whether pro or against, i thought these were pretty funny...they are JOKES people, let's leave it at that.

"President Bush went out touting his economic record in Ohio last week.
Now this is a state that lost 225,000 jobs since Bush took office. You
know, if Bush wants to tout his record, he should do it somewhere where
the Bush economy has actually created jobs, like India, or Thailand, or
China." -- Jay Leno

"President Bush has unveiled his first campaign commercial,
highlighting all of his accomplishes in office. That's why it's a
60-second spot." -- Jay Leno

"President Bush says he has just one question for the American
voters, 'Is the rich person you're working for better off now than they
were four years ago?'" -- Jay Leno

"The election is in full-swing. Republicans have taken out
round-the-clock ads promoting George Bush. Don't we already have that?
It's called Fox News." -- Craig Kilborn

"Kerry is well on his way to reaching his magic number of 2,162.
That's the total number of delegates he needs to win the Democratic
nomination. See for President Bush it's different, his magic number is
5. That's the number of Supreme Court judges needed to win." -- Jay
Leno

"There was a scare in Washington when a man climbed over the White
House wall and arrested. This marks the first time a person has gotten
into the White House unlawfully since President Bush." -- David
Letterman

"A new poll says that if the election were held today, John Kerry would
beat President Bush by a double digit margin. The White House is so
worried about this, they're now thinking of moving up the capture of
Osama Bin Laden to next month." -- Jay Leno

"The White House is now backtracking from its prediction that 2.6
million new jobs will be created in the U.S. this year. They say they
were off by roughly 2.6 million jobs." -- Jay Leno

"In Louisiana, President Bush met with over 15,000 National Guard
troops. Here's the weird part, nobody remembers seeing him there." --
Craig Kilborn

"President Bush said he was 'troubled' by gay people getting married in
San Francisco. He said on important issues like this the people should
make the decision, not judges. Unless of course we're choosing a
president, then he prefers judges." -- Jay Leno

"The White House has now released military documents that they say
prove George Bush met his requirements for the National Guard. Big
deal, we've got documents that prove Al Gore won the election." -- Jay
Leno

"There was an embarrassing moment in the White House earlier today.
They were looking around while searching for George Bush's military
records. They actually found some old Al Gore ballots." -- David
Letterman

"The big story now is that President Bush is coming under attack for
his service in the National Guard. The commanding officers can't
remember seeing Bush between May and October of '72. President Bush
said, 'Remember me? I'm the drunk guy.'" -- Jay Leno

"On 'Meet the Press' yesterday President Bush was asked what he would
do if he lost the election and Bush said, 'Phhh, you mean like last
time?'" -- Jay Leno

"This week, both John Kerry and Wesley Clark are making campaign
appearance with the guys who saved their lives in Vietnam. Meanwhile
President Bush is campaigning with a guy that once took a math test for
him." -- Conan O'Brien

"President Bush released his new $2.4 trillion federal budget. It has
two parts: smoke and mirrors." -- Jay Leno

"Bush admitted that his pre-war intelligence wasn't what it should have
been. We knew that when we elected him!" -- Jay Leno

"A new poll says that if the election were held today, John Kerry would
beat President Bush by a double digit margin. The White House is so
worried about this, they're now thinking of moving up the capture of
Osama Bin Laden to next month." -- Jay Leno

:histerica :histerica :rockon :histerica :histerica

"The White House has now released military documents that they say
prove George Bush met his requirements for the National Guard. Big
deal, we've got documents that prove Al Gore won the election." -- Jay
Leno


:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica

Please join us by calling on Senator John F. Kerry to resign his seat in
the U.S. Senate.

John Kerry has a long and well-documented history of providing "aid and
comfort" to the enemy in time of war -- particularly in the case of North
Vietnam. Kerry. By his own account, Kerry violated the UCMJ, the Geneva
Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer, and he
further stands in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S.
Constitution which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy
in time of warfare.

Thus, in accordance with the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section
3, which states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in
Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously
taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who
has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or
comfort to the enemies thereof," We, the People of the United States,
demand that Kerry resign his seat in the Senate.

Please join fellow Patriots and sign the petition demanding John Kerry's
resignation. Link to --

http://PatriotPetitions.US/Kerry

(If you don't have Web access, please send a blank e-mail to:
sign-Kerry@PatriotPetitions.US
Each e-mail sent to this address will be counted as one signature for the
petition.)

(Circulation of this petition is being sponsored by The Federalist Patriot,
the most widely read conservative e-journal on the Internet. If you have
not already joined the ranks of Patriots receiving The Federalist Patriot,
we encourage you to do so. This highly acclaimed conservative digest of
news, policy and opinion will be delivered FREE by e-mail to your inbox
each week. Simply link to --

http://FederalistPatriot.com/subscribe/patriots.asp

If you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to
<fedlist-subscribe@thefed.com> and you will be subscribed automatically.)

Founder's Quote: "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."
--George Washington

PRIVACY POLICY: Patriot Petitions is not a commercial site and does NOT
release any identifiable information on our petitioners to any third party
under any circumstances, nor do we accept any third party advertising to
our lists.



CLICK ME TOO IM MAKING FUN OF KERRY!!!! (http://kerry-04.com/) :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup

John Kerry named John Edwards (D, NC) for VP nominee. So now there are a couple of 'johns' running. :D

Did I really say that? :eek:

I think they're gonna catch a lotta shit, especially being a couple of loos.

~Critter

anyone else realize that this anti-"kerry" thread is spelled incorrectly... i mean, i'm not pro-kerry, but how are you going to make a good political stance when you cant even spell the competitions name correctly? :shrug

Food for thought, friends. Food for thought.

:histerica :lolup :stupid

i noticed it misspelled wrongs, but hey typos do occur...food for thought friend.


I also saw on CNN that the Bush campain called John Edwards a liberal. Cmon he is, however to the liberal CNN, is that all you can come up with. holy chit, that is why i dont watch that channel.

anyone else realize that this anti-"kerry" thread is spelled incorrectly... i mean, i'm not pro-kerry, but how are you going to make a good political stance when you cant even spell the competitions name correctly? :shrug

Food for thought, friends. Food for thought.

Today, 01:24 AM

Enough said biatch :twak

I sent the following out to my clients today:

Like other political junkies around the country, I’ve been pondering the meaning and impact of Senator Kerry’s selection of Senator Edwards as his VP candidate.

At first glance, there seems to be a good deal to recommend this choice. Edwards brings a great deal to the ticket that Kerry lacks… some obvious strengths that Kerry will attempt to exploit. But at the same time, Edwards brings many weaknesses to the table that Kerry must be knowledgeable about, but is choosing to ignore based on a gut-feeling “Clinton Rule.”

Edwards is everything that Kerry is not. Politically speaking, Edwards brings what amounts to charisma, movie star good looks, and (only hopefully) a wedge into the southern states. Kerry has all the charisma of a bookend and he reeks of superior, Yankee, arrogance. As for appearance, David Letterman said it best when he remarked, “the Kerry Campaign has again denied that Senator John Kerry has used Botox or has had plastic surgery. They did admit, however, that Kerry takes a 'gaunt' pill every day.”

On the surface, my take is that this represents the only set of reasons that Kerry would choose Edwards. For Kerry, the “Clinton Rule” of choosing style over substance is definitely at play here.

Edwards brings nothing else to the table but his looks and charisma. He has no distinguished record in any area of public life; his elevation represents a direct threat to the business community, essentially guaranteeing major increases in funding for Bush-Cheney as the national Chamber has already, effectively, lost their collective minds over the selection of the poster child for everything that’s wrong with the civil court system in this country.

Additionally, Edwards helps to kill any superiority Kerry may have over Bush based on his military record.

Think about it for a moment. Edwards avoided service in Vietnam by using a college deferment. He is everything the ultra-leftists have complained about (Their hypocrisy and short-term memory over Clinton’s draft-dodging efforts notwithstanding) in this election when it comes to the military service question.

By selecting Edwards, Kerry has acknowledged that service in Vietnam specifically, or even the military generally, is meaningless when it comes to the question of qualifications to be President of the United States.

If Kerry says one word about the superiority of his military service over that of Mr. Bush, he is leaving himself wide open for charges of hypocrisy… charges that would be easy to stick.

It is shear folly to, on one hand, attempt to make such a big deal over their respective military records and then, on the other hand, pick some one who has no military record of any kind… an action that completely marginalizes Kerry’s own military record and, ultimately, eliminates one of the primary justifications Kerry has trumpeted for getting rid of Bush.

By selecting Edwards, Kerry is attempting to reduce the election to more of a beauty contest than an election on the issues. The problem for Kerry, however, is that by the time November rolls around, Edwards will have been so marginalized as an empty-suit that the attraction will be gone. And post 9-11, the question is this: are Americans more or less likely to vote for just another pretty face?

The other problem is their politics. A balanced ticket would consist of Kerry choosing a running mate that would differ from his own political perspective. While Senator Kerry is rated as the most liberal member of Congress, Senator Edwards is rated as the 4th most liberal… even more liberal than Senator Kennedy… if that’s possible.

In the end, the negatives outweigh the positives for this choice. This selection will bring in millions of dollars for Bush that might have otherwise stayed home from the business sector so threatened by this selection. His lack of meaningful legislative experience, a senatorial career as undistinguished as Kerry’s, his complete lack of knowledge in foreign policy… all will combine to make him little more than Kerry’s hood ornament next November… a choice Kerry will come to regret.

I dunno the whole thing seemed weak to me, like they are trying to whip up little points into larger ones...............

Who gives a shit??? The last election proved your vote doesn't count anyway...:shrug

Who gives a shit??? The last election proved your vote doesn't count anyway...:shrug

Only if you live in Florida.

Only if you live in Florida.


and can't work a punchcard

The problem in Florida was that Gore's people were so anxious to 'get out the vote' that they didn't teach them HOW to vote. I guess they paid them anyway.

If Kerry wins I am putting in a transfer for four years in Germany...Kuck Ferry!

I like that plan.
F Kerry

whatever. reading that reminded me of how little i know or care about politics right now. :shrug

Who gives a shit??? The last election proved your vote doesn't count anyway...:shrug


Bush wasnt elected, he was appointed.

Bush was elected, the recounts proved it.
Edwards is a shameless lawyer that preys on large business with class action suits, like big tobacco, get the money where you can. Kerry needed to get someone close to the south since he is not in touch with the southern voter, I'm not impressed.

Im not impressed with any of them. All these politicians suck.

id rather have beavis and butthead in office than any of these greedy bastids.

im not impressed with either choice. looks like another 4 years of the same ole chit.

In Kerry's last Senate run, he did the same thing he's done this time; mortgage 'his half' of his wife's house. The only problem is that the annual interest due is about $50k more than his salary as a Senator! Illegal contribution from his wife? Hmmmmmm! He already has his lawyers in place to challenge every state he loses. (And he didn't pick Edwards; the DNC did.)

Edwards doesn't earn a salary. He incorporated himself as a law firm and only takes dividends from the stock. That saves a whole bunch on Social Security and Medicare taxes. Neat tax dodge! He only has to pay on his Senate salary. And I wonder how much of his personal expenses are written off as 'business' expense?

i wasn't going to do this, but - sigh - idiocy has reared its ugly head and i just can't help myself in pointing it out. i know i will open a can of worms here, and i really am not a political junkie, but....

95 bxl, just a few observations:

edwards, kerry's vp, has no military service...but what you conveniently avoid pointing out is - neither does cheney, bush's vp. your argument sorta goes out the window with that. compare kerry and bush, or edwards and cheney, ok. but trying to infer that edward's military experience, or lack thereof, somehow detracts from kerry's edge against bush in that dept., is simply absurd. kerry's military service is superior to bush's - that's a fact. neither vp has military experience. that's a fact. if i were kerry, i would be harping on my experience vs. my opponent - picking a vp who doesn't have the same experience as me is simply not hypocritical, despite your self-serving conclusion that it is so.

ditto your arguments that this is a beauty contest rather than an election on the issues. edwards is a senator since 1999. you think that is not a "distinguished record" in public life? really? have you run for the senate lately? i'd hate to be your son and try to live up to your expectations "well, son, you only made it to senator? gawd damn failure, you are. shame you didn't make something of yourself." puhleassse. sweeping over-generalizations like you make over and over in your post, without any support, simply do little to lend credence to your points. even on those where i agree with you!!

and what is sheer (not shear, that is what you do to a sheep) folly is your final assertion that kerry should pick someone who should differ from his own "political perspective." like who, Rush Limbaugh? c'mon. be serious. a "balanced ticket" as you put it doesn't exactly make sense. liberal democrats stick with liberal democrats. just as right wing conservative republicans stick with birds of their feather. if i am running for prez, i want someone in the no. 2 chair who thinks like i do. i can pick a guy who comes from a different part of the country, yes, but ideologically different from myself? in a word, no.

just my .02. and i'm no fan of either candidate.

.

i wasn't going to do this, but - sigh - idiocy has reared its ugly head and i just can't help myself in pointing it out. i know i will open a can of worms here, and i really am not a political junkie, but....

95 bxl, just a few observations:

edwards, kerry's vp, has no military service...but what you conveniently avoid pointing out is - neither does cheney, bush's vp. your argument sorta goes out the window with that.

Nope, sorry. That issue is huge.

I didn't mention it because most everyone paying even remote attention to this stuff already knew it. The problem for Kerry is that he marginalizes his own argument by selecting a VP that has even less military experience than Bush. That decision is proof, on it's face, that the military experience issue is of absolutely no real importance, thereby kicking the legs out from under the democrats insistent whining in THIS election (conveniently overlooked by democrats in the Clinton-Bush I and Clinton-Dole elections) that Kerry's military service somehow makes him more qualified than Bush.

Remember, THIS time, the issue is of MAJOR importance to democrats. But we all know that the importance of that issue for democrats is, to put it politely, "situational," or they never would have supported Clinton.

First, if it was never a big deal when it came to Clinton, then it's not a big deal now. Second, that Kerry selected Edwards is tacit acknowledgment of that fact.

Your claim that my argument “goes out the window” because Cheney didn't serve entirely misses the point, a point that Kerry will live to regret: You cannot continue to have your surrogates beat the hell out of Cheney for using a deferment to stay out of Vietnam when your own VP candidate did EXACTLY the same thing. Nor can Kerry continue to claim that his service is somehow a pivotal issue in this election, given his decision to choose a VP that never set foot in uniform.

You see, it's either important... or it isn't. And if it IS important, then you damned sure don't pick someone to be your VP who, in essence, is no better than your opponents.

Because he's done that, he destroys his own, carefully nurtured but obviously false conclusion that his service makes him a better choice. It doesn't.

compare kerry and bush, or edwards and cheney, ok. but trying to infer that edward's military experience, or lack thereof, somehow detracts from kerry's edge against bush in that dept., is simply absurd. kerry's military service is superior to bush's - that's a fact.

And, I do not claim otherwise. The problem for Kerry is that the military service issue in no way infers a greater level of qualification for Kerry to be president then it does any other combat veteran. And, if it did somehow make such an inference, then there are literally tens of thousands of veterans even MORE qualified for the job than Kerry.

I repeat: Kerry's choice of a non-veteran for VP decimates the importance of the issue altogether. If being a combat veteran specifically, or even a veteran in general, is so important to becoming president (as Kerry and the democrats would have us all believe, for THIS election, at least,) then his selection of a non-veteran for VP is a disastrous choice... as the VP is, after all, only one heart beat away from the Oval Office.


neither vp has military experience. that's a fact. if i were kerry, i would be harping on my experience vs. my opponent - picking a vp who doesn't have the same experience as me is simply not hypocritical, despite your self-serving conclusion that it is so.

"Self-serving?" I'm not running for anything.

You cannot realistically expect that on one hand, you can make such a big deal about how important military service is in this matter, and then prove how unimportant it REALLY is by choosing a non-veteran VP…. Can you?

Democrats need to remember: If it wasn't important for you when Clinton was running, then it isn't important now... and Kerry's choice of Edwards proves that. To suggest otherwise is the height of that which you deny... specifically, hypocrisy.

Remember... its the democrats that insisted on bringing this subject up and attempting to make it so important. The actions of Kerry disprove the theorem quite nicely.

ditto your arguments that this is a beauty contest rather than an election on the issues. edwards is a senator since 1999. you think that is not a "distinguished record" in public life? really? have you run for the senate lately?

By all means, list Edwards many accomplishments while a Senator. Tell us about his programs, the legislative initiatives he's seen thru to fruition. The programs he's authored and passed that effect any of us in our every day life.

You cannot, of course, because like Kerry, they have accomplished absolutely nothing during their respective tenures.

As for my position that this is was an effort to reduce the election to a beauty contest, that position is shared by a few others... William Safire, Lyn Nofziger, Dick Morris... the Wall Street Journal, among others, seem to share my peculiar perspective.

Politicians are not gods. There are senators who are undeniably men and women of great ability and accomplishment. There are also mediocre and poor senators, relative to everything else.

Getting to the position does not determine how distinguished your record is. After all, such luminaries as Mel "The Monkey Spanker" Reynolds, Dan "Here, let me lick that stamp for you" Rostenkowski, Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Brock Adams, Richard Nixon... all reached high elective office... and all disgraced the office once they arrived.

No... what distinguishes one is what one does once they arrive. I'm surprised you didn't know that, but I guess your little self-serving vignette wouldn’t allow for that... now would it?


i'd hate to be your son and try to live up to your expectations "well, son, you only made it to senator? gawd damn failure, you are. shame you didn't make something of yourself."

Confused, are you? You act as if election to the senate is the end of the journey... and not the beginning of one's opportunity to serve. Does Jon Corzine, for example, have a “distinguished record” because he’s a senator? Or is it because the simple idiot spent over $60 million of his OWN money to buy the job?


puhleassse. sweeping over-generalizations like you make over and over in your post, without any support, simply do little to lend credence to your points. even on those where i agree with you!!

Without naming a single instance where I “over-generalized,” I would venture to say that each and every point I’ve made is backed by the facts and common sense. Your bizarre perspective notwithstanding, Edwards has accomplished embarrassingly little during his term in office. Or did I just overlook the list you so thoughtfully left out?


and what is sheer (not shear, that is what you do to a sheep) folly is your final assertion that kerry should pick someone who should differ from his own "political perspective." like who, Rush Limbaugh? c'mon. be serious. a "balanced ticket" as you put it doesn't exactly make sense.

Thus the explanation for Gore’s defeat last time around? Or do you view Gore and Lieberman as just two peas in a pod? Or Reagan/Bush 1?

Here’s a little snapshot for you: Even one of the Boston papers complained these guys were, combined, too far to the left, which is what you get when Kerry (Most liberal senator) picks Edwards (4th most liberal senator). A balanced ticket is vital to unseat an incumbent. Two Senators to the left of Lenin ain’t gonna get it done.


liberal democrats stick with liberal democrats. just as right wing conservative republicans stick with birds of their feather. if i am running for prez, i want someone in the no. 2 chair who thinks like i do. i can pick a guy who comes from a different part of the country, yes, but ideologically different from myself? in a word, no.

So… your explanation about Gore/Lieberman is what, again?

To win this, Kerry has to march to the right. How can the most liberal senator there is make the trip? And how can the 4th most liberal senator help him?

He can’t. We all know Kerry wanted McCain… now, why do you suppose that is… because McCain shares Kerry’s ultra-leftist positions? Or because Kerry was desperate to win Arizona?

Hardly.

And this, of course, just serves as more evidence, now being expounded in many different corners, that Edwards got the job because he is, after all, just another pretty face.

In closing, as far as your idiocy is concerned… I wouldn’t be nearly so hard on yourself. Based on our little chat here, it’s more likely just a matter of your political ignorance than anything else. Next election, pay a little closer attention, and you’ll be amazed at what you can learn.

As those of you who have served or are serving knows, things are usually better for the military when the republicans are in office...I just don't see Kerry/Edwards doing anything to help the military.

As those of you who have served or are serving knows, things are usually better for the military when the republicans are in office...I just don't see Kerry/Edwards doing anything to help the military.

other than getting them out of the shithole of the world, (no, not texas, iraq)

other than getting them out of the shithole of the world, (no, not texas, iraq)

Pulling out before we were finished is what led us BACK! And I don't want to have to send more of my brethren over there AGAIN if I can help it. What needs to happen, is these cells and cults, or whatever they call themselves, that think the entire world is evil, and EVERYONE must die need to be eradicated. Yeah, it's kinda like Genocide, but that's what they want.... Although, about 400 people is a hell of a lot less than 5.6 BILLION innocent lives they want to destroy. My family has fought in Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq (I'm not sure if my dad was in Desert Storm, but my Cousin got back in march from a 12 month tour) And even though Vietnam fell, that does not lessen the seriousness and greatness that we were fighting for, that we are still fighting for.

The freedom to choose who we want to lead us, as a free state in this world, and where they take us. Our republic cannot back down now. The men who have died will have died in vain if we do not allow them to complete what was started. I may be just a civillian, but I'll be DAMNED if some panzy that feels we should not be over there and pulls out our troops allows another 9-11 or any attack on american soil.

September 11th, 2001 was the first attack on the continuous 48 states since the Civil War (the Mex-American war don't count as an attack, cuz it wasn't our land till afterwards). The last direct attack of that magnatude was Pearl Harbor in 1941.

I will not stand for it again.

~Critter

Amen, WhoaDammit!

Sorry for the double post; I think something from my CD player got in the way.

WhoaDammit! true true....if we pull out now it will have been a total waste of time and lives. As much as I hate to have to go back, I am sure it is just a matter of time. If Clinton hadn't cut the military and closed alot of bases we would still have six month rotations instead of 12+ month rotations. And yes I would say by this time next year i'll be back.

I only wish Dr. Bill Frist (from the great state of Tennessee!) would run with Colin Powell as his VP!

people complain that we shouldnt be over there, we should be here defending our borders. What do you think we are doing over there. Im sorry you think guys like BMC, hulk, and the rest that are or have been over there are fighting for their borders. No we are over there stopping future threats to our borders. I am sorry but is it that difficult to see that. My best friends are over there. The only complaint they have is the chow hall food sucks. They are risking their lives for people of this country to be safe from 9/11s and you complain about it. I mean what is wrong in your head. We have fellow bronco lovers and bronco lovers family and friends that are over there. Guys you shoot the chit with everyday. The guys that try to say what is going on and you dont pay any attention other then they should be brought back. Should we just pull our troops back, halt all forms of transportation and station check points at every street searching people. Will that save us. Or just piss of some more people. If we pull all our troops around the world an attack can still happen unless you do just that. Not only are we currently protecting our borders but our allies. We help them because that is what we do and it is just like protecting our borders. Yeah it sucks that good men have to die, but that is war. It isnt like we are just going around picking fights with the world. Though sometimes i think we should, keep people from thinking they can walk over us. And when we get these left wing democrats that will "bring our boys home", oh sure they bring them home but cut military spending, close more bases then we should (which by the way makes thousands loose their jobs per base closed, cause not everyone on a base is military), and reduce our fighting capabilities. Unfortunantly we have the strongest, most advanced military in the world, closely trailed only by Russia and Britain(though not strong but has our advancements in weaponry). BMC is right, Kerry will not bring anything good for our military. I can guarentee one of two things if he wins. We will stay there, just a cut back on man power there which will reduce our fighting capabilities. If by some chance we are pulled out the countries will go to hell in a handbasket quick and that opens the doors to attacks on more then as we are seeing on CNN, yalls favorite network. Just like what has happened in Somolia. It was going to hell, we went in and calmed it down, but cause CNN got a hold of news from a bad accident where left wing and Clinton freaked out we were pulled out and millions more have died. Just like 91 though that was the UNs fault not ours. Should we have backed out of WWII after the first year just cause we lost more men then we did in the first few months then we did in all of this war. Would that have solved a damn thing for what we were fighting for. im sorry if you cant see my point, i know people with your point that i talk to that are real good friends that have explained their points. no Bush hasnt made me 100% happy, but he has made me 200 times happier then if Kerry gets in office. I am with BMC, im requesting overseas. and whoa said it good, my brothers would have died in vain. All my family that has fought in EVERY war this country has had would have fought for nothing. If we pulled out it would be like we are opening the door for them to come in and do whatever the hell they want. That would make them bold, that would make them think we are scared. that would make them think even worse about us. And that would make the ones who went in with us think we arent holding up to what we said we would do. and 10 more years down the road we will be back there and people will be saying oh bush didnt finish the job. how can we finish the job if we pull out. Karma you have contridicted yourself with that statement. In earlier posts you do just that, complain that Sr didnt finish the job, and now you want us to pull out. Just so you can say in 10 years that Jr did the same thing as his daddy. I must apologize that i just dont understand your mindset. i dont understand how you can come to believe these things. maybe im just a simple person that believes in what we are doing over there. Maybe it is just the fact that i spent my whole life some how involved with the military. Maybe it was the 13 years of my life my father was gone TDY, deployed, and risking his life for his family every day. The fact he was the first wave into Bosnia, was in Kosovo (though no one complains we are there and there is fighting there and troops die there), Iraq and Saudi, Korea, and every where else in this world cleaning up the bombs. Maybe it is the fact that i am currently serving. Maybe it is the fact that all my friends from HS are serving, whether home or abroad. Maybe it is because my fiancee's brother is a Navy Corpsmen for Marine Recon, another friend is a corpsmen, one works on F-15s, one is army signal corps, lots of C-130 buddies, B-52, B-2,B-1, 16s, 135s and just about every other aircraft.maybe the ones that are infantry. Maybe because one just got back from Uzebekistan, some from the desert. maybe it is because of the ones that are members of this very website. maybe it is the fact i was told last week be prepared to leave the beginning of december. Looks like my unit is moving from Kyrgystan doing missions for OEF to Iraq or kuwait that month. I dont know. But it is the right thing for us to do. I know i can sleep in peace at night knowing who is watching our backs right now, who are risking their lives, who are away from friends and family. I know i would proudly shed blood for these guys if asked to. I know i made an oath under God about 2 1/2 years to uphold the constitution and defend this country. This country doesnt mean our physical borders, it means allies, and fellow bretheren that are in trouble

by the way JOE FOR PRESIDENT

people complain that we shouldnt be over there, we should be here defending our borders. What do you think we are doing over there. Im sorry you think guys like BMC, hulk, and the rest that are or have been over there are fighting for their borders. No we are over there stopping future threats to our borders. I am sorry but is it that difficult to see that. My best friends are over there. The only complaint they have is the chow hall food sucks. They are risking their lives for people of this country to be safe from 9/11s and you complain about it. I mean what is wrong in your head. We have fellow bronco lovers and bronco lovers family and friends that are over there. Guys you shoot the chit with everyday. The guys that try to say what is going on and you dont pay any attention other then they should be brought back. Should we just pull our troops back, halt all forms of transportation and station check points at every street searching people. Will that save us. Or just piss of some more people. If we pull all our troops around the world an attack can still happen unless you do just that. Not only are we currently protecting our borders but our allies. We help them because that is what we do and it is just like protecting our borders. Yeah it sucks that good men have to die, but that is war. It isnt like we are just going around picking fights with the world. Though sometimes i think we should, keep people from thinking they can walk over us. And when we get these left wing democrats that will "bring our boys home", oh sure they bring them home but cut military spending, close more bases then we should (which by the way makes thousands loose their jobs per base closed, cause not everyone on a base is military), and reduce our fighting capabilities. Unfortunantly we have the strongest, most advanced military in the world, closely trailed only by Russia and Britain(though not strong but has our advancements in weaponry). BMC is right, Kerry will not bring anything good for our military. I can guarentee one of two things if he wins. We will stay there, just a cut back on man power there which will reduce our fighting capabilities. If by some chance we are pulled out the countries will go to hell in a handbasket quick and that opens the doors to attacks on more then as we are seeing on CNN, yalls favorite network. Just like what has happened in Somolia. It was going to hell, we went in and calmed it down, but cause CNN got a hold of news from a bad accident where left wing and Clinton freaked out we were pulled out and millions more have died. Just like 91 though that was the UNs fault not ours. Should we have backed out of WWII after the first year just cause we lost more men then we did in the first few months then we did in all of this war. Would that have solved a damn thing for what we were fighting for. im sorry if you cant see my point, i know people with your point that i talk to that are real good friends that have explained their points. no Bush hasnt made me 100% happy, but he has made me 200 times happier then if Kerry gets in office. I am with BMC, im requesting overseas. and whoa said it good, my brothers would have died in vain. All my family that has fought in EVERY war this country has had would have fought for nothing. If we pulled out it would be like we are opening the door for them to come in and do whatever the hell they want. That would make them bold, that would make them think we are scared. that would make them think even worse about us. And that would make the ones who went in with us think we arent holding up to what we said we would do. and 10 more years down the road we will be back there and people will be saying oh bush didnt finish the job. how can we finish the job if we pull out. Karma you have contridicted yourself with that statement. In earlier posts you do just that, complain that Sr didnt finish the job, and now you want us to pull out. Just so you can say in 10 years that Jr did the same thing as his daddy. I must apologize that i just dont understand your mindset. i dont understand how you can come to believe these things. maybe im just a simple person that believes in what we are doing over there. Maybe it is just the fact that i spent my whole life some how involved with the military. Maybe it was the 13 years of my life my father was gone TDY, deployed, and risking his life for his family every day. The fact he was the first wave into Bosnia, was in Kosovo (though no one complains we are there and there is fighting there and troops die there), Iraq and Saudi, Korea, and every where else in this world cleaning up the bombs. Maybe it is the fact that i am currently serving. Maybe it is the fact that all my friends from HS are serving, whether home or abroad. Maybe it is because my fiancee's brother is a Navy Corpsmen for Marine Recon, another friend is a corpsmen, one works on F-15s, one is army signal corps, lots of C-130 buddies, B-52, B-2,B-1, 16s, 135s and just about every other aircraft.maybe the ones that are infantry. Maybe because one just got back from Uzebekistan, some from the desert. maybe it is because of the ones that are members of this very website. maybe it is the fact i was told last week be prepared to leave the beginning of december. Looks like my unit is moving from Kyrgystan doing missions for OEF to Iraq or kuwait that month. I dont know. But it is the right thing for us to do. I know i can sleep in peace at night knowing who is watching our backs right now, who are risking their lives, who are away from friends and family. I know i would proudly shed blood for these guys if asked to. I know i made an oath under God about 2 1/2 years to uphold the constitution and defend this country. This country doesnt mean our physical borders, it means allies, and fellow bretheren that are in trouble

:usa :usa :usa :usa :clap :clap :clap :rockon :rockon :rockon :beer :beer :beer

VERY WELL PUT BRO. :rockon Its guys like you that allow me to sleep at night knowing that my little girl will have a safe place to grow up! I :clap you for what you and all the rest of the great guys and gals on the site do for this country!! :usa

damn...by the way Kosovo/Bosnia was Clinton's brainchild and we are still there!

Even as I say that I am reminded that the President can not just decide to go to war anytime they please, ya'll remember in Social Science class that part on the checks and balances? So it is not Clinton's fault or Bush's fault completely that we are there.

and if anybody really cares, we still have troops that are still going to Vietnam and Laos...

and if anybody really cares, we still have troops that are still going to Vietnam and Laos...

You mean the embassy is still there? I guess someone has to gaurd that....

I am definately hoping my Cousin makes it out alive, and hopefully never goes back to Iraq. Things just won't be settled til my 390 matches up to his 383TPI K5.

All I can say to SrATEX is:

DON'T GET YOURSELF KILLED!!! we want to go wheelin' with ya, so you must come back...

~Critter

hilary clinton for president in '08.

hilary clinton for president in '08.

:wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko

This is a real war against some really bad radicals.

Picture a map of that part of the world. There's a Terrorist Crescent from Morocco in Northwest Africa to Indonesia in Southeast Asia. It's full of people who want to kill not only Americans, but all of Western civilization because they think they know better.

Here's what Bush has done. Afganistan and Iraq have driven wedges into that crescent; Pakistan and Lybia have become really big cracks. It's not over by a long shot, but the war is over there, not here!

Every time I take a shower, I see the reminders of Laos on my belly and my side. I know how tough it is for our guys in Afganistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, the Philipines, Yemen and Southeast Saudi Arabia. Our guys are there to keep them from coming here.

Nobody's gonna cart me off to some mosque!

Im not impressed with any of them. All these politicians suck.

id rather have beavis and butthead in office than any of these greedy bastids.


:stupid


every election the choices get worse and worse. i cant wait till 08' :uke:
i wonder what winners we will have to choose from then.

This is a real war against some really bad radicals.

Picture a map of that part of the world. There's a Terrorist Crescent from Morocco in Northwest Africa to Indonesia in Southeast Asia. It's full of people who want to kill not only Americans, but all of Western civilization because they think they know better.
Here's what Bush has done. Afganistan and Iraq have driven wedges into that crescent; Pakistan and Lybia have become really big cracks. It's not over by a long shot, but the war is over there, not here!

Every time I take a shower, I see the reminders of Laos on my belly and my side. I know how tough it is for our guys in Afganistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, the Philipines, Yemen and Southeast Saudi Arabia. Our guys are there to keep them from coming here.

Nobody's gonna cart me off to some mosque!

Did anyone think it's because WE think we know better . We have been shoving our way of thinking down the throats of many countries and now it's coming back to haunt us. Who do we think we are , after only 228 years to tell other civilizations that have been around for thousands of years how to think , act and worship . I am not just talking about modern day Iraq but all the past decades also . If the U.S.A didn't go around sticking their noses where it did not belong , we would have more friends and less trouble .

There is a time to fight ie...WWI & II , and a time and a time to watch and listen . The trouble is we are too eager to fight . There are no winners in a war . There are no losers in peace .

As those of you who have served or are serving knows, things are usually better for the military when the republicans are in office...I just don't see Kerry/Edwards doing anything to help the military.

agreed, I don't know anyone who has served (including myself) that likes kerry. I know a few guys that don't like bush but they completely resent Kerry for his pacifist actions after he returned from vietnam.

If he gets elected the first thing he will do is pull out, leaving the country to be overrun by muslim terrorists. Can you guess what that means? We'll be back in 10 years because they'll have nukes aimed at us and they don't care what kind of ecological impact it will have. But the wacko tree huggers don't think about that do they? I for one don't want to be in a cold war with these ######## because the lefties don't have the guts to finish the job.

On the other hand I don't belive the the iraqi people as a whole are civilized enough to govern themselves. As soon as someone steps up to start a government, they will be killed. They will slip into a dictatorship and the ones that have the capacity for a republic-type government will be exported or killed. These people are just a collection of mobs that beleive in only violence.

Kill 'em all and let God sort them out...

How many of you guys knew that Afghanistan had a King? I was able to visit his palace while in Kabul. They are rebuilding the old one and have remodeled a newer one. They have a president also. But check this out...(kinda long)

Muhammad Zahir Shah - Once and future king?

Muhammad Zahir Shah, who ruled Afghanistan until 1973, seems to the West like "an authentic Afghani leader" suited to ruling for a transitional period. But there are doubts about the elderly king's legitimacy and political capability in the Afghan arena

By Nitzan Horowitz

Three colors - the colors of the Afghani flag - enveloped Kabul way back in 1933: black, the color of mourning, symbolic of the era of invasions by enemies and colonial forces; red, the color of blood, which marks the sacrifice of the liberation and independence movement; and green, the color of hope, which expresses "peace and the flourishing of Islam." The occasion was rather bleak. A few hours earlier, King Nader Shah Muhammad had been killed by a shot from a pistol carried by a student at an award ceremony. The king's brother, Muhammad Aziz, had been assassinated five months earlier in Nazi Berlin. International plots thickened once again in the air of the mountain kingdom. The future looked more bleak than ever.

All eyes were turned toward the royal heir, Muhammed Zahir, the son of the late king. He was only 19, but had already helped his father stabilize his regime and had served as a minister. At a hasty ceremony, the young prince was crowned king. He took the title "Confident in God, Follower of the Firm Religion of Islam." No one thought that this would happen, but the coronation ushered in a period of 40 years that many Afghanis call an era of "peace and quiet." But the years of Zahir Shah's reign were not as tranquil as the devotees of nostalgia now describe them. Afghanistan knew difficult days and great upheavals. But compared to the troubles that came to the country after he was deposed, it is little wonder that many people have pinned their hopes on him, seeing in him the only savior if and when the Taliban regime is toppled in an American attack.

During the years of his reign, the real power was in the hands of his uncles who ruled the country as prime ministers. With the outbreak of World War II and in its aftermath, the king steered Afghanistan along the path of neutrality. This was a wise choice: Foreign aid flowed into Kabul not only from Moscow, but also from Washington. Those who came after him did not follow in his footsteps. In retrospect, the king now says that the great decline of his country during the 1980s and the 1990s came about because Afghanistan became "a pawn in the game between the powers on the Asian continent, and the clear results can be seen today." But the bulk of his criticism is directed at Pakistan. Only in 1963 did the king fully grasp the reins of power. A year later he initiated reforms that led to the establishment of a parliament, to elections and to a relatively free press. Political parties were not legal, but the king did allow a certain amount of political activity. Members of the royal family were barred from holding public office and, in effect, a constitutional monarchy was established in Afghanistan. The king himself was then perceived by the power centers in his country as an indecisive ruler and court intrigues were relentless. Yet his reign brought to Afghanistan a long period of peace, during which time irrigation projects were developed and roads were paved. These years were the greatest period of growth in the country's history. The king was quite well-loved by the masses, but in the twilight of his regime, affections began to wane. At the end of the 1960s there were violent demonstrations against him. A terrible drought at the beginning of the 1970s exacted tens of thousands of victims. The Pashtun tribes in the border areas with Pakistan pressed for autonomy.

Zahir Shah traveled abroad a great deal. During one of these trips, as he was enjoying the mud-baths at therapeutic springs near Naples, he was deposed. The coup was led by his cousin Muahmmad Daoud Khan, the son of Muhammad Aziz, who had been murdered in Berlin 40 years earlier. Daoud declared a republic and appointed himself its first president.

The deposed king remained in Italy, this time as an exile. He settled into a modest four-bedroom villa and was effectively forgotten. No one, not even Zahir Shah himself, imagined that the day of the Afghani monarchy would come again. It came in the wake of the terror attacks in New York and Washington.

The elderly king, who is 86, has become a object of pilgrimage: Afghani opposition movements, opponents of the Taliban, journalists, confidential advisors, secret agents and in particular senior American representatives. They all flock to him to clarify their understandings of his intentions and to make bold proposals to him.

A symbolic figure

The main source of encouragement is Washington. The Americans have reached the conclusion that an "authentic Afghani leader" is now needed; one who can pose a legitimate alternative to the Taliban regime. After the killing of Ahmad Shah Masoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance (the main force within Afghanistan that is opposed to the Taliban) the former king remains the only figure who might be acceptable to both "the people" and the international community. All this is premised on the assumption that a power vacuum will appear in Kabul.

The scenario put forward by the experts poses Zahir Shah as a symbolic figure who will head "a transitional framework" that will take the government of Afghanistan into its hands if the Taliban regime is defeated because of its cooperation with Osama Bin Laden. However, this scenario, if only from the king's point of view, is very problematic. Zahir Shah is an old man. His health is good, but his ability to govern and maneuver in the tangle of rivalries in his strife-torn country is in doubt. The extent to which he is familiar with the new forces active in his country is also unclear. He left Afghanistan 28 years ago and never returned. In a country where most of the inhabitants are under the age of 15, not many people remember the period of his rule.

According to diplomatic reports from Rome, Zahir Shah is prepared to head a transitional government in Afghanistan, but as "head of state" and not as king. Would such a regime be legitimate? "As far as the international community is concerned, the legitimacy of a given government regime often depends on the extent of its success in governing the country effectively," says Dr. Eyal Gross, of Tel Aviv University, a specialist on international law. "Though in recent years there has been an evident desire to base international recognition on criteria of justice, democracy or self-determination, there have been many situations in which a regime came to power in an illegitimate and sometimes bloody way, but have nevertheless won sweeping international support."

In this context, Gross notes the tension that exists in international law between the aspiration to establish norms for recognizing a regime, "so as not to be apologetic to power," and the practice and reality on the ground that is based on effective governance and on international interests.

In Afghanistan, a strange situation prevails in this respect: The Taliban does in fact rule effectively in many areas of the country, but their regime is not recognized by the international community. In Afghanistan, the government that is recognized by the world is that of Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was deposed by the Taliban five years ago. In most of the Afghani embassies around the world, for example, sit representatives of the Rabbani government. However, in neighboring Pakistan, a friend of the current regime in Kabul, sits the ambassador of the Taliban.

"If there are upheavals in the regime in Kabul as a result of forthcoming developments, it may be assumed that the international elements involved will try to present the new regime as legitimate on the grounds of "representing the people" or "authentic leadership," even though it is not clear whether such a government will be established in a democratic way," says Dr. Gross. Judging from the trend now prevailing in U.S. President George Bush's coalition, a new regime in Kabul, under the auspices of the aged king, would be recognized in a very accelerated process. It may assumed with certainty that such a regime would also be given very significant aid.

Against foreign intervention

Until this happens, the king has already been issuing political statements that indicate a clear direction. A delegation of members of the U.S. Congress came to see him in Rome, and heard from him that he would stand by the United States in the struggle against terror and that he would support actions, led by the United States, to overthrow the Taliban. "Our aim is to establish as quickly as possible a united Afghani state on a national platform," he told the French media. The king aspires to convene Afghanistan's traditional "national council" (the Loya Jirga) as soon as possible. Sources in the office of the former king have said that senior members in the Afghani forces that are opposed to the Taliban have agreed to set up a council of war, consisting of commanders, tribal elders and former military officers. The nature and standing of such a body is not clear. In the field, too, the situation with respect to the king is not especially promising. The Northern Alliance has made it clear that any foreign help in bringing the king back to power will lead to further disturbances. The rebel commanders have announced that although Zahir Shah could be of help in finding a solution to Afghanistan's problems, he will not be able to return to power under conditions dictated by the West.

"If Zahir Shah comes back with the support of the West, his fate is predetermined," said Northern Alliance spokesman Sayid Najibollah Hashimi. "Any foreign intervention of this sort is unacceptable and unjustified." Statements by the Taliban about this matter are even more vehement. "The king is old and too weak," said Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar in a rare interview to an Iranian newspaper, "and anyway, there is no leadership vacuum in Afghanistan. Puppets who are forced on us by the West have no future.

The king, of course, does not see himself as a puppet. He has been telling his American guests that his vision is of a two-year interim period of transition toward democracy, and that he hopes that foreign forces will not be present in Afghanistan over the longer term. Were he but able, he would return to his country at once. "The situation is tragic," he has said in the past few days. "With every moment that goes by, I feel my people's pain. I am praying fervently that God will save our country that has suffered for so long, and set it on the path of peace. As for me - I see only one role for myself: peacemaker. I am 86 and I must go home."

There is a time to fight ie...WWI & II...Right. After the Lusitania! After Pearl Harbor! After the WTC and the Pentagon and Flight 93!

How many people have to die to wake us up? I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you.

Right. After the Lusitania! After Pearl Harbor! After the WTC and the Pentagon and Flight 93!

How many people have to die to wake us up? I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you.


I agree. Keeping our nose to ourselves has invited more violence than it has prevented. Isolationism is not the answer. We decided to become the police after world war II. We decided that we did not want another war on that scale. And there has not been one since for a reason.

~Critter

~CLICKY~ (http://www.jibjab.com/MovieViewer.aspx?contentid=162) :histerica

:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :thumbup

kerry won 3 purple hearts? damn

:histerica :histerica

That was great. I didnt know about the purple hearts either.

kerry won 3 purple hearts? damn


To straighten that out...you dont "win" a purple heart, you are awarded the citation for being wounded in the combat arena, and not necessarily in "action". I was never awarded a purple heart, and i was hit by fragmentation that penetrated my left upper arm and through and through frag wound to my right lower leg....my boss never put in for it and to tell you the truth i'm glad he didn't. My wounds did not disable me for more than a few days, and i was right back to work, so to take a PH there would've been morally corrupt to say the least.

Now, take a look at Kerry's citations...all were bullshit that was less damaging than the frag wounds i took......makes you wonder what type of glory seeker he was trying to be. BTW he WAS the boss in his boat unit, so he pyut himself in for the PH citations. He wanted to come home with a chest full of medals because he thought that was "cool" and so he set himself up to look like a hero.....he is not the only person from his era to pull that bullshit, and sadly he wont be the last. Where i come from, you get caught trying to amplify your status or service record.....may god have mercy on your soul, cause no one else ever will.......

09... I think they were kidding. Take a chill pill, dude.

I think I read that he was never out of "work" for more trhan two days on any of those...I know some people who have been out alot longer than that and they aren't getting them.

I took a grenade fragment in my right side in Laos in '59. No PH because the rule then was it had to be "...inflicted by the enemy in a combat zone". No war - no combat zone - no 'enemy' - no PH!

Now they're given away for training accidents.

Canada has now pissed me off with their floppy heads and beady eyes...This being Canada, the amount of anti-Americanism that was found is not surprising. What is significant is the high number of teens who used the word "evil" to describe our southern neighbour. As Misty Harris pointed out in her column in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, evil is usually associated with serial killers and "kids who tear the legs off baby spiders." These teens appear to equate George W. Bush and Americans with Osama bin Laden and Hitler,

of course the fact that their borders are protected in large part thanks to us, and the fact that only 9% of those teens polled ever thought that a terrorist attack in Canada was possible...

Did anyone think it's because WE think we know better . We have been shoving our way of thinking down the throats of many countries and now it's coming back to haunt us. Who do we think we are , after only 228 years to tell other civilizations that have been around for thousands of years how to think , act and worship . I am not just talking about modern day Iraq but all the past decades also . If the U.S.A didn't go around sticking their noses where it did not belong , we would have more friends and less trouble .

There is a time to fight ie...WWI & II , and a time and a time to watch and listen . The trouble is we are too eager to fight . There are no winners in a war . There are no losers in peace .


yes some dont like us for that reason. however as one of the last super powers we are generally called by then UN/NATO to stick our noses in other places business. As I said before take the Bosnia and Kosovo. IFOR and KFOR are becuase we were called in to assist as peacekeepers. So WWI+II were justified but this war isn't. As Marv said how many people have to die at home for us to wake up. WWII we were sending supplies to England and France then we cut off oil to Japan. That is why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, to cripple so and to force as back into giving to them. What were we doing to deserve to be attacked on 9/11. Going to work, enjoying our lives, wealth and prosperity, keeping our nose to ourselves. So you are telling me if we sit here and do nothing around the world we will be safe. Hmmmm well we tried that 9/11 happened. So that theory is void. And as of right now, Darrely Worley said it best in my opinion. People say were out looking for a fight. After 9/11 Id have to say thats right. Why should we sit back and watch an area destroy itself and try to destroy us, harbor to ones trying to destroy us, and supplying those trying to destroy us. And you are right there are no winners in war. The first casualty of war is innocence. However you need to wake up. As long as there are people on this earth with different views and beliefs there will be war. War is the oldest thing in the world. Before great civilizations there were tribal wars. The only time there will ever be peace is when God sets his feet on this Earth. Quite frankly I am tired of all this make love not war crap. It isnt gonna happen. And anyone tell me to do that I will tell them to shove it.

As long as there are people on this earth with different views and beliefs there will be war. War is the oldest thing in the world.

"If you want peace and quiet, take yourself to a deserted South Pacific island. If you want conflict, bring a friend along. Such is life!" I heard that a long time ago, and I think it'll always be true.

Having said that, once it was German colonialism; then Italian Fascism, German Nazism and Japanese colonialism; then Soviet expansionism; and now Islamic terrorism. Next it might be Chinese colonialism (they've already taken the right to vote away from Hong Kong).

If I find that South Pacific island, should I take my wife along, or just my Broncos?

I took a grenade fragment in my right side in Laos in '59. No PH because the rule then was it had to be "...inflicted by the enemy in a combat zone". No war - no combat zone - no 'enemy' - no PH!

Now they're given away for training accidents.
Very true.....but like i said, in my situation i dont htink it was warranted, and neither did my boss - he was a very intelligent man.

In your case, serious injury should've required the citation (IMHO).

The whole subject is confusing....i'm not bitchin, like i said i didnt want it, didnt need it and i was back to work right away.

If I find that South Pacific island, should I take my wife along, or just my Broncos?

Take both.. That way when ya wheel on the island you would have started war with your wife. :thumbup :goodfinge

people complain that we shouldnt be over there, we should be here defending our borders. What do you think we are doing over there. Im sorry you think guys like BMC, hulk, and the rest that are or have been over there are fighting for their borders. No we are over there stopping future threats to our borders. I am sorry but is it that difficult to see that. My best friends are over there. The only complaint they have is the chow hall food sucks. They are risking their lives for people of this country to be safe from 9/11s and you complain about it. I mean what is wrong in your head. We have fellow bronco lovers and bronco lovers family and friends that are over there. Guys you shoot the chit with everyday. The guys that try to say what is going on and you dont pay any attention other then they should be brought back. Should we just pull our troops back, halt all forms of transportation and station check points at every street searching people. Will that save us. Or just piss of some more people. If we pull all our troops around the world an attack can still happen unless you do just that. Not only are we currently protecting our borders but our allies. We help them because that is what we do and it is just like protecting our borders. Yeah it sucks that good men have to die, but that is war. It isnt like we are just going around picking fights with the world. Though sometimes i think we should, keep people from thinking they can walk over us. And when we get these left wing democrats that will "bring our boys home", oh sure they bring them home but cut military spending, close more bases then we should (which by the way makes thousands loose their jobs per base closed, cause not everyone on a base is military), and reduce our fighting capabilities. Unfortunantly we have the strongest, most advanced military in the world, closely trailed only by Russia and Britain(though not strong but has our advancements in weaponry). BMC is right, Kerry will not bring anything good for our military. I can guarentee one of two things if he wins. We will stay there, just a cut back on man power there which will reduce our fighting capabilities. If by some chance we are pulled out the countries will go to hell in a handbasket quick and that opens the doors to attacks on more then as we are seeing on CNN, yalls favorite network. Just like what has happened in Somolia. It was going to hell, we went in and calmed it down, but cause CNN got a hold of news from a bad accident where left wing and Clinton freaked out we were pulled out and millions more have died. Just like 91 though that was the UNs fault not ours. Should we have backed out of WWII after the first year just cause we lost more men then we did in the first few months then we did in all of this war. Would that have solved a damn thing for what we were fighting for. im sorry if you cant see my point, i know people with your point that i talk to that are real good friends that have explained their points. no Bush hasnt made me 100% happy, but he has made me 200 times happier then if Kerry gets in office. I am with BMC, im requesting overseas. and whoa said it good, my brothers would have died in vain. All my family that has fought in EVERY war this country has had would have fought for nothing. If we pulled out it would be like we are opening the door for them to come in and do whatever the hell they want. That would make them bold, that would make them think we are scared. that would make them think even worse about us. And that would make the ones who went in with us think we arent holding up to what we said we would do. and 10 more years down the road we will be back there and people will be saying oh bush didnt finish the job. how can we finish the job if we pull out. Karma you have contridicted yourself with that statement. In earlier posts you do just that, complain that Sr didnt finish the job, and now you want us to pull out. Just so you can say in 10 years that Jr did the same thing as his daddy. I must apologize that i just dont understand your mindset. i dont understand how you can come to believe these things. maybe im just a simple person that believes in what we are doing over there. Maybe it is just the fact that i spent my whole life some how involved with the military. Maybe it was the 13 years of my life my father was gone TDY, deployed, and risking his life for his family every day. The fact he was the first wave into Bosnia, was in Kosovo (though no one complains we are there and there is fighting there and troops die there), Iraq and Saudi, Korea, and every where else in this world cleaning up the bombs. Maybe it is the fact that i am currently serving. Maybe it is the fact that all my friends from HS are serving, whether home or abroad. Maybe it is because my fiancee's brother is a Navy Corpsmen for Marine Recon, another friend is a corpsmen, one works on F-15s, one is army signal corps, lots of C-130 buddies, B-52, B-2,B-1, 16s, 135s and just about every other aircraft.maybe the ones that are infantry. Maybe because one just got back from Uzebekistan, some from the desert. maybe it is because of the ones that are members of this very website. maybe it is the fact i was told last week be prepared to leave the beginning of december. Looks like my unit is moving from Kyrgystan doing missions for OEF to Iraq or kuwait that month. I dont know. But it is the right thing for us to do. I know i can sleep in peace at night knowing who is watching our backs right now, who are risking their lives, who are away from friends and family. I know i would proudly shed blood for these guys if asked to. I know i made an oath under God about 2 1/2 years to uphold the constitution and defend this country. This country doesnt mean our physical borders, it means allies, and fellow bretheren that are in trouble


Well Said

There are no losers in peace . That only applies when all parties agree to a peaceful co-existence, and demonstrably stick to it. Jihadistan ain't gonna' do that.

Trust, but verify!

Bush v. Kerry
http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html

:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica
****dialup warning!!!*****

Thanks, I needed that. :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :goodfinge :goodfinge :clap :clap

This is all I'm gettin:

Server Error in '/' Application.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Server Too Busy
Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.

Exception Details: System.Web.HttpException: Server Too Busy

Source Error:

An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below.

That was Great !!! Worth the wait.
:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :clap :clap :clap :clap

Johnski, keep trying, got that a couple times myself

Well done.. :thumbup

Nope, sorry. That issue is huge.

I didn't mention it because most everyone paying even remote attention to this stuff already knew it. The problem for Kerry is that he marginalizes his own argument by selecting a VP that has even less military experience than Bush. That decision is proof, on it's face, that the military experience issue is of absolutely no real importance, thereby kicking the legs out from under the democrats insistent whining in THIS election (conveniently overlooked by democrats in the Clinton-Bush I and Clinton-Dole elections) that Kerry's military service somehow makes him more qualified than Bush.

Remember, THIS time, the issue is of MAJOR importance to democrats. But we all know that the importance of that issue for democrats is, to put it politely, "situational," or they never would have supported Clinton.

First, if it was never a big deal when it came to Clinton, then it's not a big deal now. Second, that Kerry selected Edwards is tacit acknowledgment of that fact.

Your claim that my argument “goes out the window” because Cheney didn't serve entirely misses the point, a point that Kerry will live to regret: You cannot continue to have your surrogates beat the hell out of Cheney for using a deferment to stay out of Vietnam when your own VP candidate did EXACTLY the same thing. Nor can Kerry continue to claim that his service is somehow a pivotal issue in this election, given his decision to choose a VP that never set foot in uniform.

You see, it's either important... or it isn't. And if it IS important, then you damned sure don't pick someone to be your VP who, in essence, is no better than your opponents.

Because he's done that, he destroys his own, carefully nurtured but obviously false conclusion that his service makes him a better choice. It doesn't.



And, I do not claim otherwise. The problem for Kerry is that the military service issue in no way infers a greater level of qualification for Kerry to be president then it does any other combat veteran. And, if it did somehow make such an inference, then there are literally tens of thousands of veterans even MORE qualified for the job than Kerry.

I repeat: Kerry's choice of a non-veteran for VP decimates the importance of the issue altogether. If being a combat veteran specifically, or even a veteran in general, is so important to becoming president (as Kerry and the democrats would have us all believe, for THIS election, at least,) then his selection of a non-veteran for VP is a disastrous choice... as the VP is, after all, only one heart beat away from the Oval Office.



"Self-serving?" I'm not running for anything.

You cannot realistically expect that on one hand, you can make such a big deal about how important military service is in this matter, and then prove how unimportant it REALLY is by choosing a non-veteran VP…. Can you?

Democrats need to remember: If it wasn't important for you when Clinton was running, then it isn't important now... and Kerry's choice of Edwards proves that. To suggest otherwise is the height of that which you deny... specifically, hypocrisy.

Remember... its the democrats that insisted on bringing this subject up and attempting to make it so important. The actions of Kerry disprove the theorem quite nicely.



By all means, list Edwards many accomplishments while a Senator. Tell us about his programs, the legislative initiatives he's seen thru to fruition. The programs he's authored and passed that effect any of us in our every day life.

You cannot, of course, because like Kerry, they have accomplished absolutely nothing during their respective tenures.

As for my position that this is was an effort to reduce the election to a beauty contest, that position is shared by a few others... William Safire, Lyn Nofziger, Dick Morris... the Wall Street Journal, among others, seem to share my peculiar perspective.

Politicians are not gods. There are senators who are undeniably men and women of great ability and accomplishment. There are also mediocre and poor senators, relative to everything else.

Getting to the position does not determine how distinguished your record is. After all, such luminaries as Mel "The Monkey Spanker" Reynolds, Dan "Here, let me lick that stamp for you" Rostenkowski, Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Brock Adams, Richard Nixon... all reached high elective office... and all disgraced the office once they arrived.

No... what distinguishes one is what one does once they arrive. I'm surprised you didn't know that, but I guess your little self-serving vignette wouldn’t allow for that... now would it?



Confused, are you? You act as if election to the senate is the end of the journey... and not the beginning of one's opportunity to serve. Does Jon Corzine, for example, have a “distinguished record” because he’s a senator? Or is it because the simple idiot spent over $60 million of his OWN money to buy the job?



Without naming a single instance where I “over-generalized,” I would venture to say that each and every point I’ve made is backed by the facts and common sense. Your bizarre perspective notwithstanding, Edwards has accomplished embarrassingly little during his term in office. Or did I just overlook the list you so thoughtfully left out?



Thus the explanation for Gore’s defeat last time around? Or do you view Gore and Lieberman as just two peas in a pod? Or Reagan/Bush 1?

Here’s a little snapshot for you: Even one of the Boston papers complained these guys were, combined, too far to the left, which is what you get when Kerry (Most liberal senator) picks Edwards (4th most liberal senator). A balanced ticket is vital to unseat an incumbent. Two Senators to the left of Lenin ain’t gonna get it done.



So… your explanation about Gore/Lieberman is what, again?

To win this, Kerry has to march to the right. How can the most liberal senator there is make the trip? And how can the 4th most liberal senator help him?

He can’t. We all know Kerry wanted McCain… now, why do you suppose that is… because McCain shares Kerry’s ultra-leftist positions? Or because Kerry was desperate to win Arizona?

Hardly.

And this, of course, just serves as more evidence, now being expounded in many different corners, that Edwards got the job because he is, after all, just another pretty face.

In closing, as far as your idiocy is concerned… I wouldn’t be nearly so hard on yourself. Based on our little chat here, it’s more likely just a matter of your political ignorance than anything else. Next election, pay a little closer attention, and you’ll be amazed at what you can learn.

you political hacks weary me. i haven't the time or energy to respond to the ludicrous statements you've made above, but i note you still misused the word "shear" :goodfinge

you political hacks weary me. i haven't the time or energy to respond to the ludicrous statements you've made above, but i note you still misused the word "shear" :goodfinge

Actually, what you lack is the ability. Except for your role as a spelling nazi, you're better off sticking to Broncos.

I ripped this flash off the site early yesterday morning for the users of dslreports.com who were the ones that were causing the "Site Busy" errors on jibjab. If its still showing busy you can download it here to view with the standalone flash player available at www.macromedia.com. Its RAR'ed in an attempt to save space.. www.rarsoft.com for the decompression software if you dont have it.

http://2e.img.fjeer.us/thisland.rar

:histerica :histerica

It's a general election year and there have been a number of threads here on who oughta be President.

green party all the way baby!!!!!!!

green party all the way baby!!!!!!!
Lets all vote for this guyhttp://home.kcbx.net/~bdenneen/billtree1.jpg

Lets all vote for this guyhttp://home.kcbx.net/~bdenneen/billtree1.jpg

damn scott i thought you shaved for your job :histerica :histerica

you forgot one option on your poll .


VOTE FOR FREE BEER :drinkbud :drinkbud :drinkbud :drinkbud :drinkbud :drinkbud :drinkbud :drinkbud

...you forgot one option on your poll...Well, chit happens. :smash

Well, chit happens. :smash


:lolup :lolup :lolup :lolup :lolup :lolup :lolup

yall know where i stand

I think my politics are clear as well.

This poll is pointless, 90% of FSB is republicans.

The other 10% of us don't give a shit....Beer as a write in anyone??? :beer

I vote Bush, the lesser of three Morons!!!

Jesse Ventura in 2008!!!!

The other 10% of us don't give a shit....Beer as a write in anyone??? :beer
and don't forget his running mate...
http://www.jagermeister.com/welcome/img/logo.gif
beer affects me more than politics :thumbup

POLLs not valid anyway... LIBERTARIANS ALL THE WAY! :rockon

I'm always in the wrong place at the wrong time - the county I live in mostly Republican (word is if you want to get ahead or get any favors done at the courthouse, you should be registered Republican) and FSB is mostly Republican.

I'll just got sit in the Democrat corner now ... :banghead Either that or reevaluate my politics.

Is SpongeBob on the ballot?

beer & jager 2004 :rockon

Have you guys seen the new campain that Bush is running on tv? The one where Kerry doesn't have time to vote for most stuff, but DID have the time to vote NO for the Laci Petterson Law? :shrug

What do you guys think about that? I myself think that it is crazy for him to vote no. just wondering what you ppl thought.

Of course, I think alot of things Kerry does is weird

I think it was kind of weird that Bush heard about the twin towers and sat in a classroom with children and read a story for 30 minutes.

US --> :slap <--Kerry

I vote Bush, the lesser of three Morons!!!
:stupid

I think it was kind of weird that Bush heard about the twin towers and sat in a classroom with children and read a story for 30 minutes.

First time no one knew what was really going on. Second plane hit at 9:06 am, by 9:30 he had already wrote part of a speech to address the nation. Even before that he had been on a secure phone with washington with the vice president, while parts of washington were being evacuated. By 9:57 am he was in airforce one.

Have you guys seen the new campain that Bush is running on tv? The one where Kerry doesn't have time to vote for most stuff, but DID have the time to vote NO for the Laci Petterson Law? :shrug

What do you guys think about that? I myself think that it is crazy for him to vote no. just wondering what you ppl thought.

Kerry most likely voted no on the Peterson bill because his platform on abortion is pro-choice. That bill threatens abortions rights and Roe v. Wade, particularly if Bush stays in office and one of the Supreme Court judges retires (there's two that they've speculated may go in the next term - Rehnquist & O'Connor).

I think it was smart for him to vote no. Had he voted yes, he would have angered a lot of his voters and would have lost a lot of support for the upcoming election.

I am voting ANYBODY BUT BUSH!
He is a farcking moron. Hope he dies, nuff said, thats my shitty opinion. I have one just like y'all's :toothless

Perhaps... but his vote did result in a dandy campaign commercial.

Kerry most likely voted no on the Peterson bill because his platform on abortion is pro-choice.Pretty slick for a guy that just announced that his position is that life begins at conception.

Oops! Did I say "slick"...as in Willy? :eek:

Pretty slick for a guy that just announced that his position is that life begins at conception.

Oops! Did I say "slick"...as in Willy? :eek:

Kerry announced that he that he doesn't believe in abortion on a personal level. He said, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

But politically he is pro-choice. As a matter of fact, Kerry is taking the same position that the majority of pro-choice voters take. It's not about for- or against-abortion, it's about the right to choose in ANY case and the right to be safe and control their own lives. "He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God."

This belief is touted as something that will serve no purpose but to confuse the voters by the opposing camps, but personally, I think Kerry's doing what Bush should be doing: keeping the separation of Church and State strong. Kerry is a Catholic who opposes abortion in his own life but that doesn't mean he's going to force that belief on every one.

I couldn't agree more with Kallure.

Have you guys seen the new campain that Bush is running on tv? The one where Kerry doesn't have time to vote for most stuff, but DID have the time to vote NO for the Laci Petterson Law? :shrug

What do you guys think about that? I myself think that it is crazy for him to vote no. just wondering what you ppl thought.

I think it's crazy that anyone can fully believe ANY political ads. When they come on TV, I change the channel. I research on my own, then make an informed decision based on what I learned, not on what the political propagandists fed me.

:stupid

I'll just got sit in the Democrat corner now ... :banghead Either that or reevaluate my politics.

Most wimmen are democrats, but if you think about it, they oppose the stuff you like! They oppose big gas guzzling broncos, and the people who drive them, and you seem to have an interest in both. Democratic polititions act like they are for the common man but carreer politicains on both sides are just a$$holes who only care about lining there own pockets.

Bush all the way.
Edwards is the reason my health insurance went up 100% last year, malpractice lawyers suck!

I am voting ANYBODY BUT BUSH!
He is a farcking moron. Hope he dies, nuff said, thats my shitty opinion. I have one just like y'all's :toothless

I think you're opinion is gay AND shitty :goodfinge :beer

Everyone should know my stand.

Most wimmen are democrats, but if you think about it, they oppose the stuff you like! They oppose big gas guzzling broncos.

:twak :twak :boxing :boxing DON'T EVEN PUT ME IN THAT CATAGORY!

The bigger the rig and thursty big engine is what I want and I have three of them. I am 100% republican and I don't care what people think. :rockon :rockon :rockon

I am backing my Commander and Chief.

Mommy always said never argue about politics or religion 'cause you will never win. Just voice your beliefs and be done with it.

Bush all the way.
Edwards is the reason my health insurance went up 100% last year, malpractice lawyers suck!

whats health Insurance? I haven't had that since I was a kid, You must be rich!

Most wimmen are democrats, but if you think about it, they oppose the stuff you like! They oppose big gas guzzling broncos, and the people who drive them, and you seem to have an interest in both.

I would like to second the :twak's you received previously, as I am both very much a Republican and very much a wimmens.

I oppose generalizations.

I think it's crazy that anyone can fully believe ANY political ads. When they come on TV, I change the channel. I research on my own, then make an informed decision based on what I learned, not on what the political propagandists fed me.
:stupid

Scary thing is, many people do believe them, just like they believe the crap spewed by Michael Moore

:twak :twak :boxing :boxing DON'T EVEN PUT ME IN THAT CATAGORY!

The bigger the rig and thursty big engine is what I want and I have three of them. I am 100% republican and I don't care what people think. :rockon :rockon :rockon

Republican Women with Broncos, it don't get much better than that :thumbup

This poll is pointless, 90% of FSB is republicans.

Thank god for that. :goodfinge

Republican Women with Broncos, it don't get much better than that :thumbup

I'm just a fan of hot chicks! :hump

Thank god for that. :goodfinge

I second that

Edwards & Kerry, 2 lawyers, 2 liberal, 2 much.

Pro-choice = pro-abortion = pro-death. Pro-life means that human egg fertilized by human sperm is human and ain't gonna grow into an oak tree! That's my opinion, and I'm a pro-life atheist! :deal

And how about the pro-choicers that protest against the death penalty? :wacko

:stupid

Scary thing is, many people do believe them, just like they believe the crap spewed by Michael Moore

I'd agree with you on Michael Moore. The liberal camp holds him up as this almost demi-god because they think he's exposing all these hard truths that the administration has been covering up. But it's all crap, all of it. While there may be some facts hidden in work, it has such a steep, steep liberal slant that it serves as the exact opposite of what the extreme conservative camps are going to feed you. I think Moore is very narrow-minded and tunnel-visioned. He's just lucky enough to have a vehicle and the popularity to share that with everyone else.

Pro-choice = pro-abortion = pro-death. Pro-life means that human egg fertilized by human sperm is human and ain't gonna grow into an oak tree! That's my opinion, and I'm a pro-life atheist! :deal

And how about the pro-choicers that protest against the death penalty? :wacko

This is a whole other thread.

Sorry about that stangmata50l, post #9 kinda set me off.

Sorry about that stangmata50l, post #9 kinda set me off.

It's cool bro. :beer

I live my life in accordance to my beliefs and values. I can just about do anything I need or what to do, someone will provide it (ie: could even be illegally). I can vote for whom I believe will support my beliefs and values and that is all I can do. So I will continue to do as I see fit and to heck! with all the political promises.

Kerry announced that he that he doesn't believe in abortion on a personal level. He said, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

But politically he is pro-choice. As a matter of fact, Kerry is taking the same position that the majority of pro-choice voters take. It's not about for- or against-abortion, it's about the right to choose in ANY case and the right to be safe and control their own lives. "He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God."

This belief is touted as something that will serve no purpose but to confuse the voters by the opposing camps, but personally, I think Kerry's doing what Bush should be doing: keeping the separation of Church and State strong. Kerry is a Catholic who opposes abortion in his own life but that doesn't mean he's going to force that belief on every one.
I like how you can have your "own personal point of view" and then your "own political point of view for when i need votes".

Very interesting set of social paradigms.......Kerry is the typical liberal all singing all dancing shit of the nation. Some things never change.

Generally I'm reading what allot of you have to say to hopefully learn more about the losers that I won't vote for but will likely become my president.
Normally I would stay out of this... and especially with the abortion issue's, but "zeronine" I gotta say that I think your statement is absolutely ridicules.

Are you so far to the right that you will take any opportunity to blast on the liberal whether or not it makes good sense? Because... to me, what is stated above is the way politics HAVE to be handled and more often than not... aren't. Maybe I'm just mis-understanding your statement. :shrug

My point:
Personal Beliefs are how you live your own life, raise your own family and generally conduct your personal business. An individuals personal beliefs are exactly that... PERSONAL.
Political Beliefs are how you think the government as an entity should effect and/or enforce policies or laws across all states and to all citizens and what those laws should or should not be.

Let's simplify this a little.
Just because I think wearing boots when riding a motorcycle is important and may enforce that belief with my family... by no means (if I were president) should I force all American citizens to wear boots when riding. So...
My personal belief = Anyone choosing to ride a motorcycle should wear protective foot equipment.
My political belief = Anyone choosing to ride a motorcycle is responsible for their won safety and has the choice to protect themselves or not. It should not be an issue that concerns the government.

This example is extremely small and inconsequential... but the point is the same.
And this doesn't even touch State Legislation (ie: what may be a good law in New York may be an asinine law in Montana, and that's why states have local government... but Fed Gov. is always sticking their noses where they aren't needed... blah blah)

Generally I'm reading what allot of you have to say to hopefully learn more about the losers that I won't vote for but will likely become my president.
Normally I would stay out of this... and especially with the abortion issue's, but "zeronine" I gotta say that I think your statement is absolutely ridicules.

Are you so far to the right that you will take any opportunity to blast on the liberal whether or not it makes good sense? Because... to me, what is stated above is the way politics HAVE to be handled and more often than not... aren't. Maybe I'm just mis-understanding your statement. :shrug

My point:
Personal Beliefs are how you live your own life, raise your own family and generally conduct your personal business. An individuals personal beliefs are exactly that... PERSONAL.
Political Beliefs are how you think the government as an entity should effect and/or enforce policies or laws across all states and to all citizens and what those laws should or should not be.

Let's simplify this a little.
Just because I think wearing boots when riding a motorcycle is important and may enforce that belief with my family... by no means (if I were president) should I force all American citizens to wear boots when riding. So...
My personal belief = Anyone choosing to ride a motorcycle should wear protective foot equipment.
My political belief = Anyone choosing to ride a motorcycle is responsible for their won safety and has the choice to protect themselves or not. It should not be an issue that concerns the government.

This example is extremely small and inconsequential... but the point is the same.
And this doesn't even touch State Legislation (ie: what may be a good law in New York may be an asinine law in Montana, and that's why states have local government... but Fed Gov. is always sticking their noses where they aren't needed... blah blah)

First i'd like to say that i didnt make any stand on abortion issues in my statement (maybe you should re-read that). My statement related to how a politician like Kerry will play both sides of the issue all the way to the end so he gets all the votes he can (and consequently all the money that he can). Once again, my statement had NOTHING to do with abortion issues - i could care less what goes on in the world of abortions (i feel this is a pimple on the ass of life as far as importance of topics at this particular time in the world).


It's okay that i think Kerry is Coward, a Moron, and an Imbecile.....in fact it's my right to feel this way about him (I am an American after all - as a matter of fact i'm a veteran). You can say whatever you'd like about GW and i dont get offended (go ahead and call him worse names oooooh)....he's not my first choice either, but given the circumstances i have no choice but to vote for the lesser of two evils - which leaves me voting for GW so i dont end up funding more and more welfare babies for the next four years. See my problem isn't Kerry or Bush, my problem is paying 30% of my paycheck to pay for shit that other F*CKERS should be out there earning for themselves. I could be mistaken, but isn't Kerry really about BIG government and the socialization of EVERYTHING? Maybe i'm incorrect, but i wont apologize if i am wrong....i owe nothing.....my thoughts are free and so is my speech.

So thats where i'm at....it has nothing to do with "blasting" a liberal jsut for the sake of doing so....it has to do with the fact that i see a guy like Kerry doing harm to my future and will do ANYTHING to stop that from happening.

BTW: Do you really think that if Kerry agrees that all should wear riding boots and a bill comes floating across his desk that is to introduce a law requiring the use of said boots that this wont "assist" him in making his decision? If you truly believe that then i feel sorry for you.

All politicians are F*CKHOLE liars and all of them get paid massive quantities of money to tell us stories and get us to choose sides. In the end i know that the only thing that counts is the ability to make those F*CKHOLE liars accountable for their promises......in this case i feel that Bush can be held more accountable than Kerry. After all Bush has done a great majority of what he promised he would and therefor is at least a hair trustworthy (but not much more than a hair). You see, i dont really like any of them, so NO, i didn't just "blast" Kerry for the sake of blasting him....he needs blasting, he's a pathetic liar and a Coward (among other titles).

So, in the end, i guess there's no reason to jump all over me like that or "blast" me. I expressed my displeasure with the way our politicians conduct themselves......this doesn't make me a bad guy, relax.

And this doesn't even touch State Legislation (ie: what may be a good law in New York may be an asinine law in Montana, and that's why states have local government... but Fed Gov. is always sticking their noses where they aren't needed... blah blah)[/QUOTE]

Pepe, most of the republican platform is giving power back to the states an example is school voutchers, maybe not all issues but alot more than people know, you might be republican and just don't know it yet. Just giving you chit, dude.

Edwards & Kerry, 2 lawyers, 2 liberal, 2 much.

too gay?
http://www.noedesign.com/dev/KerryEdwards/index.html

:histerica :histerica

too gay?
http://www.noedesign.com/dev/KerryEdwards/index.html

:histerica :histerica

:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica

I'm not of any political party. I vote on basis of what good are they going to do?

Bush- Ends the farce once and for all, or

Kerry- pulls out, leaves it for another, better man to finish.

Not hard when you have family in the military

~Critter

That is funny, I dont care who you are.

But see this is where i stand on the peterson law. Kerry voted no on a law that would make a 8 month old fetus his/her own person. Well my lil girl was born 2 1/2 months premature. She only weighed 2lbs 12oz. And she was alive, therefore she was her own person.

i cant wait till this election is over.

i cant wait till this election is over.


me neither.....

~Critter

Kerry announced that he that he doesn't believe in abortion on a personal level. He said, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

But politically he is pro-choice. As a matter of fact, Kerry is taking the same position that the majority of pro-choice voters take. It's not about for- or against-abortion, it's about the right to choose in ANY case and the right to be safe and control their own lives. "He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God."

This belief is touted as something that will serve no purpose but to confuse the voters by the opposing camps, but personally, I think Kerry's doing what Bush should be doing: keeping the separation of Church and State strong. Kerry is a Catholic who opposes abortion in his own life but that doesn't mean he's going to force that belief on every one.

It is called not having the courage to stand for what you personally believe in and not selling your soul for a vote....GO BUSH...

Pro-choice = pro-abortion = pro-death. Pro-life means that human egg fertilized by human sperm is human and ain't gonna grow into an oak tree! That's my opinion, and I'm a pro-life atheist! :deal

And how about the pro-choicers that protest against the death penalty? :wacko

How about the pro-lifers that murder the doctors that do abortions
:wacko :twak

Kerry most likely voted no on the Peterson bill because his platform on abortion is pro-choice. That bill threatens abortions rights and Roe v. Wade, particularly if Bush stays in office and one of the Supreme Court judges retires (there's two that they've speculated may go in the next term - Rehnquist & O'Connor).

I think it was smart for him to vote no. Had he voted yes, he would have angered a lot of his voters and would have lost a lot of support for the upcoming election.

Hey, at least he bothered to show up and vote that time
:thumbup

WTG Kerry! Must have been a free spot in his schedule.

Kerry has his head on straight. He is personally against abortion, but he realizes that his is America, land of the free, and his views don't have to be forced on other people. The right thing is for other people to have a choice, and he knows that. You say he's changing his personal view and political view to get votes? He'd get votes either way, if he politically against abortion he'd get votes from more moderate republicans, and since hes saying he's pro choice, he'll get more votes from moderate liberals.

...moderate liberals.Now there's an oxymoron!

Kerry has his head on straight. He is personally against abortion, but he realizes that his is America, land of the free, and his views don't have to be forced on other people. The right thing is for other people to have a choice, and he knows that. You say he's changing his personal view and political view to get votes? He'd get votes either way, if he politically against abortion he'd get votes from more moderate republicans, and since hes saying he's pro choice, he'll get more votes from moderate liberals.

I think you just made everyones point. People generaly like to vote someone into office based on what they way they will do, and if the electee's views are similar to their own. That way, they suppose, the country may go somewhat the way they feel it should. Enter guys like Kerry, and, to an extent, Clinton. When they flop back and forth so much, how do you know what you're going to end up with once you vote them into office? It is not a matter of forcing his views on others, but a matter of having views and values, that you can count on will stay somewhat the same. This way, if I were to vote for him, I would fel confident that I voted someone into office that had views that I somewhat agree with.

too gay?
http://www.noedesign.com/dev/KerryEdwards/index.html

:histerica :histerica


:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica


BTW Beerman, am I right in assuming you don't like Bush? :toothless

Believe it or not, I'm GLAD John Kerry is running. Single handedly; he is all the reason I need to get off my ass and vote.

This scumbag is unbelievable.

Kerry Didn't Read Iraq Report Before Vote -- Aides (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20040714/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_iraq_dc_1&printer=1)

Wed Jul 14, 7:42 PM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo!


By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), whose campaign demanded to know on Wednesday whether President Bush (news - web sites) read a key Iraq (news - web sites) intelligence assessment, did not read the document himself before voting to give Bush the authority to go to war, aides acknowledged.


AP Photo
Slideshow: John Kerry




Latest headlines:
· AdWatch: New Kerry Ad Appeals to Blacks
AP - 2 hours, 15 minutes ago

· Ex-Football Coach Ditka Nixes Run for Senate
Reuters - 2 hours, 27 minutes ago

· Edwards Says Role Would Be 'Expansive'
AP - Wed Jul 14,10:45 PM ET






"Along with other senators, he was briefed on the contents of the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) by (then-CIA (news - web sites) Director) George Tenet and other administration intelligence officials," said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer.


Kerry's campaign has challenged Bush to say whether he read the complete intelligence report before deciding to go to war, or whether he just read a one-page summary, which Democrats say gave him none of the dissenting views included in the full version.


The Kerry campaign stepped up the attack on Wednesday, sending out an e-mail with the headline, "Did anyone in the White House read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq?"


In a conference call organized by the campaign, Senate Intelligence Committee Democrat Richard Durbin said Bush should have read the 90-page report issued in October 2002.


Asked if Kerry read it, Durbin responded, "I don't know."


Singer said the issue was not whether Kerry read the intelligence assessment himself, but why the White House had refused to release the one-page presidential summary.


"The bigger question is why ... the president -- the commander-in-chief, who decided when and how to take us to war -- won't share this document with the Congress," Singer said.


The National Intelligence Estimate concluded Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons but noted dissent from the State Department's intelligence service and other agencies.


The Bush campaign has accused Kerry of "flip-flopping" on the war.


The Massachusetts senator, who voted for the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq, has since charged the president rushed to war without adequate international help or a plan to win the peace.


At campaign stops in Minnesota and Wisconsin, Bush attacked Kerry for expressing pride in having voted against an $87 billion funding bill for Iraq.


Durbin criticized the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. He said it was prepared in just three weeks instead of the customary six months.


"It was done in a hurry so that the vote would take place in October before the invasion of Iraq. And now we know that there were many aspects of that National Intelligence Estimate which were inaccurate," Durbin said.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

What a ****ing slimeball.

OK first off... Karma said it beter than I did! :thumbup

Zero9: Didn't mean to "blast" you or anything like that. Just can't understand your way of thinking. It's not offensive to me and I also didn't mean to imply you were making any statement on the abortion issue... I was referring to the comments posted above yours and the fact it was being brought up and is such a passionate issue for some. Not one I'd care to debate at all as it is so very personal.
Allow me to enlighten you on my stance since you obvisously never took a second to click on my sig link before sticking me into whatever peg hole you felt appropriate.
Our views are actually very similar... at least the part about them all being crooks/liars/a-holes/etc.
I AM A LIBERTARIAN... NOT A LIBERAL, but a LIBERTARIAN. Not a Republican, not a Democrat, and most definatly not a fan of the GREENIES.
I associate myself with this party, not becouse of the popular vote or attempting to control who actually gets into office, as you stated... THEY BOTH SUCK ASS! I vote for the party that best represents my personal views on the role government should play in my life and the lives of free citizens throughout our nation. I do this becouse my vote is my voice and while it may not be the popular thing to do... that's the message I want to send to my government and my fellow americans.

So... while I commend you for your passion, I think your taking me all wrong.
Again... read Karma's gig and understand that while I'm not a fan of Kerry (or Bush, or even Nader) I think that ANY politician should be voting for what's best for the PEOPLE that elected them... not what thier own personal views are, generally becouse whatever they may feel personally, chances are they will vote for whatever kicks back in thier favor. Regardless of what thier constituents (sp?) may actually want.

Is that as clear as MUD? I thought so... :goodfinger
In closing Zero9, my pappy used to say "Don't sweat the petty shit, pet the sweaty shit!"

voting for bush(my old ladys)

too gay?
http://www.noedesign.com/dev/KerryEdwards/index.html

:histerica :histerica


:histerica :histerica

So Pepe, when are you moving to NH?

The senate is over the CIA, it his John Kerry's job to read the intelligence reports, i guess he is to busy campaigning! Meanwhile George Bush get intelligence briefings every morning and still has time to campaign.
Just another reason why Bush/Cheney is my ticket

We all know Kerry is not a good choice. However, so many people out there are tired of Bush and his administration, that Kerry, unfourtunatly is the ony other choice. Once a person has made up thier mind about the political route they take you cant change them. He has some supporters he got the nomination. I dont know how I will vote, probably libertarian.

The senate is over the CIA, it his John Kerry's job to read the intelligence reports, i guess he is to busy campaigning! Meanwhile George Bush get intelligence briefings every morning and still has time to campaign.
Just another reason why Bush/Cheney is my ticket
http://www.tech-x.de/bilder/smileys/153.gif

Here's a cute one. Edwards has "values" because he's from a working class family and a small SC town. Doesn't that mean that Kerry, born with that 'silver spoon' in a big city can't?

BTW, notice who's starring in the Kerry political ads now since Edwards has been named.

The real prize in this election is the Supreme Court - two expected to retire. That's why the DNC forced Edwards on Kerry hoping to get some 'sex-appeal' votes.

Then Kerry will say anything, anywhere, anytime to get more votes. And Kerry's lawyers have had their first job - getting Nader off the ballot in NM.

It's in the tea leaves.

I live in NC and Edwards is a scum sucking trial lawyer who put thousands on NC tobacco farmers out of business. He HAS to run for VP because he has less than 30% support in NC according to the Charlotte Observer.

I watched a debate between Ralph Nader and Howard Dean, Ralph Nader kicked Deans ass in the debate. Dean was trying to get Nader to support Kerry, Nader answered Deans opening remarks with Deans own statements during the Democratic debates between Dean and Kerry, all the terrible remarks Dean said about Kerry.
I thought damn Nader is a smart dude, he told Dean he wasn't pledging support for the Dems because they were as bad as the GOP in his eyes. Nader stands up for what he believes you got to give him credit for that, I thought he kicked Deans ass the whole debate it was great!

I live in NC and Edwards is a scum sucking trial lawyer who put thousands on NC tobacco farmers out of business. He HAS to run for VP because he has less than 30% support in NC according to the Charlotte Observer.

This is what I've been trying to tell people, he is not intouch with the everyday man unless it involves a class action lawsuit

We all know Kerry is not a good choice. However, so many people out there are tired of Bush and his administration, that Kerry, unfourtunatly is the ony other choice. Once a person has made up thier mind about the political route they take you cant change them. He has some supporters he got the nomination. I dont know how I will vote, probably libertarian.
:rockon :stupid :rockon

I don't like either of them, but anythings better than bush. I guess that makes me a terrorist according to some people (morons) around here. I would vote libertarian but theres no way a libertarian candidate would win, it would be a waste of a vote, and we have to get Bush out of office.

just curious karma so anyone who disagrees with what you think of bush is a moron. Cause I think he should stay in, but have never been disrespectful to you about it. I counter what you say with my views, along with a lot of others. So us in the military who strongly support bush, ie myself, BMC, hulk, and the rest are morons huh. I dont mean to be offensive but that is just the reason why not many people take you seriously. And unless you strap a bomb to yourself or something else and go out and blow something up you arent a terrorist. I can guarentee everyone else on this board would agree with that. Just cause you dont think Bush should be in office doesnt make you a terrorist. I know i have said isnt it great that you have the right to do that cause in some countries you would be shot.

SrATEX I didn't call the supporters of Bush morons, I called the people who think I am a terrorist morons, because they are.

I guess that makes me a terrorist according to some people (morons) around here.

http://www.newsmax.com/images/banners_275x150/authenticgop.com.gif

[QUOTE=bAdKARma88]SrATEX I didn't call the supporters of Bush morons, I called the people who think I am a terrorist morons, because they are.


QUOTE]



i apologize i misunderstood you then, the way it was put, sound like that is what it meant

can we have political section of the forums just so i dont have see this crap constantly?

call it "Rednecks Talking Politics, and Other Mindless Bullshit"

can we have political section of the forums just so i dont have see this crap constantly?

call it "Rednecks Talking Politics, and Other Mindless Bullshit"

Let me try and ease your suffering:

When you see an obviously political thread? Don't open it. That way, the expressed opinions of fellow FSB'ers won't intrude into your little self-righteous cocoon.

Let me try and ease your suffering:

When you see an obviously political thread? Don't open it. That way, the expressed opinions of fellow FSB'ers won't intrude into your little self-righteous cocoon.
http://www.tech-x.de/bilder/smileys/153.gif

:stupid x2
It is "Anything Else"

Karma, had my mouse scrolling down real fast, thought that was my post by the sig! LOL

[QUOTE=PaulT]:stupid x2
It is "Anything Else"

:stupid x3

I don't like either of them, but anythings better than bush.

As long as you did your research, then your opinion is valid.

I would vote libertarian but theres no way a libertarian candidate would win, it would be a waste of a vote, and we have to get Bush out of office.

No offense bro, but this was a stupid fawkin comment. It's dumbasses who don't vote for what they stand for that should put their own foot in their mouth and NEVER complain about the country's problems.

If all the libertarians out there would just vote for what they believe and not just "well, this guy will never win...but I want this asshole out of office" then the libertarians may actually get somwhere.

Like I said. I'm not taking a direct hit at you....but i can't stand when people either:
1) Don't vote for what they believe in because they guy "has no chance"
2) Vote's for someone just on the principle of "anyone is better then"
3) Bitch and complain about the president when they never even voted in the first place.

Make sense :shrug :beer

If all the libertarians out there would just vote for what they believe and not just "well, this guy will never win...but I want this asshole out of office" then the libertarians may actually get somwhere.

Like I said. I'm not taking a direct hit at you....but i can't stand when people either:
1) Don't vote for what they believe in because they guy "has no chance"
2) Vote's for someone just on the principle of "anyone is better then"
3) Bitch and complain about the president when they never even voted in the first place.

Make sense :shrug :beer
............ :stupid x10000000000 :thumbup
It all makes sense to me Ian! :beer :chili: :rockon :chili: :beer

I know I know, It's so sad that that's what kind of situation we are in, when the current president is so bad that people are just voting for the other guy to get him out. You miss my point, my voting goal in the upcoming election is not for a specific candidate, it's to get Bush out of office, in order to have a better chance of getting him out of office I will vote democrat. If this were another election, where the situation wasn't so desperate, and our civil liberties, safety, etc. were in danger, then you bet your ass I would vote Lib.


EDIT:


3) Bitch and complain about the president when they never even voted in the first place.

Why do you care? Maybe some of us haven't legally been able to vote before, that doesn't mean we have to accept what kind of BS is going on here.

And lastly, you are taking a direct hit at me, all of the categories you listed you based off of me. You can take direct hits at me all you want, I can take all of them. You can't say you hate everything I am for and then put a :beer after all of it and think I'm not going to take it as a personal attack.

I know I know, It's so sad that that's what kind of situation we are in, when the current president is so bad that people are just voting for the other guy to get him out. You miss my point, my voting goal in the upcoming election is not for a specific candidate, it's to get Bush out of office, in order to have a better chance of getting him out of office I will vote democrat. If this were another election, where the situation wasn't so desperate, and our civil liberties, safety, etc. were in danger, then you bet your ass I would vote Lib.

Well. Sorry I made a bad assumption. i did miss your point.

however...in MY OPINION, I don't approve of voting like that. Grant it, you have your views...but I just don't see it as the right way to vote. This isn't a strategy, that's not what voting is for.

But again, that MY OPINION. Take it for what it is worth. :shrug

Karma--please explain why EXACTLY you think Bush is doing a bad job.

Remeber that the lying/pressuring theory has already been debunked by the 9/11 BIPARTISAN committee.

I really want to know why you dislike Bush.

AT the same time it is only fair that I tell you why I support him:

Low taxes
Increased defense/intelligence spending
Home ownership, even among minorities, are the highest they have EVER been
Economic policies that are working GREAT
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are essential to long term security to us here in the US.

Please explain to the group why you disagree with those policies. Unless the HateBush attitude is all you can muster. Then please waste your vote on Nader.

I am going home but I will make sure to bookmark and chack back on Monday to see how you answered. Also please remember that I can back up my above stances w/ BIPARTISAN data.

Wanna play?

Karma--please explain why EXACTLY you think Bush is doing a bad job.

Remeber that the lying/pressuring theory has already been debunked by the 9/11 BIPARTISAN committee.

I really want to know why you dislike Bush.

AT the same time it is only fair that I tell you why I support him:

Low taxes
Increased defense/intelligence spending
Home ownership, even among minorities, are the highest they have EVER been
Economic policies that are working GREAT
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are essential to long term security to us here in the US.

Please explain to the group why you disagree with those policies. Unless the HateBush attitude is all you can muster. Then please waste your vote on Nader.

I am going home but I will make sure to bookmark and chack back on Monday to see how you answered. Also please remember that I can back up my above stances w/ BIPARTISAN data.

Wanna play?

Hey bro,

As much as I agree that Bush is the man for the job...BadKarma is completely and 100% entitled to his opinion. Period. No need for him to explain himself or "play" if he doesn't want to.

Sorry to jump in the middle...but, well...you know.

Hey bro,

As much as I agree that Bush is the man for the job...BadKarma is completely and 100% entitled to his opinion. Period. No need for him to explain himself or "play" if he doesn't want to.

Sorry to jump in the middle...but, well...you know.

While I agree that he is 100% entitled to his opinion. I do believe I am well within my right to ask why he has come to those conclusions.

If someone who spouts an opinion yet unable to defend it , then are we not doing a diservice by challenging the validity of it?

While I agree that he is 100% entitled to his opinion. I do believe I am well within my right to ask why he has come to those conclusions.

If someone who spouts an opinion yet unable to defend it , then are we not doing a diservice by challenging the validity of it?

While also being publicly disrespectful. I understand you point 100%...but I think that a comment like that should be taken to PMs. Correct me if I'm wrong...but it was sort of a "calling him out" :shrug

While I agree that he is 100% entitled to his opinion. I do believe I am well within my right to ask why he has come to those conclusions.

If someone who spouts an opinion yet unable to defend it , then are we not doing a diservice by challenging the validity of it?


I think a little harmless debate between FSBers should be ok.
I can't moderate because I'm very partisan, so keep it tame guys no personal jabs below the belt, LOL

So you are ASSUMING that I would be disrespectful to him? Shame on you. I promise that at no time will there be ANY attack of a personal nature. I debate enough on PBB to see the issues it creates.

Yes is could be construed as being "called out". Everyone is entitled to their opinion. EVERYONE!. I simply want to know how he came to those conclusions. If one has an open mind there no telling what you may learn. The process may be edcuational for all.

So you are ASSUMING that I would be disrespectful to him? Shame on you. I promise that at no time will there be ANY attack of a personal nature. I debate enough on PBB to see the issues it creates.

Yes is could be construed as being "called out". Everyone is entitled to their opinion. EVERYONE!. I simply want to know how he came to those conclusions. If one has an open mind there no telling what you may learn. The process may be edcuational for all.

Cool man! :thumbup I just don't want to see any personal jabs, you know? :shrug

Cool man! :thumbup I just don't want to see any personal jabs, you know? :shrug


Nah FSB is the place I come for calmness. PBB is where bare knuckle debate occurs. If one uses personal attacks in a a debate it is an indication that you have lost said debate and can no longer form a defendable position.

When you explain why certain policies are needed you may enlighten others as well. As for most of us also being wheelers, remember Kerry voted for the Roadless Initative thereby closing a multitude of Forrest Service trails/roads.

I just want people to know WHO and WHAT they are exactly supporting when they vote. Even if it is their first one :rockon

Gotta go be back monday. Later guys

The way i see it, the canidaes on both sides pretty much suck, with bush blowing money left and right and not taking care of these energy gouging issues really made him drop out of favor with most people. Kerry, on the other hand I believe would do a worst job, tax hosing, more B.S. goverment and frankly you can't trust a word one that comes out of his ugly mug. That guy is more slimy than most trial lawyers, I'm guessing thats why he has one as his running mate.

I'm pretty much disgruntled with both sides at this point but I do have to say Bush will get my vote this November only due to teh fact I pretty much know what he will do, and can plan for it.

i would also like to know how you feel karma, if you dont mind that is. You all know for the most part why i support bush but, I have never really heard any reason other then the get bush out of office. All anyone says is cause he took us to war. well he wasnt the only one. He can only authorize special ops for a little while till he has to take those to congress of why. But only and I mean ONLY can congress declare war, not the president. Most people dont realize that and automaitically blame the president. So if you dont mind karma or anyone else for that matter of why bush has been so evil that it doesnt matter who, could be a communist for all that you care, as long as he is out.

with bush blowing money left and right and not taking care of these energy gouging issues really made him drop out of favor with most people.

Unfortunately Froggmann, the Pres doesn't have the power to set the budget and do the spending, this all happens in congress. He can only sign off on what they decide to spend.

As far as the energy gouging, this is the ugly side of capitolism.
Many traders out there are gambling on the price of oil rising and therefore paying more on the futures market which in turn is driving the price up.
Add to that a couple serious refinery fires, multitudes of different gas forumlas and no new refineries being built (thanks to the enviros) and it all adds up. Exxon-Mobil made what? 20 Billion last year? (guessing, know it's some outrageous amount around that number). A refinery costs around 3B to build (aside from all the eviro and red tape). The POTUS can't ORDER a private company to build a refinery...so this is what we get.

[The President] can only authorize special ops for a little while till he has to take those to congress of why.Correct, and the rest of the story - The first Americans killed in Vietnam were a couple of USAF pilots flying resupply missions for the French in '54. I was in Loas in '59 when the seventh American was killed; an Army Major I believe. These were on Eisenhower's watch. The Vietnam War, '64-'74, was the longest war America ever fought. That was on Johnson's/Nixon's watch.

But the last declaration of war issued by the Congress was in 1941!...the Pres doesn't have the power to set the budget and do the spending, this all happens in congress. He can only sign off on what they decide to spend.Absolutely correct. As is said, the President proposes and the Congress disposes. And you're dead-on with the cost of fuel, refineries, etc.

please explain why EXACTLY you think Bush is doing a bad job.

Remeber that the lying/pressuring theory has already been debunked by the 9/11 BIPARTISAN committee.

Okay, first of all it's tough to remember something that isn't true.

"Although senators from both parties agreed in harshly criticizing the CIA, Democrats and Republicans clashed over whether Bush administration officials had pressured intelligence analysts to overplay the Iraq threat. Democrats said there was pressure; Republicans said there were tough questions but no inappropriate influence."
-ABC News http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Poli...40709_1544.html

I really want to know why you dislike Bush.?

For a lot of reasons, but you need to promise me that your responses to my distaste for Bush are not going to come back in the vein of "Well you must be a Democrat, or a terrorist, or a liberal, or completely insane." There are lots and lots of reasons for anyone to dislike Bush and I'll be more than happy to spell them out for you.

I'm going to start by showing you my problems with why you support him:

AT the same time it is only fair that I tell you why I support him:

Low taxes?

Low taxes for who? Most of the Bush tax cuts will never be seen by the "average" American. The people that will see the vast majority of tax cuts are in the top 1% of wealthiest Americans. These tax cuts do not help Americans, they help the wealthy political donor class. There's a thing call the AMT (Alternate Minimum Tax) that is going to prevent the vast majority of Americans from ever seeing their tax cuts. Bush and his administration were aware of that, and yet they've done nothing to prevent it from happening. His tax cuts are for the wealthy elite, and that's it. Now do I have a problem with the wealthy elite getting tax cuts if the government doesn't need the money? No, I don't. But the Federal government under President Bush and his administration has driven the nation deeper into debt than ever before with defiict spending. They didn't pull closed the purse strings of government and they gave the wealthy a tax cut on top of that. How is that even logical let alone commendable?

Increased defense/intelligence spending

This is where we're just going to have a ideological disagreement. He slashes funding for the EPA, for the Small Business Association, and underfunds "No Child Left Behind", but you want to give him a pat on the back for increasing spending on the one military in the world that can already decimate any other military in the world with as limited a casualty rate as possible. Now I'm not talking about invading and occupying other nations, I never expected the U.S. military to be used as Bush (and through abstention Congress) has decided to use it. America has never acted like an expanding empire before. If we're going to be an empire I can see why you'd like to increase spending on the military because we'll need it. Personally, I don't think the United States of America should be an empire. As for increasing CIA spending... That's laughable. They were already the best funded intelligence agency in the world, and all they've produced in recent times is failure after failure. From the 9/11 Commission's complete lambasting of them to the failure when we invaded Panama the CIA is proving again and again that it doesn't know what it's doing, or that it is being horribly, horribly mismanaged. Pumping good money after bad without having any accountability for what's gone before isn't only foolish it's negligent.

Home ownership, even among minorities, are the highest they have EVER been

Much of the recent economic growth has been driven by an unprecedented refinancing boom. Households took advantage of lower mortgage rates and rapidly rising home prices by refinancing their mortgages. In 2003, households added more than 2 percent to their disposable income from borrowing against the equity of their homes. Thus, mortgage refinancing sustained consumption levels, despite the fact that the recent recovery experienced the worst job market recovery since WWII and households saw few, if any, income gains. However, recent trends in housing are cause for concern in an economy that still has to prove it can sustain job creation. While households had an extra $99 billion to spend in the second quarter of 2003 as a result of the refinancing boom, this amount had shrunk to $47 billion in the fourth quarter. As mortgage rates continue to rise, the amount of cash that is added to households' coffers is likely to decrease. In April, the IMF issued its most recent World Economic Outlook. In it, it warned that higher interest rates could lead to "financial volatility and adversely affect the recovery" in many countries, especially by putting a damper on the housing market.
http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...OVF&b=47514

Economic policies that are working GREAT

State Treasurers don't agree with you. Amazingly, the states are probably in even worse fiscal shape than U.S. cities. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, states stand to lose $35 billion a year in revenues that help pay for critical state services through 2012 due to your tax cuts.
http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...OVF&b=83284

Millions of households continue to look for jobs and wage gains are hard to find. At the same time, costs (especially for important items like education and health care) are skyrocketing. For millions of working families, the economic picture is far from rosy. Yet while working families are struggling, conservatives are declaring victory because they have lowered the benchmark for economic progress.
http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...OVF&b=49986

The Republican budget raises taxes on the working poor and slashes taxes for the richest Americans. While many poor families suffer from anemic job growth and stagnant wages, the Bush administration and congressional Republicans want to raise taxes and reduce benefits for the working poor - including military families and veterans - by cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit. At the same time, conservatives are seeking to permanently repeal taxes on massive inherited wealth and unearned income for its wealthy benefactors.
http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...OVF&b=36286

Are these the policies you are speaking of? If not which policies are you talking about that are helping the economy? The policy of dismantling the Small Business Association preventing them from providing loans to small businessmen? No, really, I'd love to know which economic policies are benefitting Americans.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are essential to long term security to us here in the US.

You claimed earlier to know what the 9/11 Commission's findings were, how can you still claim Iraq was a threat to the United States? Are you telling me that now that you feel safer as an American now that terrorists are seeing their recruitment spike up in numbers due to America's invasion of Iraq? Iraq had no WMDs to provide to terrorists even if it wanted too, and clearly Saddam Hussein was hated by religious terrorists as much as the United States, so he had no interest in providing them with weapons in the first place. Afghanistan has been a massive failure. Usama bin Laden is still at large, and al qaeda cells continue to operate, see: Spain. All the United States has accomplished is to convince people that Usama bin Laden was right when he stood up on a podium and told people the United States wanted to invade and force Arabs and Moslems to conform to Christian and Western ways. The "War on Terror" has no end.

Please explain to the group why you disagree with those policies. Unless the HateBush attitude is all you can muster. Then please waste your vote on Nader.

It seems to me that no matter what I have to say is just going to be labelled by you as "HateBush" attitude, right? I mean if I don't agree I must hate him, right? There is a middle ground. I don't think Kerry is much of an answer. Frankly, I feel whichever one of them ends up in the White House is going to make a mess of things, but I don't believe Kerry can make a bigger mess of things than Bush has, and I think Bush will be 10x worse when he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected. I can't imagine what he'll do when he realizes he can go hog wild and there will be no political repercussions for him.

I'm going home but I will make sure to bookmark and chack back on Monday to see how you answered. Also please remember that I can back up my above stances w/ BIPARTISAN data.

I wish you'd have saved the time and just backed them up with that bipartisan data. As it is I don't even know which policies you are speaking of. You've made some rather broad and vague claims.

Wanna play?

Yes, please.

Now that I've addressed what you support here are reasons that I, personally, don't care for this President and his administration:

1. President Bush has done virtually nothing to ensure that what occured in Florida won't occur again. He did not make it a top priority to determine how innocent people were stripped of their voting rights in that state. He did nothing to address the problems that plagued that state's (or any others) rampant voter fraud. He just accepted the Presidency handed to him on a partisan split-decision by the Supreme Court as if it were the will of the people. He clearly does not care how he gets what he wants. For him the ends justify the means, and I find that terrifying.
2. President Bush claims to be Republican and conservative, yet he's grown the size and power of the federal government. He's betrayed conservatives at virtually every turn. Mandating underfunded education policies on the states, creating an entirely new and wholly failed branch of the government called, "homeland security", all the while slashing funding for the real heroes and protectors of the American people, first responders like police, firepersons, and search and rescue personnel.
In less than two years, President Bush has presided over more government expansion than took place during eight years of Bill Clinton. For instance:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-03-02.html
3. He refuses to leave his personal beliefs at home. I've no problem with the man being a devout Christian, but when he tells interviewers that he gets his mandate for action from a mythical being, and suggests that this mythical being wants him to be President, well that scares the crap out of me. A leader of a diverse people needs to AT MINIMUM be respectful of the fact that other people do not share his beliefs, and at best leave the entire matter out of the workplace, and yet he's trying to federally fund "faith-based programs" although that's a misnomer as no non-Christian organization that has applied for the money has been approved, only Christian organizations get funded. That's a serious problem in my opinion.
4. He is incapable of admitting he and his staff were wrong about Iraq. He will not take personal responsibility for his misguided decisions. Even his own father said invading Iraq was foolish, and we are left to assume that his heavenly father told him to do it instead of his earthly father. I don't want a leader that's incapable of taking responsibility for his own mistakes, owning up to them, correcting them, and moving on.
5. His administration is the most secretive administration since Nixon's, yet they want to strip down any shred of privacy for private citizens. The USA PATRIOT ACT and PATRIOT ACT II are signs that this administration has no respect for the individual, all the while everyone in that administration from John Ashcroft (*shiver*) to Dick Cheney is refusing to hand over internal memos, documentation, etc to Senate Commissions or Supreme Court Justices. Do as I say not as I do has never settled well with me, nor should it with any free person.
6. He's incredibly hypocritical when he claims Kerry is a "flip-flopper". Every politician I am aware of changes their position as they learn more about a situation. I'm GLAD to know someone can modify their position and admit they've done so. I'm frightened when someone changes their position and then in Orwellian form tries to tell me it's always been that way as Bush does:

In September 2001, Bush said capturing Osama bin Laden was "our No. 1 priority." By March 2002, he was saying, "I don't know where he is. "I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important."

In May 2002, he opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission. Four months later, he backed it.

During the 2000 campaign, he said gay marriage was a states' rights issue: "The states can do what they want to do." During the 2004 campaign, he called for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Bush supported CO2 caps, then opposed them.

He opposed trade tariffs, then he didn't. Then he did again.

He was against nation building, then he was OK with it.

We'd found WMD, then we hadn't.

Saddam was linked to Osama, then he wasn't. Then he was ... sorta.

Chalabi was in, then he was out. Way out.

In fact, Bush's entire Iraq misadventure has been one big costly, deadly flip-flop:
We didn't need more troops, then we did. We didn't need more money, then we did. We didn't need the United Nations, then we did.

Now, God knows, I have no problem with changing your mind - so long as you admit you have and can explain why. But Bush steadfastly - almost comically - refuses to admit there's been a change, even when the entire world can plainly see otherwise.

7. I liked a lot of things about Bill Clinton, but I hated that he was such a bald-faced liar. Bush wants respect from us because he's not Bill Clinton, he says he's not a liar, but then he lies and lies and lies. He doesn't even have the redeeming qualities that Clinton does, AND he's a liar as much as Clinton ever was.

8. He has no respect for environmental protection. Hey, this is just gonna be an ideological and insurmountable difference of opinion here, but you wanted to know why I don't want him to be President... His idea of saving a forest is to send industry in to cut down all the trees and call that "forest fire prevention". Sorry, that just doesn't fly with me. I guess I'm a greeny now?.

9. He has WAY too much contact with industry, and his administration allows WAY too much access to people that are basically buying influence from him. He wants to eliminate the inheritance tax that only impacts people with fortunes of $1.5 million and above and he claims it's going to protect the average American. He wants to provide loads of tax cuts for the rich people that provide him with money for his political aspirations as well as his personal fortunes. Kerry will be just as bad in this regard. I am always going to want a man that fights for the majority of people in this country. Not the 1% of Americans that are the wealthiest.

10. I didn't want to invade Iraq. I hate war. I did not feel Iraq was a threat to the United States, and I did not believe they had anything to do with 9/11, and, well, I was right. Because I was right, and I'm nowhere near qualified to be the President of the United States, and he had way more information that I did and he was still wrong, he's an even bigger failure in my opinion. How anyone can commit our young men and women to a war based solely on conjecture and circumstancial evidence with absolutely ZERO hard evidence is beyond me. He's a man willing to play with the lives of our children in order to further his own political and ideological goals. He's the reason thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilans have died, and hundreds (eventually thousands) of United States soldiers, and coalition troops and civilans will be killed. So I don't think he should get to be a free man, let alone President of the United States.

thanks karma i appreciate you taking the time to let us know why you feel you do. I understand your side now

I hope so. It took me a couple hours to type that.

I hope so. It took me a couple hours to type that.


i can imagine it is taking me awhile just to type this with my great skills i have

it is only fair that I tell you why I support him:

Low taxes
so thats why out of $3134.63 that i have made so far this summer, $904.48 has been given to my good old uncle Sam. i don't find that to be low taxes. :rolleyes:
Home ownership, even among minorities, are the highest they have EVER been
i really don't see what that directly has to do with bush. :shrug sure its great but there was another president for the 8 years leading up to bush that could almost as easily be given credit for that. maybe it has nothing to do with the president and everything to do with the fact that americans as a whole are becoming more affluent.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are essential to long term security to us here in the US.
just like the evil red hoarde that was gonna nuke us off the face of the earth 20 years ago?

i love these threads, it reminds me of the southpark episode with the "goo backs" and the rednecks. and then all the rednecks run around going "they took our jobs" and in the end they just get in a big pile ****ing themselves. yea, that episode was funny.

:goodfinge

i love these threads, it reminds me of the southpark episode with the "goo backs" and the rednecks. and then all the rednecks run around going "they took our jobs" and in the end they just get in a big pile ****ing themselves. yea, that episode was funny.

:goodfinge

:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica

"day took yer job!"

Okay, first of all it's tough to remember something that isn't true.

"Although senators from both parties agreed in harshly criticizing the CIA, Democrats and Republicans clashed over whether Bush administration officials had pressured intelligence analysts to overplay the Iraq threat. Democrats said there was pressure; Republicans said there were tough questions but no inappropriate influence."
-ABC News http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Poli...40709_1544.html






Low taxes for who? Most of the Bush tax cuts will never be seen by the "average" American. The people that will see the vast majority of tax cuts are in the top 1% of wealthiest Americans.

Taxes are lower now (after the Bush cut) than they were under Clintion. The wealthy pay more taxes per capita then certainly there taxes will increase/decrease faster when the rates are changed. I got a $300 reund that went to all Americans. ALL AMERICANS. The credit is a cut since it is a permanent reduction of a tax rate.


This is where we're just going to have a ideological disagreement. He slashes funding for the EPA, for the Small Business Association, and underfunds "No Child Left Behind", but you want to give him a pat on the back for increasing spending on the one military in the world that can already decimate any other military in the world with as limited a casualty rate as possible. Now I'm not talking about invading and occupying other nations, I never expected the U.S. military to be used as Bush (and through abstention Congress) has decided to use it. America has never acted like an expanding empire before. If we're going to be an empire I can see why you'd like to increase spending on the military because we'll need it. Personally, I don't think the United States of America should be an empire. As for increasing CIA spending... That's laughable. They were already the best funded intelligence agency in the world, and all they've produced in recent times is failure after failure. From the 9/11 Commission's complete lambasting of them to the failure when we invaded Panama the CIA is proving again and again that it doesn't know what it's doing, or that it is being horribly, horribly mismanaged. Pumping good money after bad without having any accountability for what's gone before isn't only foolish it's negligent.

So all you can offer is critcism and no response? Yes we have the best military, ye we have the best intelligence agency, but is it enough? Look the ONLY reason Dems want to reduce military spending is so they will have money to pay for social programs. This action keeps a core section of voters suckling off the government nipple at an expense to the rest of us. Yeah that fair. Take from the rich and give to the poor. The proper term is Socialism. Thier concern is not the military capability of the US look at 8 years of cuts under Clinton for our current weaknesses.



Much of the recent economic growth has been driven by an unprecedented refinancing boom. Households took advantage of lower mortgage rates and rapidly rising home prices by refinancing their mortgages. In 2003, households added more than 2 percent to their disposable income from borrowing against the equity of their homes. Thus, mortgage refinancing sustained consumption levels, despite the fact that the recent recovery experienced the worst job market recovery since WWII and households saw few, if any, income gains. However, recent trends in housing are cause for concern in an economy that still has to prove it can sustain job creation. While households had an extra $99 billion to spend in the second quarter of 2003 as a result of the refinancing boom, this amount had shrunk to $47 billion in the fourth quarter. As mortgage rates continue to rise, the amount of cash that is added to households' coffers is likely to decrease. In April, the IMF issued its most recent World Economic Outlook. In it, it warned that higher interest rates could lead to "financial volatility and adversely affect the recovery" in many countries, especially by putting a damper on the housing market.
http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...OVF&b=47514

So refinancing to a lower rate isnt smart finiancial policy? Keep renting then if you desire. How can having a FIXED mortage, at a lower rate, reduce the amount of cash coming in to household coffers? Well the recovery has produced 1.3 million jobs accoring to the Bureau of Labor . Last month tax reciepts outpaced expenditures by 2% again Bof L stats not American Progress, a Dem partisan site.



State Treasurers don't agree with you. Amazingly, the states are probably in even worse fiscal shape than U.S. cities. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, states stand to lose $35 billion a year in revenues that help pay for critical state services through 2012 due to your tax cuts.
http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...OVF&b=83284

How exctly is a STATE affected by a FEDERAL tax cut? If anything it freed up cash for people to pay state taxes and provided a bump form increased sales tax reciepts.

Millions of households continue to look for jobs and wage gains are hard to find. At the same time, costs (especially for important items like education and health care) are skyrocketing. For millions of working families, the economic picture is far from rosy. Yet while working families are struggling, conservatives are declaring victory because they have lowered the benchmark for economic progress.
http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...OVF&b=49986

How exactly is the Pres supposed to control costs from health and education? That would be the same as his saying Ford can only sell a car for xxx amount of dollars. Socialism again. I got 2 undergrad degrees and am over 1/2 way through my MBA. All paid for by myself. If I can do it so can they w/o a freaking handout fro the Gov.

The Republican budget raises taxes on the working poor and slashes taxes for the richest Americans. While many poor families suffer from anemic job growth and stagnant wages, the Bush administration and congressional Republicans want to raise taxes and reduce benefits for the working poor - including military families and veterans - by cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit. At the same time, conservatives are seeking to permanently repeal taxes on massive inherited wealth and unearned income for its wealthy benefactors.
http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...OVF&b=36286

Please show me how a TAX CUT raises taxes? Bush has not in any way, shape or form increased taxes while being in charge. Please prove me wrong. I agree fully withcutting EIT I made it on my own when I had to. Yes we are against taxing inhereited wealth. So if your parents died you should WANT to give more to the gov? Why penalize the concept of hard work to pay for social programs used to support the lazy?

Are these the policies you are speaking of? If not which policies are you talking about that are helping the economy? The policy of dismantling the Small Business Association preventing them from providing loans to small businessmen? No, really, I'd love to know which economic policies are benefitting Americans.

Yep those are the ones.



You claimed earlier to know what the 9/11 Commission's findings were, how can you still claim Iraq was a threat to the United States? Are you telling me that now that you feel safer as an American now that terrorists are seeing their recruitment spike up in numbers due to America's invasion of Iraq? Iraq had no WMDs to provide to terrorists even if it wanted too, and clearly Saddam Hussein was hated by religious terrorists as much as the United States, so he had no interest in providing them with weapons in the first place. Afghanistan has been a massive failure. Usama bin Laden is still at large, and al qaeda cells continue to operate, see: Spain. All the United States has accomplished is to convince people that Usama bin Laden was right when he stood up on a podium and told people the United States wanted to invade and force Arabs and Moslems to conform to Christian and Western ways. The "War on Terror" has no end.

So were the recruitment numbers up or down after these strikes:: Uss Cole, Kobul Towers, 9-11? Dude there have ALWAYS been people who oppose our way of life and want to destroy. The intensity of their strikes have been increasing until 9-11, ALL IGNORED BY CLINTON for 8 years. If you cannot see the link between 2 entities who opposed our way of life COMPLETELY then I cannot sway you.

If Iraq had no WMDs where did thgey go exactly after being cataloged by the UN before being kicked out in 1998? The WMD fairy didnt snagged 6 TONS of Sarin nerve agent. And yes it was catalogid 98 but not there now. So terrorists want to use major weapons, Saddam had/has/have them, they BOTH hate us. Yep your right no connection. Why is A-Zakari in Fallugah coordinating attacks again? Why did an Iraqi agent meet w/ Al-Queda members in the Sudan in 97. Its all right there in the 9-11 Commission report, I suggest you read it.



It seems to me that no matter what I have to say is just going to be labelled by you as "HateBush" attitude, right? I mean if I don't agree I must hate him, right? There is a middle ground. I don't think Kerry is much of an answer. Frankly, I feel whichever one of them ends up in the White House is going to make a mess of things, but I don't believe Kerry can make a bigger mess of things than Bush has, and I think Bush will be 10x worse when he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected. I can't imagine what he'll do when he realizes he can go hog wild and there will be no political repercussions for him.

What about Kerry when he goes back to voting like the second most liberal member of the Senate? Check out vote-smart org for his and Edwards voting records. Here is Kerrys you can read the bill, how he voted and teh result. Enjoy http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103&PHPSESSID=59b2902deaa91e4b402150ad74b17248



Now that I've addressed what you support here are reasons that I, personally, don't care for this President and his administration:

1. President Bush has done virtually nothing to ensure that what occured in Florida won't occur again. He did not make it a top priority to determine how innocent people were stripped of their voting rights in that state. He did nothing to address the problems that plagued that state's (or any others) rampant voter fraud. He just accepted the Presidency handed to him on a partisan split-decision by the Supreme Court as if it were the will of the people. He clearly does not care how he gets what he wants. For him the ends justify the means, and I find that terrifying.

States are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of voting machines according to The National Election Board, not the President. It wasnt a problem under Clinton was it?
2. President Bush claims to be Republican and conservative, yet he's grown the size and power of the federal government. He's betrayed conservatives at virtually every turn. Mandating underfunded education policies on the states, creating an entirely new and wholly failed branch of the government called, "homeland security", all the while slashing funding for the real heroes and protectors of the American people, first responders like police, firepersons, and search and rescue personnel.
In less than two years, President Bush has presided over more government expansion than took place during eight years of Bill Clinton. For instance:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-03-02.html

The creation of the Office of Homeland Security, a new cabinet position, was FULLY supported by all members of Senate, wheres the issue? Bush hasnt slashed funding for emergency responders, please show me how. And not from American Policy web site.
3. He refuses to leave his personal beliefs at home. I've no problem with the man being a devout Christian, but when he tells interviewers that he gets his mandate for action from a mythical being, and suggests that this mythical being wants him to be President, well that scares the crap out of me. A leader of a diverse people needs to AT MINIMUM be respectful of the fact that other people do not share his beliefs, and at best leave the entire matter out of the workplace, and yet he's trying to federally fund "faith-based programs" although that's a misnomer as no non-Christian organization that has applied for the money has been approved, only Christian organizations get funded. That's a serious problem in my opinion.

Do you not think the ACLU would have a lawsuit if the religous funding/nonfunding you "claim" was occuring? When society turns its back basicly ONLY faith based orgs. will help. I have no problem with that as long as EVERYONE has equal ACCESS to the funding, which is happening.

Yeah he takes his religion too far sometimes but I am glad that his religous concerns leave room for a healty conscience.
4. He is incapable of admitting he and his staff were wrong about Iraq. He will not take personal responsibility for his misguided decisions. Even his own father said invading Iraq was foolish, and we are left to assume that his heavenly father told him to do it instead of his earthly father. I don't want a leader that's incapable of taking responsibility for his own mistakes, owning up to them, correcting them, and moving on.

He wasnt wrong, he didnt lie and he didnt pressure anyone. You need to admit that because the 9/11 commision findings agree.

5. His administration is the most secretive administration since Nixon's, yet they want to strip down any shred of privacy for private citizens. The USA PATRIOT ACT and PATRIOT ACT II are signs that this administration has no respect for the individual, all the while everyone in that administration from John Ashcroft (*shiver*) to Dick Cheney is refusing to hand over internal memos, documentation, etc to Senate Commissions or Supreme Court Justices. Do as I say not as I do has never settled well with me, nor should it with any free person.

So I guess we should just keep doing what we have been and merely hope the terrorists don t strike again. How assuring that approach is. Those acts will in no way, shape or form will affect the Average American unless you are a drug dealer, or terrorist.

6. He's incredibly hypocritical when he claims Kerry is a "flip-flopper". Every politician I am aware of changes their position as they learn more about a situation. I'm GLAD to know someone can modify their position and admit they've done so. I'm frightened when someone changes their position and then in Orwellian form tries to tell me it's always been that way as Bush does:

In September 2001, Bush said capturing Osama bin Laden was "our No. 1 priority." By March 2002, he was saying, "I don't know where he is. "I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important."

While capturing him would be great politically (stay tuned) it would not damage Al-queda that much. From what I have read they tend to operate fairly independently. So stopping the organization, how they get their financing, and where they get weapons is teh best policy. Coencidently that is what happening.

In May 2002, he opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission. Four months later, he backed it.
Presidents have opposed EVERY commision set up to investigate their actions. Par for the course.

During the 2000 campaign, he said gay marriage was a states' rights issue: "The states can do what they want to do." During the 2004 campaign, he called for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Show me where he said, in context, that gay marraige is a states right? It was never said, and teh Dems havent ran with it now have they?

Bush supported CO2 caps, then opposed them.
So pulling us out of the Kotyo treaty which would have cost US business BILLIONS, while not allowing other countries plants to be inspected by independent scientists is bad policy? The theory was great, but its implementation and results are laughable.

He opposed trade tariffs, then he didn't. Then he did again.
He only supports temporary tarrifs to allow a industry to upgrade such as we seen with steel. Now dont blame Bush for the Chinese buy our cheap scrap. American companies are selling and PROFITING by selling it. He also support the "level" playing fields of monetary policy when applied to economic trade issues.

He was against nation building, then he was OK with it.
We had to rebuild Afghanistan after the Talliban destroyed teh infrastructure there. Flop maybe but there was no other choice for the stabilty of the region and ourselves.

We'd found WMD, then we hadn't.
It was cataloged by the UN in 98 before being kicked out so did it just majically disappear. It was there it was buried or is sitting in Iran or Syria.

Saddam was linked to Osama, then he wasn't. Then he was ... sorta.
2 groups who both hate, Saddam has WMDs Al-queda has showed it can do the job, Iraqi agent meeting w/ Al-Queda in Sudan in 99, so noy connection huh?

Chalabi was in, then he was out. Way out.

He was a crook and was removed. Flop or do you want me to use your ok to change policy arguement?

In fact, Bush's entire Iraq misadventure has been one big costly, deadly flip-flop:
We didn't need more troops, then we did. We didn't need more money, then we did. We didn't need the United Nations, then we did.

If more was need then they would be sent. Didnt you watch his Address when he said the exact same words?

Now, God knows, I have no problem with changing your mind - so long as you admit you have and can explain why. But Bush steadfastly - almost comically - refuses to admit there's been a change, even when the entire world can plainly see otherwise.

But he never changed his mind about the policy only how to implement it. When Kerry flopped about the war it was a COMPLETE reversal of his support for the war. Then by refusing to pay for it he voted to send them to battle, yet wouldnt hepl pay for the armor to hepl them survive. That is a flop in case you werent clear

7. I liked a lot of things about Bill Clinton, but I hated that he was such a bald-faced liar. Bush wants respect from us because he's not Bill Clinton, he says he's not a liar, but then he lies and lies and lies. He doesn't even have the redeeming qualities that Clinton does, AND he's a liar as much as Clinton ever was.
Clinton lied to a GRAND JURY under OATH. You honestly have no issuse saying Bush lied as well?
8. He has no respect for environmental protection. Hey, this is just gonna be an ideological and insurmountable difference of opinion here, but you wanted to know why I don't want him to be President... His idea of saving a forest is to send industry in to cut down all the trees and call that "forest fire prevention". Sorry, that just doesn't fly with me. I guess I'm a greeny now?.

No just uninformed. The reason they fires have been so intense is the Forest Service refusal to remove dead undergrowth. This is what fuels fires AND kills the mature trees. A mature tree can handle alot of fire before it dies. Smaller fires and limited cutting ensure a long term RENEWABLE forest without the possibility of monster fires.
Kerry also voted for Clinton's Roadless Initative which cut off millions of acres to you and me. It also closed numerous 4x4 trails including Suprize Canyon. Now who is beholden to exterem enviro groups again"

9. He has WAY too much contact with industry, and his administration allows WAY too much access to people that are basically buying influence from him. He wants to eliminate the inheritance tax that only impacts people with fortunes of $1.5 million and above and he claims it's going to protect the average American. Kerry will be just as bad in this regard. I am always going to want a man that fights for the majority of people in this country. Not the 1% of Americans that are the wealthiest.

Why are you against people inheriting what their parents worked so hard for all in the name of equality? If you are lucky enough to inherit that much , refuse it and give to the poor. Taking from the rich just becasue they have more is moronic when they currently pay a 34.5 Federal tax rate.

10. I didn't want to invade Iraq. I hate war. I did not feel Iraq was a threat to the United States, and I did not believe they had anything to do with 9/11, and, well, I was right. Because I was right, and I'm nowhere near qualified to be the President of the United States, and he had way more information that I did and he was still wrong, he's an even bigger failure in my opinion. How anyone can commit our young men and women to a war based solely on conjecture and circumstancial evidence with absolutely ZERO hard evidence is beyond me. He's a man willing to play with the lives of our children in order to further his own political and ideological goals. He's the reason thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilans have died, and hundreds (eventually thousands) of United States soldiers, and coalition troops and civilans will be killed. So I don't think he should get to be a free man, let alone President of the United States.

He was a threat just as Al-queda is one. I equally hate war but sometimes in history there have been people whose blood has been spilled so we may continue to sleep in freedon every night. It is something that simply MUST be done. Go ask Big Mike C what his thoughts are about what he was doing in Afghanistan. He actually witnessed what the people are doing with their new found freedoms. When/if you get past the fact that maybe he didnt lie and these threats are very real perhaps your opinions will be modified. I promise not to call you a flopper as well. :histerica

Seriously, start reading something just a little less biased than American Policy. They disagree with Bush on EVERY issue and some perspective from the other side usually balances the BS from the extremes of both sides. Thanks for replying about your stance. Just try not to cut and paste from a partisan site next time.

>Low taxes for who? Most of the Bush tax cuts will never be seen by the "average" American. The people that will see the vast majority of tax cuts are in the >top 1% of wealthiest Americans.

>Taxes are lower now (after the Bush cut) than they were under Clintion. The wealthy pay more taxes per capita then certainly there taxes will >increase/decrease faster when the rates are changed. I got a $300 reund that went to all Americans. ALL AMERICANS. The credit is a cut since it is a >permanent reduction of a tax rate.

They are lower, and we're deeper in debt. Explain to me how you consider a responsible fiscal policy to give tax cuts and increase spending, please. We'll leave out the FACT that most of the remaining tax cuts are strictly for the wealthy, and that the majority of lower upper, and middle class Americans will never see their promised tax cuts due to the AMT. Just explain the logic behind deficit spending and tax cuts to me.

>So all you can offer is critcism and no response? Yes we have the best military, ye we have the best intelligence agency, but is it enough? Look the ONLY >reason Dems want to reduce military spending is so they will have money to pay for social programs. This action keeps a core section of voters suckling >off the government nipple at an expense to the rest of us. Yeah that fair. Take from the rich and give to the poor. The proper term is Socialism. Thier >concern is not the military capability of the US look at 8 years of cuts under Clinton for our current weaknesses.

There is thing called limited return on investment. You reach an end of the curve where improvement simply isn't efficient any longer. And clearly we do not have the BEST intelligence agency, simply the most expensive. I understand the Democrat ideology, and personally it makes more sense to me to improve the quailty of life for the average American through social programs and redistribution of wealth from the wealthiest 1% of Americans to the poorest 50% of Americans. It does not make sense to spend billions of dollars on a military that is already light years ahead of any competetion in the world. You say you don't like social programs and people suckling off the government nipple, well, I have news for you... The Homeland Security department is the largest Social Program we've seen to date. Talk about a waste of government money. Of course it's rivalled by the $8-10 billion dollars we're subsidizing Halliburton and their subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, & Root (KB&R), but who's counting? Clearly you aren't, and neither are any but the most conservative of Republicans. What's the proper term for letting people starve and work paycheck to paycheck while others decide which color to paint their thirteenth yacht they inherited from daddy not doing a days work in their lives? Clinton's military kicked the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan or hadn't you noticed? If the military was so "weak" why did Bush act before bulking it up? Seems like any way you slice it he either acted before it was prudent or he didn't understand what he was getting into. Sound like President material to you?

>So refinancing to a lower rate isnt smart finiancial policy? Keep renting then if you desire. How can having a FIXED mortage, at a lower rate, reduce the >amount of cash coming in to household coffers? Well the recovery has produced 1.3 million jobs accoring to the Bureau of Labor . Last month tax reciepts >outpaced expenditures by 2% again Bof L stats not American Progress, a Dem partisan site.

It's a BRILLIANT financial policy. And not the President of the United States' policy. Hence his economic policy has had little to do with the "recovery" if anything. As far as job gains go, our economy is recovering, and although we're still not where we were by about 1.5 million jobs, and it's still unsure if we'll make those jobs back before we have a new President things are looking up. I'm just not quite sure how you can link that to Presidential economic policy though. Especially when you take the long view and realize that someone is going to have to pay for all the deficit spending. Someone is going to have to pay for the fact that less money is being pumped into the social programs that encourage small business growth, and education in this coutry. Everyone knew that a tax cut would provide a short-term boost in our economy, but the long term ramifications of allowing multi-millionaires to keep thousands of dollars a piece in tax revenue has the potential to be devastating.

>How exctly is a STATE affected by a FEDERAL tax cut? If anything it freed up cash for people to pay state taxes and provided a bump form increased sales >tax reciepts.

I guess you were not aware that states receive federal funding. When the federal government cuts it's programs and still mandates the states to behave in a certain way (see: No Child Left Behind Act) this leads to something called an "unfunded mandate". It costs the states an the taxpayers millions as the states are forced to plunge further into debt and/or increase their tax burden upon their citizens in an attempt to avoid long term interest rate budgetary death.

>How exactly is the Pres supposed to control costs from health and education? That would be the same as his saying Ford can only sell a car for xxx >amount of dollars. Socialism again. I got 2 undergrad degrees and am over 1/2 way through my MBA. All paid for by myself. If I can do it so can they w/o a >freaking handout fro the Gov.

Uh, the same way he controls national healthcare or whether or not we invade Iraq, perhaps? You were aware that pharmaceutical companies are charging Americans FAR more than they are charging our friends north of the border in Canada right? And that the President has prevented Americans from buying drugs more cheaply from foreign suppliers? Where's your great capitalist cheer-leading to talk about how horrible that is now? So much for the free market... Have a little more self-respect for yourself than that. Not everyone can even go to a junior college from the situation they were raised in. I don't know if you were aware but some people joined the military as an option to find a way to get the money for college and make a better life for themselves, and now they are dead in Iraq or Afghanistan. Now if you'd like to outline your personal finances and explain the circumstances of your upbringing to show us that despite the deck being stacked against you you persevered, and so should everyone else we'll all just have to tell you what a swell guy you are, and how it's too bad that along the way you didn't learn compassion instead of bitterness towards the rest of the world for giving you obstacles to overcome.

>Please show me how a TAX CUT raises taxes? Bush has not in any way, shape or form increased taxes while being in charge. Please prove me wrong. I >agree fully withcutting EIT I made it on my own when I had to. Yes we are against taxing inhereited wealth. So if your parents died you should WANT to give >more to the gov? Why penalize the concept of hard work to pay for social programs used to support the lazy?

Gladly... The year is 2015. Bush Tax cuts have been finalized for a few years now. The National Debt's interest rate has grown to the point that we can no longer run the social programs put in place by the Democrats combined with the military requirements for policing and preventively invading nations that might be a threat to us. We're still embroiled heavily in Iraq, although there aren't many Iraqis still left alive at this point, and that's still bleeding the national budget dry. Years and years of deficit spending have pushed our interest payments beyond allowing for the government to function without... What? YOU GUESSED IT! TAX INCREASES!

You seem to lack the basic grasp of how finances work, and that does give us an insight into why you are such an ardent supporter of Bush. He seems to share this trait with you. You want to cut the earned income tax credit because you made it on your own when you had too. Are you aware that not everyone is capable of making it as you are? Are you so filled with self-loathing that you feel that anyone and everyone else must be better able than you to succeed? How many Americans do you believe the inheritance tax impacted? You think the average American stands to inherit $1.5 million dollars from their parents? Because that's where the tax STARTED. Not to mention that if you keep all of your finances invested and then gift those investments to say, oh, a 93 year old grandmother who then leaves the proceeds to you in her will, when she dies you get all that money TAX FREE. It will never be taxed, period. You really think it's vital that we save millionaires, even DEAD ones, from paying taxes so that the less fortunate can benefit from day-care, education, and health care? Do you have a heart beating in your chest?

>Are these the policies you are speaking of? If not which policies are you talking about that are helping the economy? The policy of dismantling the Small >Business Association preventing them from providing loans to small businessmen? No, really, I'd love to know which economic policies are benefitting >Americans.

>Yep those are the ones.

What policy? Please cite for me where a Bush policy is described above.

>So were the recruitment numbers up or down after these strikes:: Uss Cole, Kobul Towers, 9-11? Dude there have ALWAYS been people who oppose our >way of life and want to destroy. The intensity of their strikes have been increasing until 9-11, ALL IGNORED BY CLINTON for 8 years. If you cannot see the >link between 2 entities who opposed our way of life COMPLETELY then I cannot sway you.

There will ALWAYS be people that want to destroy the United States. This does not justify creating thousands more of them by attacking a nation that had nothing to do with terrorism against the United States. You want to claim that Clinton ignored al qaeda, well how about you explain why Reagan and Bush Sr. trained them to fight the Soviets and taught them to grow opium to finance weapons deals. How about you explain why they created terrorist cells of fanatical moslems and then let go of the controls. Anything to fight the Soviet menace, eh? You reap what you sow.

>If Iraq had no WMDs where did thgey go exactly after being cataloged by the UN before being kicked out in 1998? The WMD fairy didnt snagged 6 TONS of >Sarin nerve agent. And yes it was catalogid 98 but not there now. So terrorists want to use major weapons, Saddam had/has/have them, they BOTH hate >us. Yep your right no connection. Why is A-Zakari in Fallugah coordinating attacks again? Why did an Iraqi agent meet w/ Al-Queda members in the Sudan in >97. Its all right there in the 9-11 Commission report, I suggest you read it.

Where did they go is the $87 billion dollar question isn't it. From what I've read the collective wisdom on the matter is that these agents were destroyed, or never existed. Saddam was a secular leader much reviled by the al qaeda and other terrorist moslem extremists. He was not about to arm his own enemies with his weapons even if he'd still had them. There is no connection between the two. Al-Zarqawi is leading the fighting in certain places in Iraq because we invaded and eliminated the power structure that was in place before we invaded. The reason he's able to lead is because Iraqis that otherwise had no beef with the United States suddenly had a reason to hate us and flocked to his banner to get a chance to kill American soldiers that are invading their nation. Whether they are religious zealots or Saddam loyalists or just people that don't like foreign invaders they fight us now because we are there.

I guess the people of Alabama would just sit quietly by if France invaded to protect them from their leader. No one in the United States would fight back out of a sense of nationalistic pride, right? Whether our leader was Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush.

No one has any idea why an Iraqi intelligence operative met with al qaeda members, but what is quite clear is that they dismissed the al qaeda and never had contact with them again. It doesn't suprise me that a Republican, well, you're not really that, you're a Bush supporter, and he's not exactly a Republican now is he, anyway, it doesn't suprise me that a Bush supporter thinks of an abortive meeting between individuals is a positive "link" leading to a relationship.

>It seems to me that no matter what I have to say is just going to be labelled by you as "HateBush" attitude, right? I mean if I don't agree I must hate him, >right? There is a middle ground. I don't think Kerry is much of an answer. Frankly, I feel whichever one of them ends up in the White House is going to make >a mess of things, but I don't believe Kerry can make a bigger mess of things than Bush has, and I think Bush will be 10x worse when he doesn't have to >worry about being re-elected. I can't imagine what he'll do when he realizes he can go hog wild and there will be no political repercussions for him.

>What about Kerry when he goes back to voting like the second most liberal member of the Senate? Check out vote-smart org for his and Edwards voting >records. Here is Kerrys you can read the bill, how he voted and teh result. Enjoy http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?c...02150ad74b17248

What's the big problem with liberals that you have? You aren't even out of college to lose your money to them yet... Are you just worried about holding back potential competition that might get a shot at a better life through social programs? Do I think Kerry's a great guy? No, I really don't. But as I explained I think he's better than Bush with no worries about having to maintain appearances or any semblance of reason once he can no longer be President. If you'd care to address that, please feel free.

>Now that I've addressed what you support here are reasons that I, personally, don't care for this President and his administration:

>1. President Bush has done virtually nothing to ensure that what occured in Florida won't occur again. He did not make it a top priority to determine how >innocent people were stripped of their voting rights in that state. He did nothing to address the problems that plagued that state's (or any others) rampant >voter fraud. He just accepted the Presidency handed to him on a partisan split-decision by the Supreme Court as if it were the will of the people. He clearly >does not care how he gets what he wants. For him the ends justify the means, and I find that terrifying.

>States are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of voting machines according to The National Election Board, not the President. It wasnt a problem under >Clinton was it?

Clinton won by a landslide as you'll recall. Whether it's his direct responsibility or not wouldn't you have at least liked to have seen the President take a moment out of his State of the Union Address to touch on the fact that our Democracy is running on antiquated and inaccurate equipment. Perhaps he could have given over the bit in his speech about steroids abuse to that, yes?

It's funny to me how you want to point out that the President has no influence on voting machines or health and education, but you are more than ready to say that he has the magic wand to fix the economy! I mean seriously what color is the sky in your world?

>2. President Bush claims to be Republican and conservative, yet he's grown the size and power of the federal government. He's betrayed conservatives at >virtually every turn. Mandating underfunded education policies on the states, creating an entirely new and wholly failed branch of the government called, >"homeland security", all the while slashing funding for the real heroes and protectors of the American people, first responders like police, firepersons, and >search and rescue personnel.
>In less than two years, President Bush has presided over more government expansion than took place during eight years of Bill Clinton. For instance:
>http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-03-02.html

The creation of the Office of Homeland Security, a new cabinet position, was FULLY supported by all members of Senate, wheres the issue? Bush hasnt slashed funding for emergency responders, please show me how. And not from American Policy web site.

Where's the issue with massive government spending and increases from a Republican President? Do you even hear yourself?

Here you go on cutting first responder funding:
President Bush’s proposed homeland security budget shortchanges the nation’s first line of defense against terrorism and either cuts back or eliminates several other vital security programs, members of a Senate panel said Monday.
-MSNBC http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4224556/

Oh, wait, MSNBC might be too Liberal!!!

The president's proposed budget for next fiscal year would cut $800 million in grants to first responders.
-FOX NEWS http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110808,00.html

Oh, no! Now it has to be true! Fox News reported on it!

>3. He refuses to leave his personal beliefs at home. I've no problem with the man being a devout Christian, but when he tells interviewers that he gets his >mandate for action from a mythical being, and suggests that this mythical being wants him to be President, well that scares the crap out of me. A leader of a >diverse people needs to AT MINIMUM be respectful of the fact that other people do not share his beliefs, and at best leave the entire matter out of the >workplace, and yet he's trying to federally fund "faith-based programs" although that's a misnomer as no non-Christian organization that has applied for the >money has been approved, only Christian organizations get funded. That's a serious problem in my opinion.

>Do you not think the ACLU would have a lawsuit if the religous funding/nonfunding you "claim" was occuring? When society turns its back basicly ONLY faith >based orgs. will help. I have no problem with that as long as EVERYONE has equal ACCESS to the funding, which is happening.

You mean like this:
http://archive.aclu.org/action/care107.html
The American Civil Liberties Union said Tuesday it is gravely concerned about the constitutionality of President Bush's faith-based charities proposal.
-CNN http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS.../30/aclu.faith/

>Yeah he takes his religion too far sometimes but I am glad that his religous concerns leave room for a healty conscience.

A healthy conscience? How would you even know?

>4. He is incapable of admitting he and his staff were wrong about Iraq. He will not take personal responsibility for his misguided decisions. Even his own >father said invading Iraq was foolish, and we are left to assume that his heavenly father told him to do it instead of his earthly father. I don't want a leader >that's incapable of taking responsibility for his own mistakes, owning up to them, correcting them, and moving on.

>He wasnt wrong, he didnt lie and he didnt pressure anyone. You need to admit that because the 9/11 commision findings agree.

He did lie, and he was wrong. What could you possibly think he was right about? WMDs? The imminent threat to the United States posed by a starving and wrecked nation? The unity between Iraq and al qaeda? He was wrong about all of that! Even now after the 9/11 Commission states there is no link between al qaeda and Iraq he claims there is. He lied about there being a threat from Iraq when there was no threat. He lied about the certainity of that threat. He lied about Iraq trying to obtain nuclear weapons materiels in Niger knowing full well that that was not true because the intelligence reports were fake. Look, I'll give you a choice. He either lied because he knew he was exaggerating reality to try to get people to go along with his goal of invading Iraq or he's so incompetent that he didn't know he was lying, and just decided to take a chance that what he was saying might be true because someone else told him it was. Either way he's not a fit President.

>5. His administration is the most secretive administration since Nixon's, yet they want to strip down any shred of privacy for private citizens. The USA >PATRIOT ACT and PATRIOT ACT II are signs that this administration has no respect for the individual, all the while everyone in that administration from John >Ashcroft (*shiver*) to Dick Cheney is refusing to hand over internal memos, documentation, etc to Senate Commissions or Supreme Court Justices. Do as I >say not as I do has never settled well with me, nor should it with any free person.

>So I guess we should just keep doing what we have been and merely hope the terrorists don t strike again. How assuring that approach is. Those acts will >in no way, shape or form will affect the Average American unless you are a drug dealer, or terrorist.

There are risks that come with freedom and a free society. If you don't think those risks are worth taking then why don't you move to a police state where you can feel safe as you are randomly strip searched to ensure you aren't trying to bomb someone. I personally know an "average American" that was hauled down to the Secret Service office locally here and interrogated for hours because the USA PATRIOT ACT was used to monitor their email exchanges with other individuals. Nothing came of it because this individual did nothing wrong, but you're going to fail completely to convince me that this ACT has no impact on "average" Americans.

"The internal watchdog of the Justice Department has found 34 new credible civil rights and civil liberties violations under the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act, according to a report released Monday.

The report, released by the Justice Department's inspector general office, found the violations from its regular six-month survey of the antiterror law."
-CNN http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/21/j...ivil.liberties/

To paraphrase good ole Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

>6. He's incredibly hypocritical when he claims Kerry is a "flip-flopper". Every politician I am aware of changes their position as they learn more about a >situation. I'm GLAD to know someone can modify their position and admit they've done so. I'm frightened when someone changes their position and then >in Orwellian form tries to tell me it's always been that way as Bush does:

>In September 2001, Bush said capturing Osama bin Laden was "our No. 1 priority." By March 2002, he was saying, "I don't know where he is. "I have no idea, >and I really don't care. It's not that important."

>While capturing him would be great politically (stay tuned) it would not damage Al-queda that much. From what I have read they tend to operate fairly >independently. So stopping the organization, how they get their financing, and where they get weapons is teh best policy. Coencidently that is what >happening.

Great, so why was he our #1 priority then?

>In May 2002, he opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission. Four months later, he backed it.

>Presidents have opposed EVERY commision set up to investigate their actions. Par for the course.

I thought you weren't a big fan of the status quo! I thought you liked to get to the bottom of things! Nah, it's okay when your champ does it! You should see if they are gonna add a cabinet position for Presidential Apologist. Perhaps you could drop out of getting your third graduate degree or whatever that you've done on your own and just make excuses for Bush.

>During the 2000 campaign, he said gay marriage was a states' rights issue: "The states can do what they want to do." During the 2004 campaign, he called >for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

>Show me where he said, in context, that gay marraige is a states right? It was never said, and teh Dems havent ran with it now have they?

Bush specifically said in 2000 that as President he would leave the issue of gay marriage "up to the states". Now, in response to rulings in Massachusetts and elsewhere, he wants a constitutional amendment banning it everywhere, although he also specifically stated that he would not support such an amendment during the 2000 campaign.

Pressed again as to whether he would at least voice support for fellow Republicans who are the bill's principal supporters, Fleischer said, "The president has made it clear on that issue that it's a state issue, even if he disagrees."
-Rutland Herald http://www.rutlandherald.com/vtruling/bushwont.html

>Bush supported CO2 caps, then opposed them.

>So pulling us out of the Kotyo treaty which would have cost US business BILLIONS, while not allowing other countries plants to be inspected by >independent scientists is bad policy? The theory was great, but its implementation and results are laughable.

No, hey, the decision was a good one, but initially he supported them, you seem to overlook the whole flip-flop thing when it's not related to John Kerry. Pass some of what you are smoking down the line.

>He opposed trade tariffs, then he didn't. Then he did again.

>He only supports temporary tarrifs to allow a industry to upgrade such as we seen with steel. Now dont blame Bush for the Chinese buy our cheap scrap. >American companies are selling and PROFITING by selling it. He also support the "level" playing fields of monetary policy when applied to economic trade >issues.

Again, I understand why he did what he did, but it doesn't make him any less of a "flip-flopper". You can't sit around and talk about how you are the champion of the free market, and then use tariffs to make things go your way when the market is against you. Pay attention.

>He was against nation building, then he was OK with it.

>We had to rebuild Afghanistan after the Talliban destroyed teh infrastructure there. Flop maybe but there was no other choice for the stabilty of the region >and ourselves.

Goddamn, dude, I KNOW WHY HE DID IT! Just like Kerry has his reasons for changing his mind or his votes on things. Sometimes you don't have a choice, and so you CHANGE YOUR MIND. Flip-flop.

>We'd found WMD, then we hadn't.

>It was cataloged by the UN in 98 before being kicked out so did it just majically disappear. It was there it was buried or is sitting in Iran or Syria.

This was after the invasion, bright boy. He said we found the WMDs in May, 2003, and then had to recant in Feb, 2004. Oops, my bad. I'm sure they are in Iran because Iran and Iraq are such strong allies... More likely they were safe under Saddam's bloodthirsty totalitarian regime and now they are out in the desert somewhere waiting for the terrorists or coalition troops to find, whoever gets there first wins! Sure sounds like the whole world is safer to me!!!

>Saddam was linked to Osama, then he wasn't. Then he was ... sorta.

>2 groups who both hate, Saddam has WMDs Al-queda has showed it can do the job, Iraqi agent meeting w/ Al-Queda in Sudan in 99, so noy connection >huh?

OMG, the KKK must nearly have a nuke from the Iraqis! BOTH GROUPS HATE! Iraq telling the al qaeda to take a hike after meeting with them = no connection.

>Chalabi was in, then he was out. Way out.

>He was a crook and was removed. Flop or do you want me to use your ok to change policy arguement?

He was the administration's trusted source to help them form U.S. policy towards Iraq. You can use my ok to change policy argument if you must. It won't do anything for the thousands of people that gave up their lives for Chalabi and Bush's ideological wars. It's just too bad you can't use the okay to change policy argument when it works against you. See it's gotta be all or nothing. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Enough lowbrow sayings to get through to you yet?

>In fact, Bush's entire Iraq misadventure has been one big costly, deadly flip-flop:

>We didn't need more troops, then we did. We didn't need more money, then we did. We didn't need the United Nations, then we did.

>If more was need then they would be sent. Didnt you watch his Address when he said the exact same words?

I did, and I also saw him say we wouldn't need anymore troops. I also saw him say we wouldn't need more funding. I also saw him say we wouldn't need the United Nations to get involved, and then I saw all of those things happen despite what he said.

>Now, God knows, I have no problem with changing your mind - so long as you admit you have and can explain why. But Bush steadfastly - almost comically >- refuses to admit there's been a change, even when the entire world can plainly see otherwise.

>But he never changed his mind about the policy only how to implement it. When Kerry flopped about the war it was a COMPLETE reversal of his support for >the war. Then by refusing to pay for it he voted to send them to battle, yet wouldnt hepl pay for the armor to hepl them survive. That is a flop in case you >werent clear

Oh, I'm clear, Kerry changed his mind and despite knowing his decision was going to be a costly one for him politically he made it anyway. Ya, I guess the last thing you want is someone willing to take some political lumps to vote his conscience. Bush changes his mind, and then he tries to state that it's always been this way. It's very 1984, and you know it.

By the way I'm not comparing Kerry to Bush, but I find it amusing that you have too. You can't deny that Bush has massive problems it's just for you Bush is better than Kerry because of whatever rationalizations you've come up with, although more than anything what I'm beginning to detect from you is that you're not so much a Bush supporter as you are a "liberal-hater". You just have a problem with social equality. You don't like a strong middle class. You want there to be a minority rich and a majority poor. You can't stand the idea of wealth redistribution to level the playing field, and enrich everyone's quality of life. You believe that based solely upon the fact that you've worked hard to get where you've gotten everyone else should have to do the same. And you berate "Bush-haters" when you are just the opposite side of the same coin. Try to get some perspective.

>7. I liked a lot of things about Bill Clinton, but I hated that he was such a bald-faced liar. Bush wants respect from us because he's not Bill Clinton, he says >he's not a liar, but then he lies and lies and lies. He doesn't even have the redeeming qualities that Clinton does, AND he's a liar as much as Clinton ever >was.

>Clinton lied to a GRAND JURY under OATH. You honestly have no issuse saying Bush lied as well?

Oh, no, Clinton lied about having and affair, and Bush just lied to the American people and took us to war based upon those lies and refuses to testify under oath or in public about it. Clearly he's a stand-up guy. You have no concept of scale do you? No idea what is important and what is not. You are more interested in the letters of the law and how the game can be manipulated that in doing what is right. I guess I should just be glad you gravitated towards the Republican party instead of whatever ethnicity you are supremecy group or the neo-Nazis.

>8. He has no respect for environmental protection. Hey, this is just gonna be an ideological and insurmountable difference of opinion here, but you wanted >to know why I don't want him to be President... His idea of saving a forest is to send industry in to cut down all the trees and call that "forest fire >prevention". Sorry, that just doesn't fly with me. I guess I'm a greeny now?.

>No just uninformed. The reason they fires have been so intense is the Forest Service refusal to remove dead undergrowth. This is what fuels fires AND kills >the mature trees. A mature tree can handle alot of fire before it dies. Smaller fires and limited cutting ensure a long term RENEWABLE forest without the >possibility of monster fires.
>Kerry also voted for Clinton's Roadless Initative which cut off millions of acres to you and me. It also closed numerous 4x4 trails including Suprize Canyon. >Now who is beholden to exterem enviro groups again"

Man that must be brutal on the people that like to go 4-wheeling. There're probably only several thousand other places to go in the United States alone. It's always nice to be able to continue to burn off a bit of fossil fuels to blow through a forest at 45 mph too. Definitely something we all need to be doing more of. Aside from that we're not talking about limited cutting, we're talking about entire forests. How many times can a mature tree handle being cut down?

>9. He has WAY too much contact with industry, and his administration allows WAY too much access to people that are basically buying influence from him. >He wants to eliminate the inheritance tax that only impacts people with fortunes of $1.5 million and above and he claims it's going to protect the average >American. Kerry will be just as bad in this regard. I am always going to want a man that fights for the majority of people in this country. Not the 1% of >Americans that are the wealthiest.

>Why are you against people inheriting what their parents worked so hard for all in the name of equality? If you are lucky enough to inherit that much , >refuse it and give to the poor. Taking from the rich just becasue they have more is moronic when they currently pay a 34.5 Federal tax rate.

I'm not against people inheriting what their parents worked for, assuming their parents worked. A great number of the wealthiest 1% of Americans have never worked a day in their life. Aside from that I also have no problem with taxing people that inherit $1.5 million dollars at a 50% rate. They can keep $750,000 they never worked for from their parents and just add it on to their own fortunes. Consider it a bonus! The rich currently pay a significantly smaller percentage of their salaries to taxes than the poor do. I'm sure you're not interested in that because as soon as we pull that out you'll start to talk about amounts that the rich pay instead of percentages and when I point out that the amount they take home is 275x what the poor people do you'll move back to percentages.

The simple fact of the matter is that wealthy people can AFFORD to pay taxes. Poor people cannot. It's that simple logic I use when I decide that someone making $10,000,000 a year needs to pay a huge chunk of that to the federal and state governments.

Now I'll ask you the same line of questioning you asked me. Why are you so interested in protecting the wealthy from paying taxes?

Also when you are so worried about the rich paying 34.5% why don't you study up on tax-shelters, and see how the wealthy manage to hide most of their income to prevent themselves from ever having to pay taxes on it at all. Try reading the book "Perfectly Legal". It's an eye-opener.

>10. I didn't want to invade Iraq. I hate war. I did not feel Iraq was a threat to the United States, and I did not believe they had anything to do with 9/11, and, >well, I was right. Because I was right, and I'm nowhere near qualified to be the President of the United States, and he had way more information that I did >and he was still wrong, he's an even bigger failure in my opinion. How anyone can commit our young men and women to a war based solely on conjecture >and circumstancial evidence with absolutely ZERO hard evidence is beyond me. He's a man willing to play with the lives of our children in order to further >his own political and ideological goals. He's the reason thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilans have died, and hundreds (eventually thousands) of >United States soldiers, and coalition troops and civilans will be killed. So I don't think he should get to be a free man, let alone President of the United >States.

>He was a threat just as Al-queda is one. I equally hate war but sometimes in history there have been people whose blood has been spilled so we may >continue to sleep in freedon every night. It is something that simply MUST be done. Go ask Big Mike C what his thoughts are about what he was doing in >Afghanistan. He actually witnessed what the people are doing with their new found freedoms. When/if you get past the fact that maybe he didnt lie and >these threats are very real perhaps your opinions will be modified. I promise not to call you a flopper as well.

What was he gonna do to America, man? Throw sand at us? His best missile could barely reach Israel. He had no navy to speak of, no ability to strike the United States, and no weapons with which to strike us. How are you defining threat? Someone that doesn't agree with our foreign policy of supplying Israel with an unending stream of weapons and financial support so they can continue to further their extermination of the Palestinians all the while demanding we remember the Holocaust?

I have a number of friends that have returned or are still in Iraq as well as Bosnia. They've reported the good and the bad, and most of them don't believe going into Iraq was a good idea. My opinions are not formed in a vacuum. Perhaps when you return to reality and understand that you were duped by soemone that wanted to push their own ideological agenda on the Middle East and saw Iraq as the perfect opportunity to do so you will understand a fraction of the outrage people who opposed going to war in Iraq feel. Perhaps when you recognize that we weren't greeted as liberators, we didn't find WMDs, and there was no threat posed to the United States by Iraq you will begin to grasp that this administration squandered the opportunity to eliminate al qaeda in Afghanistan and to unify world support in an effort to truly break down terrorism on a world-wide scale instead of alienating the rest of the world by pushing forward with a war that no one wanted, and no one can justify in Iraq.

>Seriously, start reading something just a little less biased than American Policy. They disagree with Bush on EVERY issue and some perspective from the >other side usually balances the BS from the extremes of both sides. Thanks for replying about your stance. Just try not to cut and paste from a partisan >site next time.

I read a great deal more than that, but perhaps you could list for me what sites you deem to be "perspective enhancing". I generally stick to the BBC, NPR, and The Daily Show. The information from those sites is no less accurate even though it came from a site with an agenda. If you can find a source of bias-free information, please let the world in on it.

Ok sorry i gotta disagree for sure on military spending. Yes we are the most advanced military in the world, but as we upgrade so do potential enemies. Take the USAF. One of the most critical parts of war is airpower. If we have control of the skies, we stand a greater chance. Every generation of airmen have to further our technology to ensure we are on top, increase survivability and close air support. Take the development of the F/A-22 and the F-35. These two aircraft will replace a lot of the fighters in the USAF aresnal. Which will cut down on costs because all the different aircraft dont have to be built. Also that will cut down on training facilities. You will not need all the different training sites because there are not as many aircraft to train on. Also the development of the F-22 brings our fighter aircraft up to the Russians Sukoi Su-35. Which with the state Russia has been in can be sold to the highest bidder or espionage. The manuverability and armament of the Su-35 are very impressive, however the F-22 brings in the stealth technolodgy to fighter aircraft, with the speed and manuverability of it also. The radar signiture of the F-22 is no larger then a bird. Compared to our present day fighters. Which lowers the chances of SAM or AAA. This also lowers the chance for fighter aircraft to be scrambled to intercept the aircraft. If they do the weapon systems developed allow see first and fire first before they ever even know you are there, and also fire and forget weapons. The fire and forget is most strongly known in the F-14 Tomcat, with the ability to track 6 targets at once and fires 6 missles and "forget" about them. One of its primary missiles is the Pheonix missile which can travel upwards to 100 miles. Long out of the range of most weapons. We must stay on top of it. Also these aircraft dont just cost a few thousand or even a couple hundred thousand dollars to build. take the 50 year old C-130 Hercules. One of the most effective platforms for the military transport and combat. This semingly simple high wing turbo prop aircraft has many variations. The weather birds, which fly through hurricanes to study them. The AC-130 Spectre Gunship or Spooky II, one of the most feared and versitile combat aircraft. The EC-130, for electronic warfare. These aircraft cost multi-millions of dollars. Now lets not forget the ground troops. They are developing a new weapon system based of the M-16/M-4 platforms. This weapon has cameras, infrared, and night vision all built onto the frame. These cameras are connected to a eye peice mounted to their kevlar helmet. The computer in the system allows many things. But one of the best is the cross hairs in your eye piece. This means you can stick the rifle around the corner exposing minimum amounts, rifle and hands, and still find a target and accurately eliminating him. The potential of lives saved by this weapon system are great. However that also costs millions of dollars to develop. Their main problem is trying to get long battery life in a compact size. The only trouble is there has already been so much military spending cuts that this system will not be out for years. Or we could cut costs and take all these things from our military, which i dont know if you ever watch the History channel, but the one show Tactical to Pratical. But many things that we use in our every day life was developed by the military. We cut spending there then that is less things for them to develop and possibly put in our homes. I think that is a good reason to up spending a little on the military. It does not make sense to spend billions of dollars on a military that is already light years ahead of any competetion in the world.
no we arent light years ahead of the rest of the world. Take the Su-35 again. Also our M-16 is not a good weapon. we need to develop a better variation. I have heard many soldiers talk how they prefer the AK-47 and 74 over the M-16. It is a better quality weapon and its technology is about 50 or 60 years old. Yes we have much that is. One of the main things is being able to operate at night thanks to development of NVG tech. Yes our M1A1 Abram tanks are the most advanced and sophisticated armour in the world. With the ability to travel high speeds and still hit its target thanks to ability to aim, keep the muzzle of the cannon level(thanks to computers) and fire. Yes we have some of the most advanced ships in the world. But others do to. We are the best but others are not far behind. I mean hell you said it yourself. We helped them to fight the russians. But some of the weapons we sold/gave them are stuff we use today. Take Stinger missile launchers. One of the most advanced portable Anti-Aircraft weapons in their hands.


one last thing. Saddam and Al-Quida might not have been as connected as thought. However, for over 10 years they still fired upon our aircraft and the allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone that Iraq has had over it. Not once or twice, but DAILY. To me that is an act of war.

Funny that I left the insulting out, yet you cannot. Yes I am still in college, as a 30yo Furniture Exec, small business owner, getting a MBA and you try to lecture me about Economics? My undergrads were in Marketing and Finance and you are knowledgeable about current US economic policy?

What is your education level it might shed some light on your arguement? Do you even pay taxes yet?

Your main basis of arguement is if the rich have it then the Gov should take it and give it to the poor. Correct? Then the job you just recieved I think you should put your money where your mouth is. The first paycheck you get find the laziest guy working with you and give him enough so you make the exact same. Fair? Well that is exactly the same logic you are using to redistribute wealth. The proper term for the uneducated such as yourself is Socialism. A little expieriment that failed in the USSR. You really need to put down How to be a Liberal for Dummies and get some basic economic lessons. If you tax the rich to where the concept of reward/risk becomes too great or unrewarding then where is the incentive to work hard and invest if the government is just gonna give it to the people who take no risk?

Thats right there is none. If you knew every morning that your efforts go unrewarded when you went to work would you give %100. If you say yes then there are millions living on welfare that are currently disagreeing.
You say I have no heart or compassion. Well to a bleeding heart liberal it would seem that way. But until you get to pay taxes, actually have a mortage to pay or live paycheck to paycheck without mommy making your bed then you will have some validity to your point. Until then you dont.
I was once a bleeding heart feeling sorry for the poor and tattered. Until I started helping them during undergrad I learned something. Most if not all are there because of their own stupid decisions and inability to even have the desire to migrate upward on the social scale. I feel sorry for no one that does not want to improve their situation through hard work. Why do you feel it is an obligation on the rest of us that do work hard to prop these people up? Please tell why I should pay for people to be lazy? And not some bleeding heart crap about why Ernie lost his job yet can still drink beer every night.

You can continue to argue about Bush lied, Bush lied. But the comission, that he opposed, said otherwise. So you are arguing a point that a bipartisan comission concluded was null and void? Truly a waste of time because you cannot grasp the concept that your point has COMPLETELY DISPROVEN by the comission. I bet AmericanPolicy had a bug in his office right? Get over it.

Franklin is right.

Marx said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The "worker's paradise" proved how stupid this was. Given human nature, nobody would have the ability to give, but everybody would have the need to take.

[QUOTE=bAdKARma88]>Low taxes for who? Most of the Bush tax cuts will never be seen by the "average" American. The people that will see the vast majority of tax cuts are in the >top 1% of wealthiest Americans.

>Taxes are lower now (after the Bush cut) than they were under Clintion. The wealthy pay more taxes per capita then certainly there taxes will >increase/decrease faster when the rates are changed. I got a $300 reund that went to all Americans. ALL AMERICANS. The credit is a cut since it is a >permanent reduction of a tax rate.


If I'm not mistaken, the top 1% of wage earners pay 80% of the taxes. If you keep Penalizing for being rich and taking money from these people they will become reluctant to spend money and increase our economy.
Just my opinion.

My intention, initially, was to go through BK's positions and demolish them one at a time... like I believe I have the tax issue below.

But his positions are so factually incorrect that it occured to me that no level of proof would make any difference to someone who, effectively, makes so many of his political positions without necessary information to arrive at an informed decision... so, the hell with it.



Low taxes for who? Most of the Bush tax cuts will never be seen by the "average" American. The people that will see the vast majority of tax cuts are in the top 1% of wealthiest Americans.

The issue about Bush tax cuts seems to qualify as yet another “Big Lie” on the part of democrats.

Democrats whine and snivel about how these tax cuts, which have inarguably stimulated our economy, are, as you put it, only for the “wealthiest Americans.” They pound us with that nonsense… and that’s all it is: Nonsense.

It’s a crock because: the top 50% of all wage earners pay 96% of all income taxes! Who the hell ELSE should benefit from tax cuts?

When confronted with this evidence, I have YET to see the democrats do a damned thing but stammer. Clearly, the democrats are all about class warfare and attempting to divide this country through class envy.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.


These tax cuts do not help Americans, they help the wealthy political donor class.

Unless you’re Bill Clinton, even the “wealthy political donor class” must be American.

Given the ongoing economic recovery, the idea that these cuts have not “helped Americans,” is, well, bizarre.


There's a thing call the AMT (Alternate Minimum Tax) that is going to prevent the vast majority of Americans from ever seeing their tax cuts.

Simply, totally and completely untrue.

Where the heck are you getting this stuff, BK?

http://www.smartmoney.com/tax/filing/index.cfm?story=amt

“While only 19,000 people owed the AMT in 1970, 2.6 million are paying it now, according to the IRS. “

That’s “2.6 million” out of 280 million… hardly the “vast majority” you refer to.

Bush and his administration were aware of that, and yet they've done nothing to prevent it from happening.

Aware of what? That the AMT effects less then 1% of American taxpayers?

His tax cuts are for the wealthy elite, and that's it.

Pity you’ve bought into this crap BK. If you’ve read this far, then you know how utterly wrong you and the rest of the left who believe this are… not that being wrong will do anything to cause you or the left to change your minds.


Now do I have a problem with the wealthy elite getting tax cuts if the government doesn't need the money? No, I don't.

Of course you do. Class warfare is what the left is all about. And, if you didn’t have a problem with the tax cuts going to the rich, you wouldn’t have mentioned it here. Further, by now you know that Kerry has pledged to leave most of the tax cuts in place, right?

But the Federal government under President Bush and his administration has driven the nation deeper into debt than ever before with defiict spending.

“Deeper in debt then ever before?’ Please cite your sources for this bizarre conclusion.


They didn't pull closed the purse strings of government and they gave the wealthy a tax cut on top of that. How is that even logical let alone commendable?

Easy. Cut taxes, expands the economy… INCREASES REVENUE. Piece of cake, really.

My intention, initially, was to go through BK's positions and demolish them one at a time... like I believe I have the tax issue below.

But his positions are so factually incorrect that it occured to me that no level of proof would make any difference to someone who, effectively, makes so many of his political positions without necessary information to arrive at an informed decision... so, the hell with it.


[/b]

The issue about Bush tax cuts seems to qualify as yet another “Big Lie” on the part of democrats.

Democrats whine and snivel about how these tax cuts, which have inarguably stimulated our economy, are, as you put it, only for the “wealthiest Americans.” They pound us with that nonsense… and that’s all it is: INonsense.

It’s a crock because: the top 50% of all wage earners pay 96% of all income taxes! Who the hell ELSE should benefit from tax cuts?

When confronted with this evidence, I have YET to see the democrats do a damned thing but stammer. Clearly, the democrats are all about class warfare and attempting to divide this country through class envy.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

[/b]

Unless you’re Bill Clinton, even the “wealthy political donor class” must be American.

Given the ongoing economic recovery, the idea that these cuts have not “helped Americans,” is, well, bizarre.

[/b]

Simply, totally and completely untrue.

Where the heck are you getting this stuff, BK?

http://www.smartmoney.com/tax/filing/index.cfm?story=amt

“While only 19,000 people owed the AMT in 1970, 2.6 million are paying it now, according to the IRS. “

That’s “2.6 million” out of 280 million… hardly the “vast majority” you refer to.

[/b]

Aware of what? That the AMT effects less then 1% of American taxpayers?

[/b]

Pity you’ve bought into this crap BK. If you’ve read this far, then you know how utterly wrong you and the rest of the left who believe this are… not that being wrong will do anything to cause you or the left to change your minds.

[/b]

Of course you do. Class warfare is what the left is all about. And, if you didn’t have a problem with the tax cuts going to the rich, you wouldn’t have mentioned it here. Further, by now you know that Kerry has pledged to leave most of the tax cuts in place, right?



“Deeper in debt then ever before?’ Please cite your sources for this bizarre conclusion.



Easy. Cut taxes, expands the economy… INCREASES REVENUE. Piece of cake, really.



:thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup

WHAT DEMOCRATS REALLY THINK


Email Archives
Print Reprint

July 20, 2004 -- Reminders of John Kerry's medal-winning service in Vietnam will no doubt be everywhere at next week's Democratic National Convention in Boston.

The goals: to present Kerry as a patriotic veteran and a decisive leader. And to sell the idea that Democrats can be trusted on national-security issues.

It's smart strategy for a party that desperately needs credibility in this area.

But for a sense of what Dems really think about the military, consider what happened this month out in California.

More than just a brave Navy pilot, Jeremiah Denton spent eight years as a POW in Vietnam. When forced to speak on TV, he blinked his eyes in Morse code to spell out the word "torture," signaling that he was not speaking freely.

After returning home, Denton rose to the rank of admiral and went on to become a U.S. senator from Alabama.

A Republican in California's state Assembly invited Denton to the state capitol for a Fourth of July ceremony. But Democrats running the body refused to let him on the floor, claiming that "problems have arisen both with regard to the spirit, content and participation of various individuals."

Yes, Denton was a Republican. But the event was nonpartisan. As Assemblyman John Campbell noted, the same floor had seen celebrations of Cinco de Mayo, St. Patrick's Day and the Chinese New Year.

To his credit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger permitted the use of a capital office for the ceremony — though, according to Campbell, only one elected Democrat attended the event.

No wonder the party lacks credibility on military and security issues.

I guess you cant be a hero to dems if you dont think like dems

IF this is 100% valid (Sorry, but I don't trust anything I read anymore) then that is absolute bullshit!!!!!

Yeah democrats are such horrible people. We should call them terrorists and throw them in jail for no legal reason.

Yeah democrats are such horrible people. We should call them terrorists and throw them in jail for no legal reason.

Can I have the key? Wouldnt want them to get out ya know :goodfinge

Another year of finger pointing politics and mud slingin' BS.
Why not tell me WHY I SHOULD VOTE FOR YOUR GUY, instead of WHY I SHOULDN'T VOTE FOR THIER GUY? (not that either of them will get it, not from me)

Feel like I'm listening to a bunch of 3 yr olds narking on each other!
I will never cease to be amazed at the juvenile behavior of the people and organizations that run this country... into the ground, that is!

Another year of finger pointing politics and mud slingin' BS.
Why not tell me WHY I SHOULD VOTE FOR YOUR GUY, instead of WHY I SHOULDN'T VOTE FOR THIER GUY? (not that either of them will get it, not from me)

Feel like I'm listening to a bunch of 3 yr olds narking on each other!
I will never cease to be amazed at the juvenile behavior of the people and organizations that run this country... into the ground, that is!

So your cantidate, Badnarik is the answer? Just a few quotes from the link in your sig; On the Iraq War:

"First, allow me to dispel a myth. People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle. ..........It was because of American troops in Saudi Arabia, lethal sanctions on Iraq, support for states in serious violation of International Law, and siding with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians to the tune of more than $3 billion per year in taxpayers' funds that terrorist leaders were able to recruit those individuals who caused 3,000 Americans to pay the ultimate price on September 11, 2001."

Yeah the US CAUSED the terrorists to hate us. We are to blame? The terrorists are lunatics who deserve only death. The "blame the opressor" arguement is quite evident in the following.

On how an Us embargo of Germany after WWI caused Hitler to come to power:
"Because of the importance of trade, embargos and trade sanctions are often seen as aggression and even acts of war. The punitive embargo on Germany after World War I impoverished the German people terribly, making it impossible for them to meet the demands of the League of Nations that they pay the full cost of the war. This was one of the major grievances the Germans cited in their vengeful desperation as they allowed Hitler to come to power. Trade aggression helped bring about the bloodiest war in world history. "

Yeah a trade embargo by the US created the situation for Hitler to come to power. I left my windows down creating the situation of wet seats if it rains.

On crime and criminals:
"Criminals without the work skills to compensate victims could receive training and its cost could be recovered from the perpetrator's increased earnings. Imprisonment, which costs taxpayers about $25,000 per inmate per year, would be reserved only for unreformed violent criminals or offenders who refused to compensate their victims. Most criminals will likely choose to right their wrongs rather than lose their freedom."

So criminals are not to blame, society is? ANd they can be "fixed" if we spend additional money to help them. At what point do we blame criminals for THEIR DECISIONS?

Just replying to your comment. Do you support the views of YOUR cantidate?

just so you guys know, the NY Post is one step removed from a tabloid. it flaunts sensationalized stories and flashy headlines and is better known for its gossip columns than for serious journalism. i wouldn't believe the accuracy or veracity of that story unless it was documented in a more respected publication, say, The Enquirer.

just so you guys know, the NY Post is one step removed from a tabloid. it flaunts sensationalized stories and flashy headlines and is better known for its gossip columns than for serious journalism. i wouldn't believe the accuracy or veracity of that story unless it was documented in a more respected publication, say, The Enquirer.

Viewed with the same doubt as AmericanPolicy.org. Only voting records and past policies can be used to garner "real" information

dave only reads the tabloids :goodfinge

Dave, please tell me you're not a NY Times reader. They're such a DNC mouthpiece. Heck, they even buried today's biggest story (Sandy Berger taking classified docs from the Nat'l Archives) on page A16

Yeah democrats are such horrible people. We should call them terrorists and throw them in jail for no legal reason.


Lol No thats what the left wants to do to conservatives

Paul, I do read the NY Times, but usually only the Sunday Edition, and believe me, I understand that publication's left leaning slant on the news. I read WSJ more regularly, as well as all the NYC rags (Daily News, Post, Newsday, etc. mostly for their entertainment value).

edit: unless you are very familiar with new york politics, many of you will also not realize that the New York Post (and its editorials, such as the one quoted above by our middle of the road and non partisan friend) is merely the political mouthpiece of owner Rupert Murdoch, a well-known and equally well-recognized conservative. of course, 95 bxl doesn't mention that to you in his clearly unbiased and fair presentation of the article. but once you consider the source, it all makes sense.

consider this article, written in 1993 about the New York Post and Rupert Murdoch:

"BYLINE: By Mitchell Stephens. Mitchell Stephens is chairman of the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication of New York University and the author of "A History of News" (Penguin).

BODY:

RUPERT MURDOCH'S likely return to control of the New York Post may be good for the newspaper's employees, but it is disturbing news for those of us who are concerned with keeping political debate in this city honest and fair. For Murdoch was more than the publisher who, with such headlines as "Headless Body in Topless Bar," began the current wave of tabloid sensationalism in New York City. He was, during his first run as the Post's owner, from 1977 to 1988, unscrupulous in his use of the paper's news columns to advance his political causes.

Almost all American daily newspapers today at least try to keep their editorial opinions from influencing their news coverage. It is a worthy effort, given how few newspapers are left for readers to turn to for news. The Post under Murdoch made no such effort.

Here are some examples from studies I helped conduct:

During the month before the 1977 mayoral primary, the Post's early editions ran no unfavorable stories about Murdoch's candidate, Edward Koch, but many nasty stories about Koch's opponents, such as "The Blond Millionairess Whose Big Bucks Back Cuomo." The Post mentioned Koch favorably in four front-page headlines; the six other candidates were mentioned favorably on the front page a total of once. Koch received 32 inches of favorable coverage on pages 2 through 5, all the other candidates, including the incumbent, Mayor Abraham Beame, a total of 35 inches.

In 1980, Murdoch's support of Ronald Reagan in his race for the presidency against Jimmy Carter spilled all over the Post's news columns, as was apparent in these headlines: "Reagan: I'll Save the Middle Class" - a scoop proclaimed in red ink on the front page. "Israel Fears Carter Victory" - the article referred to by this front-page headline included no quotes from any Israeli, named or unnamed, supporting the charge. "Stars Want Ron to Get the Part" - no stars supporting Carter were quoted. "Khomeini Pulls the Strings," and then in smaller type, "Carter Back on Campaign Trail" - this intriguing pairing of thoughts was given two-thirds of the front page on the day before the election.

On Jan. 25, 1982, a front-page headline in the Post - not, of course, labeled an editorial - proposed "Ed Koch for Governor." Koch had not entered the race and had not been included 10 days earlier in the newspaper's discussion of 11 possible candidates. But, after the paper invited readers to fill out a Koch for Governor coupon on its news pages every weekday for the next two weeks and ran news headlines such as "Apple Loves Koch," the then-mayor eventually entered the primary, which he went on to lose to Mario Cuomo.

When other papers "endorse you, you get one column on the editorial page," groused Cuomo at the time. "With Rupert, he turns the whole paper over to you."

Murdoch's flagrantly partisan style of journalism was common in the United States a hundred years ago. But then each city had many newspapers; they balanced each other's slants. New York now has only three other general-circulation dailies, and they attempt to honor the line between news coverage and opinion columns or editorials. If Murdoch returns, there will again be no one to balance his front-page crusades and assaults.

That may be one reason so many politicians, including Cuomo, are trying to get on Murdoch's good side by helping in his bid to regain control of the Post. Because his support extended beyond the editorial page, Murdoch was for a time arguably the most powerful political force in the country's largest city. He may very well become that again.

The problem, if Murdoch regains control, is that the city's newspaper readers, conditioned to expect a different kind of journalism, may not understand that many of the news stories they will be reading in the Post may not be the result of normal reporting but rather expressions of the publisher's personal political preferences. That would be unfortunate for them and for the political life of this city."

Lastly, let us also not forget that it was the New York Post who "scooped" the rest of the nation in declaring that Richard Gephardt was to be Kerry's running mate on its front page in early July! Ooops.

PLEASE RE-READ THIS POST FRANKLIN:
Another year of finger pointing politics and mud slingin' BS.
Why not tell me WHY I SHOULD VOTE FOR YOUR GUY, instead of WHY I SHOULDN'T VOTE FOR THIER GUY? (not that either of them will get it, not from me)

Feel like I'm listening to a bunch of 3 yr olds narking on each other!
I will never cease to be amazed at the juvenile behavior of the people and organizations that run this country... into the ground, that is!
HAVE YOU GOT THAT? IF NOT READ IT AGAIN...


So your cantidate, Badnarik is the answer??
I didn't see that suggestion anywhere in MY post. :shrug

Just a few quotes from the link in your sig; On the Iraq War:?
Technically... no, that's not from the link in my sig. It's from a link on the FLASH presentation page that makes a point that I do infact, fully endorse.
How did the WAR get drug in here? Did I bring the WAR into this... no, wait... I didn't even bring my own parties candidate into this, much less the WAR.

I do not have the time or the energy to argue politics with someone who is obviously looking for an internet fight... or should I say, wants to "Sling more MUD".
I simply asked for everyone to explain to me WHY THIER OWN CANDIDATE SHOULD BE CHOSEN, instead of WHY ANOTHER SHOULD NOT. In response to this request you have decided to SLAM my parties candidate, and still NOT EXPLAINED TO ME ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR OWN CANDIDATE.

Just replying to your comment. Do you support the views of YOUR cantidate?
Oh... "just replying to my comment"? Hardly!
To answer your question... I give my vote to the Libertarian Party because the views of the party are the closest to my own. I do not agree with every view point of my party. If I did... I would be a mindless drone, or at least have no real opinion of my own (pretty much the same thing).
I SUPPORT THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY and I do so proudly.
I also support OUR TROOPS in every CAPACITY to the FULLEST. Not because I believe in the WAR but because I love my COUNTRY and those that protect her deserve my unwavering SUPPORT & GRATITUDE.

I honestly fail to see how your “response” actually had anything to do with my post, other than to sling mud in my direction, which was exactly what I was commenting is so juvenile, in the first place. I have very little respect for any person (or organization) that feels they can lift themselves up, by putting others down.


** My apologies to everyone else for this little hijack. **

I can't even enjoy these threads anymore because of all the bickering that goes on.

Plus I can't read that much in one sitting :brownbag :toothless






I can't wait until this election is over.


Oh ya. BadKarma. I said IF the statement was true THEN it is bullshit. It's just an opinion bro. Not taking a stab at Dems, just at the people who made that decision.

I respect that you are a dem and stand for what you believe in.

I honestly fail to see how your “response” actually had anything to do with my post, other than to sling mud in my direction, which was exactly what I was commenting is so juvenile, in the first place. I have very little respect for any person (or organization) that feels they can lift themselves up, by putting others down.


** My apologies to everyone else for this little hijack. **



Your respect is of no concern to me, understand that. Where in my post did I put you down Pepe? Please show me. I fail to see where it is my responsibility to show you why you should vote for anyone. Recruitment for the Republican party isnt my responsibility. Yet I do respond to these threads because I have my views AND can defend them. It is your responsibility as a voter to enlighten yourself to the views of all, then make a decision. A decision that hopefully one could explain the criteria used to reach said decision.

Pepe in no way did I put you down for your views. I simply asked if you supported the views of a link in your sig. I didnt sling mud, call you names or do anything juvenille. I asked if you supported these views. The one simple question I asked, you could not or did not want to answer.

Funny that the link isnt in your sig in the above post. Technically? Well I clicked on the flash that took me straight to Badnarik's site. So if you feel that "technically" it isnt a link I will let you believe that.

I know EXACTLY why I support Bush and I wanted to know if you agreed with the views of Badnarik who you are "technically" not supporting. If that qualifies as slinging mud for you then so be it.

Simple question and you didnt answer it. :shrug

http://danielservice.com/fsbuser/95bxl/kerryclass1.jpg

Nice. You give him too much credit though.

After Kerry's defense budget cuts I'll be suprised if they will be able to afford that

:histerica

:histerica:histerica:histerica:histerica:histerica :histerica

And only one...:shocked

Unlike some previous posts with strictly partisan citations to support a candidate or denounce another candidate, I found it refreshing to find a non partisan (read Democrat AND Republican - sorry Pepe, no Libertarian viewpoint here) report commenting on Bush's foreign policy. I welcome all to comment with their thoughts, however, let's respect everyone's right to an opinion and choice.


WASHINGTON, June 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A bipartisan coalition of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, a group of retired career ambassadors and senior military officers, released a bold statement on the need to replace the Bush Administration. Twenty-seven retired senior military and Foreign Service officers signed the statement. ---
Following are opening remarks by spokesperson Phyllis Oakley, former assistant secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, in advance of the official statement of the Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change:
Opening Remarks
(Prelude to the Official Statement of the Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change)
Spokesperson Phyllis Oakley, Former Asst. Sec of State for Intelligence and Research
Deep concern about the current state of our nation's international relations compels us, 27 men and women who have served the United States in senior diplomatic, national security, and Military positions, to speak out and call for a fundamental change in the United States' approach to foreign policy.
Let me note that we did not seek large numbers of supporters for our statement -- we have assembled a varied and representative group of like-minded former senior career officials. Since news of the statement came out, we have been besieged by calls from friends and colleagues around the world who have offered support and encouragement. This is very gratifying.
Before reading the statement, I would add that to be involved in an act that will be seen by many as political if not partisan is for many of us a new experience. As career government officials, we have served loyally both Republican and Democratic administrations. We have not only worked overseas; we have also held positions of major responsibility in the Department of State, Department of Defense, National Security Council, and at the United Nations. For many of us, such an overt step is very hard to do and we have made our decisions after deep reflection.
We believe we have as good an understanding as any of our citizens of basic American interests. Over nearly half a century we have worked energetically in all regions of the world, often in very difficult circumstances, to build piece by piece a structure of respect and influence for the United States that has served our county very well over the last 60 years.
Today we see that structure crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the realities of the world around it. Never before have so many of us felt the need for a major change in the direction of our foreign policy.
We will be among the first to recognize that the nation currently faces unprecedented threats. We recognize too that the Bush administration is now reaching out to allies. But everything we have heard from friends abroad on every continent suggests to us that the lack of confidence in the present administration in Washington is so profound that a whole new team is needed to repair the damage. Repair it we must, we believe, as the future security and well being of the United States depends on it.
I would like to introduce the others with me this morning, and then read the statement. Afterwards we will be happy to take questions, which will be answered on an individual basis.
DIPLOMATS AND MILITARY COMMANDERS FOR CHANGE
The undersigned have held positions of responsibility for the planning and execution of American foreign and defense policy. Collectively, we have served every president since Harry S. Truman. Some of us are Democrats, some are Republicans or Independents, many voted for George W. Bush. But we all believe that current Administration policies have failed in the primary responsibilities of preserving national security and providing world leadership. Serious issues are at stake. We need a change.
From the outset, President George W. Bush adopted an overbearing approach to America's role in the world, relying upon military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations. Instead of building upon America's great economic and moral strength to lead other nations in a coordinated campaign to address the causes of terrorism and to stifle its resources, the Administration, motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, struck out on its own. It led the United States into an ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain. It justified the invasion of Iraq by manipulation of uncertain intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, and by a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda and the attacks of September 11. The evidence did not support this argument.
Our security has been weakened. While American airmen and women, marines, soldiers and sailors have performed gallantly, our armed forces were not prepared for military occupation and nation building. Public opinion polls throughout the world report hostility toward us. Muslim youth are turning to anti-American terrorism. Never in the two and a quarter centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted. No loyal American would question our ultimate right to act alone in our national interest; but responsible leadership would not turn to unilateral military action before diplomacy had been thoroughly explored.
The United States suffers from close identification with autocratic regimes in the Muslim world, and from the perception of unquestioning support for the policies and actions of the present Israeli Government. To enhance credibility with Islamic peoples we must pursue courageous, energetic and balanced efforts to establish peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and policies that encourage responsible democratic reforms.
We face profound challenges in the 21st Century: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, unequal distribution of wealth and the fruits of globalization, terrorism, environmental degradation, population growth in the developing world, HIV/AIDS, ethnic and religious confrontations. Such problems can not be resolved by military force, nor by the sole remaining superpower alone; they demand patient, coordinated global effort under the leadership of the United States.
The Bush Administration has shown that it does not grasp these circumstances of the new era, and is not able to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership in either style or substance. It is time for a change. ---
THE STATEMENT PROJECT
Designations of Signatories (in alphabetical order)
The Signatories to this Statement are retired, but held the following positions during their careers in service to the United States Government.
1. The Honorable Avis T. Bohlen; Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, 1999; Ambassador to Bulgaria, 1996; District of Columbia
2. Admiral William J. Crowe, USN, Ret.; Chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1993; Ambassador to the Court of Saint James, 1993; Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985; Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Command; Oklahoma
3. The Honorable Jeffrey S. Davidow; Ambassador to Mexico, 1998; Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, 1996; Ambassador to Venezuela, 1993; Ambassador to Zambia, 1988; Virginia
4. The Honorable William A. DePree; Ambassador to Bangladesh, 1987; Director of State Department Management Operations, 1983; Ambassador to Mozambique, 1976; Michigan
5. The Honorable Donald B. Easum; Ambassador to Nigeria, 1975; Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, 1974; Ambassador to Upper Volta, 1971; Virginia
6. The Honorable Charles W. Freeman, Jr.; Assistant Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs, 1993; Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1989; Rhode Island
7. The Honorable William C. Harrop; Ambassador to Israel, 1991; Ambassador to Zaire, 1987; Inspector General of the State Department and Foreign Service, 1983; Ambassador to Kenya and Seychelles, 1980; Ambassador to Guinea, 1975; New Jersey
8. The Honorable Arthur A. Hartman; Ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1981; Ambassador to France, 1977; Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, 1973; New Jersey
9. General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC, Ret.; Commander in Chief, United States Central Command, 1991; Deputy Chief of Staff, Marine Corps, 1990; Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, 1987; Massachusetts
10. The Honorable H. Allen Holmes; Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations, 1993; Ambassador at Large for Burdensharing, 1989; Assistant Secretary of State for Politico- Military Affairs, 1986; Ambassador to Portugal, 1982; Kansas
11. The Honorable Robert V. Keeley; Ambassador to Greece, 1985; Ambassador to Zimbabwe, 1980; Ambassador to Mauritius, 1976; Florida
12. The Honorable Samuel W. Lewis; Director of State Department Policy and Planning, 1993; Ambassador to Israel, 1977; Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, 1975; Texas
13. The Honorable Princeton N. Lyman; Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, 1997; Ambassador to South Africa, 1992; Director, Bureau of Refugee Programs, 1989; Ambassador to Nigeria, 1986; Maryland
14. The Honorable Jack F. Matlock, Jr.; Ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1987; Director for European and Soviet Affairs, National Security Council, 1983; Ambassador to Czechoslovakia, 1981; Florida
15. The Honorable Donald F. McHenry; Ambassador and U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 1979; Illinois
16. General Merrill A. (Tony) McPeak, USAF, Ret.; Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, 1990; Commander in Chief, Pacific Air Forces, 1988; Commander, 12th Air Force and U.S. Southern Command Air Forces, 1987; Oregon
17. The Honorable George E. Moose; Representative, United Nations European Office, 1997; Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, 1993; Ambassador to Senegal, 1988; Director, State Department Bureau of Management Operations, 1987; Ambassador to Benin, 1983; Colorado
18. The Honorable David D. Newsom; Secretary of State ad interim, 1981; Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, 1978; Ambassador to the Philippines, 1977; Ambassador to Indonesia, 1973; Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, 1969; Ambassador to Libya, 1965; California
19. The Honorable Phyllis E. Oakley; Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, 1997; Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration, 1994; Nebraska
20. The Honorable Robert Oakley; Special Envoy for Somalia, 1992; Ambassador to Pakistan, 1988; Ambassador to Somalia, 1982; Ambassador to Zaire, 1979; Louisiana
21. The Honorable James D. Phillips; Diplomat-in-Residence, the Carter Center of Emory University, 1994; Ambassador to the Republic of Congo, 1990; Ambassador to Burundi, 1986; Kansas
22. The Honorable John E. Reinhardt; Director of the United States Information Agency, 1977; Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, 1975; Ambassador to Nigeria, 1971; Maryland
23. General William Y. Smith, USAF, Ret.; Chief of Staff for Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, 1979; Assistant to the Chairman, Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1975; Director of National Security Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, 1974; Arkansas
24. The Honorable Ronald I. Spiers; Under Secretary General of the United Nations for Political Affairs, 1989; Under Secretary of State for Management, 1983; Ambassador to Pakistan, 1981; Director, State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, 1980; Ambassador to Turkey, 1977; Ambassador to The Bahamas, 1973; Director, State Department Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, 1969; Vermont
25. The Honorable Michael E. Sterner; Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, 1974; New York
26. Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN, Ret.; Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 1977; Commander in Chief, Allied Forces Southern Europe (NATO), 1975; Commander, U.S. Second Fleet, 1974; Illinois
27. The Honorable Alexander F. Watson; Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, 1993; Ambassador to Brazil, 1992; Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 1989; Ambassador to Peru, 1986; Maryland
------
Paid for by the Committee of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Interesting read, thanks Dave.

Unfortunately the only other option is Kerry. :banghead

:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica

Look real close at what they did before Clinton and what their title was during Clinton, and During Carter

thats certainly the last thing we need. then these now ex military men will have even more time to post on message boards, flooding the internet and slowing everything down.

I couldn't agree more Steve. For a good spoof on both candidates, take a look at this clip (takes about a min. to load on cable, be warned dial up)

http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/content/this_land_af

and Spence, what do you have to say about what they have to say??

For those skimming:

"Today we see that structure crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the realities of the world around it."

"The Bush Administration has shown that it does not grasp these circumstances of the new era, and is not able to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership in either style or substance. It is time for a change."

they're not Cliff notes, they're SquattyD notes!!!!

damn straight

I guess standing up to these countries, is not good foreign polocy

My spelling sux

We face profound challenges in the 21st Century: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, unequal distribution of wealth and the fruits of globalization, terrorism, environmental degradation, population growth in the developing world, HIV/AIDS, ethnic and religious confrontations. Such problems can not be resolved by military force, nor by the sole remaining superpower alone; they demand patient, coordinated global effort under the leadership of the United States.
The Bush Administration has shown that it does not grasp these circumstances of the new era, and is not able to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership in either style or substance. It is time for a change. ---

When hasn't it been time for a change. Since when is it not more important to worry about issues within our own country then issues outside of our country. They do this with every president. We have the war on drugs, the was on poverty, the war on youth violence...etc...etc....A LOT MORE then just the president needs to change to make the difference.

And why is America distrusted? If you are worried about us coming over and leveling your country, then don't **** with us. I mean, how is that distrust? Do you walk into a bar as a little, weak guy...and punch the biggest mother ****er in there straight in the nuts? If you do, do you expect to get your ass beat? I'm sure there is more to it as to why we are distrusted...but I wanted to run with that. Beyond that though...

I'm not going to argue or portray my views too much because a lot of you are alot more educated on the political aspects of the country then I am. That, and I'm sick of reading all the political BS.

Great post, Dave!

there is more to foreign policy than just "standing up" to countries. and thats exactly what the mean the problem is when they say this administration is "blinded by ideology"

and you should be able to provide a safer world for americans (cause thats what its about right...at least its supposed to be) without alienating your century old allies.


edit: i think they are referring to our allies and neutral countries as well when they are talking about distrust. of course the middle east distrusts us, they have hated us for years. but when you ignore the other world powers and the UN to fight a country that has no connection to your attackers and no weapons you said were there, of course other countries arent going to trust you anymore. youre intelligence and rationale are faulty, you have a very large and powerful army, and youre not open to compromise with others. if i was anyone else, i would be distrusting and afraid too.

How exactly is it bi-partisan when #s 1,2,3,6,7,9,10,12,13,17,19,20,27 were CLINTON appoitments and #s 5,8,11,15,18,21,22,24,26 were CARTER appointments?

edit: i think they are referring to our allies and neutral countries as well when they are talking about distrust. of course the middle east distrusts us, they have hated us for years. but when you ignore the other world powers and the UN to fight a country that has no connection to your attackers and no weapons you said were there, of course other countries arent going to trust you anymore. youre intelligence and rationale are faulty, you have a very large and powerful army, and youre not open to compromise with others. if i was anyone else, i would be distrusting and afraid too.


Thanks, SquattyD :thumbup :beer I was blinded by the moment.

Funny that the link isnt in your sig in the above post.
the link isnt in his sig on his last post because your sig only shows up in your first post of each thread.

The one simple question I asked, you could not or did not want to answer.

uhhh....

To answer your question... I give my vote to the Libertarian Party because the views of the party are the closest to my own. I do not agree with every view point of my party. If I did... I would be a mindless drone, or at least have no real opinion of my own (pretty much the same thing).
I SUPPORT THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY and I do so proudly.


franklin, all you did was prove his point 100%. he asked for a couple examples of why you feel your canditate should be president. and what did you do? give reasons why his canditate should not be president. and he did answer your question. i reposted it cause you missed it the first time. its the sentance that starts "to answer your question."

im sure if you ask him the same question he asked you, he would give you reasons why his candidate should be president. he told us why he likes him. sorry pepe for steppin on yer toes.

It is interesting to note that the majority of the members were embassadors to one or more countries. My view is that being embassadors, they are very diplomatically oriented, and believe that every conflict can be resolved through diplomacy. If you ask a terrorist what they believe is diplomacy, you end up with suicide bombers. What discourages me is that they didn't seem to have any specific items to address, their statement was rather generalized. I'm not saying that Bush is the best President, far from it, but given the situation we have been thrust into, I think he as been doing an acceptional job as commander-in-chief. Please remember that we are now fighting an enemy like we have never before seen. When the colonists started using guerilla tactics agains the British, we were seen as terrorists, but the Brits lost because they did not adapt to the new kind of warfare that was being brought to the battle field. The same thing is happening in the middle east. We are the Brits, and if we don't adapt to combat the enemy, the enemy will win. Diplomacy to them is like the lines of muskateers in an open field to the colonists.

I am in no way an expert in diplomacy, politics, warfare, or international affaris, but this is how I see it coming together.

I hope what I have typed makes any sense.

a word of advice to all. politics and wheeling have never gone together. and getting ina pissing match with a one legged, harley riding, bronco driving man is not what i would want to do.

a word of advice to all. politics and wheeling have never gone together. and getting ina pissing match with a one legged, harley riding, bronco driving man is not what i would want to do.

:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica

A few more notes. The military action in Iraq is not unilateral. England, Austrailia, and a host of other countries have joined in the fight. The big countries who opposed the invasion, France, Germany, Russia, each had something to lose by removing Saddam from power. Those countries were doing business with the Iraqi government, so why would they want to shoot themsleves in the foot and ruin their business agreements?

I would be willing to say the same thing abou the UN. I invite everyone to read the book Mission: Compromised by Ollie North. It is in the fiction section, but is wholly based on actual events. The UN is a very corrupt orginization. They seem to be no more concerned with what is right, than what is right for them, and their wallets. If the UN was truely concerned about human rights and the like, then why did it take so long for someone to step in and say that Saddam is killing his own people, and their families, and raping the women, and killing members of his own family? What about the Iraqi people who suffered. Wouldn't it be right to stop the barbaric acts. No. Why? Because their pockets were being lined by one of the most rich (read lots of oil) countries. If Saddam stayed in power, he would keep making deals. If they decided to oust him, that income would stop.

None of this I can back up with actual facts, but the evidence seems to suggest this.

God Bless America. This is a great nation the we can speak or write our feelings. As a Veteran i am happy to see that the time i spent defending this country was well spent. What engine you running? john

. but when you ignore the other world powers and the UN to fight a country that has no connection to your attackers and no weapons you said were there, of course other countries arent going to trust you anymore.


go read my post of i figured it out. tell me know connection. Also since everyone ignores it when i say it. THE IRAQIS FIRED UPON OUR AIRCRAFT PATROLLING THE NO-FLY ZONE that was set up after the Gulf War for 10 years. that in my book is a decleration of war. How is that not attacking us.

...I found it refreshing to find a non partisan (read Democrat AND Republican - sorry Pepe, no Libertarian viewpoint here) report commenting on Bush's foreign policy.Bi-partisan? Do a GOOGLE search on "Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change" and follow links from some of the pages that pop up!

Makes me wanna gag. That's my opinion!

302

wimpy one eh rat :goodfinge

yup and broke motor mounts

that is always good. hmm ill be happy i wont be the EPA's worst nightmare by friday

Bi-partisan? Do a GOOGLE search on "Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change" and follow links from some of the pages that pop up!

Makes me wanna gag. That's my opinion!


fact:the group has claimed every president since harry s. truman. it's great you have an opinion, but at least get your facts straight, marv. i did a google search and didn't find anything on the first two pages that indicated they were partisan, except for the fact that Bush thinks they are because they are critical of him. why don't you post some links for us if you would like us to look elsewhere? :shrug

franklin, all you did was prove his point 100%. he asked for a couple examples of why you feel your canditate should be president. and what did you do? give reasons why his canditate should not be president. and he did answer your question. i reposted it cause you missed it the first time. its the sentance that starts "to answer your question."

im sure if you ask him the same question he asked you, he would give you reasons why his candidate should be president. he told us why he likes him. sorry pepe for steppin on yer toes.

My views are fairly well known if you looked at the political threads often. So rewriting why I support low taxes, strong defense/intelligence, expansion of capitalistic policies and ending social welfare is quite tiring. He has made his choice to the Libertarian Party so obviously he has researched the parties to arrive at that conclusion; at least I hope so.

Yes I gave some examples about what Badzarik believes and if he agreed with his diagnosis of the situations and "plan".

All I want to know is if he believes in Badzarik's conclusions that I posted above:
That WWII was started because of the US trade embargo
That terrorism is caused mainly by US activity
That society is to blame for the criminal and he can be "fixed" by training.

Just curious if he can defend such flawed conclusions about history by a cantidate that he "technically" does/doesn't support.

No BS, no mud slinging, just enlightening debate.

We have liberals in here that make fun of bush, for being tough on terrorism, but they think Kerry could solve the probelm :wacko Kerry has voted aganist EVERY Military improvement, and post 9/11 voted to cut the cia by 7.5 billion dollars. He cant keep straight want he wants to do in Iraq, let alone the war on terror

shouldn't it just be a red x?

at least they have some class and used a tomcat, instead of those damn super hornets

:histerica

at least they have some class and used a tomcat, instead of those damn super hornets


Left overs from the Marine Corps. This is a Kerry Class Carrier after all. Shoulda been a Harrier, only thing that can actually use that.

~Critter