Letter to the editor: Ideas of 'heroism' may vary greatly

[Nick Knack]

Lil John wrote:

<quoted text> "accidental bombing of that ship"

Oh sure....Israel "accidentally" attacked the USS Liberty for 2 1/2 hours while it flew an American Flag.
Lyndon Baines Johnson should have been tried and hung for treason.

[Lil John]

Nick Knack wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh sure....Israel "accidentally" attacked the USS Liberty for 2 1/2 hours while it flew an American Flag.
Lyndon Baines Johnson should have been tried and hung for treason.

LOLL You and your counter part , Dave, better confer Your not in lockstep any longer.

Correct me if I'm wrong but -- what the hell does Israel that have anything to do with this thread?

You and your alter ego have lost it -- just post nonsense to exercise your fingers I guess.

[zetetic]

THE WATCHER wrote:

<quoted text>
....his chant is unreal and a lie and he knows that...follow his political life...he's just like every other politician...will say and do whatever to get elected....

Bloody lying politicos, the lot of them. Just like Nixon, Reagan & both Bush's. Did you vote for any of those duplicitous liars? Or are you filtering your criticism based solely on what letter a politician happens to list after his her name?

[zetetic]

Lil John wrote:

this is intelligent -- gadfly ? LOLL

Dude - hate to spank you in public (ok, not really), but what the heck is "LOLL"??? If you're trying to say "I'm laughing out loud", then please type "LOL".

FYI, the most popular current meaning of "LOLL" on the intertubez is "loads of Linux links" (see acronymfinder.com ). Somehow I think you're not astute enough in the realm of the penguin to understand such a term.

[zetetic]

Nick Knack wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh sure....Israel "accidentally" attacked the USS Liberty for 2 1/2 hours while it flew an American Flag.
Lyndon Baines Johnson should have been tried and hung for treason.

I disagree. The attack itself was entirely on the Israeli government, and could probably be pinned on a few specific people, if the issue were really pressed and investigated. Where LBJ and the USG needs to take a hit is for not investigating and insisting on proper reparations after the fact. Captain McGonagle and the brave sailors on board that day still have not received their proper recognition and place in US history, imo. But, you can't blame LBJ for the actual attack on the Liberty anymore than you can blame him for the Pueblo incident or blame GWB for 9/11. In the 1960s, technology simply did not exist that would have enabled the commander-in-chief to participate in near-real-time in tactical decision loop. Even now, it's not very likely that the POTUS has any sort of tactical input into a real-time situation.

[zetetic]

To clarify, the first part of my last post should read:
The attack itself was entirely the work of the Israeli government...

Reading the post after it went up, I realized I typed in a rush and didn't make myself clear.

[THE WATCHER]

zetetic wrote:

<quoted text>
Bloody lying politicos, the lot of them. Just like Nixon, Reagan & both Bush's. Did you vote for any of those duplicitous liars? Or are you filtering your criticism based solely on what letter a politician happens to list after his her name?

Funny how you left out the biggest liar and disgraced president of recent memory the only president in our history to be held in contemp of court and convicted of lying under oth on the last day of his office...Bill Clinton.
As for Reagan yes I voted for him twice wish there were another one like him....And no I didn't vote for Nixon my first presidental election was Ford/Carter...both bad choices same as today so please tell me why you think Reagan was a liar...he stated during the primaries exactly what he beleived in...I think he was the only president in recent memory who actually hade core beleifs that he didn't compromise on...His record speaks for itself...he will go down as one of the greatest we ever had...you may disagree...but he was a great leader and was able to achieve much even with a hostile democratic congress fighting him...both houses for the 1st term..He took a country that under Carter went down hill economicaly and also rebuilt our milatary and bought Pride back in being an American...see my friend letters don't mean much to a name....but the party core beleifs and their platform does mean a lot...how can you disagree with that...heck all the conservative democrats have been run out of the party Zell Miller, Liberman to name a few....am not a liberal in my political leanings.
Also I didn't like either Bush but the choice between Dukakus then Gore who didn't know the event at the China thing wasn't a fund raiser Gore then Kerry the true gigalo His record as a senator sucked...and his attitude also ...but I voted for the lesser of the two evils...as to both Bush's neither was a true conservative.....so there you have it...now how about you my friend...lets hear your politics and whom you voted for and why...

[zetetic]

THE WATCHER wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny how you left out the biggest liar and disgraced president of recent memory the only president in our history to be held in contemp of court and convicted of lying under oth on the last day of his office...Bill Clinton.
As for Reagan yes I voted for him twice wish there were another one like him....And no I didn't vote for Nixon my first presidental election was Ford/Carter...both bad choices same as today so please tell me why you think Reagan was a liar...he stated during the primaries exactly what he beleived in...I think he was the only president in recent memory who actually hade core beleifs that he didn't compromise on...His record speaks for itself...he will go down as one of the greatest we ever had...you may disagree...but he was a great leader and was able to achieve much even with a hostile democratic congress fighting him...both houses for the 1st term..He took a country that under Carter went down hill economicaly and also rebuilt our milatary and bought Pride back in being an American...see my friend letters don't mean much to a name....but the party core beleifs and their platform does mean a lot...how can you disagree with that...heck all the conservative democrats have been run out of the party Zell Miller, Liberman to name a few....am not a liberal in my political leanings.
Also I didn't like either Bush but the choice between Dukakus then Gore who didn't know the event at the China thing wasn't a fund raiser Gore then Kerry the true gigalo His record as a senator sucked...and his attitude also ...but I voted for the lesser of the two evils...as to both Bush's neither was a true conservative.....so there you have it...now how about you my friend...lets hear your politics and whom you voted for and why...

As posted previously, I don't have any personal "politics" - I'm an independent, skeptical thinker. I don't trust anyone, and I completely ignore if they're conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, or Martian. Something you cannot apparently do.

I can quote you some facts about Reagan, though: President Reagan built up the largest budget deficit in history (until GWB, that is), and he was not strong on defense. The obscenely huge ramp-up in government spending from '80 to '88 was disproportionate in non-defense spending increases. I was on active duty through all those years, and felt the pain personally. In fact, by proportion of defense-related spending to total budget, Reagan's strongest defense budget was in 1981, and that was the budget Carter proposed before he left.

Another fact: more appointees of the Reagan administration were convicted of felonies than any other administration in history, including Clinton and (so far) GWB. Hell, Reagan even beat Nixon in hiring criminals, and that's saying something!!

[THE WATCHER]

zetetic wrote:

<quoted text>
As posted previously, I don't have any personal "politics" - I'm an independent, skeptical thinker. I don't trust anyone, and I completely ignore if they're conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, or Martian. Something you cannot apparently do.
I can quote you some facts about Reagan, though: President Reagan built up the largest budget deficit in history (until GWB, that is), and he was not strong on defense. The obscenely huge ramp-up in government spending from '80 to '88 was disproportionate in non-defense spending increases. I was on active duty through all those years, and felt the pain personally. In fact, by proportion of defense-related spending to total budget, Reagan's strongest defense budget was in 1981, and that was the budget Carter proposed before he left.
Another fact: more appointees of the Reagan administration were convicted of felonies than any other administration in history, including Clinton and (so far) GWB. Hell, Reagan even beat Nixon in hiring criminals, and that's saying something!!

We can get into fighta all night about deficts as it was congress that spent $187 for every new $ that came in with the tax cuts....so please at least get that right...ah contra affair...so guess you were for letting the Sandinstas win...thats kwel...keeps the military fighting...I think he had the heart of the captives at heart and wanted them freed in lebanon...mistakes were made but nowhere like Clinton and all our secrets being bidded to Chiness militay fronts...for donations....would hope most of the intel that was given to them was faulty as when news does break like that you have to wonder why or how it happened...misinformation etc...so If you haven't a party then what princiople do you vote for as you know it takes more than being President to run the country there is congrees and they are a 2 party thing for now...so just don't follow your logic wright now

[zetetic]

Forgot to tell you who I voted for.

The first election I was old enough for was 1984, and I was in transit between a bunch of schools in th emilitary and don;t remember voting at all. 1988 was via absentee ballot when I was overseas, but I seem to remember voting for Bush I.

I supported Clinton over Perot and Bush in 1992. He was way less crazy than Perot, and way smarter than Bush. I honestly can't remember who I voted for in 1996, but it was such a landslide it doesn't really matter. In 2000 I voted for Bradley in the primary, and gave up caring when Gore and Bush both got the nominations. I'm convinced that if Bradley and McCain had been the candidates instead of tweedle-dumb and tweedle-dumber, we would have been better off no matter who won the election.

In 2004 I was on active duty and didn't get my absentee ballot set up in time (my own damned fault). For 2008, I'm conflicted. McCain is a personal hero, but he folded most of his (smart) independent positions to cowtow to the money in the hands of the evangenazis and right wingnuts. Obama is fascinating - he's got charisma like nobody since Elvis, and he seems to be able to make political things happen in his favor. Although, that makes him somehow as dirty as the rest of the grubbies inside the beltway. I guess I'll just have to wait until Monday before election day and flip a coin.

[THE WATCHER]

zetetic wrote:

<quoted text>
As posted previously, I don't have any personal "politics" - I'm an independent, skeptical thinker. I don't trust anyone, and I completely ignore if they're conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, or Martian. Something you cannot apparently do.
I can quote you some facts about Reagan, though: President Reagan built up the largest budget deficit in history (until GWB, that is), and he was not strong on defense. The obscenely huge ramp-up in government spending from '80 to '88 was disproportionate in non-defense spending increases. I was on active duty through all those years, and felt the pain personally. In fact, by proportion of defense-related spending to total budget, Reagan's strongest defense budget was in 1981, and that was the budget Carter proposed before he left.
Another fact: more appointees of the Reagan administration were convicted of felonies than any other administration in history, including Clinton and (so far) GWB. Hell, Reagan even beat Nixon in hiring criminals, and that's saying something!!

By lower defense spending maybe what you refer to it the incress as a % of GDP was lower than before he took over...yes that can be true as the GDP rose consideably and military went up accordingly.
Am certian if you were to look at spending from 80-88 you'll increases inMilitary spending higher than the Peanut farmer