Ooooh you guys caught me. It was late at night when I scribbled the ROTC without mentioning it was High School.
I was signed up for a 6 year stint as a nuke officer aboard a sub... when many things happened to change that life course. Nothing shameful, just things. But really, what bullshit. I opposed that war and would NOT fight in it. It was treason to cooperate with that trap -- which damaged America almost to the breaking point, exactly as its KGB planners hoped. John Kerry was absolutely right and patriotic to fight against it when he got home. > I don't think I'm personally insulting you, > actually. What baloney. Your letter made it personal, as does most of your [EMAIL PROTECTED]@& below. > if I argued the way you did I'd say you were > consistent - you didn't care about what happened to > the people of Vietnam, and you didn't care about the > people of Iraq. what sophistry. I cared very much about the hell on Earth we made of Vietnam, by refusing to allow the free elections we had promised at the time of the partition. True, in those elections the people would have made a horrible mistake. They would have chosen Ho and Communism. We now know THAT A COUNTRY CAN OUTLAST THAT FEVER. We had too little faith in our side and our civilization to keep with George Marshall's plan and wait it out. > I don't think either of those are the case, though. > The question is why you insist on describing people > who disagree with you in that sort of malign > terminology. Feh. You are doing that to me. Note you ONLY feel that way when I diss things your side believes, and not when I diss the other side, which I can PROVE that I do almost equally. Not entirely equally. Because the present bunch in DC are classic standard aristo coup-plotters. I recognize them from every generation since Adam. > > > > Which is irrelevant. The things I accused W and > his > > crowd of are specific (you answered none) provable > > and > > actually rather MILD compared to the absolutely > > insane > > series of spewing rants that were aimed at the > > Clintons, accusing them of everything from murder > to > > molestation to having a bad marriage. (That last > > swipe, vicious, had no basis bust became the core > > mantra of a religious movement.) > > Since at least one member of the family is a friend, > I'm not going to comment on their marriage. But > they > aren't particularly specific, and they're only > provable to _you_, and people with your rather > far-out > viewpoint. Sweet. In fact, we had 8 years of utter slander aimed at a nice couple who raised a nice daughter and stayed together despite his alpha male wanderings. Which is more than can be said of his 'prosecutors' assigned by the House GOP... MORE THAN HALF of whom had had horrible and scandalous divorces. Of how do I know? I once saw the Clintons through slats in some bleachers, before going on stage (him with saxaphone.) They were alone, nobody (to their knowledge) watching. I saw her reach up and BITE his ear. Sexy as hell. But the bitchy right kept telling for 8 years that they had separate bedrooms. It's not as bad a lie as the million other spread by Rush and co. But it is so indicative of the utter, maliscious meanness. You have to address the central point, > Dr. > Brin, that some very intelligent and able people > completely disagree with you. As long as you insist > on arguing that someone like Rice is an idiot, well, > you're arguing that I am too - because I would say > I'm > at least as able to see through propaganda as you > are. Crap, total crap. I cannot believe you would stoop to such drivel in order to "argue". Whining and taking personal dudgeon because I call someone's POLICIES idiotic? Yet you defend people who regularly spread genuine libel like RAPE and MURDER at the (then) president of the United States? How much hypocrisy are you going to try fortonight, Gautam? > And I don't think she is - she's at least as smart > as > I am. At last. I can go with that. Or, I dare say, as you, Dr. Brin. If you > want > to use the sort of terms and inflammatory rhetoric > that you do, you aren't just insulting the President > and his aides, you're insulting everyone who > supports > them - Total garbage. This is the lamest argument I have ever heard. Instead of ARGUING with me.... like coming up with a counter example to the list of accomplishments I listed... or showing me one other industry than energy that Republicans ever deregulated... Or showing me the weapons of mass destruction... or defending the decision to drive the Iranian people into the arms of their mullahs by that axis of evil ditiziness... no, you whine "If you call my leader's policies stupid then you are calling ME stupid and I'm not stupid, so that proves you wrong!" because you're pretty clearly saying that > only > a fool or a villain could agree with them. Say that > if you wish, but don't think I'm going to respect > your > opinions afterwards. > > > > > The dopiest thing is to sigh, wave your hands in > the > > air and declare it pointless to argue. Feh. > > What's the argument? DB: All conservatives are > interested in concentrating wealth in the hands of > their frat buddies. I immediately disproved your > argument. I'm a conservative, and I'm not. So I > guess I win the argument? > How exactly do I respond to that? > > > But fundamentally this isn't about conservatism. > It > > is about kleptocracy. They hated him as much as > all > > the other war heroes, like Kerry and Clark. > > You mean like George H.W. Bush? He would be a war > hero too, after all. He fought. I will give him that. He propped up Saddam. Obeyed Riyadh when they ordered Saddam left in charge. Raised two cooks for sons. But he fought and I respect that. ===== . . * Please note. My email address of many years is changing FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... (Or else use [EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
