Kerry and Bush supporters. A question for y'all.
- Thread starter Elwood Blues
- Start date
AirForceRocks
DYRTCWTM?
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 8,301
No doubt.
ONE campaign office has some flyers about a SBV rally and you consider that coordination? Nice try, but no cigar.
The commission did not say that there were no ties between the two. I'd be interested in seeing the quote from the commission (not your interpretation of what they said, but what they actually said) that says clearly that there were NO ties.
And when they signed up for the guard (voluntarily) they signed up for whatever they Guard told them to do, including up to two years of activation. So, they most certainly did sign up (voluntarily) for long term activations if such activations were deemed necessary. If they didn't want that possibility, they should have stayed out altogether.
As I've already shown, you threw out the first insult, not me.
Speaking of insults...no, scheduled to separate is not the politically correct way to say AWOL. It is the correct terminology to describe someone that is *GASP* scheduled to separate.
Gee, my husband is scheduled to separate in a couple of months...I didn't realize until now that he is really AWOL.
You asked what Bush policy results in turning our record setting surplus into a deficit.
That would be: Expensive war (despite the fact that we are NOT providing our troops with essential equipment and fair pay!!!!!!!! )
at the same time as
TAX CUT
Simple math---- if you want to increase your spending, you have to increase your income.
If you want to decrease your income (tax cut) you have to decrease your spending.
Bush did away with Pay as You Go.
Replaced it with charge it to the grandkids, as long as it isn't for their education.
Super irresponsible and absolutely nothing conservative about it. What exactly is Bush conserving besides his own wealth????
That would be: Expensive war (despite the fact that we are NOT providing our troops with essential equipment and fair pay!!!!!!!! )
at the same time as
TAX CUT
Simple math---- if you want to increase your spending, you have to increase your income.
If you want to decrease your income (tax cut) you have to decrease your spending.
Bush did away with Pay as You Go.
Replaced it with charge it to the grandkids, as long as it isn't for their education.
Super irresponsible and absolutely nothing conservative about it. What exactly is Bush conserving besides his own wealth????
Elwood Blues
"We're going to take things away from you on behal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,964
Thanks for the drive by......
You have information I'll give you at least that much.
Proof?
When?
Personal gain? Proof?
Why is it that none of you (and I mean a collective you that are against the war) don't see that in part the war is a noble cause to help liberate people that were oppressed, tortured and killed BY THE 10s of thousands under SH's rule. Who knows what his two son's would have done when they took over. War is not a easy thing. Innocent people get killed, it's sad. But the price of freedom isn't free. Just think what would have happened 230 years ago if after the first few deaths of our forefathers someone (like you all) said "look at all the killing!!!". Where would we be today? We'd probably be shouting "Long live the Queen".
If I'm not mistaken, it was a estimated surplus but the economy was heading into the toilet before GWB took office. Then there was (seemingly forgotten by some) 9-11 which had a major impact on parts of the economy. Then there was the war in Afghanistan (did you agree with that one?) then one in Iraq. But that's not to say that I'm all that pleased with the estimated deficit (it's a moving target so there's hard number to look at).
Name one that directly affected you? Name one that affected your family. Name one that you disagree with.
If after that you're still upset with the PATRIOT act, call your congressman and senator because they may be one of the ones that signed off on it without reading it.
He did? GWB actually fired these people and rehired foreign workers in other countries?
Terrible unemployment? Really? I think it's a about 5.5 now and when he took office it was over 6. But that's the national average. Your mileage may vary.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Please explain.
You say that's all you need to know. You say you're informed but I think you might want to recheck some of your sources.
Who did you vote for in the last election if I may ask?
You have information I'll give you at least that much.
Proof?
When?
Personal gain? Proof?
Why is it that none of you (and I mean a collective you that are against the war) don't see that in part the war is a noble cause to help liberate people that were oppressed, tortured and killed BY THE 10s of thousands under SH's rule. Who knows what his two son's would have done when they took over. War is not a easy thing. Innocent people get killed, it's sad. But the price of freedom isn't free. Just think what would have happened 230 years ago if after the first few deaths of our forefathers someone (like you all) said "look at all the killing!!!". Where would we be today? We'd probably be shouting "Long live the Queen".
If I'm not mistaken, it was a estimated surplus but the economy was heading into the toilet before GWB took office. Then there was (seemingly forgotten by some) 9-11 which had a major impact on parts of the economy. Then there was the war in Afghanistan (did you agree with that one?) then one in Iraq. But that's not to say that I'm all that pleased with the estimated deficit (it's a moving target so there's hard number to look at).
Name one that directly affected you? Name one that affected your family. Name one that you disagree with.
If after that you're still upset with the PATRIOT act, call your congressman and senator because they may be one of the ones that signed off on it without reading it.
He did? GWB actually fired these people and rehired foreign workers in other countries?
Terrible unemployment? Really? I think it's a about 5.5 now and when he took office it was over 6. But that's the national average. Your mileage may vary.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Please explain.
You say that's all you need to know. You say you're informed but I think you might want to recheck some of your sources.
Who did you vote for in the last election if I may ask?
Ask Kerry, insulting politicians seems to be perfectly acceptable these days. I have no respect for this President and I don't worry too much about being insulting to him.
As for your husband, I would assume that during his entire military career he didn't go mia for a year...well except to show up for a teeth cleaning.
"Why is it that none of you (and I mean a collective you that are against the war) don't see that in part the war is a noble cause to help liberate people that were oppressed, tortured and killed BY THE 10s of thousands under SH's rule. Who knows what his two son's would have done when they took over. War is not a easy thing. Innocent people get killed, it's sad. But the price of freedom isn't free. Just think what would have happened 230 years ago if after the first few deaths of our forefathers someone (like you all) said "look at all the killing!!!". Where would we be today? We'd probably be shouting "Long live the Queen"."
Laughable!
Did Bu$h go before the people and state that we were going to liberate Iraq because it was a noble cause? No...he claimed that we were under imminent threat (45 Minutes) of an attack due to weapons of mass destruction. At the worst a lie at best lousy info. (If you were going to place thousands of lives in jeopardy, you'd better be damn sure. But what the hey, it ain't his kids, right?)
So he drags us into this mess, makes a "miscalculation" ..(his quote...see todays news) { that must be wonderful comfort to all those lives he's destroyed}. Goes flipping "cowboy" against our allies in Europe...great coalition by the by... I get goose bumps just knowing that 50 Japanese have got our backs covered, or was it that warrior nation Honduras or whatever back water country we bought off? A noble cause my rump!
And you have the gall to write it all off as "innocent people get killed, it's sad". NEWS FLASH...NOT A WAR...PRE EMPTIVE STRIKE (as per Bu$H)...NEWS FLASH...that makes those innocent people that were killed not casualties of war...they were and continue to be murdered! And you support it....good for you...you must be very proud.
And as long as you want to make comparisons to the American Revolution, just remember that 230 years ago Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin were all considered terrorists by Great Britan.
Laughable!
Did Bu$h go before the people and state that we were going to liberate Iraq because it was a noble cause? No...he claimed that we were under imminent threat (45 Minutes) of an attack due to weapons of mass destruction. At the worst a lie at best lousy info. (If you were going to place thousands of lives in jeopardy, you'd better be damn sure. But what the hey, it ain't his kids, right?)
So he drags us into this mess, makes a "miscalculation" ..(his quote...see todays news) { that must be wonderful comfort to all those lives he's destroyed}. Goes flipping "cowboy" against our allies in Europe...great coalition by the by... I get goose bumps just knowing that 50 Japanese have got our backs covered, or was it that warrior nation Honduras or whatever back water country we bought off? A noble cause my rump!
And you have the gall to write it all off as "innocent people get killed, it's sad". NEWS FLASH...NOT A WAR...PRE EMPTIVE STRIKE (as per Bu$H)...NEWS FLASH...that makes those innocent people that were killed not casualties of war...they were and continue to be murdered! And you support it....good for you...you must be very proud.
And as long as you want to make comparisons to the American Revolution, just remember that 230 years ago Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin were all considered terrorists by Great Britan.
richiebaseball
Disney? I'll go!
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,670
Being a Senator as long as he has, he would certainly know about insulting politicians. Comes with the job these days.
Richard
I have been away for a while, and I note a ton of angst being dumped in here, most of the angry words coming from Kerry supporters.
Here are the things I have noticed:
1) the Kerry supporters use words like "shrub" in their rhetoric. I find that most Bush supporters refer to Kerry as just "Kerry." I could find a lot of unsavory labels to toss at Kerry, but I feel that if I did that, I would lower the integrity of my message.
2) the Kerry supporters are quick to call the other side liars and then dismiss their messages. I have tried to read most of the content posted here, and I find that the Kerry supporters tend to mock the Bush supporters rather than address the points (with one or two notable exceptions)
3) the Kerry supporters equate service in the National Guard by Bush as dishonorable. This is quite an insult without citing some instances that bear upon that notion. When I say that some of Kerry's actions have brought dishonor on his medals, I have always cited the precise logic by which I make that assertion. I find that all the Kerry supporters have to do is parrot some words that Michael Moore used to paint Bush's NG service as dishonorable. This is an exercise in silliness.
4) the Kerry supporters are quick to jump on any perceived inconsistency as a "lie" while either completely ignoring the huge lies that Kerry himself has told or else saying they weren't really lies - they were just misquotes or inconsequential inconsistencies. This demonstrates self-delusion of a serious nature.
5) the Kerry supports claim that Bush is maligning Cleland's patriotism, while at the same time cheering for those who call Bush a "deserter," "AWOL," "nazi," "betrayer of the nation," etc. The mind that can grasp both these concepts is truly one that needs examining by a professional
6) much has been noted of Clelands injuries. But here is what happened - Cleland mishandled a grenade and blew off his legs and one arm (This sort of thing happens occasionally on construction jobs and railroad operations, where people become amputees because of their carelessness.) The Kerry supporters seem to think that because Cleland's accident occured while he was in Vietnam, that we should treat him differently than we would a triple amputee that had an accident on a construction site. I fail to see the logic in that.
Cleland has been honored for his military service. Plus, he won his first senate term largely because of the efforts he had made to rehabilitate himself AFTER he returned from Vietnam. However, when he became a senator, he allied himself with the radical left wing factions of the democrat party, rather than the conservative people who elected him.
There is no question that Cleland opposed the Patriot Act because of pressure from the labor organizations. Therefore, it is absolutely factual to say that he put the interests of the labor lobby ahead of the interests of national security as represented by the Patriot Act. There is nothing wrong with using an image of Osama to dramatize that relation - he represents the terror that we are fighting.
Now - what do our friends the Kerry supporters say about all this?? They claim that we are dishonoring Cleland's MILITARY service. How is this possible to a logical mind?
7) Cleland is now an ex-senator. SO - why is HE the one chosen to deliver a message to the Bush residence? It is undeniable that it is for the photo-op. AND, the Kerry supporters know that the media will now repeat all the disingenious material that the DNC said about the Chambliss campaign in '00, giving Kerry another opportunity to smear Bush with those medacious accusations all over again. The DNC is the mother of all smear campaigns.
8) These facts are undeniable:
Kerry spent years citing something that was "seared into his memory" that turned out to be a total fabrication. He cited that "seared memory" as being the turning point of his young life - it was that "christmas in cambodia on orders of Nixon" that caused him to develop his anti-war attitude and fight against Nixon. He used this "seared memory" to oppose our efforts to keep the communists from taking over Nicuargua, because our government (when a GOP is president) cannot be trusted. In the whole Nicuarguan affair, Kerry was clearly on the side of the communists, one of the reasons that he has the highest LEFT WING rating in the senate. He used this "searing memory" throughout his career to lend weight to the "evil" represented by the US foreign policy. Now, the Kerry campaign says that was all a mistake, that maybe he wan't in Cambodia after all. Fine - but what about that "seared memory" and the many times that Kerry used that imagery to bolster a political point.
The only thing wrong is that this "life changing event" is a totaly fabrication, developed - in other words the worst form of a lie.
ergo - my assertion that Kerry WILL lie to achieve a political advantage. He has done so in the past and he is doing so today.
Kerry's service in Vietnam was honorable, along with anyone else who served without committing a horrible crime or dereliction. It is what Kerry did AFTER he returned that casts dishonor on his service. He DID in fact give aid and comfort to the enemy. Those who think he "shortened" the war need to make a better case. What he did in fact was to ensure defeat of our military forces for the first time in history. Our military men won every battle they fought. But it was the Democrat anti-war activity in the USA that denied them their victory. And what is more shameful, these anti-war activists, chief among them John Kerry, cast them in a light that they had acted dishonorably. Whatever one thinks of Kerry's words in hindsight - one cannot deny that what he said gave comfort to the enemy. The communists even played the tapes of his words to the POWs as an instrument of trying to further break their will. Kerry, and the rest of the anti-war movement, earn eternal shame for what they did.
9) Kerry has accomplished absolutely nothing in his career. He has spent 20 years in the senate and I didnt even know who he was until he announced for president. I was vaguely aware that there was "another" senator named Kerry, but the only one of them that anyone knew anything about was Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. John Kerry of Massachusetts was a nothing. He hardly ever went to work anyway, he was not a serious player. All he did was ask the Left Wing Fanatic Fringe groups how they wanted him to vote and that is what he did. He has never delivered a notable speech. He has never led an noble effort. He has never championed a laudable cause. The only thing noteworthy that he has ever done was to work in the anti-war movement when he came home from Vietnam.
If one checks Kerry's record on foreign policy issues, one would find this:
- he opposed our efforts to keep Nicauragua from becoming a communist controlled dictatorship.
- he opposed the 1991 Gulf War - when in fact we DID have the whole world as allies - after Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudia Arabia.
- when the Iraqi army was on the run and ripe for total destruction, he and Kennedy were the first ones to yell "enough" we are "murdering" them.
- then, when Saddam became a bother to the Clinton administration, he blamed the problem on Bush 41 - for not "finishing the job" that he opposed doing in the first place.
- when it was agreed by the entire world that saddam had WMD's, Kerry agreed as well and announced that "if you don't think Saddam has WMD then don't vote for me." = however, that was when Kerry was trying as hard as he could to back-pedal from his prior record.
- because - when the race for the nomination got to be between he and Dean - Kerry THEN decided that it was WRONG to unseat Saddam.
- after voting FOR the war, he then voted AGAINST providing the funding. This is the tactic the democrats used to cause our defeat in Vietnam. They controlled congress, and they just refused to provide our military with the funding. We had to give up. We had to declare defeat in a war that our brave men had won.
10) This is too much to digest at one time - I need to stop and focus on one item at a time. But after reading the incredulously inane remarks by the Kerry supporters on this forum, I had to post some of the random thoughts that came to mind. I will focus on one topic in greater clarity later.
Bush is a great decision maker - he has the proven toughness to take action that may be unpopular when that action is required. In this regard, he is quite like Churchill.
There is nothing in Kerry's record to recommend him for the job. He has absolutely nothing to run on. I will reiterate the request form one of the Bush supporters that I have read above.
Will someone who supports Kerry name ONE thing that the man has DONE ??????????
til next time -------
Here are the things I have noticed:
1) the Kerry supporters use words like "shrub" in their rhetoric. I find that most Bush supporters refer to Kerry as just "Kerry." I could find a lot of unsavory labels to toss at Kerry, but I feel that if I did that, I would lower the integrity of my message.
2) the Kerry supporters are quick to call the other side liars and then dismiss their messages. I have tried to read most of the content posted here, and I find that the Kerry supporters tend to mock the Bush supporters rather than address the points (with one or two notable exceptions)
3) the Kerry supporters equate service in the National Guard by Bush as dishonorable. This is quite an insult without citing some instances that bear upon that notion. When I say that some of Kerry's actions have brought dishonor on his medals, I have always cited the precise logic by which I make that assertion. I find that all the Kerry supporters have to do is parrot some words that Michael Moore used to paint Bush's NG service as dishonorable. This is an exercise in silliness.
4) the Kerry supporters are quick to jump on any perceived inconsistency as a "lie" while either completely ignoring the huge lies that Kerry himself has told or else saying they weren't really lies - they were just misquotes or inconsequential inconsistencies. This demonstrates self-delusion of a serious nature.
5) the Kerry supports claim that Bush is maligning Cleland's patriotism, while at the same time cheering for those who call Bush a "deserter," "AWOL," "nazi," "betrayer of the nation," etc. The mind that can grasp both these concepts is truly one that needs examining by a professional
6) much has been noted of Clelands injuries. But here is what happened - Cleland mishandled a grenade and blew off his legs and one arm (This sort of thing happens occasionally on construction jobs and railroad operations, where people become amputees because of their carelessness.) The Kerry supporters seem to think that because Cleland's accident occured while he was in Vietnam, that we should treat him differently than we would a triple amputee that had an accident on a construction site. I fail to see the logic in that.
Cleland has been honored for his military service. Plus, he won his first senate term largely because of the efforts he had made to rehabilitate himself AFTER he returned from Vietnam. However, when he became a senator, he allied himself with the radical left wing factions of the democrat party, rather than the conservative people who elected him.
There is no question that Cleland opposed the Patriot Act because of pressure from the labor organizations. Therefore, it is absolutely factual to say that he put the interests of the labor lobby ahead of the interests of national security as represented by the Patriot Act. There is nothing wrong with using an image of Osama to dramatize that relation - he represents the terror that we are fighting.
Now - what do our friends the Kerry supporters say about all this?? They claim that we are dishonoring Cleland's MILITARY service. How is this possible to a logical mind?
7) Cleland is now an ex-senator. SO - why is HE the one chosen to deliver a message to the Bush residence? It is undeniable that it is for the photo-op. AND, the Kerry supporters know that the media will now repeat all the disingenious material that the DNC said about the Chambliss campaign in '00, giving Kerry another opportunity to smear Bush with those medacious accusations all over again. The DNC is the mother of all smear campaigns.
8) These facts are undeniable:
Kerry spent years citing something that was "seared into his memory" that turned out to be a total fabrication. He cited that "seared memory" as being the turning point of his young life - it was that "christmas in cambodia on orders of Nixon" that caused him to develop his anti-war attitude and fight against Nixon. He used this "seared memory" to oppose our efforts to keep the communists from taking over Nicuargua, because our government (when a GOP is president) cannot be trusted. In the whole Nicuarguan affair, Kerry was clearly on the side of the communists, one of the reasons that he has the highest LEFT WING rating in the senate. He used this "searing memory" throughout his career to lend weight to the "evil" represented by the US foreign policy. Now, the Kerry campaign says that was all a mistake, that maybe he wan't in Cambodia after all. Fine - but what about that "seared memory" and the many times that Kerry used that imagery to bolster a political point.
The only thing wrong is that this "life changing event" is a totaly fabrication, developed - in other words the worst form of a lie.
ergo - my assertion that Kerry WILL lie to achieve a political advantage. He has done so in the past and he is doing so today.
Kerry's service in Vietnam was honorable, along with anyone else who served without committing a horrible crime or dereliction. It is what Kerry did AFTER he returned that casts dishonor on his service. He DID in fact give aid and comfort to the enemy. Those who think he "shortened" the war need to make a better case. What he did in fact was to ensure defeat of our military forces for the first time in history. Our military men won every battle they fought. But it was the Democrat anti-war activity in the USA that denied them their victory. And what is more shameful, these anti-war activists, chief among them John Kerry, cast them in a light that they had acted dishonorably. Whatever one thinks of Kerry's words in hindsight - one cannot deny that what he said gave comfort to the enemy. The communists even played the tapes of his words to the POWs as an instrument of trying to further break their will. Kerry, and the rest of the anti-war movement, earn eternal shame for what they did.
9) Kerry has accomplished absolutely nothing in his career. He has spent 20 years in the senate and I didnt even know who he was until he announced for president. I was vaguely aware that there was "another" senator named Kerry, but the only one of them that anyone knew anything about was Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. John Kerry of Massachusetts was a nothing. He hardly ever went to work anyway, he was not a serious player. All he did was ask the Left Wing Fanatic Fringe groups how they wanted him to vote and that is what he did. He has never delivered a notable speech. He has never led an noble effort. He has never championed a laudable cause. The only thing noteworthy that he has ever done was to work in the anti-war movement when he came home from Vietnam.
If one checks Kerry's record on foreign policy issues, one would find this:
- he opposed our efforts to keep Nicauragua from becoming a communist controlled dictatorship.
- he opposed the 1991 Gulf War - when in fact we DID have the whole world as allies - after Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudia Arabia.
- when the Iraqi army was on the run and ripe for total destruction, he and Kennedy were the first ones to yell "enough" we are "murdering" them.
- then, when Saddam became a bother to the Clinton administration, he blamed the problem on Bush 41 - for not "finishing the job" that he opposed doing in the first place.
- when it was agreed by the entire world that saddam had WMD's, Kerry agreed as well and announced that "if you don't think Saddam has WMD then don't vote for me." = however, that was when Kerry was trying as hard as he could to back-pedal from his prior record.
- because - when the race for the nomination got to be between he and Dean - Kerry THEN decided that it was WRONG to unseat Saddam.
- after voting FOR the war, he then voted AGAINST providing the funding. This is the tactic the democrats used to cause our defeat in Vietnam. They controlled congress, and they just refused to provide our military with the funding. We had to give up. We had to declare defeat in a war that our brave men had won.
10) This is too much to digest at one time - I need to stop and focus on one item at a time. But after reading the incredulously inane remarks by the Kerry supporters on this forum, I had to post some of the random thoughts that came to mind. I will focus on one topic in greater clarity later.
Bush is a great decision maker - he has the proven toughness to take action that may be unpopular when that action is required. In this regard, he is quite like Churchill.
There is nothing in Kerry's record to recommend him for the job. He has absolutely nothing to run on. I will reiterate the request form one of the Bush supporters that I have read above.
Will someone who supports Kerry name ONE thing that the man has DONE ??????????
til next time -------
Alice28
DIS Veteran<br><font color=blue>I'm Doombah Fricki
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2002
- Messages
- 9,583
Rokkitsci- THANK YOU for putting so many of my thoughts into words. And without being degrading- imagine that!
I asked the same question several pages ago and it was ignored (maybe I was who you were referring to)- will someone please tell me what Kerry has done in the senate and for his state of Massachusetts that would sway my vote to him? Anybody? Without bashing Bush (key point here)? Anyone?
I asked the same question several pages ago and it was ignored (maybe I was who you were referring to)- will someone please tell me what Kerry has done in the senate and for his state of Massachusetts that would sway my vote to him? Anybody? Without bashing Bush (key point here)? Anyone?
disney4us2002
Tagless by choice!!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
- Messages
- 6,944
Okay guys put on your thigh-high boots and get ready for the onslaught of deep doo doo! It's bound to be as insightful as the last time when there was simply nothing to rebut which resulted in an insult in the spelling of the above poster's name.
Alice, others have asked and asked and asked (ad nauseum) for a reason to be pro Kerry and it hasn't happened to date. I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.
Alice, others have asked and asked and asked (ad nauseum) for a reason to be pro Kerry and it hasn't happened to date. I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.
Elwood Blues
"We're going to take things away from you on behal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,964
Ok ok you win. He didn't say noble. I chose that word but he said (2003 SOTU address)
"And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation"
Sure sounds like one to me though.
I'll concede this one. From what I read, he used the 45 minute claim 3 times shortly after the CIA told the Brits it was bogus. I don't know what to make of it. A lie? That's quite a strong accusation. Misinformation? Possibly.
I heard Gen. Tommy Franks today talk about the Presidents statements that said there was a miscalculation on the final phase (Franks called it step 6) of the war. He said he agreed with the President that there wasn't any way possible to consider all that could happen and that there was a miscalculation. Do you believe that it's possible to get something like that correct 100 percent of the time?
Listen, there's no need for a personal attack. I didn't do it to you and I'd appreciate it if you would not do it to me. K?
And I never said anything like "write it off" so please don't put words in my mouth. And it was STILL a war. It was the continuation of the 1st Gulf war. He violated the conditions of the cease fire.
Right, and the British were mistreating it's subjects. Not in any way like SH was treating his own. But in a sense, the same. They didn't like it and rose up against the British.
I can see how one side would consider themselves freedom fighters and the other terrorists.
But there is a difference. We can see what happened after we (colonial america) won the Revolutionary War. Look at how great this country turned out.
I don't see those people attacking the troops as freedom fighters. They are not doing it in the name of freedom. They are doing it for a sense of power and control.
The thrust of the Bush arguement was an imminent attack against the USA, not to free the Iraqi's from SH. If he had presented it as such he would not have received the support that he did. He made the case that we were going to be attacked/would be attacked if we did not strike first...This was not the case and we went into Iraq under false pretenses. By doing this he caused the deaths of thousands, including his own troops for whatever twisted agenda he has. Most of the world recoginized this and was against such action, this is when Bush went "cowboy" at the UN and insulted our allies by calling the UN irrelevant. Smart move...not.
"I'll concede this one. From what I read, he used the 45 minute claim 3 times shortly after the CIA told the Brits it was bogus. I don't know what to make of it. A lie? That's quite a strong accusation. Misinformation? Possibly."
Too bad...if you decide to commit to this type of action and aren't POSITIVE that your intelligence is accurate...back off. Unless of course you were going to go in anyway then it doesn't matter if your facts are straight or not. Personally, IMHO he was lying through his AWOL teeth.
"Listen, there's no need for a personal attack. I didn't do it to you and I'd appreciate it if you would not do it to me. K?
And I never said anything like "write it off" so please don't put words in my mouth. And it was STILL a war. It was the continuation of the 1st Gulf war. He violated the conditions of the cease fire. "
You support the man responsible for what most of the world considers an illegitmate action, a pre emptive strike. You and Bush and Rush and Coulter, etc, etc choose to call it a war. Most do not. Your choice. You do slough off the dead and maimed with your comment "innocent people get killed, it's sad" You want to take it personally, fine.. it is...I have no sympathy for your ilk anyways so what do I care.
"I don't see those people attacking the troops as freedom fighters. They are not doing it in the name of freedom. They are doing it for a sense of power and control."
And "W" is in Iraq for...???? a sense of power and control... maybe, perhaps? , do ya think? (HINT, HINT here's the answer Jed Clampet...black gold, Texas Tea) Believe me THEY think they are freedom fighters. And that's why 1000 of my fellow countrymen have made a trip in a C4 transport back stateside in a plastic bag.
"I'll concede this one. From what I read, he used the 45 minute claim 3 times shortly after the CIA told the Brits it was bogus. I don't know what to make of it. A lie? That's quite a strong accusation. Misinformation? Possibly."
Too bad...if you decide to commit to this type of action and aren't POSITIVE that your intelligence is accurate...back off. Unless of course you were going to go in anyway then it doesn't matter if your facts are straight or not. Personally, IMHO he was lying through his AWOL teeth.
"Listen, there's no need for a personal attack. I didn't do it to you and I'd appreciate it if you would not do it to me. K?
And I never said anything like "write it off" so please don't put words in my mouth. And it was STILL a war. It was the continuation of the 1st Gulf war. He violated the conditions of the cease fire. "
You support the man responsible for what most of the world considers an illegitmate action, a pre emptive strike. You and Bush and Rush and Coulter, etc, etc choose to call it a war. Most do not. Your choice. You do slough off the dead and maimed with your comment "innocent people get killed, it's sad" You want to take it personally, fine.. it is...I have no sympathy for your ilk anyways so what do I care.
"I don't see those people attacking the troops as freedom fighters. They are not doing it in the name of freedom. They are doing it for a sense of power and control."
And "W" is in Iraq for...???? a sense of power and control... maybe, perhaps? , do ya think? (HINT, HINT here's the answer Jed Clampet...black gold, Texas Tea) Believe me THEY think they are freedom fighters. And that's why 1000 of my fellow countrymen have made a trip in a C4 transport back stateside in a plastic bag.
Laura
DIS Legend
- Joined
- Aug 21, 1999
- Messages
- 11,476
Well, I haven't been reading much of this thread, but I wanted to reply to your post.
I don't care if someone tosses unsavory labels at Kerry. I don't feel it lowers the integrity of anyone's mesage; it merely depicts the venom/disdain/whatever that person feels towards Bush. But I'm sure there are Kerry supporters who feel the same as you do when people call Kerry names. I'm not one of them.
It's easy to mock people who have no legs to stand on.
So you don't like Kerry's supporters? You don't like their opinions? Big deal. Just because you don't agree with someone's statements doesn't mean they're parroting someone else's.
I just want to add about #3 that I could care less what Bush did to avoid Vietnam. I don't care what he did in the National Guard. I think his avoidance of overseas service shows wisdom. My own father avoided service in Vietnam every way he could. For a lot of voters, Bush's and Kerry's time spent in the service doesn't matter. I don't understand why it's so harped on by both sides. Vietnam is over. We have more pressing issues to discuss here.
Well, in my opinion, all politicians are liars. Kerry is no worse than most, I would say. I can't speak for anyone else's opinion. I don't know which inconsistencies you're referring to because I haven't read the whole thread. I do think you're generalizing, however. Bush hasn't been the most open and honest president we've ever had.
Well, again, you're generalizing. See my response to #3.
IMO, yes, Cleland's injuries having occurred in Vietnam do generate more respect from me than from a civilian who lost limbs. There are plenty of US soldiers who are coming home injured due to accidents. You can't know what might have happened to Cleland if he'd tossed the grenade at the right time.
I do want to ask one thing: Why is national security more important than people's jobs? Do you realize that people are out of work? Does national security matter more to them? This isn't a one-issue country. National security is indeed important but it isn't the only issue.
Sure, for the photo-op. But smear campaigns? Have you compared the Bush website to the Kerry website? One says "Kerry sucks" and the other says "Hi, I'm John Kerry".
Oh, and Bush has never lied about anything? There's even a whole book about it. http://www.bushlies.com/
Kerry's mistake is "fine - but"? What I don't understand is how this one mistaken memory affected the country as much as Bush's lies have.
Oh, puh-leeze. I can't stand this rationale. It's like saying we shouldn't give Bush any flak for the Iraq war because it "gives comfort to the enemy". Kerry spoke his mind and was absolutely right to do so. We were losing in Vietnam before Kerry set foot in the country.
Sorry, couldn't help myself. Let's see... Kerry shouldn't be president because you'd never heard of him before the campaign began? We should blame Kerry for voting for the war that Bush started? Kerry thought we should have gone to war, but not in the way that Bush did it. He's said so on numerous occasions. It's like Kerry said in the convention speech, not everything is as black-and-white as Bush and his blind supporters say it is.
Sorry again, but I really think it's funny when people believe drivel like this. Churchill had HITLER attacking other countries in Europe. Bush had Saddam Hussein MAYBE making weapons that MIGHT have been used against us. Churchill would have never invaded Iraq. That's so laughable.
So, um, what exactly did Bush do that was so great before HE became president?
I don't care if someone tosses unsavory labels at Kerry. I don't feel it lowers the integrity of anyone's mesage; it merely depicts the venom/disdain/whatever that person feels towards Bush. But I'm sure there are Kerry supporters who feel the same as you do when people call Kerry names. I'm not one of them.
It's easy to mock people who have no legs to stand on.
So you don't like Kerry's supporters? You don't like their opinions? Big deal. Just because you don't agree with someone's statements doesn't mean they're parroting someone else's.
I just want to add about #3 that I could care less what Bush did to avoid Vietnam. I don't care what he did in the National Guard. I think his avoidance of overseas service shows wisdom. My own father avoided service in Vietnam every way he could. For a lot of voters, Bush's and Kerry's time spent in the service doesn't matter. I don't understand why it's so harped on by both sides. Vietnam is over. We have more pressing issues to discuss here.
Well, in my opinion, all politicians are liars. Kerry is no worse than most, I would say. I can't speak for anyone else's opinion. I don't know which inconsistencies you're referring to because I haven't read the whole thread. I do think you're generalizing, however. Bush hasn't been the most open and honest president we've ever had.
Well, again, you're generalizing. See my response to #3.
IMO, yes, Cleland's injuries having occurred in Vietnam do generate more respect from me than from a civilian who lost limbs. There are plenty of US soldiers who are coming home injured due to accidents. You can't know what might have happened to Cleland if he'd tossed the grenade at the right time.
I do want to ask one thing: Why is national security more important than people's jobs? Do you realize that people are out of work? Does national security matter more to them? This isn't a one-issue country. National security is indeed important but it isn't the only issue.
Sure, for the photo-op. But smear campaigns? Have you compared the Bush website to the Kerry website? One says "Kerry sucks" and the other says "Hi, I'm John Kerry".
Oh, and Bush has never lied about anything? There's even a whole book about it. http://www.bushlies.com/
Kerry's mistake is "fine - but"? What I don't understand is how this one mistaken memory affected the country as much as Bush's lies have.
Oh, puh-leeze. I can't stand this rationale. It's like saying we shouldn't give Bush any flak for the Iraq war because it "gives comfort to the enemy". Kerry spoke his mind and was absolutely right to do so. We were losing in Vietnam before Kerry set foot in the country.
Sorry, couldn't help myself. Let's see... Kerry shouldn't be president because you'd never heard of him before the campaign began? We should blame Kerry for voting for the war that Bush started? Kerry thought we should have gone to war, but not in the way that Bush did it. He's said so on numerous occasions. It's like Kerry said in the convention speech, not everything is as black-and-white as Bush and his blind supporters say it is.Sorry again, but I really think it's funny when people believe drivel like this. Churchill had HITLER attacking other countries in Europe. Bush had Saddam Hussein MAYBE making weapons that MIGHT have been used against us. Churchill would have never invaded Iraq. That's so laughable.
So, um, what exactly did Bush do that was so great before HE became president?
BedKnobbery2
<font color=blue>Saucy Pants!<br><font color=red>W
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2002
- Messages
- 1,385
Roktsci, you've come into the political arena here on the dis a little late in the game, so you've likely missed a lot of the mud-slinging on either side of the fence. It's not a Kerry-supporter trait, as you assert, but comes from BOTH sides, equally as well, and contributes nothing to the arguement. But to assert it's a Kerry-supporter trait is ridiculous. So that dismisses that arguement.
Now, I could post a similarly lengthy diatribe on what Bush hasn't done for our economy; our national safety; our children; our healthcare situation and on and on. But it won't change your mind, you probably wouldn't even read it, so there is no point in bothering.
Unfortunately, our arguements here of late seemed to have degenerated into tossing back and forth what either man did or didn't do many, many years ago. Frankly, I'm more concerned with what they WILL do, and CAN do.
In my opinion, Kerry has demonstrated outstanding analytical skills--he looks at an issue from all sides, and makes a decision on what he believes will be the best outcome. If the factors change, he examines those as well. Now, many anti-Kerry folks like to call this flip-flopping, but I'd prefer a commander in chief who really, really looks at all the factors and bases a decision on that, and who isn't afraid to change his mind even if it is unpopular. Now, I know that the Bush supporters prefer someone who picks a course and sticks with it, come hell or high water. And that's their right to have that preference, I just happen to disagree that that is always the best action.
If you are really interested in what Kerry says he'll do, give this a read: http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/ . I realize you probably won't; I realize that many supporters on either side aren't really interested in the finer points of either sides plans, they just want their guy to win. That's fine. But understand that there are many of us who ARE pro-Kerry, and who DO understand what he'd like to do for America. Another option, if you are really interested in learning what Kerry stands for, is to sign up for his email list. Again, I understand you probably won't. But they send out daily emails, and they often discuss the issues that we don't seem to hear about elsewhere.
Regarding Cleland; well, obviously you didn't read my posts regarding the topic. But I'll tell you this: I don't care if he got his injuries from a farm thresher, a grenade, or walking across the street. I DO care that some people here see fit to accuse him of defining himself through his injuries, or of the Democratic party using him because of it. When I heard of Cleland's visit to Crawford, I heard it as Cleland's visit to Crawford. Apparently you heard it as "the gimp the dem's sent to Crawford". I prefer to believe that HE--as a man--decided and chose to do that, independent of his bodily condition.
Now, I could post a similarly lengthy diatribe on what Bush hasn't done for our economy; our national safety; our children; our healthcare situation and on and on. But it won't change your mind, you probably wouldn't even read it, so there is no point in bothering.
Unfortunately, our arguements here of late seemed to have degenerated into tossing back and forth what either man did or didn't do many, many years ago. Frankly, I'm more concerned with what they WILL do, and CAN do.
In my opinion, Kerry has demonstrated outstanding analytical skills--he looks at an issue from all sides, and makes a decision on what he believes will be the best outcome. If the factors change, he examines those as well. Now, many anti-Kerry folks like to call this flip-flopping, but I'd prefer a commander in chief who really, really looks at all the factors and bases a decision on that, and who isn't afraid to change his mind even if it is unpopular. Now, I know that the Bush supporters prefer someone who picks a course and sticks with it, come hell or high water. And that's their right to have that preference, I just happen to disagree that that is always the best action.
If you are really interested in what Kerry says he'll do, give this a read: http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/ . I realize you probably won't; I realize that many supporters on either side aren't really interested in the finer points of either sides plans, they just want their guy to win. That's fine. But understand that there are many of us who ARE pro-Kerry, and who DO understand what he'd like to do for America. Another option, if you are really interested in learning what Kerry stands for, is to sign up for his email list. Again, I understand you probably won't. But they send out daily emails, and they often discuss the issues that we don't seem to hear about elsewhere.
Regarding Cleland; well, obviously you didn't read my posts regarding the topic. But I'll tell you this: I don't care if he got his injuries from a farm thresher, a grenade, or walking across the street. I DO care that some people here see fit to accuse him of defining himself through his injuries, or of the Democratic party using him because of it. When I heard of Cleland's visit to Crawford, I heard it as Cleland's visit to Crawford. Apparently you heard it as "the gimp the dem's sent to Crawford". I prefer to believe that HE--as a man--decided and chose to do that, independent of his bodily condition.
Lebjwb,
I'm not going to go through every one of the questions that I addressed but I will address one and that was the whole point of Bush Lied about the WMD's. READ THE 9/11 REPORT!!!!! Plus there is no reason to be rude to me or anyone else just because I don't happen to agree with you! This board is about opinions some of my opinions were backed with facts and some were not. I tried to state which was the case eiither way.
I am Republican however I don't believe that the Republicans have alll the answers. I do believe there are some very good Democrats Joe Lieberman being one. I do my best to be objective and choose, in my opinion, the best man based on voteing records and behavior in the public forum. However, if you disagree with my choice or opinions and you wish to state so I welcome your comments, who knows you might turn me around. But if your going to be rude and call me names that accomplishes nothing. After all this board is suppose to be about Disney. From my early days of watching the Mickey Mouse Club I learned to be polite and respect others. I would encourage you in future post to be polite.
Thank You and Have a Magical Day!
Dan
I'm not going to go through every one of the questions that I addressed but I will address one and that was the whole point of Bush Lied about the WMD's. READ THE 9/11 REPORT!!!!! Plus there is no reason to be rude to me or anyone else just because I don't happen to agree with you! This board is about opinions some of my opinions were backed with facts and some were not. I tried to state which was the case eiither way.
I am Republican however I don't believe that the Republicans have alll the answers. I do believe there are some very good Democrats Joe Lieberman being one. I do my best to be objective and choose, in my opinion, the best man based on voteing records and behavior in the public forum. However, if you disagree with my choice or opinions and you wish to state so I welcome your comments, who knows you might turn me around. But if your going to be rude and call me names that accomplishes nothing. After all this board is suppose to be about Disney. From my early days of watching the Mickey Mouse Club I learned to be polite and respect others. I would encourage you in future post to be polite.
Thank You and Have a Magical Day!
Dan
If you haven't noticed, it's only because you didn't want to. Not far from your post at all is this...
"traitor like Kerry"
Kerry is often referred to as a traitor, a baby killer, a communist sympathizer, a liar, a coward...and much more.
Compare that to "shrub" and I don't think there's any contest.
No, we don't. We think he should be treated the same as anyone else. Bush supporters apparently think that because he's a triple amputee, he's not allowed to be involved politically and that the only reason anyone would choose to pick him to do something is because of his injuries.
Republicans judge him and define him by his amputee status, not Democrats.
That is sickening.
-
2025 Destination D23 Schedule Unveiled With No Disney Parks Panel
-
New Disney Loungefly The Nightmare Before Christmas Sally
-
Menus Revealed for 2025 Swan & Dolphin Food and Wine Classic
-
Disneyland Shares the FIRST LOOK at Oogie Boogie Bash Merch
-
4 Questions to Ask Before Picking a Disney Resort
-
Live Video Podcast: Disney 2025 Q3 Earnings, Imagineering Update & More
-
Disney Cruise Line to Exit Australia, Is This Why?
Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
