I think when you take a look at a man's life you need to look at his past convictions. What drives this man, pictured at left in this sexy shot from 1989 during his tenure as Secretary of Defense, and what makes him tick?Well, I think this quote sums it up. When asked in an interview in the April 5, 1989 issue of the Washington Post about his FIVE deferments he received in the 1960s during the Vietnam Era, he replied,
"I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."
Hmm. So basically Dick talks a good game about the necessity of military action but doesn't really want to place himself in harm's way. My buddy Matt, just back from Iraq this month, has a word for that. It's a word that folks in the military use quite a bit.
Chickenhawk.
Click here for a further explanation.
10 comments:
The fact that Dick Cheney skipped out of Vietnam and yet he is somehow tougher than John Kerry, who did serve his country, proves the bizarre mental state of the 21st century conservative. They conform their own truth to fit their belief system.
I thought we’d discussed this particular topic to death some time ago…I suspect nobody has changed opinions here…
On another note…Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (and one of the lower tier Republicans, God forbid) are calling for a nationwide ban on smoking. Do you smoke, Mark? I know a lot of our friends do. Thoughts on this? Since these smoking bans began as bans in public ‘indoor’ places and workplaces and have since migrated to private property (bars, etc) and now even to really private property (your own yard in some places), do you think this is an infringement on your rights? I use the term ‘rights’ loosely here, of course, because there is no specific right to smoking per se, just as there was not specific right to drinking (but at least it was an Amendment to prohibit that…). Do you suspect the ACLU will jump in at some point?
I’m not even a smoker, butt (ha ha) to me this just does not seem right. I’m curious if as a liberal, how you (or if you’re not a smoker, some of our liberal friends) will think of their favorite candidates when they’re forced to snuff out their cigarettes at their own backyard BBQ.
I don't smoke. I think the ACLU will get involved because it is an infringement on people's rights. Hey, they got Oliver North off, why not smokers?
At the same time, though, second hand smoke is also an infringement of my right to not get cancer. So, what's the balance?
I think someone's house is obviously off limits. People should be able to smoke there. Someone's yard? I haven't seen any studies but it would seem to me that smoke disappates enough from being harmful. Bars? Well, why not have smokers bars and nonsmokers bars? Whichever one makes the most money will probably stay in business.
dave, I wasn't around when this topic was covered to death so I'd like to understand why cons can rip Kerry but not Cheney.
In the end, it’s all choice, right? Surely that’s a term liberals find near and dear. Does 2nd hand smoke kill? Maybe. Probably. But if it does, I should “choose” to not work/drink at a bar that allows smoking. Generally speaking, I hate slippery-slope analogies, but this one is panning out exactly as predicted. I forgot where I read it (though a quick google search will find it) but there are counties where you cannot smoke in your own backyard if your neighbor finds it offensive. Another favorite examples was an article about a Starbucks opening in Vienna. Anyone who’s been there can tell you there’s a coffee shop on every corner and smoke billowing out of each. Starbucks, of course, is non-smoking and critics lambasted them for opening a store in such a prominent coffee/smoking city. It simply would not work, they said. At the time of the printing, that Starbucks was the single most profitable store in Europe. And the other places still did fine, but people appreciated the choice. Choice. Until smoking is made illegal here (a la a prohibition style amendment)…well, you get the point.
Dick: this would fall into the “is the moon made of Swiss cheese” category of argument. There is no point to it. There is nothing I could tell you that would make you change your opinion or understand mine. Long story short, Kerry made his bones being ‘against’ the military, so to run on a ‘Mr. Defense’ platform is simply disingenuous, regardless of his honorable service. A prime, though not compete, review is the book by the Swift Boat Veterans. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, there’s been only a couple of things from the book that have been clouded, but not disproved (to my liking, anyway). And if you’ve read the book, you’d see why. For the most part, it puts Kerry’s own words and deeds up against Kerry’s own words and deeds...which is just dang hard to refute. Want examples? I've got oodles...
…so Mark, if Clinton or Edwards are indeed the presidential candidate, will you support them, knowing that they’re supporting propositions which would curtail your rights?
So there is a "right to not get cancer"??? News to me.
I am going to have a hard time supporting Hillary anyway..unless Obama is her running mate which is going to really screw me up.
As far as Edwards goes, I would like to see if he is actually going to waste his time with something so frivilous when there are so many other issues that should be ahead of it.
But to generally answer your question, I will have a problem with any candidate that curtails rights.
I don't mind telling you I'm going to need somebody to explain why John Edwards isn't considered evil in your book.
From CNN:
Edwards was asked during his appearance how he explained the contradiction of asking Americans to sacrifice while he's living in a 28,000-square-foot mansion.
He said he came from nothing, worked hard all his life, has always supported workers and fought big corporations as a lawyer.
"I have no apologies whatsoever for what I've done with my life," he said to loud cheers. "My entire life has been about the same cause, which is making sure wherever you come from, whatever your family is, whatever the color of your skin, you get a real chance to do something great in this country."
Huh? For starters, his response didn't even address the question. Secondly, it sure sounds as if he's saying it's OK for him to be rich and live in a mansion because he worked hard for it. Yet other people who are rich get no such consideration from him or his party.
Way to fight those huge corporations, John, because we all know they had nothing to do with the "hard work" that helped you become rich.
What a POS this guy is. If you actually practice what you so regularly preach, Markadelphia, you will reject this guy's candidacy immediately.
Well, obviously I would rather see Obama as president because I do think Edwards is somewhat of a hypocrite. He voted for the war, as well, which has typical spineless turd Democrat bullshit.
But he does have the best health care plan out there, in my opinion, and has some good ideas. Will he carry through on them or become just like Bush did? Who knows...
Post a Comment