View Full Version : Does anyone know Edwards reasons for not serving in the army?
He would have been 18 in 1971 and the draft didn't end till 1973... did he pull a dick cheney?
Saint Lucifer
07-14-04, 07:37 PM
http://slate.msn.com/id/2103487/
Luck of the draw. It worked that way for my father, as well.
ta... I had been looking for info and I knew he wasn't too young to be called up...
Dick Cheney got a defferment for being married and had kids. This was the norm for his status. Nice try though ;) two snaps in a circle for effort.
Dick Cheney got a defferment for being married and had kids. This was the norm for his status. Nice try though two snaps in a circle for effort.
naturally
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097365/
I particularly liked this little piece :)
Aug. 29, 1964: Dick and Lynne Cheney marry.
May 19, 1965: The Selective Service classifies Dick Cheney 1-A, "available immediately for military service."
July 28, 1965: President Lyndon Johnson says draft calls will be doubled.
Oct. 26, 1965: The Selective Service declares that married men without children, who were previously exempted from the draft, will now be called up. Married men with children remain exempt.
Jan. 19, 1966: The Selective Service reclassifies Dick Cheney 3-A, "deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his family," because his wife is pregnant with their first child.
July 28, 1966: Elizabeth Cheney is born.
Jan. 30, 1967: Dick Cheney turns 26 and therefore becomes ineligible for the draft.
Dedicated students of obstetrics will observe that Elizabeth Cheney's birth date falls precisely nine months and two days after the Selective Service publicly revoked its policy of not drafting childless husbands. This would seem to indicate that the Cheneys, though doubtless planning to have children sometime, were seized with an untamable passion the moment Dick Cheney became vulnerable to the Vietnam draft. And acted on it. Carpe diem!
Who says government policy can't affect human behavior?
yup... obviously was the norm for his status :)
btw being married and kids... great... but care to talk about his four student deferments?
So you are saying that people who have a wife and child should be drafted? That is utterly the most stupid and you are making a even more childish issue out of this. No I don't care to talk about his student deferments any more than I am willing to talk about Joe Lieberman's student deferments. It isn't an issue and nothing was done wrong.
There is NO ISSUE here other than more STUPID liberal rhetoric. I am really annoyed by this childish attemp to smear the vice president who did nothing wrong. If you don't like him fine but grow up and get a real issue. The left has NO room to talk about deferments. It was your side that sided with the NVC. It is your side that said the Vietnamn war was evil and wrong. Ya'll wanted our troops home and when they did you crapped on them. Hypocrit!
Now you want to make serving in Vietnam a badge of courage for the presidency. OMG Kerry spend 4 months of his life in Vietnam good for him. I don't see to remember war service being a issue when Clinton publicly lied about his receiving a draft card.
The Vietnam war ended 30 years ago. It has no relavance on the election. The people don't care who served only liberals who finaly have a candidate who served in that war. Now you want to jump up and down about it. All the while forgetting what he said when he came back and STABBED HIS BORTHERS IN ARMS IN THE BACK. He lied to congress and was involved in a traitorous organization. You can't have it both ways. His for 4 months does not and never will make up for what he did when he came back and lied about the war.
Even though it was a lie he said he did war crimes also, yet you guys want to cry about abu prison. Pathetic.
The whole "service in a war" is such a non-issue.
Kerry cannot stand on his own so he has to constantly go back to something he did for 4 moths 30 years ago. He doesn't attract any voters and neither does Edwards. They have no plan for the war on terror other than "do what Bush is doing but smarter" Oh great. So why don't I just vote for Bush if you are going to do it the same?
BTW did you see where Kerry wants to increase goverment spending far and beyond what is currently the level? Oh but it is only bad when Bush does it/ :rolleyes: At least I condem it when Bush does it and at least most of Bush's increase was in the military.
Rakeesh
07-15-04, 12:52 PM
Hmm...Udawgs post made me ponder something...why is it that historically the Democrats have always been on the bad side of the fence? :D
The first leader of the democratic party, Andrew Jackson, made radical changes that allowed him to overshadow congress. (he was also the first president to try to get rid of the electoral college)
The original KKK were democrats. (Ulysses S. Grant (republican) declared the KKK an illegal terrorist group and had them disbanded) The democrats were also pro-slavery during the civil war era.
The democrats started vietnam (the republicans wanted to finish it properly, and nixon did when he got north vietnam to surrender as a result of linebacker I & II, and the north wouldn't have re-invaded the south two years later if the democrats didn't take the war powers away from the president)
Democrats still favor ethnic inequality (affirmative action)
hey... if you want to rant and rave for some special cause... be my guest...
I started this thread because I genuinely did not know what was going on and felt that edwards, like cheney, had sought student deferments...
THAT is why I asked if he had pulled a cheney... I did not remember about dick cheney's wife being pregnant till you brought it up (though you make it sound like he had a kid by the time already and not a fetus)
dick cheney had 4 student deferments... we know this because we went over this wrt bush and his army reserve scene...
if you wish to continue on your personal quest to vindicate dick cheney/george bush and all republicans who did not serve in vietnam for whatever reason it is be my guest... I did not imply anything beyond the fact that I personally felt that john edwards may well have dodged the draft...
ironically enough in seeking to find damning evidence v/s him that rather interesting time-line of dick cheney and his wife's convenient pregnancy popped up :cool:
I'll leave you in your wallowing pity of poor bush co and how evil kerry is and how he keeps picking on poor dubyah and cheney...
/me hands udawg a hanky...
hey... if you want to rant and rave for some special cause... be my guest...
Fair enough that is a good point. You just got my dandur up. :D
/blows his nose. :D /hands it back
ironically enough in seeking to find damning evidence v/s him that rather interesting time-line of dick cheney and his wife's convenient pregnancy popped up
You see this is what is so wierd about you guys on the left. You have now make EVERYTHING by Bush and Cheney a conspiracy. This is not healthy Saz. It is :screwy: This is just insane thinking.
The first leader of the democratic party, Andrew Jackson, made radical changes that allowed him to overshadow congress. (he was also the first president to try to get rid of the electoral college)
I may be wrong but I thought the Democrats were a party from the biginning of the Union.
Rakeesh
07-15-04, 01:23 PM
I may be wrong but I thought the Democrats were a party from the biginning of the Union.
Nope, those were mostly Whigs, which later became the 'National Republicans', and the democrats split off from the National Republicans as the 'Democratic Republicans', or "Democrat" for short. It was about this same period that the nation began to divide on issues such as slavery.
(At the dawn of the union, it wasn't that much of a party oriented system, but afaik the two biggest groups were the Whigs, which were kind of considered anti-royalty, and the Tories, who were loyalists. The system didn't really become two party until andrew jackson came around.)
You see this is what is so wierd about you guys on the left. You have now make EVERYTHING by Bush and Cheney a conspiracy. This is not healthy Saz. It is :screwy: This is just insane thinking.
everything kerry/edwards do is negative in your book :)
I fail to see why pointing out the obvious btw is a conspiracy...
the timeline is clear for all to see and I would not even have bothered looking up stuff had it not been for your stock "omg... yer going in circles" comment :thumbsup: for giving me the impetus to look it up :)
obviously when a man who has had 4 student deferments and just learnt that he will no longer be exempt from military service due to him being married miraculously has a baby on the way it will raise eyebrows... ESPECIALLY when the baby is born little over 9 months after the draft regulation changes...
conspiracy? hell no... there is no conspiracy... its bloody clear what cheney did... and I must thank you for pointing me in the right direction :)
without your support and encouragement I would still be looking for dirt on edwards
Hmm...Udawgs post made me ponder something...why is it that historically the Democrats have always been on the bad side of the fence? :D
The first leader of the democratic party, Andrew Jackson, made radical changes that allowed him to overshadow congress. (he was also the first president to try to get rid of the electoral college)
The original KKK were democrats. (Ulysses S. Grant (republican) declared the KKK an illegal terrorist group and had them disbanded) The democrats were also pro-slavery during the civil war era.
The democrats started vietnam (the republicans wanted to finish it properly, and nixon did when he got north vietnam to surrender as a result of linebacker I & II, and the north wouldn't have re-invaded the south two years later if the democrats didn't take the war powers away from the president)
Democrats still favor ethnic inequality (affirmative action)
good points... this is why I am not subscribed to any ticket :)
bigotry and hypocrisy is the main theme of both parties and undoubtedly the democratic party has a lot of skeletons in its closet...
as far as affirmative action is concerned.. in the current form that it has been rendered to over time it is not only ineffectual but breeds (for lack of a better word) reverse racism...
does racism exist.. hell yah it does... spcially in the south.. but its long been policy to delegate many things to the states and let them deal with it....
everything kerry/edwards do is negative in your book
THAT IS NOT TRUE AND I AM HIGHLY INSULTED!!!!
It would be a VERY good thing if they lose this election.
Rakeesh
07-15-04, 01:55 PM
Well, in relation to our side discussion, Kerry and Edwards support racial quotas, whereas Bush and Cheyney want to get rid of racial discrimination completely :D
Nope, those were mostly Whigs, which later became the 'National Republicans', and the democrats split off from the National Republicans as the 'Democratic Republicans', or "Democrat" for short. It was about this same period that the nation began to divide on issues such as slavery.
(At the dawn of the union, it wasn't that much of a party oriented system, but afaik the two biggest groups were the Whigs, which were kind of considered anti-royalty, and the Tories, who were loyalists. The system didn't really become two party until andrew jackson came around.)
I think you have a few things wrong. First Jefferson started the party that later became the Democratic-Republican Party in 1802 I think. Jackson dropped the Republican part and just made it Democratic Party. I am almost certain about this.
Republicans came from the Whig Party with the nomination of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is know as the father of the Republican Party. Now This is important to know that the Republican Party was NEVER a third Party. They finished second in their first election.
Son Goku
07-15-04, 03:02 PM
There's also the Federalist party to consider (George Washington was a Federalist, and the Federalists were given the boot after the Seditious Libel laws were passed, and overturned by a following Legislature...)
I do believe Jefferson had a hand in the formation of what became the Democratic party, with Lincoln having a key part in the formation of what became the Republican...
as far as affirmative action is concerned.. in the current form that it has been rendered to over time it is not only ineffectual but breeds (for lack of a better word) reverse racism...
Indeed. I used to wonder how some people could argue that reverse racism isn't really racism and blah, blah, blah... An answer came when I took Constitutional Law, and part of it (also with affirmitive action) comes down to what Brown vs. Board of Education did wrt Plessy vs. Ferguson, vs. what it did not do. The media didn't get it all correct, though it would take having both decisions sitting between us; and in the class and the text we were using, we did a careful analysis of both, and the logic which was employed in each decision.
In Brown, there is essentially the wording that all parts of Plessy that contradict the rulling redenered today is over-turned, but they didn't really over-turn the entire decision. Also the dissenting view that the Constitution is color blind, and recognizes no distinction in race has not really been vindicated where reverse-discrimination can be applied.
This part was more in the presentation of the cases by the author (of the text book we used), but it was pointed out that in Brown, the logic used was much more similar to the logic applied by the majority in Plessey "if they don't feel descriminated again, then they can't be" combined with newer sociological data that showed they felt discriminated against...
There is a part of Plessey though (that was never covered by this) that layed out "whites can not be discriminated against though". There was an entire chapter on this, as well as several class discussions, and it was over 9 years ago that I had been presented with this. Would perhaps be hard to lay it all out as such today, though at that time I had one of those "aha moments", and it came into a certain clarity, in a less then plesant way... Unfortunately, this isn't how the media presented it, and this is another area where what was taught at the high school (certainly wrt me and some of my friends) differed from what was being taught (in this case in a college law class).
Ya Lincoln was not the first Republican elected. He was the one who built the party to be a strong 2nd party.
Rakeesh
07-15-04, 05:05 PM
I think you have a few things wrong. First Jefferson started the party that later became the Democratic-Republican Party in 1802 I think. Jackson dropped the Republican part and just made it Democratic Party. I am almost certain about this.
Probably, but I know that Jackson is the one who really polarized it.
Yes you are right about that. I think there was a very close election the Jacksonian part of the Demmocrats took over that closely contested election and dropped the Republican from the name, so in part you are correct.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.