[quote]derek wrote:
Professor X wrote:
So, you believe that the life of a politician’s son is more important than the lives of soldiers in this country? Interesting. That is what you are implying by that statement. You know that, right? If that truly is the way things are, then there are many things that need to change.
If you’ve ever written anything that more clearly displays your lack of comprehension, I haven’t read it.
I’d like to see where it is I implied anything remotely resembling what you suggested.
Maybe I need to CAPITALIZE everything I write.
The SON of the Director of the CIA could feasibly be captured and used as propaganda, ransom or partial pull-out of a battle zone or possible surrender. We are talking about the Vietnam conflict here.
How you stretched THAT into me suggesting that any life was of more value than another is way beyond me (thankfully I cannot understand where you come up with this stuff).
[/quote]
You have got to be kidding me. That is exactly what you just wrote. Due to their father’s position and access to info, their lives are more important than the lives of other soldiers. Who the hell are you trying to fool? That very much implies that if they are captured, it would be a higher priority to get them back than it would be for any other soldier. You just hate that I gave it right back to you without your filter. If this were truly a government concern, no children of politicians would ever be allowed to serve.
Bush is in the oval office & one of his advisors comes in with his morning coffee & daily paper.
“Whats happening today” says Bush.
“Well sir” says the advisor, “we’ve had reports of three Brazilian troops being killed in Iraq”.
“Dear God thats devastating news” says Bush, “absolutely devastating, in fact thats the worst news Ive heard since Tony Blair started this whole goddam war thingy”…
…“By the way, how many hundreds are there in a brazilian”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You have got to be kidding me. That is exactly what you just wrote. Due to their father’s position and access to info, their lives are more important than the lives of other soldiers. Who the hell are you trying to fool? That very much implies that if they are captured, it would be a higher priority to get them back than it would be for any other soldier. You just hate that I gave it right back to you without your filter. If this were truly a government concern, no children of politicians would ever be allowed to serve. [/quote]
When it comes to national security, which IS the subject at hand here, Professor (you may want to think of a new “name”) the reality is that I’m correct.
As much as I don’t like the idea, what would present more of a national security risk; If MY son were kidnapped or one of Bush’s daughters were kidnapped. Pretty elementary I think.
As human life is concerned, there is equality with either child. But I was refering to NATIONAL SECURITY not “human” value!
When you “give it back to me” make sure it has teeth next time.
And Vroom, maybe you should be paying attention here as well.
As Bush said and Kerry so creatively parrotted; “BRING-IT-ON”.
Bush is in the oval office & one of his advisors comes in with his morning coffee & daily paper.
“Whats happening today” says Bush.
“Well sir” says the advisor, “we’ve had reports of three Brazilian troops being killed in Iraq”.
“Dear God thats devastating news” says Bush, “absolutely devastating, in fact thats the worst news Ive heard since Tony Blair started this whole goddam war thingy”…
…“By the way, how many hundreds are there in a brazilian”[/quote]
Another;
John F. Kerry runs for the Presidency on an unwiavering platform of… of… of…
[quote]vroom wrote:
As human life is concerned, there is equality with either child. But I was refering to NATIONAL SECURITY not “human” value!
Hmm, are you saying the Bush twins are privy to issues of NATIONAL SECURITY? That’s a laugh.[/quote]
Vroom, I’ve read quite a bit of your posts. I KNOW your not THAT dumb.
I asked a question. Which scenario would present more of an issue. National security was a juxtaposition to human value. And human value was NOT what I was taling about there. Easy huh?
What I wrote earlier;
The SON of the Director of the CIA could feasibly be captured and used as propaganda, ransom or partial pull-out of a battle zone or possible surrender. We are talking about the Vietnam conflict here.
Does this sound as though I thought the twins were privy to “secret info”?
[quote]vroom wrote:
As human life is concerned, there is equality with either child. But I was refering to NATIONAL SECURITY not “human” value!
Hmm, are you saying the Bush twins are privy to issues of NATIONAL SECURITY? That’s a laugh.[/quote]
If someone was to kidnap you - how much would you be worth? Who would really care outside your immediate family
Now - If someone were to kidnap the Bush girls, or Chelsea Clinton, or back in the day Amy Carter - I think they would be a much more profitable endeavor. Maybe even to the point of getting political concessions, or perhaps some intelligence info.
Get pissed, name-call, and do any of your usual 5-D’s - but at the end of the day, I am right. Powerful people have kids that are treated much differently than most all of the kids at P.S. 133 in Queens.
Now - If someone were to kidnap the Bush girls, or Chelsea Clinton, or back in the day Amy Carter - I think they would be a much more profitable endeavor. Maybe even to the point of getting political concessions, or perhaps some intelligence info.
[/quote]
Vroom, Prof. Can it be ANY easier to understand than THIS?
[quote]vroom wrote:
The SON of the Director of the CIA could feasibly be captured and used as propaganda, ransom or partial pull-out of a battle zone or possible surrender.
Well, there you have it. Children of important political figures should be given special treatment.
[/quote]
[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
As human life is concerned, there is equality with either child. But I was refering to NATIONAL SECURITY not “human” value!
Hmm, are you saying the Bush twins are privy to issues of NATIONAL SECURITY? That’s a laugh.
If someone was to kidnap you - how much would you be worth? Who would really care outside your immediate family
Now - If someone were to kidnap the Bush girls, or Chelsea Clinton, or back in the day Amy Carter - I think they would be a much more profitable endeavor. Maybe even to the point of getting political concessions, or perhaps some intelligence info.
Get pissed, name-call, and do any of your usual 5-D’s - but at the end of the day, I am right. Powerful people have kids that are treated much differently than most all of the kids at P.S. 133 in Queens. [/quote]
Absolutely right. It’s EXTEMRELY naive to suggest there are no circumstances that render someone more valuable than others to the rest of us. It’s not an issue of worthiness. It is conceivable that the child of a president or high official could be used as means of extortion against their parents. We are all human beings. I think it would be very hard to put the good of the country ahead of a loved one when their safety and life is in danger.
However, it’s just as obvious that it’s not against policy for the son of a high official to serve as a low-level position (like ground troops) in a war like Vietnam. What’s not entirely obvious is the reason, but I suspect that it’s because it’s very unlikeley they could be found, identitifed, and targeted.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Guys, before you get your titties into too much of a twist I do understand the concepts involved.
For sure, the sitting president certainly has some needs with respect to protection of family.[/quote]
Bullshit - you got caught being a dumbass. Now you are telling everyone that you understand. Classic vroom. Too bad your MO is all too played out.
Says who? I don’t feel alienated because my kids walk to school, and we don’t have nannies, or any of the other things that rich, powerful people have for their kids. Nice job in trying to play the class envy card - but it is a bullshit argument. Do you have kids? I didn’t think so.
It must be a very sad life that is lived looking over the fence and seeing all of the inequalities.
[quote]Have the rich and the powerful always received special treatment? Yes. Have they at the same time pretended to agree that all people are equal? Yes.
[/quote]
Bullshit once again. The rich used to think they were entitled - and could give a shit about the commoner. If anything it has swung the other way suych that the rich and powerful are at least aware that they are different. I don’t think there is any pretending involved. Please enlighten us since you seem to know so much.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Guys, before you get your titties into too much of a twist I do understand the concepts involved.
For sure, the sitting president certainly has some needs with respect to protection of family.
However, at the same time, if you start to spread that concept too far you risk alienating most of the population.
Have the rich and the powerful always received special treatment? Yes. Have they at the same time pretended to agree that all people are equal? Yes.
Go figure.[/quote]
Beyond that, we are now being given reasons that make a richer, more powerful politician’s child’s life more important than the safety of this country. However, if this same logic is applied to how they get through schools or enter into business deals, OH Dear Lord, the gates of hell have been ripped open as some “loony lefty” loses his mind. You simply can’t have it both ways…imply that the schools a rich and powerful son of a politician attends means he is a genius…and then excuse away the action of those children very effectively walking through life with no where near the hardships and challenges of someone from more “average” upbringings.
Could a politician’s child be used as a bargaining chip during a war with another country? If this does happen, that particular president needs to be immediately impeached if they put that kid in front of America.
[quote]Bullshit - you got caught being a dumbass. Now you are telling everyone that you understand. Classic vroom. Too bad your MO is all too played out.
[/quote]
Are you on crack? Seriously.
There is a difference between the POTUS and every other dumbass rich person or simple member of congress.
Perhaps you wish to idolize those people, and I’m sure they would be all for it, but short of your hero worship, except for the very top, nobody deserves or needs special treatment.
Does anyone honestly think the Iranians or whomever is ever going to love us? These people are so imbued with their world-view, it’s not happening in our lifetimes if ever. President Bush made the highly intelligient decision to apply force. Would anyone here try to reason with thugs or murderers? Ha!! All the post-WWII presidents tried being nice and look what it got us. Maybe Bush IS the smartest of the lot.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Beyond that, we are now being given reasons that make a richer, more powerful politician’s child’s life more important than the safety of this country. However, if this same logic is applied to how they get through schools or enter into business deals, OH Dear Lord, the gates of hell have been ripped open as some “loony lefty” loses his mind. You simply can’t have it both ways…imply that the schools a rich and powerful son of a politician attends means he is a genius…and then excuse away the action of those children very effectively walking through life with no where near the hardships and challenges of someone from more “average” upbringings.
Could a politician’s child be used as a bargaining chip during a war with another country? If this does happen, that particular president needs to be immediately impeached if they put that kid in front of America.[/quote]
WTF?
Are you actually reading the previous posts?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Beyond that, we are now being given reasons that make a richer, more powerful politician’s child’s life more important than the safety of this country. [/quote]
You need to get yourself checked out if you think what you wrote has ANYTHING at all to do with the topic of whether the Dir. of the CIA’s kid presents more of a problem if kidnapped than say, my kid. (It does and I’m ok with that)
Where do you see it being argued that any childs LIFE was more or less important. Dammit, man we’re talking about the kid’s being the son of the Dir. of CIA and that fact being used against us in a time of war. OH MY GOD!
Are you allergic to simple, logical concepts or something?
[quote]derek wrote:
You need to get yourself checked out if you think what you wrote has ANYTHING at all to do with the topic of whether the Dir. of the CIA’s kid presents more of a problem if kidnapped than say, my kid. (It does and I’m ok with that)
Where do you see it being argued that any childs LIFE was more or less important. Dammit, man we’re talking about the kid’s being the son of the Dir. of CIA and that fact being used against us in a time of war. OH MY GOD!
Are you allergic to simple, logical concepts or something?
[/quote]
Let me ask you, what will that child be worth? War secrets? Directions to where we keep unofficial technology? The point being made to you, is that if in war time, anyone gives up important government intel to save one rich kid, that puts all of America at risk. Further, it implies that all of those people who made claims that politicians wouldn’t send their own children to fight this war actually had a point. You have just given Micheal Moore more ammunition for another documentary.
So tell us, when you wrote, “the Dir. of the CIA’s kid presents more of a problem if kidnapped than say, my kid”, what are these problems? Is the key to selling out America all in kidnapping the right kid? Are you saying that the children of the Director of the CIA are walking casually with random government secrets? Shit, it looks like we have a larger problem than anyone realized.
That, my friend, is your premise taken to the logical conclusion.