freeflydrew

Uh OH Kallend... Looks like your the new Flip-Flopper! I thought this was a label exclusively for Kerry, but I see now that it's application has broadened.

Mr. Cleland reminded reporters of the scurrilous attacks by Bush forces against Senator John McCain in the Republican presidential primary in 2000 and said: "Keep in mind, this president has gone after three Vietnam veterans in four years. That's got to stop." I'm not trying to question the service records of those who have clearly served for this country... Bush on the other hand... (just joking)

The point of the article is respecting those who served, and not attacking them for what they may or may not have done during there enlistment... but I guess you missed that point, eh?

Here's are a couple paragraphs from an editorial in todays NY Times: Mr. Cleland reminded reporters of the scurrilous attacks by Bush forces against Senator John McCain in the Republican presidential primary in 2000 and said: "Keep in mind, this president has gone after three Vietnam veterans in four years. That's got to stop." In what is surely the most important election of the last half-century, we seem trapped in the politics of the madhouse. What is incredible is that these attacks on men who served not just honorably, but heroically, are coming from a hawkish party that is controlled by an astonishing number of men who sprinted as far from the front lines as they could when they were of fighting age and their country was at war. Mr. Bush himself, the nation's commander in chief and the biggest hawk of all. He revels in the accouterments of combat. The story was somewhat different when he was 22 years old and eligible for combat himself. He managed to get into the cushy confines of the Texas Air National Guard at the height of the Vietnam War in 1968 - a year in which more than a half-million American troops were in the war zone and more than 14,000 were killed. Vice President Dick Cheney, another fierce administration hawk. Mr. Cheney asked for and received five deferments when he was eligible for the draft. He told senators at a confirmation hearing in 1989, "I had other priorities in the 60's than military service." Many draft-age Americans had similar priorities - getting an education, getting married and starting a family. Attorney General John Ashcroft. He is reported to have said, "I would have served, if asked." But with the war raging in Vietnam, he received six student deferments and an "occupational deferment" based on the essential nature of a civilian job at Southwest Missouri State University - teaching business law to undergraduates. Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary and a fanatical hawk on Iraq. He was not fanatical about Vietnam and escaped the draft with student deferments. I would like to see at least some of these men, in keeping with their positions as leaders of a great nation, stand up and say it is wrong - just wrong - to try and reap a cheap political gain by defacing the sacrifices of individuals like John Kerry, John McCain and Max Cleland, who put themselves in mortal danger in the service of their country. It's one thing to decline to serve. It's quite another to throw mud at those who did serve - or to remain silent as allies hurl the mud. The privileged classes no longer feel an obligation to put their lives - or their children's lives - on the line in defense of the nation. The very least they could do is insist that those who have put themselves in harm's way be treated with respect.

Kerry answered scarcastically that he was still trying to figure out where he was that night... and then when Kerry tried to move on to another topic, Stewart would ask over and over about Cambodia, mocking the ludicrasy of the whole topic, and the focus on it by the right. HAd you watched the show, you would understand the context... Watch it here

Sewart's not from the left... He says it over and over again. He just likes to make fun of everybody, and host a fake news program.

Bush has a heart attack and dies:- waiting for him. The devil says "You are on my list but I have no room for you. so I'll tell you what I'm going to do." "I've got three folks here who weren't quite as bad as you. I'll let one of them go, but then you have to take that person's place. I'll even let YOU decide who leaves." George thought that sounded pretty good, so he agreed. The devil opened the first room: In it was Richard Nixon and a large pool of water. He kept diving in and surfacing empty-handed over and over and over. Such was his fate in hell. ''No!" George said. "I don't think so. I'm not a good swimmer and don't think I could do that all day long. " The devil led him to the next room: In it was Tony Blair with a sledgehammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing that hammer, time after time after time. "No, I've got this problem with my shoulder. commented George. The devil opened a third door: In it, George saw Bill Clinton, with Monica Lewinsky, doing what she does best. George Bush looked at this in disbelief for a while and finally said, "Yeah, I can handle this." The devil smiled and said......... ''OK, Monica, you're free to go!"

vinny, I don't think Kerry is going to respond to your post!

Feel free to quote your sources, or are they so ridiculous that you won't even post them? Wow Kennedy, you are such a funny guy! A simple search on Google

Ron, we're targeting specific people or groups in the middle of cities and dropping cluster bombs on them... I'm surprised that you can't see that there isn't that big of a difference. Take away the reasoning behind it, and we're doing the same thing: Killing a lot of innocent people (13,000 so far)

I'm sorry, Ron... What you consider a Weapon of Mass Destruction must be different than what i consider a Weapon of Mass Destruction...

This isn't about Gore... But way to bring him up out of no where... Kerry, Burger, and Clinton aren't my heros, so let's stay away from silly assunptions, ok buddy? Again, way to bring up more democrats. Can't have a discussion without it, right? Since the region was unstable before we got there, and is now more unstable, and we've killed and tortured iraqis, and we've used cluster bombs (which many argue are WMDs), and we've started 2 wars, do you think it's safe to assume, based on your reasoning, that another country will now invade us while we occupy Iraq and justify the loss of more civilians based on 8 similiar reasons? Just wondering....

We're not killing 13,000 civilians by a soldier misfiring his gun... We're killing these people by dropping bombs in cities full of civilians, Ron. So if an American soldier can avoid killing a civilian, does he? Not if he's ordered to drop a bomb in the middle of a city. Would a Terrorist kill 10,000 civilians if he could? Probably, but I still don't think your point makes any sense.

1. We've started 2 wars over the past 4 years 2. We've used WMD (cluster bombs) 3. Pre-emptive strike is a funny thing isn't it 4. We're destabliizing a volatile region 5. We've killed and tortured his own people 6. We're building WMD programs, and have yet to find evidence he was doing it, so without a foundation, this reason sounds a little shakey... 7. We're destroying Iraq because we took the opportunity Your reasoning is a little bit ridiculous, just like my response, and doesn't warrant the cost we've have to endure in terms of foreign relationships, finances, loss of life, and misdirection of resources.

Even GWB said that it's not America's job to police the world. It's a lame reason, and a poor excuse for a completely bad/rash/rushed decision to invade a country.

I agree with your statement, Vinny, but for this topic, I think it should be a little more specific... Al-Queda killed 3,000 of our civilians on purpose, and we have killed 13,000 Iraqi civilians by accident. Plain and simple... Any other explanation sounds like a an excuse for mass casualties.

And I am equally impressed with your use of scarcism... You should incorporate that into your posts more often. Here's a Clip from the Daily Show

Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnnnn....

it always changes...

RESULTS

Billy flew his helicopter for the a while, so the meet picked up speed, but it was back to the cessna for the raft round. There were a lot of spectators out there on Sunday, and the raft round was well worth the wait. Jeffro won (5000 bucks) The school has priority, not the fun jumpers... We had 4 hours in between loads, but hey, it's been a tough couple of years and the dz, school, and instructors need the money. Most fun jumpers left for the day and went to other dropzones. The vibe at the awards ceremony was fantastic. Sorry you were dissappointed. (The pilot who was in the otter when it was damaged was uninjured)

Jeffro in 1st Andy 2nd Not sure who's in third (sorry) Jay in 4th That's after one day... Rain for saturday, looks like sunday will be nice.

Another link They know we're going to attack them and bomb their nuclear facilities, so it makes sense for them to consider this... especially because this is the policy that the US is taking (Preemptive that is...) Just one country threatening another...

http://www.para-gear.com/frame.asp?menu=group%3d2%26level%3d1&main=templates/parachute.asp%3fgroup%3d2 OK, I know the link doesn't take you right there, but that's their fault not mine!

there isn't one for 2003...