Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

To Rex, regarding the President:

Regarding the "Bush was AWOL", from National Guard Magazine
"the most comprehensive media review of Bush's military records concluded that while he, "served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, he did accumulate the days of service required for him for his ultimate honorable discharge." The review was done by Georgemag.com, the Online Version of the magazine founded by the late John F. Kennedy Jr. Guardsmen say Bush's service record is not unusual."

I'll note as a veteran myself that nobody I ever heard of that went AWOL got an honorable discharge.

Regarding he "lied about drunken driving", from Robert A. George
of the New York Post, 11/3/00:

"There is no evidence yet that Bush has lied about this incident. And, of course, for the boomer media, the actions matter little; the chief question is, Did the individual lie or dissemble? In truth, it seems that Bush was pretty aboveboard in his handling of it. In this post-Clinton moment, the principal lesson we are asked to accept is that Dubya was "straightforward" about his past. This columnist would have preferred hearing about this incident a year ago — and coming from the Republican candidate himself."

It appears you are 0-2 so far about the President lying, and it gets better:

he "lied about Harken", from columnist Byron York:

"In June 1990, Bush sold two-thirds of his stake — 212,000 shares — at $4 for a total price of $848,000. At the time of the sale, Harken was moving into a period of financial difficulties. In the months following Bush's sale, the company announced a quarterly loss and the stock price went into a long, slow decline; by the end of 1990, it was $1.25 a share."

However, York goes on to state:

"Bush denies any wrongdoing and has often said he was unaware of the difficulties within Harken. "He thought he was selling into good news," spokeswoman Karen Hughes told The American Spectator, adding that if Bush had waited to sell the stock he could have earned considerably more than he got. That would, however, have required his waiting at least a year; it was not until June 1991 that Harken got back up to $4 a share. By September 1991 it briefly hit $8 a share.
In 1991 the Securities and Exchange Commission investigated the sale and took no action against Bush or anyone else. "I don't remember a lot about it, other than there wasn't a lot about it," says William McLucas, who was the SEC enforcement chief at the time. "The facts just didn't support any judgment that this was something that would result in a serious enforcement proceeding." "

So he sold in June '90 for $4, it went as low as $1.25 in Dec. '90, but by Sep. '91 it was over $8.
I fail to see a problem here, unless it was that he sold too early. Also note the statement from the SEC.

Perhaps you should investigate things a little more closely before repeating things to find out if they're really true.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

We Americans struggle constantly with the balance between a cetralized and decentralized government. We even fought a civil war at least partly because of it. Very few people that don't live in Washington D.C. really honestly believe that the government in Washington has our best interests as their main priority. The Fedeal government for the most part is something we tolerate. It's a nessecary evil because only a strong central government is able to do the things that individual towns/cities/states can't do, like defend us from invasion by the Canadians. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I can't imagine we would ever peacefully hand over the reigns to some world body. We have a hard enough time trusting our own federal government.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Yep Geoschmo, we Canadians are nasty. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Been a long time since I was in grade school, but IIRC, we (terrible, awful, disgusting <====pick your adjective) Canadians burnt your White House.

War of 1812 or something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

You'd likely do better, tbontob, by pointing out that you took part of Maine, then Massachusetts, and never gave it back.

But back then you weren't even Canadians: you were just Loyalists. And I seem to remember that most of the 'Canadian' contingent in that conflict were exiled loyalists from the thirteen colonies.

But enough history. Geo was not Canadian-bashing. If anyone was it was me. No one has pointed out if I am mistaken about how your government works, so this makes it even less likely anyone was attacking Canada.

(And I wasn't bashing Canada, I was only trying to illustrate a point.)
[Edit:And that point was not that the U.S. government was better, just that it was very different.]

[ May 13, 2003, 20:29: Message edited by: Loser ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Loser, I never felt Geoschmo was bashing Canada in the Last post. If anything, I felt it was an attempt to ease the tension a bit. That enabled me to joke about us Canadians in return. Us terrible psuedo-Vikings to the north. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And yes you did have inaccuracies in your post about Canada. And I could have posted corrections, but felt it was much better if others got involved. And if the inaccuracies were not corrected, so what? It would not be the end of the world. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Terribly sorry that I misread you.

If you would correct me in a PM, if not in this thread, I would appreciate it.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Tbontob, deliberately withholding information is not a good way to hold a discussion. Most people do not want to get involved in this thread, and you aren't going to convince them to do so.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ooops, my sincere apologies.

When I posted, I did not realize I would be embarrassing you. I was just trying to correct what I perceived to be an irroneous impression.

Sometimes I have to think longer before I yak. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, Tbontob, you succeded and got me involved
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
Pseudo-vikings?
If IRC the vikings left Canada and abandonded their colony there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, Tbontob, you succeded and got me involved
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
Pseudo-vikings?
If IRC the vikings left Canada and abandonded their colony there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Heh heh. Not the kind of involvement I was hoping for, but OK.

Yes, they did. In Newfoundland or was it Labrador?

There is evidence of other Viking settlements but not as conclusive yet.

Anyways, let's put what I thought was funny into some sort of perspective.

In the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries, the Vikings terrorized most of Europe. They were mostly, peoples from Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

Usually, they struck hard and quickly, creating mayhem, taking slaves/hostages, booty and often destroying much of what they didn't take.

They were the bane of Europe and parents would often frighten their children into good behaviour by saying the Vikings would take them if they were not good. Kind of the modern day boogey-man.

Now Geoschmo spoke of an invasion from the Canadians. The Canadians live in the North. The Vikings also lived in the north.

The Vikings often burnt what they didn't take. The Canadians burnt the white house.

To even think that the Canadians are as determined, dedicated, strong, combative, rapine destroyers of peoples and hearth and home as the Vikings is so ludicrous that it is hilarious. At least it is to me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

So, that's the joke. Us pretentious Canadians thinking the Americans are quivering in their boots and ready to panic at the slightest hint we may invade their soveriegn territory like the Vikings did to the Britain, France and many other countries. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif