McCain being led back to his cell after apparently being tortured. There are other first hand accounts, as well, that are not flattering to McCain.

The clearest evidence that he was tortured is actually his own account of his being broken and his attempted suicide after and the false confessions he signed, as well as the happy prisoner photos he (presumably) posed for.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Gzuz, it seems like voters are dumber than Gus Frerotte (look at the consecutive terms of the current s.o.b.).

Unfortunately, McCain WILL be our next president thus sending us back even further than Bushie did. When that happens, dear Lord, please watch over this guy cause if anything happens to him, the next president will be a hot chick who's a flippin simpleton.

God Bless Us All !

And none of this is getting you any free government cheese...

Free cheese? Never had free cheese before, you know the place where I can get some? Visited there before? Share the secret, dairy prices have rose quite a bit, help us out.

langleyparkjoe wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Gzuz, it seems like voters are dumber than Gus Frerotte (look at the consecutive terms of the current s.o.b.).

Unfortunately, McCain WILL be our next president thus sending us back even further than Bushie did. When that happens, dear Lord, please watch over this guy cause if anything happens to him, the next president will be a hot chick who's a flippin simpleton.

God Bless Us All !

And none of this is getting you any free government cheese...

Free cheese? Never had free cheese before, you know the place where I can get some? Visited there before? Share the secret, dairy prices have rose quite a bit, help us out.

Free Cheese..I was raised on that cheese...I loved it!!
We got so much that we got to the point were we couldn't take a family portrait because every time the man would tell us to "say cheese" we would stand in a single file line!

JSPB22 wrote:Governors are not part of congress, so they don't have anything to do with pork-barrel spending.

Yes, that's technically true, but executive members of state governments do employ lobbyists to send funding their way.

For example, Palin as Mayor of Wasila (pop 6,700) used lobbyists to secure $27 million in federal funding for that town for her final 4 years of office, which is an absurd amount for such a tiny town.

For example:

In fiscal year 2002, Wasilla took in $6.1 million in earmarks -- about $1,000 in federal money for every resident. By contrast, Boise, Idaho -- which has more than 190,000 residents -- received $6.9 million in earmarks in fiscal 2008.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Anyway, as typical it's a stupid election between crappy candidates who will in the end do pretty much the same thing anyway.

We agree here. I'm not sold on either side, because the more I know about either side, the more I think that Republicans and Democrats are basically the same...just beholden to different corporate masters. The first priority for a politician in either party is not to the people; it's to get reelected. Huge difference.

I actually like Palin, and I think she's the kind of bright and articulate person who will represent our country well. However, I abhor her personal politics - notably she's a creationist (which to a person with a science background like myself is an unthinkable position), and an extremist right to lifer (yes, even the cases of incest and rape - to be clear, I hold no issue with the right to life movement, but I think there have to be exemptions for exigent circumstances such as incest), however, as governor, she's not made much of an effort to push her personal beliefs on her constituents.

She's proven to be a fair and capable governor in her short time in Alaska, and really, that's all you can ask for.

That and she's able to string a sentence correctly is a huge step up from our current president.

JansenFan wrote:Either way, it sure would be nice to have an election, just once, where I could vote for someone rather than voting against someone.

You could have voted for Ralph Nader. He was actually trying to affect positive change in the political system, and do good for the average citizen.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:But again I can't refute that since I don't know enough about her and the liberal media being the military wing of the Democratic party is just out to get her for the political wing running for office.

Ah yes, that dastardly, conservative-owned liberal media strikes again.

JSPB22 wrote:

JansenFan wrote:Either way, it sure would be nice to have an election, just once, where I could vote for someone rather than voting against someone.

You could have voted for Ralph Nader. He was actually trying to affect positive change in the political system, and do good for the average citizen.

I was raised a hard-line republican and it took a few elections for me to really break out of the vote for my party no matter what mindset.

Being an adult starts to alter your ideological mindset as you experience more, and I started weighing candidates against each other, rather than just showing up and pulling the vote all republican lever. Mark Warner was the first major democrat I voted for, and for the record, I'll vote for him when/if he runs for president, assuming he doesn't change his beliefs to meet some absurd standard.

That doesn't have much to do with Palin, who I like more than any of the other three major party ticketeers, but is a long way of saying that I didn't feel comfortable voting for a small party ticket in those days.

JansenFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

JansenFan wrote:Either way, it sure would be nice to have an election, just once, where I could vote for someone rather than voting against someone.

You could have voted for Ralph Nader. He was actually trying to affect positive change in the political system, and do good for the average citizen.

I was raised a hard-line republican and it took a few elections for me to really break out of the vote for my party no matter what mindset.

Being an adult starts to alter your ideological mindset as you experience more, and I started weighing candidates against each other, rather than just showing up and pulling the vote all republican lever. Mark Warner was the first major democrat I voted for, and for the record, I'll vote for him when/if he runs for president, assuming he doesn't change his beliefs to meet some absurd standard.

That doesn't have much to do with Palin, who I like more than any of the other three major party ticketeers, but is a long way of saying that I didn't feel comfortable voting for a small party ticket in those days.

Unfortunately, most of the country votes the same way you used to. I also did the same thing until someone opened my eyes to the fact that Republicans and Democrats are basically the same, and don't want to change the current system that keeps them, and their corporate masters, in power.

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:But again I can't refute that since I don't know enough about her and the liberal media being the military wing of the Democratic party is just out to get her for the political wing running for office.

Ah yes, that dastardly, conservative-owned liberal media strikes again.

Republicans are vicious and deserving of endless investigation because even if they were truthful they lied, but we can let Dems off the hook because they're honest and trustworthy and even if they did make a mistake it was an honest one in quest of a noble cause. For Republicans, no explanation is good enough and for Democrats no explanation is necessary. For Republicans print now and figure it out later. For Democrats wait for all the facts to come out and even if they do come out against the Democrat by then most people have lost interest and moved on anyway. Hey, if you agree with the media on that, it's your right, but it doesn't make it unbiased.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:But again I can't refute that since I don't know enough about her and the liberal media being the military wing of the Democratic party is just out to get her for the political wing running for office.

Ah yes, that dastardly, conservative-owned liberal media strikes again.

Republicans are vicious and deserving of endless investigation because even if they were truthful they lied, but we can let Dems off the hook because they're honest and trustworthy and even if they did make a mistake it was an honest one in quest of a noble cause. For Republicans, no explanation is good enough and for Democrats no explanation is necessary. For Republicans print now and figure it out later. For Democrats wait for all the facts to come out and even if they do come out against the Democrat by then most people have lost interest and moved on anyway. Hey, if you agree with the media on that, it's your right, but it doesn't make it unbiased.

BTW, JSPB22, I have this exact same argument with a friend of mine all the time. And yet he voted for Bush and I didn't.

You just never know. But really, my issue is not the severe distrust the media has about Republicans, it's that they don't apply that standard, or any at all, to the Left. It's pathetic. Like Dodd saying on the Senate floor about Robert KKK Byrd what Lott did about Thurmond at a private party and getting nothing. Sandy Burgler's explanation he stuffed secret documents in his pants because he was sloppy (:roll:). The Swiftboat allogations and the never missed a day 3 purple heart technicality of no interest while Bush was investigated relentlessly based on no evidence he did anything wrong. Life in politics is good when you're a Democrat. You are held to no standard at all. That's what I object to.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:For Republicans print now and figure it out later. For Democrats wait for all the facts to come out and even if they do come out against the Democrat by then most people have lost interest and moved on anyway.

It is really telling that you said that. Liberals would say it's almost always exactly the other way around. But my statement wasn't meant to contradict what you had written expressly. It was simply to point out the fallacy of the idea that the conservative, corporate-owned, mass media, would be a tool of liberals. The mass media's sole purpose is to keep people on the left and right focused against each other and off the real issues facing our nation, therefore perpetuating the status quo.

PulpExposure wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Governors are not part of congress, so they don't have anything to do with pork-barrel spending.

Yes, that's technically true, but executive members of state governments do employ lobbyists to send funding their way.

For example, Palin as Mayor of Wasila (pop 6,700) used lobbyists to secure $27 million in federal funding for that town for her final 4 years of office, which is an absurd amount for such a tiny town.

For example:

In fiscal year 2002, Wasilla took in $6.1 million in earmarks -- about $1,000 in federal money for every resident. By contrast, Boise, Idaho -- which has more than 190,000 residents -- received $6.9 million in earmarks in fiscal 2008.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Anyway, as typical it's a stupid election between crappy candidates who will in the end do pretty much the same thing anyway.

We agree here. I'm not sold on either side, because the more I know about either side, the more I think that Republicans and Democrats are basically the same...just beholden to different corporate masters. The first priority for a politician in either party is not to the people; it's to get reelected. Huge difference.

I actually like Palin, and I think she's the kind of bright and articulate person who will represent our country well. However, I abhor her personal politics - notably she's a creationist (which to a person with a science background like myself is an unthinkable position), and an extremist right to lifer (yes, even the cases of incest and rape - to be clear, I hold no issue with the right to life movement, but I think there have to be exemptions for exigent circumstances such as incest), however, as governor, she's not made much of an effort to push her personal beliefs on her constituents.

She's proven to be a fair and capable governor in her short time in Alaska, and really, that's all you can ask for.

That and she's able to string a sentence correctly is a huge step up from our current president.

I thought maybe she was bright before today.

I read the transcript of her interview with Gibson. It was beyond pathetic, She didn't understand questions, advocated war with Russia (maybe accidentally), seemed to suggest the US should blindly cooperate with Israel even if it decides to bomb Iran, and during one stretch gave the same word-for-word memorized answer four times.

According to her, war in Iraq is pretty much God's plan. After the show, one of the commentators said that her supporters would admire her for repeatedly trying to answer a question she didn't understand with guess answers that didn't apply.

The interviewer, Charles Gibson, looked stunned the whole interview. She seen totally uninformed, like a person who didn't bother reading newspapers and had a teenager's lack of interest in world affairs.

McCain is an idiot for putting her up there and gave an incoherent interview about the subject. He seemed to have one senior moment after the other-- his sentences weren't remotely answering the question and breaking off into nonsensical direction.

When asked about Palin's grasp of national security, McCain went immediately off into Palin's supposed knowledge of energy before finally saying she lived close to Russia.

Good God. Palin can read a speech someone else writes for her, but she's not even close to smart or remotely informed (I am truly shocked).

As for McCain, being a senior, he must be having good days and bad days. He's failing, mentally. Now he's taken to suggesting that he's had to take the low road because no one was paying attention to him and Obama decided to further bury him by refusing to debate him in town hall meetings. In short, it's Obama's fault that he, McCain, has to campaign with lies to get attention.

Probably true, but still pathetic.

Palin's a performer, and as a former sportscaster and beauty queen she was able to hit a homerun with that speech at the convention...

But I laughed out loud when I heard her first interview was going to be with Charlie Gibson. I thought he's toss her some softballs... and he did, and Palin grounded out to short. (Enough baseball/softball metaphors.)

The unscripted thing is pretty tough I guess, but it was cool to see Obama challenging himself by interviewing with Bill O'Rielly, who's interview style is something like an interrogation in a cement room with a single 40 watt light bulb hanging overhead.

Granted, it's McCain and not Palin who is running for president, but they gave her about the easiest interview they could find and she blew it IMO.

Yeah, she did sound kinda unprepared for it.

Well, Palin is getting all the attention.
Plus, she is a woman, only the second woman
To run for like a political highest office.

JeanPassepartout1974 wrote:Well, Palin is getting all the attention.
Plus, she is a woman, only the second woman
To run for like a political highest office.

Ah, correction

Second highest office!

JSPB22 wrote:

Man, I wish!

Bob 0119 wrote:

JeanPassepartout1974 wrote:Well, Palin is getting all the attention.
Plus, she is a woman, only the second woman
To run for like a political highest office.

Ah, correction

Second highest office!

Ask Dick Cheney his opinion on that.

joebagadonuts wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:

JeanPassepartout1974 wrote:Well, Palin is getting all the attention.
Plus, she is a woman, only the second woman
To run for like a political highest office.

Ah, correction

Second highest office!

Ask Dick Cheney his opinion on that.

Daniel Webster in turning down the chance to run for VP: "I do not choose to be buried until I am really dead."

So what does Cheney actually do that would somehow make him different? Just asking. Seems like everything the Bush administration does is an original stupid idea by the guy in the Oval Office. A path McCain seems ready to emulate with ideas like the Federal government buying mortgages and renegotiating them to a "reasonable" rate the mortgagee can "afford." What a ditz. Let's see, not only am I responsible and pay my own mortgage but as a reward I get to pay the mortgages of irresponsible dead beats who don't.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

joebagadonuts wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:

JeanPassepartout1974 wrote:Well, Palin is getting all the attention.
Plus, she is a woman, only the second woman
To run for like a political highest office.

Ah, correction

Second highest office!

Ask Dick Cheney his opinion on that.

Daniel Webster in turning down the chance to run for VP: "I do not choose to be buried until I am really dead."

So what does Cheney actually do that would somehow make him different? Just asking.

Kind of old, but:
http://www.slate.com/id/2169292/pagenum/all

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

joebagadonuts wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:

JeanPassepartout1974 wrote:Well, Palin is getting all the attention.
Plus, she is a woman, only the second woman
To run for like a political highest office.

Ah, correction

Second highest office!

Ask Dick Cheney his opinion on that.

Daniel Webster in turning down the chance to run for VP: "I do not choose to be buried until I am really dead."

So what does Cheney actually do that would somehow make him different? Just asking. Seems like everything the Bush administration does is an original stupid idea by the guy in the Oval Office. A path McCain seems ready to emulate with ideas like the Federal government buying mortgages and renegotiating them to a "reasonable" rate the mortgagee can "afford." What a ditz. Let's see, not only am I responsible and pay my own mortgage but as a reward I get to pay the mortgages of irresponsible dead beats who don't.

Finally, an incredibly stupid idea that would benefit me. McCain has you guys paying up for my bad investments. Ha, ha, ha, ha.

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

joebagadonuts wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:

JeanPassepartout1974 wrote:Well, Palin is getting all the attention.
Plus, she is a woman, only the second woman
To run for like a political highest office.

Ah, correction

Second highest office!

Ask Dick Cheney his opinion on that.

Daniel Webster in turning down the chance to run for VP: "I do not choose to be buried until I am really dead."

So what does Cheney actually do that would somehow make him different? Just asking.

Kind of old, but:
http://www.slate.com/id/2169292/pagenum/all

Old and agenda laden and filled with sweeping allegations like, "The vice president initiated kidnappings, secret detentions, and torture in Eastern European prisons of suspected international terrorists."

This is in fact exactly what I'm talking about. Endless accusations by Left agenda (see any bias in this link, Irn-Bru?). If Bush listens to Cheney in making policy, that is just his choice. I'm asking what Cheney actually does that's DIFFERENT then prior Presidents beyond his personal rapport with Bush. That I do agree is stronger then normal, but many Presidents hated their VPs as it was only a political and not personal alliance. Like Reagan and Kennedy for example. But the President listening to the VP is not the VP setting policy, an endless accusation in this link.

In that article, was this link:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/