And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

Another thing the good, decent Dems might take careful notice of is what
happened to Kerry. I think he's an asshole and wasn't and isn't fit to
be the President of the US, but there's no sensible person who could
honestly and seriously claim his "stupid" remarks were an intentional
slap at troops (I'll leave the Freudian aspects alone) rather than a
screwed-up attempt at a lame joke. Yet, a fair number of Dems not only
didn't support him, they ran away as fast as they could while
simultaneously claiming they were absolutely confident they were gonna
win by huge margins.

And I'd offer that those decent Dems might wish to compare those who
dumped Kerry with those that dumped Lieberman and those who might have
be involved in sending Obama to stump for Ford.

TC,
R

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

How is
this any more demoralizing for our troops than, say, promising a
Rumsfeld reign over the Pentagon until the day Bush leaves office.


Wow!! Ask and ye shall receive. Rumsfeld seems to have announced his
resignation. Our military is already better off than it was yesterday.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:20:30 GMT, Steve wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:02:01 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)


"In the days leading up to the election, Bush said he wanted Rumsfeld
to stay on as defense chief until the end of Bush's second term."

It _is_ the end your second term, cupcake.
You just don't know it yet.

Isn't it amazing how all his "political capital" suddenly depreciated? ;-)

/daytripper (ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!)

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

On 8 Nov 2006 17:56:10 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:ba54l25vj1bq6gb1b0elvaph3r5p1u84b3@
4ax.com:

but there's no sensible person who could
honestly and seriously claim his "stupid" remarks were an intentional
slap at troops (I'll leave the Freudian aspects alone) rather than a
screwed-up attempt at a lame joke.


Ya know, if anyone has a right to comment on the troops, its him. I think
Kerry is a asshole with less charisma than your average little brown ring,
but I haven't seen anyone actually challenge his statement based upon
facts, like the education level of the troops, or anything like that.

Er, did you read, see, or accidentally overhear anything in the days
after his remark?

So, asking you now, what percentage of those serving in Iraq right now are
college grads?

Roughly extrapolating, I'd say something like 1 in about 7.something.

If its low, why is it forbidden to point this out?

It isn't. Generally speaking as above, there are something on the order
of about 7 enlisted men for each commissioned officer. It's not hard to
figure out, and as such, it would be impossible to "forbid" anyone from
pointing it out.

How is
this any more demoralizing for our troops than, say, promising a Rumsfeld
reign over the Pentagon until the day Bush leaves office.

Saying that there are, by definition, not as many college grads as
non-grads isn't demoralizing. Calling those who choose to serve
"stupid" or similar is, well, stupid. That said, I don't think Kerry
intentionally called anyone stupid - I think he screwed up a stupid,
politically-dangerous joke (and again, I'll leave any possible Freudian
aspects out of the discussion as they'd not be material to the
discussion at hand).

Not to say that the troops aren't selfless heros, but I'd wager that the
super-educated shy away from the military.

Your connecting "intelligence" with "education level" and moreso,
"college grad" is telling. FWIW, many use the military as a way to get
a college degree, and IAC, given the structure of the military (18-21
y.o. initial enlistment, officers with degrees, etc.), the majority of
the military wouldn't have college degrees. That doesn't make them
"stupid," or even of low intelligence.

As to the "super-educated" shying away from the military, it'd be a
small minority that _could_ get "super-educated" prior to joining the
military (depending on the definition of "super-educated"), limited to
educations one can get by about 26-27 years old or MDs, JDs, etc., so
"shying away" really isn't an applicable term. But there are a fair
share of generally well-educated people in the military, and an even
larger share of smart, well-trained technical people proudly serving.

"I support the troops" is a statement that is very easy to make, and push
comes to shove, means little.

I'm not sure what you intend to convey.

TC,
R

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:02:01 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)

Nothing to spin. He's gone, and that's that. Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job. I'd offer others might be a better
choice, particularly Schwarzkopf or perhaps Honore, but time will tell.

TC,
R

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

On 8 Nov 2006 10:12:22 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
but there's no sensible person who could
honestly and seriously claim his "stupid" remarks were an intentional
slap at troops

So when Bush and the wingnut talking heads used that remark *against*
Kerry, they were being dishonest? I'm shocked, shocked.


And I'd offer that those decent Dems might wish to compare those who
dumped Kerry with those that dumped Lieberman and those who might have
be involved in sending Obama to stump for Ford.

And I'd offer that you're transparent attempts to foment acrimony
within the Dem ranks are especially lame.

Er, you suspect that posting to ROFF would be a useful tool to "foment
acrimony within the Dem ranks?" You really do need to retune your
tinfoil, Gracie...

Dems have the House. Dems have the Senate.

Well, not yet, but IAC, I'd offer that there's a good chance that rather
than Dems managing to block the most-right of the GOP's legislation,
it'll simply be the GOP blocking the most-left of the Dems...the mundane
(i.e., the non-vote-threatening) will get done as always.

They were sufficiently united to pull that off.

Yeah, just keep telling yourself that...

There's going to be disagreement. There are going to be power grabs.
BFD. A willingness to consider differing opinions is a *quality*, not
a liability IMHO.

Absolutely. And which of either end of the spectrum do you think will
actually do it?

Cumbayah, dude.

Hey, get rid of the pinheads on both sides of the aisle, and sure, why
not...

HTH,
R

Joe F.

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:44:06 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:02:01 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)

Nothing to spin. He's gone, and that's that. Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job. I'd offer others might be a better
choice, particularly Schwarzkopf or perhaps Honore, but time will tell.

TC,
R

The right guy is Colin Powell.

/daytripper

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

On 8 Nov 2006 19:01:50 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:pq84l21iu2e9h1udmbhdot0rfpv1mku66f@
4ax.com:

Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job.

Hopefully, whoever ends up in the position will do a good job. That said,
given the situation, putting a career spook up for the civilian leadership
of the Pentagon with the current CIA role in the "questioning" of prisoners
in the national disgrace that Gitmo has become, not to mention a new
attempt at hiring one of his dad's old buddies, is a very strange thing to
do in this situation. It's almost like Bush is trying to bring things to a
head as quickly as possible, and I'm anxiously awaiting the DemocratIC
(maybe we can add the "IC" back on now!) response. My suspicion is that
the Dems will hold out the olive leaf, and seat him. Anything else might
look ungracious-- maybe Bush is taking advantage of this possible "new
honeymoon"-- but expect a rigorous hearing nonetheless.

Gates was an analyst, and generally, pretty well respected by objective
people. He, IMO, just isn't the best choice for a wartime Sec. As to
what them Dems might do, there's not really any way to claim, again,
objectively, that he is not qualified, only that, as I have,
subjectively, there are better choices. His connections to Bush, Sr.,
really isn't an issue.

Schwartzkopf would have been interesting.

Powell would have been an interesting choice as well,
clearly conveying an attitude of national reconciliation without
actually putting a Democrat in the slot.

"Interesting?" Almost certainly, except not in a good way. Powell
simply isn't qualified, and frankly, doesn't have what it takes to do
what will need to be done. Schwarzkopf and Honore do, and to do so
without being unnecessarily brutal about it.

TC,
R

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

daytripper wrote:
The right guy is Colin Powell.

I'd say the right guy *was* Colin Powell; but that was before that UN
fairy tale shredded his credibility. I'd be surprised if he'd touch
another BushCo appointment with a barge pole.

Joe F.

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:07:51 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:44:06 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:02:01 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)

Nothing to spin. He's gone, and that's that. Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job. I'd offer others might be a better
choice, particularly Schwarzkopf or perhaps Honore, but time will tell.

TC,
R

The right guy is Colin Powell.

Er, no. See my reply to Scott. Powell isn't qualified, and IAC, he's
burned WAY too many bridges with WAY too many bureaucrats of all
political leanings.

TC,
R

/daytripper

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:17:14 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:07:51 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:44:06 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:02:01 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)

Nothing to spin. He's gone, and that's that. Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job. I'd offer others might be a better
choice, particularly Schwarzkopf or perhaps Honore, but time will tell.

TC,
R

The right guy is Colin Powell.

Er, no. See my reply to Scott. Powell isn't qualified, and IAC, he's
burned WAY too many bridges with WAY too many bureaucrats of all
political leanings.

TC,
R

/daytripper

He *is* the right guy, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is
in fact the misinformation campaign of which he was more victim than
co-conspirator.

I don't believe the American people feel poorly about him, and once the
"bygones" hand-shaking got out of the way, I truly believe he'd be a major
unifying force in solving the incredible problem Bush's puppeteers have gotten
the USA into, without continuing to throw young Americans on the fire.

There really *was* a good damned reason why Bush the Senior didn't take
Hussein off the count...

/daytripper

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

wrote in message
...
On 8 Nov 2006 10:12:22 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
but there's no sensible person who could
honestly and seriously claim his "stupid" remarks were an intentional
slap at troops

So when Bush and the wingnut talking heads used that remark *against*
Kerry, they were being dishonest? I'm shocked, shocked.


And I'd offer that those decent Dems might wish to compare those who
dumped Kerry with those that dumped Lieberman and those who might have
be involved in sending Obama to stump for Ford.

And I'd offer that you're transparent attempts to foment acrimony
within the Dem ranks are especially lame.

Er, you suspect that posting to ROFF would be a useful tool to "foment
acrimony within the Dem ranks?" You really do need to retune your
tinfoil, Gracie...

You think "useful tool" is a synonym for "transparent attempt"?

Hee, hee, hee.

Wolfgang
if the boy spins any faster he's going to drill a deep hole in the ground
and/or set himself on fire. fun. :)

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:32:31 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:17:14 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:07:51 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:44:06 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:02:01 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)

Nothing to spin. He's gone, and that's that. Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job. I'd offer others might be a better
choice, particularly Schwarzkopf or perhaps Honore, but time will tell.

TC,
R

The right guy is Colin Powell.

Er, no. See my reply to Scott. Powell isn't qualified, and IAC, he's
burned WAY too many bridges with WAY too many bureaucrats of all
political leanings.

TC,
R

/daytripper

He *is* the right guy, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is
in fact the misinformation campaign of which he was more victim than
co-conspirator.

Er, what? He's decent enough guy, at least as people generally go, but
he's a long-time military "yes man" and IMO, not particularly suited or
qualified for the job.

I don't believe the American people feel poorly about him,

No, they don't, and no real reason they should, as far as him as a
person.

and once the
"bygones" hand-shaking got out of the way, I truly believe he'd be a major
unifying force in solving the incredible problem Bush's puppeteers have gotten
the USA into, without continuing to throw young Americans on the fire.

Not IMO, but hey, that's why there's chocolate and vanilla....

There really *was* a good damned reason why Bush the Senior didn't take
Hussein off the count...

That was then, not now (or three years ago).

TC,
R

/daytripper

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
wrote in news:bf74l25rl7l51olcs71gj71vi3fdse5u63@
4ax.com:

Your connecting "intelligence" with "education level" and moreso,
"college grad" is telling.

That seems to be the context of Kerry's statement in front of the college
audience he was addressing, though.

FWIW, many use the military as a way to get
a college degree,

Yes. Unfortunately, the student aid structure is such that a college
education, because of loan interest, cost a poor person considerably more
than a rich person. The army is a fantastic way for a person of little
means to pursue an education without mounting large debts.

and IAC, given the structure of the military (18-21
y.o. initial enlistment, officers with degrees, etc.), the majority of
the military wouldn't have college degrees. That doesn't make them
"stupid," or even of low intelligence.


No, it of course doesn't.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply


Despite the fact that we have disagreed in the past, Richard hit the mark
here.I served 8+ years as a Marine and 8 years after that am finally using
the G.I. Bill to go to school. The G.I. Bill isn't the only higher education
opportunity afforded to those that serve. There are professional advancement
programs for most branches that are not only required for promotion, but
transfer to college credits. While I was in, our base worked with the local
community college to start a degree program for NCO's. Free to the Marines
that qualified. Most service members are bright young people with the
potential for greatness. The military often serves as a transition into the
real world and provides some guidance while these kids mature enough to be
independent later in life.

Jeremy Moe

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

Dawn Moe wrote:
...Most service members are bright young people with the
potential for greatness.

Well, I was right there with you up to this point. You know
better.....and/or you should.....and/or you don't care....and/or you're
a liar.....and/or any number of other things. Regardless......pick any
combination you like.....it's horse****.

The military often serves as a transition into the
real world and provides some guidance while these kids mature enough to be
independent later in life.

Ah!.....back on track. Good.

Wolfgang
who knows that MOST people from any sample group (yeah, even engineers)
aren't particularly stupid......nor are they (yeah, even rocket
scientists.......or double-naught spies) particularly bright.

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
ps.com...

Dawn Moe wrote:
...Most service members are bright young people with the
potential for greatness.

Well, I was right there with you up to this point. You know
better.....and/or you should.....and/or you don't care....and/or you're
a liar.....and/or any number of other things. Regardless......pick any
combination you like.....it's horse****.

The military often serves as a transition into the
real world and provides some guidance while these kids mature enough to
be
independent later in life.

Ah!.....back on track. Good.

Wolfgang
who knows that MOST people from any sample group (yeah, even engineers)
aren't particularly stupid......nor are they (yeah, even rocket
scientists.......or double-naught spies) particularly bright.


Wolfgang...that is exactly why I said MOST. There are always at least the
exceptional 10% that give everyone else a bad name. They are not all.

Jeremy

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

Dawn Moe wrote:
"Wolfgang" wrote in message
ps.com...

Dawn Moe wrote:
...Most service members are bright young people with the
potential for greatness.

Well, I was right there with you up to this point. You know
better.....and/or you should.....and/or you don't care....and/or you're
a liar.....and/or any number of other things. Regardless......pick any
combination you like.....it's horse****.

The military often serves as a transition into the
real world and provides some guidance while these kids mature enough to
be
independent later in life.

Ah!.....back on track. Good.

Wolfgang
who knows that MOST people from any sample group (yeah, even engineers)
aren't particularly stupid......nor are they (yeah, even rocket
scientists.......or double-naught spies) particularly bright.


Wolfgang...that is exactly why I said MOST. There are always at least the
exceptional 10% that give everyone else a bad name. They are not all.

Well, I've got a pretty good idea of WHAT you said......I mean, it's
right up there at the top of the screen where we can both see
it......right? I repeat, MOST people in any sample group you care to
name are not particularly bright. As for your spurious "10%" figure,
we both know that you just made that crap up, but even if it were true
(which, I probably need not remind you, it is not......because we know
that you just made it up.....remember?), it would still leave
"MOST".......right?......or is there something basic about percentages
that I'm missing here?

O.k., now this business of WHY you said that. Usenet is (among many
other things) a wonderful place to try out things that you would
probably never consider doing in other places or under other
circumstances. You COULD, for example, try experimenting with the
truth. What's it gonna cost you?

Wolfgang
and......um......oh yeah, baghdad is NOT iwo jima. they lied to you.