Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148449)	10/21/2004 10:55:15 AM
From: Dr. Id	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Why its so hard for some to accept that it would be easy to orchestrate an opinion that an administration wanted to hear, I will never understand. Perhaps if people took time to read more of the historical records they'd realize that all these actors are the same as all of us - they put their pants on one leg at a time; they have biases, allies, personal debts to pay, favours to deliver, future political / business / military careers to think of -- in the elite air of Washington, especially in the corridors of power, is it any wonder that actions are taken and justified based on false pretense from time to time? Excellent post. I think that the reason why it's so hard for some to accept the fallibility of their leaders is that it is not about logic and reason. They may try to argue as though it is, but the reality is that the reasons for their inability to see fault with such flawed leadership possibly reflects an unconscious wish for an infallible father (or parent) that they've never given up. Many of us realize the fallibility of our parents at some point in life, and let that wish go. Others hold onto it forever. This is supported by the fact that they become SO angry when anyone criticizes or denigrates GW. As though we are attacking a member of their own family. I've tried understanding it from the viewpoint that maybe these folks just aren't that bright. It's true of some, but obviously not of others. The only rational explanation is that the reasons are unconscious and of psychological origin. Which is also why arguing with them is pointless. (Not that it isn't fun sometimes, though...) Support for this argument will be the forthcoming attacks. :)

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148449)	10/21/2004 11:31:31 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I was just wondering why nobody has checked on Edwards' draft record. If he turned 18 on June 10, 1971, he would have been classified as 1-A, unless he obtained a deferment. So the question is, did he obtain one? Regarding Cheney, and notwithstanding the extensive draft statistics you provided (very interesting, thanks), his four S-2 deferments covered him for only four of his eight draft eligible years, pretty much the same as any four year college student. As you know, his deferments were void when he dropped out of Yale twice and between his stints at Casper Comm College and Univ of Wyoming. He could have easily been drafted while not in school, but his number never came up. And of course his 3-A status was why he didn't get selected in his last year of eligibiity. Btw, it was uncommon for students to expose themselves to the draft back then, as Cheney apparently did.