Bush's military record's... [Archive]

02-28-2004, 07:58 PM

You know we go back and forth on here about this and that. But I have to say I agree with Black01gt on this. I think the reason we are in such a fucked up situation right now is because we don't put prior military into the slots they need to be in.

If we would elect a President who had served in the Military then he would understand the sacrifices made by those before him, and those who are sacrificing right now. And no I do not mean the reserves, I know that we are calling up the reserves now, but they have not historically been deployed anywhere.

Bush's Immigration Plan, and plan to Eliminate Overtime are some of the biggest moves to eliminate the middle class, and reward big business we have ever seen.

The next thing would be my candidate, which would be McCain, I like a man who fucks up and admits he fucked up, his Military record speaks for itself, how many of these candidates now do you think could do a stint in the Hanoi Hilton without breaking?

Of course I think everyone who wants to hold an elected office should have served so I am biased.

ATX Stang

02-28-2004, 09:42 PM

even though this thread is about bushs military records and we see that he served i think, all discrimination aside, colin powell would make a good president. he's done his time in the military and did it well. he did say something about if he had known that there were not any weapons that he wouldnt have approved of our raid on iraq or somethin like that but he did say it was something that needed to be done. this country is just fine. we americans are spoiled. we shouldnt complain as much as we do. we need to quit looking at we dont have and what we have and compare it to the other countries in this world. we still kick ass regardless. yes there are a few things that are jacked up and do need to be corrected but either way we're way ahead of the game when it comes to most things. only an American would have come up with a Ford Mustang!

Fobra

02-28-2004, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by reef93gt

Bush's Immigration Plan, and plan to Eliminate Overtime are some of the biggest moves to eliminate the middle class, and reward big business we have ever seen.

Overtime may be eliminated in certain companies. However, with the influx of workers coming into the country the only way it makes economic sense to replace overtime is to replace overtime with a full time employee position. This is what is called "creating jobs." anybody who is working a job who is expecting their total income to be consistently based on overtime is like a person counting on a bonus every year. This doesn't happen on a consistent basis because it’s cheaper for a company at some point in time to hire another person than to pay overtime. Once again, this is called creating new jobs," normally speaking, companies pay employees overtime until such time they can justify hiring a new employee to offset overtime. This has been the process that creates more jobs for the middle class since the depression was over.

black01gt

02-28-2004, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by reef93gt
You know we go back and forth on here about this and that. But I have to say I agree with Black01gt on this. I think the reason we are in such a fucked up situation right now is because we don't put prior military into the slots they need to be in.

If we would elect a President who had served in the Military then he would understand the sacrifices made by those before him, and those who are sacrificing right now. And no I do not mean the reserves, I know that we are calling up the reserves now, but they have not historically been deployed anywhere.

Bush's Immigration Plan, and plan to Eliminate Overtime are some of the biggest moves to eliminate the middle class, and reward big business we have ever seen.

The next thing would be my candidate, which would be McCain, I like a man who fucks up and admits he fucked up, his Military record speaks for itself, how many of these candidates now do you think could do a stint in the Hanoi Hilton without breaking?

Of course I think everyone who wants to hold an elected office should have served so I am biased.
And once you eliminate the middle class you have a Arisocratic Nation, which is just great...for a few. I guess our "leaders" feel like if 3rd world countries can live like that, then so can the good ole USA.
The CONTEMPT of this administration has pretty much turned me into a "yellow dog democrat" indeed, but I would vote for someone as HONORABLE as John McCain in a heartbeat. If the country had leaders with his background, we would indeed have Leaders with conviction and courage that is actually concerned about yours and my neighborhood, instead of Big Stockholders and Corporations with the lawmakers in their pockets and some RICH PUNK as thier spokesmen.:mad:

black01gt

02-28-2004, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
black01gt...

I have been noticing a consistant trend with your posts about Bush and the Republicans, all of which have been negative. You can't even support your fledgeling logic with any facts. What do you stand for or believe in? Who is your candidate and why?
1) What the fuck is positive about Bush and His Fraternity party, unless you're one of the well connected chosen few?
2)I support my "fledgeling logic" (did you learn that from Rush?), with these here words you are currently reading. I did plenty of "term papers" and thesis 32 years ago in college and I ain't about to do research to appease some hard liner wannabe sitting in a dorm room.
3) I stand for honesty, integrity and courage among not just elected officials, but from every American toward each other. I believe in digging for the truth and not just going along with what I'm told to believe. If I did that I would still think that Lee Oswald killed Kennedy, because that's what the Gov't said happened.
4) My candidate is anyone but Dubya! Why? Because this counrty will NEVER recover if "they" get re-elected!
Sorry for the lack of facts here. Maybe you could think, instead of reading.

black01gt

02-28-2004, 10:52 PM

02-29-2004, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
Overtime may be eliminated in certain companies. However, with the influx of workers coming into the country the only way it makes economic sense to replace overtime is to replace overtime with a full time employee position. This is what is called "creating jobs." anybody who is working a job who is expecting their total income to be consistently based on overtime is like a person counting on a bonus every year. This doesn't happen on a consistent basis because it’s cheaper for a company at some point in time to hire another person than to pay overtime. Once again, this is called creating new jobs," normally speaking, companies pay employees overtime until such time they can justify hiring a new employee to offset overtime. This has been the process that creates more jobs for the middle class since the depression was over.

Read his plan, before you respond, His plan is to eliminate overtime for certain positions, which would make them work 40+ hours for thesame wage as <40 hours. This is not creating jobs, it is rewarding companies/employers for being inefficient. Overtime is only necessary for companies which are inefficient being that they do not correctly match their headcount with their production. OT is a result of them being inefficient, Bush is going to reward them, so that they DO NOT have to go out and get more people..put into retirement, benefit's etc. Why go get more people if you can pay the same person the same wage to work 40+? Tell me how this generates job's since this was your answer??????????????/

Vertnut

02-29-2004, 02:12 PM

Yes, as I have suspected, we have spotted a truly RARE animal...The Spotted DFW Liberal! They are rarely seen in the wild, but tend to be prolific in U.S. related threads. Black 01 GT is about the age of a Viet Nam vet. See any action? Any photos of you bangin' Hanoi Jane, or were you hangin' with Bill at Oxford when all the fighting was going on? Just curious...Oh, and Ted Williams was still the greatest hitter of the modern game...;)

black01gt

02-29-2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Vertnut
Yes, as I have suspected, we have spotted a truly RARE animal...The Spotted DFW Liberal! They are rarely seen in the wild, but tend to be prolific in U.S. related threads. Black 01 GT is about the age of a Viet Nam vet. See any action? Any photos of you bangin' Hanoi Jane, or were you hangin' with Bill at Oxford when all the fighting was going on? Just curious...Oh, and Ted Williams was still the greatest hitter of the modern game...;)
Thanks for the curiousity there Vert! No..as a matter of fact, I was hanging with my rich buddy GWB from Midland or Houston or Maine or, ah who the hell knows. Anyway, we had a blast laughing our asses off about all those poor bastards whose fathers weren't influencial politicians and had no choice but to go to Viet Nam and get their legs blown off or worse. My friend hid in the Texas National Guard, but only had to show up when he had nothing better to do, while all the fighting was going in Viet Nam. Why do you ask?
Yeah-Ted was great. And your point...?:cool:

Fobra

02-29-2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by reef93gt
Read his plan, before you respond, His plan is to eliminate overtime for certain positions, which would make them work 40+ hours for thesame wage as <40 hours. This is not creating jobs, it is rewarding companies/employers for being inefficient. Overtime is only necessary for companies which are inefficient being that they do not correctly match their headcount with their production. OT is a result of them being inefficient, Bush is going to reward them, so that they DO NOT have to go out and get more people..put into retirement, benefit's etc. Why go get more people if you can pay the same person the same wage to work 40+? Tell me how this generates job's since this was your answer??????????????/

I'm just saying that under normal circumstances that when most companies are having their employees work a significant amount of overtime, that they will in all probability bring in more workers so that they dont have to pay overtime. As an example, when when my dads company starts paying overtime to current workers then next the that happens is that they always bring back laid off workers or higher new workers so that they dont have to pay overtime. this is my point.

Fobra

02-29-2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by black01gt
1) What the fuck is positive about Bush and His Fraternity party, unless you're one of the well connected chosen few?
2)I support my "fledgeling logic" (did you learn that from Rush?), with these here words you are currently reading. I did plenty of "term papers" and thesis 32 years ago in college and I ain't about to do research to appease some hard liner wannabe sitting in a dorm room.
3) I stand for honesty, integrity and courage among not just elected officials, but from every American toward each other. I believe in digging for the truth and not just going along with what I'm told to believe. If I did that I would still think that Lee Oswald killed Kennedy, because that's what the Gov't said happened.
4) My candidate is anyone but Dubya! Why? Because this counrty will NEVER recover if "they" get re-elected!
Sorry for the lack of facts here. Maybe you could think, instead of reading.

Look, I'm not going to sit here and dignify all of your statements with a response. My advice to you is sit back, relax, and get ready for four more years of Bush. Just curious if you are going to vote for Nadar since he is running again because the remaining feeble liberal four will soon become non-events?

black01gt

02-29-2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
I'm just saying that under normal circumstances that when most companies are having their employees work a significant amount of overtime, that they will in all probability bring in more workers so that they dont have to pay overtime. As an example, when when my dads company starts paying overtime to current workers then next the that happens is that they always bring back laid off workers or higher new workers so that they dont have to pay overtime. this is my point.
When they are getting overtime work done and not having to pay for it, then..where is the incentive to bring back or add workers? Also the employer decides when the worker takes their comp-time, not the employee.

stung

02-29-2004, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by black01gt
When they are getting overtime work done and not having to pay for it, then..where is the incentive to bring back or add workers? Also the employer decides when the worker takes their comp-time, not the employee.

It seems to me that the current worker will have less of an incentive to work overtime thus creating a spot/need for the next guy to fill his, heretofore, overtime slot thus employing that next guy(who is prolly unemployed anyways).

If you're working OT just to get by that's one thing but if you're working OT to be able to afford a certain lifestyle then you're prolly living beyond your means and if you're the type that lives beyond your means it won't matter how much you make because you will always be the type to live beyond your means.

HookEm

02-29-2004, 11:00 PM

Class envy is pathetic.

Originally posted by black01gt
And once you eliminate the middle class you have a Arisocratic Nation, which is just great...for a few. I guess our "leaders" feel like if 3rd world countries can live like that, then so can the good ole USA.
The CONTEMPT of this administration has pretty much turned me into a "yellow dog democrat" indeed, but I would vote for someone as HONORABLE as John McCain in a heartbeat. If the country had leaders with his background, we would indeed have Leaders with conviction and courage that is actually concerned about yours and my neighborhood, instead of Big Stockholders and Corporations with the lawmakers in their pockets and some RICH PUNK as thier spokesmen.:mad:

03-01-2004, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
I'm just saying that under normal circumstances that when most companies are having their employees work a significant amount of overtime, that they will in all probability bring in more workers so that they dont have to pay overtime. As an example, when when my dads company starts paying overtime to current workers then next the that happens is that they always bring back laid off workers or higher new workers so that they dont have to pay overtime. this is my point.

That's how it works now, however the OT Plan will make certain workers salary, in which case they can work them as much as they want. This plan will change the rules as we know them. I think it is up to a company to decide what position is Salary and the Employee to accept that position, so why is the govt. involved?

black01gt

03-01-2004, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by stung
It seems to me that the current worker will have less of an incentive to work overtime thus creating a spot/need for the next guy to fill his, heretofore, overtime slot thus employing that next guy(who is prolly unemployed anyways).

If you're working OT just to get by that's one thing but if you're working OT to be able to afford a certain lifestyle then you're prolly living beyond your means and if you're the type that lives beyond your means it won't matter how much you make because you will always be the type to live beyond your means.

yeah...OK!?

black01gt

03-01-2004, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by HookEm
Class envy is pathetic.
Not near as pathetic as Pompass assholes like you tho. Who holds the "comfort" money for you? You or your daddy?
How's the weather there in Austin?

Fobra

03-01-2004, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by black01gt
yeah...OK!?

black01gt

03-02-2004, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
Look, I'm not going to sit here and dignify all of your statements with a response. My advice to you is sit back, relax, and get ready for four more years of Bush. Just curious if you are going to vote for Nadar since he is running again because the remaining feeble liberal four will soon become non-events?
Thanks anyway, but I don't need your advice.
No...I'm not. ;)

Waddell72

03-02-2004, 09:36 PM

Well the economy is having a jobless recovery, this means that someone isn't working. Could they be some of my friends, maybe you, who is to blame? Everyday our national debts go up, our troops are being killed and we were lied to originally when we went into Iraq. President Bush does not have any ground to stand on with his military service compared to Kerry who has 3 purple hearts, 1 bronze star and could have had his father get him out of Vietnam duty also. The current Vice President has his hands so deep in the pockets of the special interest groups that he is all about the money and oh by the way it is not coming our way.
I teach school now and served 9 years in the Army as an infantryman and then on tanks. I saw action in Desert Storm when I was 18 and have no problem with anyone who has served marching in protest against what they believe is wrong, they have earned that right. Also the picture of Jane Fonda near Kerry at a peace rally is just that a picture in which he is about 3 rows behind her and 5 people over. To conclude they marched together is not correct. If you truely believe in the democracy we live in, I, my father and grand fathers before him have all fought for then you must allow others their freedoms. Even if those freedoms are opposite of yours and anger you.

black01gt

03-03-2004, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by Waddell72
Well the economy is having a jobless recovery, this means that someone isn't working. Could they be some of my friends, maybe you, who is to blame? Everyday our national debts go up, our troops are being killed and we were lied to originally when we went into Iraq. President Bush does not have any ground to stand on with his military service compared to Kerry who has 3 purple hearts, 1 bronze star and could have had his father get him out of Vietnam duty also. The current Vice President has his hands so deep in the pockets of the special interest groups that he is all about the money and oh by the way it is not coming our way.
I teach school now and served 9 years in the Army as an infantryman and then on tanks. I saw action in Desert Storm when I was 18 and have no problem with anyone who has served marching in protest against what they believe is wrong, they have earned that right. Also the picture of Jane Fonda near Kerry at a peace rally is just that a picture in which he is about 3 rows behind her and 5 people over. To conclude they marched together is not correct. If you truely believe in the democracy we live in, I, my father and grand fathers before him have all fought for then you must allow others their freedoms. Even if those freedoms are opposite of yours and anger you.
Experienced, Educated, and Enlightened!:cool:

The Punisher

03-04-2004, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Waddell72
Well the economy is having a jobless recovery, this means that someone isn't working. Could they be some of my friends, maybe you, who is to blame?
So who is to blame? Sounds like you want to blame somebody..
Originally posted by Waddell72

Everyday our national debts go up, our troops are being killed
Freedom comes with a price. What exactly did you expect if you enroll in the military?
Originally posted by Waddell72

and we were lied to originally when we went into Iraq.
If your going to say Bush lied, wouldnt it only be fair that Kerry lied, Clinton lied, Al Gore lied, Wesley Clark lied, and every other person in the government/CIA that made a miscall lied? They all said Sadaam had WMDs.
Originally posted by Waddell72

President Bush does not have any ground to stand on with his military service compared to Kerry who has 3 purple hearts,
That he took somebody elses medals and threw them over a fence to protest the war. Yea, lot of respect there.:rolleyes: Then tons of vietnam vets are protesting Kerry about him lieing about what really went on in vietnam. I respect him for serving his country, but not for his views or how he handled himself when he got back.
Originally posted by Waddell72

Also the picture of Jane Fonda near Kerry at a peace rally is just that a picture in which he is about 3 rows behind her and 5 people over. To conclude they marched together is not correct.
Then what is? Didnt they give a speach a the same anti-war rally? Birds of the feather flock together. Good ol' wise saying.
Originally posted by Waddell72

If you truely believe in the democracy we live in, I, my father and grand fathers before him have all fought for then you must allow others their freedoms. Even if those freedoms are opposite of yours and anger you. So has my father, Grandfather, uncle, great uncle, and so on.... So what?:rolleyes: You can have all the freedom of protesting all you want, but everyone dosent have to agree with you either.

01WhiteCobra

03-04-2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by 281R
Then what is? Didnt they give a speach a the same anti-war rally? Birds of the feather flock together. Good ol' wise saying.

Don't make me pull out the picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands...

The Punisher

03-04-2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Don't make me pull out the picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands... So Rumsfeld and Saddam are in the same boat? Maybe you can show me the picture of them sitting in a Bush rally together also;) Shaking hands and rallying together is a little different, ya think.

01WhiteCobra

03-04-2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by 281R
So Rumsfeld and Saddam are in the same boat? Maybe you can show me the picture of them sitting in a Bush rally together also;) Shaking hands and rallying together is a little different, ya think.

Being at an event supporting a common cause (and 3 rows back at that!) denotes a possible common interest but does not denote ALL common interests in a matter.

I can agree with someone and support that person in this agreement without fully taking their side.

Now, a handshake can also denote the start of a relationship, I don't know, like allowing US companies to send precursors and equipment for chemical warfare.

Point being a photo taken decades ago doesn't mean squat.

At least pick up some current key issues to slam Kerry on (there are many)

The Punisher

03-04-2004, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

Now, a handshake can also denote the start of a relationship, I don't know, like allowing US companies to send precursors and equipment for chemical warfare. Do you have an article on it?

The Punisher

03-04-2004, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Being at an event supporting a common cause (and 3 rows back at that!) denotes a possible common interest but does not denote ALL common interests in a matter.

I can agree with someone and support that person in this agreement without fully taking their side.

Now, a handshake can also denote the start of a relationship, I don't know, like allowing US companies to send precursors and equipment for chemical warfare.

Point being a photo taken decades ago doesn't mean squat.

At least pick up some current key issues to slam Kerry on (there are many) Birds of the feather shake hands together?:confused: :D
Your right there are a lot of current issues it seems Kerry can take a stand on, so I'll just give his voters a quarter (we'lll wait, thats too much) ok a pennie and they can flip it to see how he will vote and stand on issues:D

01WhiteCobra

03-04-2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by 281R
Do you have an article on it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

01WhiteCobra

03-04-2004, 03:51 PM

And if you want to take the "If Clinton would have done something, Gulf War II wouldn't have happened" argument back a couple of decades...

If Reagan didn't remove Iraq from the State's Department list of terrorist nations in 1982 (over congressional objections), Saddam would have had his ass kicked over 20 years ago.

We wouldn't have had to worry about Gulf War I or Gulf War II.

But, he was strategic in 1982 (remember, it ain't about oil).

01WhiteCobra

03-04-2004, 03:53 PM

In November of 1984, full diplomatic relations with Iraq were restored by the US. This was 6 or so months after it said that Iraq was guilty of breaking the Geneva accords by the use of chemical weapons against Iran.

Fobra

03-04-2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Don't make me pull out the picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands...

you love playing devils advocate dont you?

01WhiteCobra

03-04-2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
you love playing devils advocate dont you?

No, just leveling the playing field.

Photos taking decades ago don't mean squat to the U.S. today.

Policies from decades ago don't mean squat to the U.S. today.

If you want to pick Kerry apart, there is plenty current crap to bring up. Let's not make this an election of who did what during 60s and 70s.

Kerry volunteered, Bush did as well. Kerry knew where he was going after he volunteered. Bush prayed he wasn't going to the same place.

That is all. Bring some current crap up.

The Punisher

03-04-2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
No, just leveling the playing field.

Photos taking decades ago don't mean squat to the U.S. today.

Policies from decades ago don't mean squat to the U.S. today.

If you want to pick Kerry apart, there is plenty current crap to bring up. Let's not make this an election of who did what during 60s and 70s.

Kerry volunteered, Bush did as well. Kerry knew where he was going after he volunteered. Bush prayed he wasn't going to the same place.

That is all. Bring some current crap up. My responce was to Waddell72 that was bring up stuff way from the past saying bush's military record didnt mean crap which is a very, very cheap shot. Anyways;)

01WhiteCobra

03-04-2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by 281R
My responce was to Waddell72 that was bring up stuff way from the past saying bush's military record didnt mean crap which is a very, very cheap shot. Anyways;)

It's all crap.

I'm not voting in the primaries this year so I can sign on independent's petitions. I don't think they have a chance in heck to win, but, hopefully they'll get enough votes to shake up those elected.

I think both parties have left the middle to fend for themselves. The country is primed for a third party, although I don't think you could get those in the middle to agree on enough to actually put forth a concerted effort. Sort of like the Liberterian party. I saw a Liberterian's election website today that had two links, one to the Liberterian Party's website and another to a "Paypal Donate" link. Jeesh.

Oh well, concentrating on my little neck of the woods at the moment. Shakin' it up. It's fun.

03-04-2004, 08:27 PM

[i]Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Photos taking decades ago don't mean squat to the U.S. today.

If you want to pick Kerry apart, there is plenty current crap to bring up. Let's not make this an election of who did what during 60s and 70s.

Kerry volunteered, Bush did as well. Kerry knew where he was going after he volunteered. Bush prayed he wasn't going to the same place.

. [/B]

I think that alot of Vietnam Vets would think differently of that, in that picture, Kerry is there with Hanoi Jane the woman who is responsible for the deaths of several Hanoi Hilton Prisoners after she turned over their information to the Vietnamese who were keeping them prisoner.

Men don't change, whoever you are stays with you regardless of how deep you try to hide it.

Fobra

03-04-2004, 08:33 PM

Waddell72

03-04-2004, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by 281R
So who is to blame? Sounds like you want to blame somebody..
Freedom comes with a price. What exactly did you expect if you enroll in the military?
If your going to say Bush lied, wouldnt it only be fair that Kerry lied, Clinton lied, Al Gore lied, Wesley Clark lied, and every other person in the government/CIA that made a miscall lied? They all said Sadaam had WMDs.
That he took somebody elses medals and threw them over a fence to protest the war. Yea, lot of respect there.:rolleyes: Then tons of vietnam vets are protesting Kerry about him lieing about what really went on in vietnam. I respect him for serving his country, but not for his views or how he handled himself when he got back.
Then what is? Didnt they give a speach a the same anti-war rally? Birds of the feather flock together. Good ol' wise saying.
So has my father, Grandfather, uncle, great uncle, and so on.... So what?:rolleyes: You can have all the freedom of protesting all you want, but everyone dosent have to agree with you either.

How many friends that served with you have you buried or visited while they were recovering from wounds this past year. I have buried 2 and visited 5, I had served for 9 years how about you? I can throw my medals over any fence if I want to and speak in the presence of anyone and not be anything like them. I am speaking in your presence right now and we're not alike.
Those who have never served have little idea what it is like to be placed in harms way for no good reason, to eat very little, march long distances, jump from planes in the dark, pull guard duty on foriegn soil guarding people whom would rather see you dead.
Then there is always some ass who would have the gull to say "What exactly did you expect when you enrolled in the military". Well get this weirdo boy, men and women don't enroll in the military it isn't college it's the military they volunteer. As for what they expected, I am sure it was not to be lied to by any faction of the Government run by the current administration. Just as troops have a duty to fight wars the goverment has a duty to insure they have all there shit straight before the body count hits 500 and no one finds any WMD. I agreed with Desert Storm and had no problem going in over there when I was 18. I think this war/conflict is really going the wrong way.
So yeah I want someone to blame for my friend who left two little girls behind and a broken hearted wife who now has a silver star and a folded flag to remember him by. I am looking for someone to blame about the friend of mine who ran in the Boston Marathon two years ago and now is missing his left leg. I'll stop there it doesn't get any better.
I'm not saying Kerry is the best but he's gotta be better than what we have in the White House now. If not at least it's different and he's got the scars to at least better understand what it means to be a real soldier/sailor.

jyro

03-05-2004, 12:14 AM

having to fight here, or THERE.
I feel like Kerry would bring the fighting over here.

The Punisher

03-05-2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Waddell72
How many friends that served with you have you buried or visited while they were recovering from wounds this past year. I havent had any that have been buried. But have had several that have served and one that cought a bad disease from over there. But none of them wine and complain about it, infact two of them my friends Jonathan and Adam want to go back over to help out because they believe so strongly about freedoms we need to protect.
Originally posted by Waddell72

I have buried 2 and visited 5, I had served for 9 years how about you? I can throw my medals over any fence if I want to and speak in the presence of anyone and not be anything like them. I am speaking in your presence right now and we're not alike.
Well yea, no two people are alike.... But we are both Americans.
Originally posted by Waddell72

Those who have never served have little idea what it is like to be placed in harms way for no good reason,
This is your opinion, so I guess freeing Iraq from the rape rooms, torcher rooms, and mass grave yards is no good reason?
Originally posted by Waddell72

Then there is always some ass who would have the gull to say "What exactly did you expect when you enrolled in the military". Well get this weirdo boy, men and women don't enroll in the military it isn't college it's the military they volunteer.
Weirdo boy? oh I see, we are going to start the name calling already? huh....
Originally posted by Waddell72

As for what they expected, I am sure it was not to be lied to by any faction of the Government run by the current administration.
You never answered my question? what about the previous administration? and including your John Kerry, did they lie?
Originally posted by Waddell72

Just as troops have a duty to fight wars the goverment has a duty to insure they have all there shit straight before the body count hits 500 and no one finds any WMD.
Well, if you are planning on voting on John Kerry, I dont know how this problem is going to fixed. With John Kerry's voting record to cut the CIA, downsize the military, vote against most of our military weapons we have today. Yea voting on this guy will really help.
Originally posted by Waddell72

I agreed with Desert Storm and had no problem going in over there when I was 18. I think this war/conflict is really going the wrong way.
So yeah I want someone to blame for my friend who left two little girls behind and a broken hearted wife who now has a silver star and a folded flag to remember him by. I am looking for someone to blame about the friend of mine who ran in the Boston Marathon two years ago and now is missing his left leg. I'll stop there it doesn't get any better.
Then blame the ones who actually did the killing!
Originally posted by Waddell72

I'm not saying Kerry is the best but he's gotta be better than what we have in the White House now. If not at least it's different and he's got the scars to at least better understand what it means to be a real soldier/sailor. Right??? So what exactly is Kerry going to do to protect our nation?? oh, wait, I forgot... He served in Vietnam and that qualifies him to protect our nation even though his voting record is considered different:rolleyes:

Waddell72

03-05-2004, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by jyro
having to fight here, or THERE.
I feel like Kerry would bring the fighting over here.

We are in a dissidence over that idea. By all means surprise with how you came to that conclusion, please.

jyro

03-06-2004, 10:17 AM

Bush stated:
Vowing to take unilateral action against perceived
threats, the Bush administration pledged to protect
the United States and its interests abroad "by
identifying and destroying the threat before it
reaches our borders."

"While the United States will constantly strive to
enlist the support of the international community, we
will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to
exercise our right of self-defense by acting
preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them
from doing harm against our people and our country....

Kerrys record:
Sen. Kerry Voted Against B-1 Bomber
Sen. Kerry Voted Against B-2 Stealth Bomber
Sen. Kerry Voted Against F-14
Sen. Kerry Voted Against F-15
Sen. Kerry Voted Against F-16
Sen. Kerry Voted Against AV-8B Harrier
Sen. Kerry Voted Against AH-64 Apache Helicopters
Sen. Kerry Voted Against Patriot Missiles
Sen. Kerry Voted Against Aegis Air Defense Cruiser
Sen. Kerry Voted Against Trident Missile System
Sen. Kerry Voted Against M-1 Abrams Tanks
Sen. Kerry Voted Against Bradley Fighting Vehicle
Sen. Kerry Voted Against Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Kerry limited the funds available for radars, missile interceptors
In 1994, A year after the first attack on the World Trade Center,Kerry voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities.
In 1995, Kerry proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding.

Statements by Kerry on Defense

"I'd like to see our troops dispersed throughout the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
Kerry said he'd like "to almost eliminate CIA activity."
In 1994, A year after the first attack on the World Trade Center,Kerry voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities.
In 1995, Kerry proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding.

Who would you rather have defending your family and the USA?

black01gt

03-07-2004, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by jyro

Kerrys record:

In 1995, Kerry proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding.

Who would you rather have defending your family and the USA?
Oh..so that's why we got such bad intelligence going into Iraq!? Or was it bad?
Who would you rather have defending your major corporations and overseas jobs?

The Punisher

03-07-2004, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by black01gt
Oh..so that's why we got such bad intelligence going into Iraq!?
Did he point the finger at Kerry? NO! But if Kerry had his way on everything being on the wrong side of the fence we would be in a world of hurt.

Originally posted by black01gt

Who would you rather have defending your major corporations and overseas jobs? Right...... You think Kerry would make a difference???? :rolleyes: I'm sure Kerry would promise you a life without hardship if you would just vote for him. Lets see it happen. Large corporations sending jobs over seas is inevitable no matter who is elected, unless you want to turn the country over to communism:rolleyes:

03-08-2004, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by 281R
Large corporations sending jobs over seas is inevitable no matter who is elected, unless you want to turn the country over to communism:rolleyes:

I think someone should get rid of the NAFTA agreement and tax the hell out of imports, that would give an incentive to put jobs back in the US....oh if only we could get a president who would do that.

Waddell72

03-09-2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by jyro
Bush stated:
Vowing to take unilateral action against perceived
threats, the Bush administration pledged to protect
the United States and its interests abroad "by
identifying and destroying the threat before it
reaches our borders."

"While the United States will constantly strive to
enlist the support of the international community, we
will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to
exercise our right of self-defense by acting
preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them
from doing harm against our people and our country....

Kerrys record:
Sen. Kerry Voted Against B-1 Bomber
Sen. Kerry Voted Against B-2 Stealth Bomber
Sen. Kerry Voted Against F-14
Sen. Kerry Voted Against F-15
Sen. Kerry Voted Against F-16
Sen. Kerry Voted Against AV-8B Harrier
Sen. Kerry Voted Against AH-64 Apache Helicopters
Sen. Kerry Voted Against Patriot Missiles
Sen. Kerry Voted Against Aegis Air Defense Cruiser
Sen. Kerry Voted Against Trident Missile System
Sen. Kerry Voted Against M-1 Abrams Tanks
Sen. Kerry Voted Against Bradley Fighting Vehicle
Sen. Kerry Voted Against Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Kerry limited the funds available for radars, missile interceptors
In 1994, A year after the first attack on the World Trade Center,Kerry voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities.
In 1995, Kerry proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding.

Statements by Kerry on Defense

"I'd like to see our troops dispersed throughout the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
Kerry said he'd like "to almost eliminate CIA activity."
In 1994, A year after the first attack on the World Trade Center,Kerry voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities.
In 1995, Kerry proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding.

Who would you rather have defending your family and the USA?

Someone who at least understands what being a soldier and citizen is all about. We have more of a threat from the Afgahnistan area than we do Iraq.

I can understand a concern with Kerry's past record but I doubt any Presidential Administration regardless of party will drop the ball in the intelligence field anytime soon. Bush has made mistakes and so has Kerry. You left out the fact that many military projects voted on have billions spent in Research and Development only to be scrapped. The latest such weapon was the Commanche helicopter it was just scrapped to the cost of 12.2 billion dollars gone.

So sometimes when a person votes against a weapon system it is because they have an understanding of how other developments have failed to make it past the R&D sector.

I was in the in military during the George H. Bush administrtation and witnessed personally the down sizing of the services across the board. They showed us videos talking about no more Task Force Smith. That was the Task Force the was sent to Korea and was un-prepared due to the fast scale down following WW II and these videos said they were going to go about it different. Well many good Officers and Senior NCOs were forced from the ranks in the early 90 based off ideas filtered straight from D.C.. We lost a lot of our experienced soldiers and it was the Republican Party that spearheaded it. Then the Democrats went from there. Any attempt to argue politics is seemingly arbitrary, anyone whom is astute in politics knows that both parties ride the middle and say what you want to hear for the votes.

In the end we hold truely different points of view

The Punisher

03-09-2004, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Waddell72
Someone who at least understands what being a soldier and citizen is all about. We have more of a threat from the Afgahnistan area than we do Iraq.
Im sure we thought the same thing about Germany and it's partners in crime untill we got bombed at Pearl Harbor:rolleyes:

The Punisher

03-09-2004, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Waddell72

I can understand a concern with Kerry's past record but I doubt any Presidential Administration regardless of party will drop the ball in the intelligence field anytime soon. Kerry proposed a 1.5 Billion dollar cut in the CIA 2 years after the first Trade center bombing... isnt that kinda soon?

Waddell72

03-09-2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by 281R
Kerry proposed a 1.5 Billion dollar cut in the CIA 2 years after the first Trade center bombing... isnt that kinda soon?

In the end, debating politics when two sides are so equally divided as we two are, is like trying to wipe your butt by reaching over your shoulder, just not worth the effort. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine no matter how we complain about Bush or Kerry.

The Punisher

03-09-2004, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Waddell72
In the end, debating politics when two sides are so equally divided as we two are, is like trying to wipe your butt by reaching over your shoulder, just not worth the effort. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine no matter how we complain about Bush or Kerry. but do you not see the flip flopping and the irony? I dont care if you dont like Bush.. But are you going to really vote for a candidate that flip flops and has a very, very shaddy record?

I can ask Kerry voters all day what will Kerry do different than Bush and they cant even give me clarity on what he will do because he cant take a stand on anything. All I hear is "well he served in Vietnam and blah, blah, blah" and respectfully that is great he served his country, but what is that going to do for us in the war against terriorism? especially when he cant take a stand on the issues

01WhiteCobra

03-09-2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by 281R
but do you not see the flip flopping and the irony? I dont care if you dont like Bush.. But are you going to really vote for a candidate that flip flops and has a very, very shaddy record?

He is in freakin' Congress. Show me ONE person I can't label a flip-flopper in Congress, that is worthy of running for President.

There is a reason why we always seem to elect Govenors in Presidential elections.

The Punisher

03-09-2004, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
He is in freakin' Congress. Show me ONE person I can't label a flip-flopper in Congress, that is worthy of running for President.

There is a reason why we always seem to elect Govenors in Presidential elections. as are we hypocrites, but come on... He is a senator and is flip flopping during his campaign. At least if your going to flip flop dont do it during the election time

Fobra

03-09-2004, 07:12 PM

what about zel miller? does he flip flop? liberman? delay? these three guys seem to be very strong on their positions.:)

01WhiteCobra

03-09-2004, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
what about zel miller? does he flip flop? liberman? delay? these three guys seem to be very strong on their positions.:)

They all flip-flop. Not because they want to, but because they have to.

When we make a law that says when a bill is presented before Congress, NO amendments to said bill can be made, then we won't have as much flip-flopping.

It's politicin'.

Fobra

03-09-2004, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
They all flip-flop. Not because they want to, but because they have to.

When we make a law that says when a bill is presented before Congress, NO amendments to said bill can be made, then we won't have as much flip-flopping.

It's politicin'.

:o i see now, i guess it would come down to who "flip flops" more consistantly?

01WhiteCobra

03-09-2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
:o i see now, i guess it would come down to who "flip flops" more consistantly?

Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

• Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

• Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

• Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

• Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

• Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

• Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

• Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

• Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

• Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

• Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

• Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.

• Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

• Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

• Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

• Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

• Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

• Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

• Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the U.S. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

• The Clinton administration used to say it had "moved millions from welfare to work," to which Bush could add, "We've made that journey round trip.

black01gt

03-09-2004, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
No, just leveling the playing field.

Photos taking decades ago don't mean squat to the U.S. today.

Policies from decades ago don't mean squat to the U.S. today.

If you want to pick Kerry apart, there is plenty current crap to bring up. Let's not make this an election of who did what during 60s and 70s.

Kerry volunteered, Bush did as well. Kerry knew where he was going after he volunteered. Bush prayed he wasn't going to the same place.

That is all. Bring some current crap up.
Bush prayed to his daddy, and his prayers were answered. Can I get an AMEN!

black01gt

03-09-2004, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

• Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

• Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

• Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

• Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

• Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

• Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

• Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

• Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

• Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

• Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

• Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.

• Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

• Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

• Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

• Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

• Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

• Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

• Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the U.S. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

• The Clinton administration used to say it had "moved millions from welfare to work," to which Bush could add, "We've made that journey round trip.
BRAVO, WhiteCobra, BRAVO!!!
oh yeah, one more-Bush recruits Sammy Sosa for the Rangers, then trades him.

Waddell72

03-10-2004, 09:32 AM

So it is pretty safe to say we're basically screwed on this next election. We are not sure where Kerry will go if elected but afraid Bush will continue to seemingly ignore the economy, attack foreign nations that get our friends (troops) killed. So we'll find out come election day who will win, hope it doesn't end in Florida again. That state make the whole election process look like some pre-school run crap, hanging chads and all.

The Punisher

03-10-2004, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
Opinion. Did he vote against it? :) or where is your proof?
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Very opinionated. Proof? other than a left wing biased article?

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Media's opinion. Did Bush ever come out and say he was strongly against it?

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
??????? Our nation? To which are you referring this statement to?

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

He has always been against deficits, but it dosent mean our government shouldnt spend money. I dont agree with all that he spends money on in domestic issues, but I do agree that money has to be spent on our troops during war. Which isnt that Kerry that voted against? What? not help our troops?
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
where is your article stateing his flip flopping by counter statements or other info other than the media's opinion?

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
I'd have to do more research on this one...

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
proof?
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't. proof?

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
proof?
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. proof?
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island. proof?

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding. proof?

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will proof?

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

• Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have. ????? article?
Yahhhhnnn, ok, getting tired. But do you have any hard core proof on any of these other than just quoting all these so called facts:rolleyes: Yea right... Biased wanna-be facts.... off of Bluebuss.org? Im not saying Bush is perfect, but most of these statements are biased off the chart flip flops.

The Punisher

03-10-2004, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by black01gt
BRAVO, 01WhiteCobra, BRAVO!!!
oh yeah, one more-Bush recruits Sammy Sosa for the Rangers, then trades him. BRAVO!!! YEA.... BRAVO....!!!!!! whitecobra posted up some biased disputable flip flops off of Bluebuss.org, but yet it dosent help your case with Kerry any:rolleyes:
YEAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!:rolleyes:

The Punisher

03-10-2004, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Waddell72
Bush will continue to seemingly ignore the economy, attack foreign nations that get our friends (troops) killed. Thats your biased opinion, but I guess what we did in WW2 was bad too huh? attacking foreign nations:rolleyes:

01WhiteCobra

03-10-2004, 11:38 AM

281R, you don't get out much, eh?

None of this is opinion.

9/11 Commission Flip Flop:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/24/attack/main523156.shtml

On Bin Laden:
9/13/2001 Bush says, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"

3/13/2002 Bush says, "I don't know where he is. . . I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. . . I truly am not that concerned about him."

I'll add one more to here, now that it is an election year... I'm sure it is, "Oh shit, it's an election, LETS FIND HIM QUICK!"

Gay Marriage:
During Bush's campaign in 2000, on Larry King
BUSH: It doesn't matter. Let's talk about that issue. Each person needs to be judged with their heart and soul. I don't ask the question what somebody's sexual orientation is. I don't ask the question.

KING: So if you have gays working for you, that's fine. And you don't have a problem. You'd appoint gays in the Cabinet, et cetera.

BUSH: Well, I'm not going to ask what their sexual orientation is.

KING: Oh, so you wouldn't know.

BUSH: I'm going to appoint conservative people in the Cabinet. It's none of my business what somebody's -- now when somebody makes it my business, like on gay marriage, I'm going to stand up and say I don't support gay marriage. I support marriage between men and women. KING: So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?

BUSH: The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into.

KING: You just did. You have an opinion.

Now, he wants to federalize a ban on gay marriage.

281R, that is a few of the flip-flops with supporting documentation. Do you want me to continue and do the research for you?

Being an informed voter is very important. If you want me to continue research you should be doing, I'll be more than glad to help.

01WhiteCobra

03-10-2004, 11:54 AM

Oh yea, the easy one. Bob Jones University.

"I did denounce it. I de-I denounced it. I denounced interracial dating. I denounced anti-Catholic bigacy... bigotry."
- George Bush in Virginia 2/25/2000

The Punisher

03-10-2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
281R, you don't get out much, eh?
I try to :)
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

None of this is opinion. Yes it is... :)
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

9/11 Commission Flip Flop:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/24/attack/main523156.shtml Here is what he said

"Mr. Bush had opposed a commission, saying it would tie up officials waging the war on terror -- and endanger U.S. secrets. "

And that is a true statement of how he feels, but leader ship is more than about how Bush feels, its doing what is right and what the people of America want. Read on....

"Meanwhile, after meeting behind closed doors since June, the congressional committees held their third consecutive day of open hearings and more intelligence lapses are being uncovered."

Sounds like he was pretty much forced to.
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

On Bin Laden:
9/13/2001 Bush says, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"

3/13/2002 Bush says, "I don't know where he is. . . I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. . . I truly am not that concerned about him."

How is this a political flip flop, George Bush has a lot on his plate, but his policy hasnt changed and we are still looking for him. Its not like he said, o'well, screw OBL, lets pull the troops out of Afganistan.
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

Gay Marriage:
During Bush's campaign in 2000, on Larry King
BUSH: It doesn't matter. Let's talk about that issue. Each person needs to be judged with their heart and soul. I don't ask the question what somebody's sexual orientation is. I don't ask the question.

KING: So if you have gays working for you, that's fine. And you don't have a problem. You'd appoint gays in the Cabinet, et cetera.

BUSH: Well, I'm not going to ask what their sexual orientation is.

KING: Oh, so you wouldn't know.

BUSH: I'm going to appoint conservative people in the Cabinet. It's none of my business what somebody's -- now when somebody makes it my business, like on gay marriage, I'm going to stand up and say I don't support gay marriage. I support marriage between men and women. KING: So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?

BUSH: The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into.

KING: You just did. You have an opinion.

Now, he wants to federalize a ban on gay marriage.

I dont see this as a flip flop, at the time and I am sure he would rather leave it to the state, but when mayors and courts start overstepping their ground to make up law like in California, it is time for somebody to put their foot down.
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

281R, that is a few of the flip-flops with supporting documentation. Do you want me to continue and do the research for you?
Yes please, but I wanted to see that you did research the post above and did see both sides of the story other than quoteing an anti-bush website.

Waddell72

03-10-2004, 02:05 PM

Politics and Religion, let us look at how they are wrapped up together right now.

The gay issue stems from religion and politics be mingled together. I don't care about gay marriage it doesn't change my vowels or make them any less holly. Why should I give a shit if two guys get married they can say they are married act like girls but no one will except them as a true holly union so why bother. At this point just wish it would get dropped.

If you look over the course of history anytime a movement has been made and no one had a set in stone reason to deny that group of their wants and they got it.

People were just as opposed to civil rights in the 60's, labor rights in the early 20th century, ending slavery in the 1850's, tarriffs in 1770's that led to a revolution. Hell we even have a show called queer eye for the straight guy and a most popular TV show called Will and Grace which is funny I might add. So you can go ahead and brace yourself for the coming idea that gays will be allowed to be married. LIke it or not. My father and I were sure they would never allow gays in the military openly but while I was a Sergeant at Ft. Hood, TX Clinton came up with the don't ask don't tell policy.

Politicians sway like willow branches in the wind, especially when they are under the influence of a large check book held by one of the many special interest groups squatting on capitol hill.

Vote for Kerry or vote for Bush it matters not in the end the power is not in the majority of those who vote but those who get the candidates to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Bush is not an idiot but he is very far from being an even ok President given some of the great ones we have had. His father was good, Clinton was better aside from he couldn't control his personal life Reagan was great as was LBJ, FDR, JFK heck Nixon was better than George W. by far.

Paladin

03-10-2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

• Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

• Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

• Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

• Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

• Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

• Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

• Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

• Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

• Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

• Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

• Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.

• Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

• Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

• Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

• Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

• Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

• Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

• Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the U.S. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

• The Clinton administration used to say it had "moved millions from welfare to work," to which Bush could add, "We've made that journey round trip.

I count 12, maybe 13 of those as centered around the aftermath of 9/11 and it's effects on our economy and the war on terror. Do you?

I wonder if he didn't change his position on some of those if you would be slamming him for not being open to change and sticking blindly to a position without thought.

On a related note, I heard one of MY conservative talk show hosts doing a segment on Kerry's positions. he asked people who were inclined to vote for kerry to call in and answer a few questions and see if their position was in line with Kerry's. It was very funny how on every topic Kerry had voted two different ways. The host had dates, times, and quotes for each position.

I was a firm believer that Kerry would say anything to get a vote, but even I was shocked that he had a more liberal voting record than Kennedy.

The Punisher

03-10-2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Waddell72
Politics and Religion, let us look at how they are wrapped up together right now.

The gay issue stems from religion and politics be mingled together. I don't care about gay marriage it doesn't change my vowels or make them any less holly. Why should I give a shit if two guys get married they can say they are married act like girls but no one will except them as a true holly union so why bother. At this point just wish it would get dropped. This is where you define marriage as a civil right. And I do not. It is a privilage, not a civil right. If it is a civil right, then people that want to marry their dog, horse, 5 different women or men, or sister/brother should have the opportunity too. And you are wrong that it only has to do with religion, it has to do with societies morality also.
Originally posted by Waddell72

People were just as opposed to civil rights in the 60's, labor rights in the early 20th century, ending slavery in the 1850's, tarriffs in 1770's that led to a revolution. Hell we even have a show called queer eye for the straight guy and a most popular TV show called Will and Grace which is funny I might add. So you can go ahead and brace yourself for the coming idea that gays will be allowed to be married. LIke it or not. My father and I were sure they would never allow gays in the military openly but while I was a Sergeant at Ft. Hood, TX Clinton came up with the don't ask don't tell policy. Just as Bush said, no need to ask. People with homosexual behaviors have rights just like every one else under our constitutions. No need to discriminate, but no need to promote either.
Originally posted by Waddell72

Bush is not an idiot but he is very far from being an even ok President given some of the great ones we have had. His father was good, Clinton was better aside from he couldn't control his personal life Reagan was great as was LBJ, FDR, JFK heck Nixon was better than George W. by far. Again this is your opinion and you've still failed to lay out the facts to support your opinions on how he was a worse president than the ones you listed above.

01WhiteCobra

03-10-2004, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by 90 Notch
I count 12, maybe 13 of those as centered around the aftermath of 9/11 and it's effects on our economy and the war on terror. Do you?

I wonder if he didn't change his position on some of those if you would be slamming him for not being open to change and sticking blindly to a position without thought.

On a related note, I heard one of MY conservative talk show hosts doing a segment on Kerry's positions. he asked people who were inclined to vote for kerry to call in and answer a few questions and see if their position was in line with Kerry's. It was very funny how on every topic Kerry had voted two different ways. The host had dates, times, and quotes for each position.

I was a firm believer that Kerry would say anything to get a vote, but even I was shocked that he had a more liberal voting record than Kennedy.

I'm not slamming anyone.

I'm pointing out facts.

Just like people will point out Kerry's voting record regarding defense from 20 years ago. Since 1997, Kerry has voted FOR every regular Department Of Defense appropriations bill and for every authorization bill as well.

The Punisher

03-10-2004, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
I'm not slamming anyone.

I'm pointing out facts.

Just like people will point out Kerry's voting record regarding defense from 20 years ago. Since 1997, Kerry has voted FOR every regular Department Of Defense appropriations bill and for every authorization bill as well. Do you have his complete voting record?:)

01WhiteCobra

03-10-2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by 281R
Do you have his complete voting record?:)

I have seen it. As everyone else can.

The Punisher

03-10-2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

Just like people will point out Kerry's voting record regarding defense from 20 years ago. Well ya know, you teach an old dog new tricks;) j/k

01WhiteCobra

03-10-2004, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by 281R
Well ya know, you teach an old dog new tricks;) j/k

At least with Kerry you know what you are getting.

President Bush is presiding over a GOP version of the New Deal and Great Society. In fact, Bill Clinton could have given Bush's State of the Union speech, and Republicans would have been up in arms over Slick Willie's use of the federal treasury to buy votes. Remember, it was Bill Clinton in his 1996 State of the Union Speech who said the "era of big government is over" to thunderous GOP applause. This year, GOP members of Congress gave the president thunderous applause when he announced more government initiatives and spending. How times have changed.

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/sabr012204.shtml

The Punisher

03-10-2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
At least with Kerry you know what you are getting.

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/sabr012204.shtml And I disagree with a lot of Bush's domestic policies.. But you honestly think Kerry will do better? If so, the what?

Fobra

03-10-2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by 281R
BRAVO!!! YEA.... BRAVO....!!!!!! whitecobra posted up some biased disputable flip flops off of Bluebuss.org, but yet it dosent help your case with Kerry any:rolleyes:
YEAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!:rolleyes:

lol

Paladin

03-10-2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
At least with Kerry you know what you are getting.

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/sabr012204.shtml

I will say it again, if not for 9/11 I think this would not be happening. I know it is speculation on my part, but I sincerely believe it.

Paladin

03-10-2004, 04:00 PM

01WhiteCobra

03-10-2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by 90 Notch
OK, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on your intent.

I still ask if you agree that 12 or so of your points were based upon 9/11 or not.

Can you tell me the votes that Kerry had against military equipment and the context in which they were made in?

So, what you are telling me that you concede that the list includes roughly 8 times Bush flip-flopped on issues, not related to 9/11?

Which, personally I don't really care about. He is a politician just like the rest of them.

jyro

03-10-2004, 05:55 PM

this has caused all of the people here to examine deeper the facts and fiction about both canidates, I really think the head in the sand attitude President Clinton used about terrorism and his response to former attacks helped let 9/11 happen.
Could Bush have prevented 9/11, as a president without support of a healthy majority, I don't think he could have gotten legislation or approval for the restrictions needed to prevent the tragedy and if he had and the WTC demolitions were prevented, democrats would have been outraged that there were no terrorist attacks and all the restrictions were needless and Bush was power hungry.
As for gay marrage, if the laws of the land were being enforced by the local gouv., there would be no need at all for a congressional admendment. The only reason Bush would ask for one is because anarchy and lawlessness. If I don't like a state law, do I have the right to disobey it ? Theres a lot of laws I don't particularly like but officials don't have the option to just enforcing the laws they agree with. There should be a nation wide vote on wheather gay marrage is allowed or not and officials must be made to enforce the laws.
Steel tarifs were never ment to be in effect forever, all other countries were threatening their own tarifs in retaliation to ours and steel consumers here were put at a unfair disadvantage by the tarifs. The tarifs allowed some companys to have time to modernize and it also showed other countries with nationalized steel mills what will happen if they dump steel here. It was a smart move to eliminate the tarifs.

I'm glad we can all converse and think about the next election and thank all of you for your input.

Paladin

03-11-2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Can you tell me the votes that Kerry had against military equipment and the context in which they were made in?

So, what you are telling me that you concede that the list includes roughly 8 times Bush flip-flopped on issues, not related to 9/11?

Which, personally I don't really care about. He is a politician just like the rest of them.

I never made any comments about Kerry voting against military in this thread. Man, you sure are defensive about your posts here lately. You don't seem to take to people asking you to verify or explain what you post very well anymore.

I will concede that Bush changed some philosphies after 9/11, but why wouldn't he? Everything changed after 9/11 didn't it?

My problem with Kerry's flip-flops are that they are not based anywhere near the noble cause of making the country safer like Bush's changes under those difficult circumstances. Kerry changed because he wants to get elected, not for noble reason of ethics, character, and integrity.

I think Kerry only has a chance because there are so many who will vote for anyone, because of their hate for Bush, not because they believe in Kerry. That is just sad to me.

01WhiteCobra

03-11-2004, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by 90 Notch
I never made any comments about Kerry voting against military in this thread. Man, you sure are defensive about your posts here lately. You don't seem to take to people asking you to verify or explain what you post very well anymore.

I will concede that Bush changed some philosphies after 9/11, but why wouldn't he? Everything changed after 9/11 didn't it?

My problem with Kerry's flip-flops are that they are not based anywhere near the noble cause of making the country safer like Bush's changes under those difficult circumstances. Kerry changed because he wants to get elected, not for noble reason of ethics, character, and integrity.

I think Kerry only has a chance because there are so many who will vote for anyone, because of their hate for Bush, not because they believe in Kerry. That is just sad to me.

Since when is asking a question being defensive?

As far as the flip-flop issue, you still haven't answered the question. Take out your 12 or so flip-flops based on 9/11. There are still 8 that are not. I asked you if you concede the fact that Bush flip-flopped on issues not related to 9/11.

You can take those 8 and say the same thing about Bush, he changed positions because he was getting elected.

Paladin

03-11-2004, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Since when is asking a question being defensive?

As far as the flip-flop issue, you still haven't answered the question. Take out your 12 or so flip-flops based on 9/11. There are still 8 that are not. I asked you if you concede the fact that Bush flip-flopped on issues not related to 9/11.

You can take those 8 and say the same thing about Bush, he changed positions because he was getting elected.

I did answer it.

I will concede that Bush changed some philosphies after 9/11, but why wouldn't he? Everything changed after 9/11 didn't it?

I call a change for personal benefit, like Kerry trying to get elected, a flip-flop, not one made while trying to do the best for the country as a sitting President. I definitely understand why those who are inclined to hate or dislike Bush would call it flip-flopping BTW.

The "defensive" remark was based upon my opinion of how you responsded, I was just commenting on my opinion, thats all. //Joke//Don't get defensive.//Joke// LOL

Boxter K

03-14-2004, 07:19 AM

There are several flip flops to the whole war issue. But...when it comes down to it...It is either shoot or be shot; Bush or Kerry - It doesn't matter. Since we won our freedom "back in the day", We will continue to fight those who are ONLY jealous. Just because the president is one man doesn't mean that there aren't dozens of men telling him what to do.
If we come home and sit on our asses then we are just waiting for the next tower or any building in the US to be attacked.
So I look at it this way and only my opinion...vote and pick the best with your opinion for taxes and rules and regulations on everything under the sun...but remember no matter who is there in that seat there is again dozens of men/women (who by the way will tell the public what they want to hear and vote in congress for something completly oppisite.), we will still be fighting 100 years from now because we are the biggest, richest and smartest as a whole country. We all stand up together when we get to this point...except for the few idiots who want to "Make the World a Better Place" - Michael Jackson (gay)...and not fight - we will definatly make anyone who comes against us stand down eventually.
Just my opinion. :D

Waddell72

03-14-2004, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Vertnut
The GOP is waiting for Kerry to get the nomination nod before they show their hand. It will be ugly. The damage he would do to this country, would make Saddam look like Tinkerbell. There is nothing worse than an enemy from within.

You know that is the dumbest post I have seen on here yet, please explain in grave detail. I doubt Kerry or any leader of the US could ever make Saddam look like Tinkerbell. I fought in Desert Storm and when we cleared the prison complex outside Kuwait City the carnage was surreal.

The type of toture he used on the Kuwait people held in captivity is sickening. Every woman or girl no matter what age was marked by Saddams troops in the end. This was so the Iraqi's could easily identify those who were in the first occupation of the "19th province of Iraq" that being the independent nation of Kuwait. They marked them by removing body parts like finger, toes, breasts or serverly scaring them.

So for you to compare any leader in american politics shows your ignorance to the gulf regions history and just how brutal Saddam is. I would never compare Bush to any dictator from the past or current days, because I don't believe he is a bad person, it's just our current economy needs attention, we need a little more restraint on our spending and he doesn't seem to be very concerned with that or the little man. I have seen no examples thus far aside from the "tax break" that is ok for the short run economy, but will strain the economy significantly in the long run, especially when the Baby Boomer generation goes into full retirement and medicare and social security feel the strain.

The Punisher

03-15-2004, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Waddell72

I would never compare Bush to any dictator from the past or current days, because I don't believe he is a bad person, it's just our current economy needs attention, we need a little more restraint on our spending and he doesn't seem to be very concerned with that or the little man. I have seen no examples thus far aside from the "tax break" that is ok for the short run economy, but will strain the economy significantly in the long run, especially when the Baby Boomer generation goes into full retirement and medicare and social security feel the strain. Ok, so you think Kerry is more concerned with the little man? LOL, now thats funny.... What exactly more do you think Bush needs to do with the economy since you say like he is doing a bad job. Im sure you know what he needs to correct if you say he is doing a bad job! I dont agree with Bush on everything, but I dont see how Kerry will do anything better but make things worse!

Pro Trash

04-03-2004, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by black01gt
No matter what the title or pay grade..anyone over there in conflict, dodging bullets and bombs is by definition a Hero! I would feel better about it tho if anyone in the current administration had ever been in the situation these guys and gals are in. Especially the Sec. of Defense, Rummy. Just can't get behind a Sec. of Defense that's never been in the military.

I have been to combat and one of my former commanders has to his name Colin Powel look below for details. Also you only get a soldiers medal for saving a life and purple heart for wounded by an enemy I'd say old Colin has the bio to back it up.

Colin Powell is best known for his role in Operation Desert Storm (1990-91). However, he also served with distinction in the Vietnam War (1962-63, 1968-69).
He has also been the recipient of numerous U.S. military awards and decorations including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters), the Army Distinguished Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster), Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit (with Oak Leaf Cluster), Soldier's Medal, Bronze Star Medal, and the Purple Heart. Likewise he has received many public service awards. Among these are two awards of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal.

Bush04

05-01-2004, 07:37 PM

In case you bush-bashers were asleep. Bush released his records and it proved that he served with honor in the Air National Guard.

Pro Trash

05-01-2004, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Bush04
In case you bush-bashers were asleep. Bush released his records and it proved that he served with honor in the Air National Guard.

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

Pro Trash

05-01-2004, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Bush04
In case you bush-bashers were asleep. Bush released his records and it proved that he served with honor in the Air National Guard.

Pro Trash

05-01-2004, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by Pro Trash
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

Here is Rumsfeld backing Saddam in his 83 Election LMAO

Mustangman_2000

10-12-2007, 09:54 AM

In case you bush-bashers were asleep. Bush released his records and it proved that he served with honor in the Air National Guard.

LOL

Not quite.

Bush's military record is dubious at best. After May 1972 Bush failed to meet the attendance requirements established by Federal law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures for "obligated" members of the Air National Guard, and the Air Force requirement for an annual physical examination for pilots.

By regulation, National Guard pilots were required to take and pass an annual physical in order to remain in flight status, in the three months prior to a pilot's birthday (in Bush's case, July 6). For reasons that are unclear, Bush apparently chose not to take this mandatory physical examination in mid-1972, thus ending his pilot's career. He never flew again after April 15, 1972.

He served 5 years, 4 months and 5 days on a 6 year commitment. He then left to go to Harvard. Because it's normal in the Military to just up and decide you want to quit and go do something different at the drop of a hat.

It wasn't until 2000, nearly 30 years later until this information came to light.

The microfilm data containing his payroll records were "inadvertently" :rolleyes: destroyed by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service during records salvaging project in 1996.

There is nothing honorable about George Bush's military record except for the word "honor" printed on his miraculous honorable discharge.

Vertnut

10-12-2007, 09:56 AM

LOL

Not quite.

Bush's military record is dubious at best. After May 1972 Bush failed to meet the attendance requirements established by Federal law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures for "obligated" members of the Air National Guard, and the Air Force requirement for an annual physical examination for pilots.

By regulation, National Guard pilots were required to take and pass an annual physical in order to remain in flight status, in the three months prior to a pilot's birthday (in Bush's case, July 6). For reasons that are unclear, Bush apparently chose not to take this mandatory physical examination in mid-1972, thus ending his pilot's career. He never flew again after April 15, 1972.

He served 5 years, 4 months and 5 days on a 6 year commitment. He then left to go to Harvard. Because it's normal in the Military to just up and decide you want to quite and go do something different at the drop of a hat. :rolleyes:

It wasn't until 2000, nearly 30 years later until this information came to light.

The microfilm data containing his payroll records were "inadvertently" :rolleyes: destroyed by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service during records salvaging project in 1996.

There is nothing honorable about George Bush's military record except for the word "honor" printed on his miraculous honorable discharge.
You must be bored digging up these 3 year-old threads. Bush isn't running this time around...

AL P

10-12-2007, 10:02 AM

LOL

Not quite.

Bush's military record is dubious at best. After May 1972 Bush failed to meet the attendance requirements established by Federal law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures for "obligated" members of the Air National Guard, and the Air Force requirement for an annual physical examination for pilots.

By regulation, National Guard pilots were required to take and pass an annual physical in order to remain in flight status, in the three months prior to a pilot's birthday (in Bush's case, July 6). For reasons that are unclear, Bush apparently chose not to take this mandatory physical examination in mid-1972, thus ending his pilot's career. He never flew again after April 15, 1972.

He served 5 years, 4 months and 5 days on a 6 year commitment. He then left to go to Harvard. Because it's normal in the Military to just up and decide you want to quit and go do something different at the drop of a hat.

It wasn't until 2000, nearly 30 years later until this information came to light.

The microfilm data containing his payroll records were "inadvertently" :rolleyes: destroyed by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service during records salvaging project in 1996.

There is nothing honorable about George Bush's military record except for the word "honor" printed on his miraculous honorable discharge.

Just because you are in the air national guard and you are a pilot doesn't mean you "have" to fly. For example, I have a friend who is a Captain and flies a C130 for the Wyoming national guard. He makes a choice about whether he flies or not and can decide how many hours he wants to fly in a given year. Right now he flies a ton of hours but from what he tells me he could just as easily fly none if he decided he didn't want to.

There is a lot more to the situation than saying "he was a pilot and wasn't flying.... ZOMG it's a conspiracy!!!"