Zell Miller's Speech

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Aww but you edited the part where the house's records only went back to 1997, why did you do that, you left the entire rest of my post in?

Immaturaty has nothing to do with whether one actually grew up before the digital age and understands that not all media is in digital for, but age does. I find it a very relative question. Immature is not acting like what society accepts is the proper behavior for your age, that has nothing to do with knowing when the digital age began.

Ignorance would have been a better word, but I prefer age because you type well enough that it makes me think you're not ignorant.

Edit: And again why I don't post links to some of what he said to congress is simple I think they're non issues much like some of what Kerry voted against. How many of something we should have, or who gets it first, or when we roll it out is of rather limited importance to me. Kerry didn't oppose all those weapons, he didn't want them removed from service, he just felt that they had gotten the money they needed, or that another item was more important for that year, Cheney would have had to make the same calls, which ones too support and for how much, so for me to drag up a statement Cheney makes where he thinks we x amount of F-15's instead of y is pretty lame of me.

However I do think that being against the Apache is a very big deal because that part of the Army was fairly outdated. We did need a new attack chopper, and it has become one of our most important weapons. So yeah we can say Kerry didn't think project x deserved y money, but Cheney didn't want it at all, that says alot to me. That's why I'd like the house one the best.

Edited September 2, 2004 by mAcOdIn

[Bearded Kirklander]

Immaturaty has nothing to do with whether one actually grew up before the digital age and understands that not all media is in digital for, but age does. I find it a very relative question. Immature is not acting like what society accepts is the proper behavior for your age, that has nothing to do with knowing when the digital age began.

Ignorance would have been a better word, but I prefer age because you type well enough that it makes me think you're not ignorant.

Well, I feel I am neither immature or ignorant, and I'm certainly not young. So, I think on balance, I'm doing just fine. :)

I was alive well before the digital age began and well before the first IBM PC and 360k floppy drives. Heck, I was alive when they had 8" floppy drives and punch cards. :omg:

Let's let the age thing drop, as I am simply too shocked by having to realize that I can't go back and be young again and I'm nearer the end of my life than the beginning... :( (see, now I'm all sad...) :cry:

:whistle:

[Bearded Kirklander]

Edit:? And again why I don't post links to some of what he said to congress is simple I think they're non issues much like some of what Kerry voted against.

Err - ok... The truth is a Non-Issue. Hrm...

I guess that pretty much says it all.:))

BTW, how is it you know specifically what Kerry felt and what his reasons were behind voting against each of those bills that the Republicans have claimed he voted against? Mind reader? Democratic Talking Points? Are these the same sources that said he was in Cambodia on Christmas? Just because he claimed it on the Senate floor does not make it true, as it turns out. I think I saw a report on TV (ABC I think) that the Kerry campaign officially stated he may not have been in Cambodia during that time after all and that Kerry may have simply "Misrecollected". I wonder what else he may have Misrecollected...:DD

(just havin' a little fun - not trying to bash kerry too much...)>

EDIT:> Decided to look it up for you. First link on my Google search: :woot::

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4771

On the Senate floor on March 27, 1986 (Congressional Record, page 6422), Sen. Kerry said:

I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what is was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khme Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; The troops were not in Cambodia?I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me....

In an October 14, 1979, letter to the Boston Herald, Sen. Kerry wrote of his vivid memories of his Christmas Eve spent in Cambodia (quoted in Unfit for Command, page 46):

I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.

But today, on Fox News' "Fox and Friends," Kerry Campaign Advisor Jeh Johnson had this to say to the show's co-host Brian Kilmeade:

JOHNSON: John Kerry has said on the record that he had a mistaken recollection earlier. He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve 1968 which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the recorded to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about that date.

KILMEADE: I think the term was he had a searing memory of spending Christmas - back in 1986 in the senate floor in Cambodia.

JOHNSON: I believe he has corrected the record to say it was some place near Cambodia he is not certain whether it was in Cambodia but he is certain there was some point subsequent to that that he was in Cambodia.

[TheElite]

Pretty sure Allah would not bless him.

:rolleyes:

He is not only God to Muslims ya know! :whistle:

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Lol round and round we go. OK than if you feel that source is good enough than all the sources that Dashel and I posted complete with the excerpts hould also be good enough right? Than I don't have to worry about my tranny failing on my way to the library of congress to take photo's of the house's armed forces commitee anymore right?

Thank goodness.

As for his Vietnam protesting exploits, uh, who knows what the hell he was doing. I don't support everything about Kerry, maybe he was mistaken, maybe he was there, maybe he made it up to get better support for his movement, I have no idea, but Unlike Kerry I don't give a damn about his wartime service or Bush's for that matter. I have to be honest I wouldn't have volunteered for Vietnam had I been alive then, I probably(most likely actually) wouldn't have went if I got drafted, so I don't blame Bush for not going, Kerry for protesting it or leaving as early as possible or anything like that. I don't know why he made it as big an issue as he has, like Bush said I think it should be about what to do now and tomorrow, Vietnam is over, and I am in no position to judge any mans actions in that conflict.

However I disagree with your idea on Bill voting records being as important as they are, and I find Testimony to be much more enlightening. With a bill all you get is a yes or no vote on a very large bill that not only covers certain weapons systems, but healthcare, pay, benefits, possible pork-riders, and variouse other things, with a testimony you get to hear exactly what a man thinks. So in this instance(lets say the Apache) there's no known Kerry testimony by Kerry on the Apache, however he's actually voted for atleast 13billion in funding for it, Cheney however recommended that it be canceled. This is a clear case where you can actually say Cheney want's to axe the Apache.

So Bills make us guess what programs a person is against, and there's no way of knowing that we guess right. Now of course the Bush camp wants us to believe that since he voted against certain bills for certain weapons systems for certain years that he actually wanted them removed from service and that's is simlpy not true, because just as there is a vote that Kerry made against the B-2 there is also a vote Kerry made for the B-2.

Now remove the funky quaqmire that is attempting to derive one's position from bills alone, infact I consider trying to acertain a man's positions purely from the bills they support akin to reading tea leaves, and Kerry did vote against a bill that would have alloted money to the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, however Cheney in Testimony said he wanted it terminated. Which in your mind is more important or the bigger issue here? Kerry saying I don't like this much money being spent on it or Cheney saying scrap it completely?

So maybe you think Bills are the truth I say Testimony, you can find Bills for almost every program that the republicans listed for those very same programs that Kerry voted for on a different occasion, so where exactly does that leave that GOP talking point memo? That's right in the ****ter.

[Aaron Veteran]

Like you have no basis saying that God would bless him. :blush:

Pretty sure Allah would not bless him.

The statement is "God bless (whoever)", as in a request. It is not "God will bless (whoever), as in an order or presumptive statement. You ask God for things you don't make assumptions about what he will of will not do. I really can't see why:

(1) That wasn't obvious to you.

(2) It was even worth going on about.

[Dashel]

Not to risk spinning my wheels in this thread but I can't be that crazy if O'Reilly tonight posed the exact same question based on the exact same facts I did to Newt and Morris. Newt answered like most of the apologists by not having the decency to address the issue but to ramble and misdirect in his pathetic attempts to avoid the question. O'Reilly could only shake his head. And Morris also commented that he was disappointed by the speech as it was only preaching to the party faithful.

[PseudoRandomDragon]

Zell Miller is a dumbass.

[Bearded Kirklander]

Zell Miller is a dumbass.

Oh man. Can't you come up with anything better than that?

Zell Miller was a well respected Democrat who said that 9/11 changed his views. He said he was disgusted that in a time of War, the Democrats would try to politicize Homeland Security and that in the years since 9/11 2001, he has personally seen and heard members of his own party plotting to politicize for the sake of politicizing, trying to block Homeland Security bills, funding and a whole lot more. Democrats wanted to be obstructionists to undermine President Bush regardless of its impact on the nation and on those who were fighting the war.

I can certainly appreciate that change of heart. But now because the Democrats are on the hot seat, they are trying to demonize this man whom they have worked with for decades.

Much like the Republicans did when Jeffords switched parties and gave the Democrats control of the Senate. They were brutal against Jeffords, and it was not deserved then any more than it is now with the Dems and Miller.

[PseudoRandomDragon]

Oh man. Can't you come up with anything better than that?

Yes.

*ahem*

Zell Miller is a dumb ****.

[PseudoRandomDragon]

Oh and btw

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=212143

[Bearded Kirklander]

Yes.

*ahem*

Zell Miller is a dumb ****.

Reported as flame bait. (N)

[JK1150]

Oh and btw

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=212143

that was about zell miller, this was about his speech.

[deadzombie]

Zell Miller is a dumbass.

Only to the point that he was appointed to the Senate, has been asked by some of the most powerful men in history to speak on their behalf. Yeah, he's pretty much a dumbass.

Oh, BTW, what world leader have you given the keynote for recently? This would be his second keynote for an elected President, arguably the most powerful political seat in the history of the world. Anytime you have spoken for a political figure of such power within the last 12 years is an acceptable time frame to include in your reply. ;)

Which makes me wonder... if you havent acheived the same level of influence that Zell Miller has, if your spoken word or opinion isnt as valued by the most powerful office in the world, what does that make you?

[b3ta]

The statement is "God bless (whoever)", as in a request.  It is not "God will bless (whoever), as in an order or presumptive statement.  You ask God for things you don't make assumptions about what he will of will not do.  I really can't see why:

(1)  That wasn't obvious to you.

(2)  It was even worth going on about.

Then maybe George W and his offsiders should stop spamming God with requests for Blessings. :happy:

<<snipped>> Not appropriate in this thread

Edited September 3, 2004 by BOOGSoftball

[Bearded Kirklander]

Then maybe George W and his offsiders should stop spamming God with requests for Blessings.?:happy::

<<snipped>>? Not appropriate in this threadi>

No need to bash men of faith and their God too, you know:rolleyes:s:

[PseudoRandomDragon]

that was about zell miller, this was about his speech.

I know, I was just supporting my point that he is a dumbass, I know this isn't a double post.

[Bearded Kirklander]

One of the disappointing parts of all this is that when Miller comes out and says something the other Democrats do not want to hear, they turn on him and try to minimize and discredit what he has to say by attacking and dismissing him as a zealot. Before Miller criticized the Democrats for playing politics with Homeland Security, he was a welcome and respected member of the fold, but when he takes a stand based on a point he feels strongly about, they suddenly decide he is a "crackpot" and the like. I think that shows what this election is really about for some. The Democratic base is so angry and so filled with anti-Bush hatred that they are not even bothering to try to be rational. Their hatred is so strong that they don't even bother to try to be reasonable any more. They won't let the facts stand in the way of their fanaticism.

It reminds me of how pathetic and out of touch the Republicans were when they went after the details of Bill Clinton's sex life in the Starr Report. They were out to demonize and destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, all reason be damned. It was despicable then when the GOP did it, and it is despicable now today when the Dems are doing it.

Is this country ever going to get back on a level ground in terms of party politics? The fact that we are fighting a war on terror in other countries and a war of liberation Iraq while trying to defend our homeland from attack seems far less important to zealots on both sides than trashing and undermining the other side.

Politics can be pathetic. I sometimes get as frustrated as anyone, particularly those who simply trash my country, the United States. It can get the best of my emotions. I get so tired of people and their blind hatred for the US. They are willing to overlook all of the good things that the US has tried to do and has actually done over the decades. They want to depict the US as thoughtless imperialist warmongers who have nothing better to do than to try to dominate the world. Somehow Freedom and Democracy have become dirty words to these people. They are saying that the US is arrogant and "deserved" the 9/11 attack. That it was simply our own foreign policy come home to roost.

I can't relate to this hatred. The US provides more foreign aid than any other nation. We provide more peacekeeping troops than any other nation. When help was needed in Kosovo, Clinton answered the call. When humanitarian aid is called for, the US almost always answers the call, at least in some form. We provide, along with other countries, humanitarian aid to hundreds of countries across the globe. We work with the World Bank to see that much of the debt of third world countries be forgiven, often taking multi-billion dollar hits to the wallet in the process. We work to defend Isreal and other democracies around the world from attack by other countries who don't want people to have the right to freedom and self-governance. It's not like the US is some dictatorial nation bent on world domination. We, along with other countries, are working to promote freedom, human rights and democracy across the globe.

Do we make mistakes? Are we inconsistent in how we apply these principles? Are we flawed and hypocritical at times? You bet we are. But we are TRYING to help make the world a better place. We are TRYING to live up to the demands that so many nations and international entities put upon us. But we can't be everything to all people. People from some other nations rip us and spew hatred at us all the time. For what? The 15 Billion that the US is providing to Africa for AIDS is "a drop in the bucket and an insultingly low figure for such a rich nation" The peacekeeping troops that the US provides at the request of the United Nations "don't really want to help - they just want to push their imperialist agenda and force developing nations to comply with their demands like jack-booted thugs"

What a bunch of garbage. Countries turn to us when they want something, expecting and often demanding that we do what they want us to do and make sacrifices that they won't even consider making themselves. But if we don't give them exactly what they feel they should get or do exactly what they feel we should do, they vilify us and demonize us and make claims that we are an arrogant and hateful nation who deserves to have its citizens slaughtered in a terrorist attack.

It's almost unreal that the US, in spite of all of this, keeps trudging on, trying to provide help and hope to many developing nations and oppressed people. Even in the face of all this bitterness and hatred, the US keeps giving and trying to make a positive difference in the world. I guess the fact that the US does keep trying is a testament to the spirit of this nation and to the values that we stand for. In spite of the attacks and demonization, there is the US, providing resources in a time of need. Not in all places all the time, but there can be no doubt - without the United States and other countries who give of themselves so often, things would be a whole lot worse out there than they are.

[sfay]

Wonderfull post, I agree with it 100%.

Couple of thoughts, back in the late 30's we saw what was going on in Europe and decided to stay out of it. Most of the Dems in this country liked our isolationist standing at the time and were very much against the war. Then when we were attacked there were many in the govt that wanted us to stay out of Europe (keeping our nose out of others business) and focus on Japan. But instead a wise American leader decided that keeping Western Europe from from Hitler would benefit America and the rest of the world so we went to the aid of Brittain and France and lost many many of our young men and women on foriegn soil. Now I bet you wont hear any of those liberal Europeans complaining about that ... I guess were only Imperialistic and oil-hungry warmongers when it doesn't benefit them but when its thier neck on the line whoa, we better do something otherwise were letting the world down.

I am pretty sure that most of the older South Koreans are quite happy to have us in thier country, after all we kept them from being under the boot of NK and the communist system. But the younger generation that grew up in safety and luxory (in comparison to those in the north) dont' think that ... its get the US out we don't need em. We'll see what happens when were out of that country. Hopefully the UN will grow a pair and can come to their aid.

Anyone who has read about the history of this fine planet knows that bad things happen to good people and every country will be flawed (read Human Nature), and since there will always be mistakes and flaws the intention is a better way of measuring good will. I can safely say that the US has made mistakes, hell were paying for many of them now but can we honestly say that the US is only out for ourselves and is interested in global domination? Hell no, if we were we would have not come to the aid of Europe, or Korea, or Somalia, or Kuwait, the list goes on and on. We would have stood by and waited for the dust to settle then conquer on our own. But we didn't and now everyone is complaining that we don't but our nose into the Sudan, well think about this ... why the hell should we, we get yelled at for sticking our nose in Iraq. There was a humanitarian crisis going on there and everyone is complaining about that; but when we don't take action in the Sudan its because were only interested in Oil. BullS***!

[....]

Thread Closed

All presidential debate now goes here: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=214255