Anybody See This About John Kerry??
Seems more of the Veterans that John Served with doesn't support him like the ad on TV says:
http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video_wmv.html
And This
http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/vietnam.htm
From what I gather from this, I don't know if the GOP's are funding it, but the commercial, I was told, isn't able to be shown on TV, because the Democrats are suing to keep it from being aired.
Either way, I am registered independant.
Several of the vets have recanted/retracted or qualified their statements... and said that though they disagreed with Kerry about his stance on the validity of the Vietnam War.. they respected him as a decorated soldier and career public servant.
I am a vet and have been predominately Republican. Regardless of how long Kerry was in Vietnam at least he was there....
I have a hard time with this president playing Napoleon and marching us all over the world when he has never faced hostile fire not even for 4 months...
[addsig]
Here is a pretty long thread discussing the ad on a website I visit
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5384.
i served in the army as a helicopter crewchief during nam. i was in the air calv. i met a brother in arms that was from the same unit i was in, air calv. he just got back from iraq he was crewchief on c-130 gunships. his son just joined and is to be sent to iraq in recon in a couple of weeks. he is re-enlisting to go and be with this son to serve his country. he informed me that he,his son, and all the others in his battalions biggest fear was that kerry would be elected. he said the people back here are being misinformed by the media. that he could see the progress first hand and bushes mission to deter the enemy was working and that the u.s. had "total supremacy" and that we were transforming iraq to a better place . that the media only tells the bad. he said " more americans were killed here in the u.s. by americans than are being killed in iraq." he has been there, he's going back, he is sending his son, they are going to fight for my freedom. he believes in what we're doing they are patriots. they want bush. thats the least i can do......kenmax
What progess.... ? An about more people being killed in the U.S. They said the same about vietnam, during the war.
I'm not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers here. I have a great deal of respect for our veterans and soldiers serving now, but it occurs to me that one should not base thier vote on one issue like Senator Kerry’s Vietnam record or the soldiers opinion of Predident Bush, or whatever else is advertised on the TV and radio campaign ads from both sides.
This election is to decide who is to be our leader for the next 4 years and I would hope that the group of professionals we are would look at ALL the issues and make an educated decision based on that research.
Regardless of your party affiliation, military, educational, religious, ethnic or whatever background there are many issues afloat here that need attention and Senator Kerry's Vietnam service isn't one of them.
.
I have a great deal of respect for those individuals who put their lives on the line and fight for our country. I have also had the opportunity to be with and around individuals from the army, navy and marines. I've been extremly proud to be an American while living overseas......unless the US marines or the navy happened to be in the port city. Then I usually found myself embarased. Many of them were crass, offensive, vulgar, insensitive to the local culture. I found myself explaining to the locals that the military doesn't attract the countries finest individuals, rather those who think that free food, housing, and some extra money is a pretty good life.
Again, I think it is noble that they do what they do. I'm not going to discount that. Many of the members of the military that I've known and met, I would't trust to watch my piggy bank, let alone lead our country.
The majority of americans have not served in the military. There are many outstanding individuals in our country that have not served in the military. I believe this issue to be severly over weighted. World economics and politics are very different than knowing how to lob a hand grenade and fire an M-16.
As was said above, I believe we need to evaluate the candidates based on how their beliefs, values, and ideas line up with our own and what we believe to be important for this nation.
Is it me or are we a little off topic today?
I am a Republican period. I would vote for Kerry and his tax and spend liberal views IF after raising our taxes, soldiers and their families received better financial support. I am mighty proud of our professional soldiers and would like to see them all get raises no matter which party wins the coming elections.
Hey - wanna buy a house?
C- :-o
OH - I get it; this is a new forum. Silly me.[ Edited by cpifer on Date 08/07/2004 ]
Hibby76,
Just so you know, Today's military is very different from the one we had even 10 years ago. There are exceptions to the rule as in anything, but the military today is doing a much better job of attracting some of the finest and the best that are out there. What we all need to realize is that not all of our soldiers are like the ones that you have described seeing.
Does anyone know what George W. was doing that was so great while Kerry was in Nam? Cheerleading at Harvard? Or perhaps preparing to be a drunk and the future gov of Texas. The debate is nonsense.
Candace:
Not that I would try to talk you out of your vote, as that is your right and what makes this country great, I would like to point out that what Pres. Bush says and what he does for our military are 2 different things. From the americanprogressdotorg site:
Item: Last January, Bush praised veterans during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The same day, 164,000 veterans were told the White House was "immediately cutting off their access to the VA health care system."
Item: In January 2003, just before the war, Bush said, "I want to make sure that our soldiers have the best possible pay." A few months later, the White House announced it would roll back increases in "imminent danger" pay (from $225 to $150) and family separation allowance (from $250 to $100).
Item: In October 2003, the president told troops, "I want to thank you for your willingness to heed the important call, and I want to thank your families." Two weeks later, the White House announced it opposed a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health insurance system, even though a recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one out of every five Guard members has no health insurance. What a nice thank you note.
I'm with the above posters: it's not about who did what military service, it's about what the candidates stand for and what you think they'll do in office.
We've seen what Pres. Bush has done for his business constituency (anything they want, including letting them write rules/regulations/bills before Congress regulating their own industry), and the environment (anything business wants: be it logging, lowering clean air emission standards for coal fired power plants, drilling in Alaska).
Besides, wasn't it Donald Rumsfeld that Bush, Sr. sent to Iraq to help them get weapons to fight Iran? Wasn't he the one that said Hussein was our best bet in the region? Why did Pres. Bush hire him back??
In any case, whomever you choose, please go out and vote...the turnout numbers of past elections are beginning to make me despair for our representative form of government 'cause people aren't involved at even this most fundamental level...
Andy
My 2 cents...
Politics is politics is politics...
I've never met a Politician that I would trust to watch my dog...well, maybe one or two, but the majority are career politicians that do one major thing, watch out for themselves. That is republican, democrat, independent, liberal, conservative...whatever. The high majority will tell you whatever you want to hear whenever, as long as you think they're your man....
Andykatz,
Growing up in Logging Country in NW Montana, I believe it's important for you to know that our forests are truly a renewable resource. I agree that this could have been accomplished more responsibly in the 60,s and 70's, but there are responsible companies like Weyerhauser that have been re-seeding their areas for years. Logging is not a bad thing when done responsibly.
Jeff
I don't put much weight in either of thier millitary records. What we need to look at is the groups supporting each side. I would like to see more coverage of the arguments going on when a party's platform is put together. Is a party made up of groups who want to disarm us, overtax us, force "alternative" values on us, take away our private property rights? If so, I dont care how the candidate B.S.'s on an issue. It is obvious how he will act.
I am speaking as a career soldier who just retired 7 days ago, as a lifelong republican, as someone who spent a year in Iraq, and as an Alaskan resident.
Iraq, it was a miserable experience and inspite of the misery one I don't regret having. Before going I wasn't sure if it was "right" or necessary, but then making decisions like those isn't my job. I have no doubt that freeing the Iraqie people was the right thing to do. After the conclusion of the "war" and rebuilding began I was tasked as a liason to an Iraqie company that was building helipads and reconditioning buildings. I spent 11 hours a day with Iraqies and had very little contact with other Americans so my focus was definately on the Iraqie people. I ate every meal with them, learned what I could of the language and culture, and made friends. I saw the scars from and heard of the horrors of life under Saddam. One moment kind of sums it up, I was talking to a man, about 40 years old, he was becoming emotional as we talked, he starts crying saying "why, why so long, 10 years we waited for you to save us, 10 years we prayed for you to come back.
The state of the military... the recruitment problems are all about critical mass. The military does not have the number of people necessary to make it attractive to people considering joining. They are not able to fill the current slots, but add 25% more slots and they would get filled. When the big draw down came after Desert Storm the vast majority of the desireable positions were contracted out. Where once upon a time a soldier could expect to get a "good" tour or 2 during a career now they just know it's one bad gig after another.
There are definately some bad seeds in the military. Unfortunately the good people get to share in the bad reputation that has been created. The bad 10% take up 90% of a leaders time. Not to make excuses, but we generally are talking about very young people who are living a very difficult life away from a family support structure. The problem they have isn't in accomplishing the military mission, it's in learning how to relate to society when they have off time, and especially in learning how to moderate thier alcohal consumption. I don't know how many times I've seen a very good soldier do very stupid things in thier personal life, kind of an old cliche by now, "if only we could keep him in the field forever he would be fine"
I don't see these things improving being desperate for bodies as they are. There isn't a draft I know, but there might as well be for many of the people. There are alot of underhanded things being done to force soldiers to stay in against thier will. The straight out denial of an ETS or retirement is probably easier to tolerate than some of the stuff going on that you don't read in the paper.
Drilling in Alaska... I became an Alaskan resident in 1987, and always worked every angle I could to go back, in all I spent 12 years living there. I am absolutely 100% in favor of drilling ANWR, and something like 70% of Alaskans are in favor . I'm pretty sure you will find more that would vote to become an independant country than you would to vote against ANWR. The drilling techniques have advanced so far, and such a tiny portion of such a huge reserve would be touched, a reserve that is so far removed from habitable areas over 95% of it hasn't been seen or is likely to be seen in the near future by human eyes. New drilling in Alaska will occur, if it's not ANWR it will be much larger less controled drills much closer to habitable areas. Not drilling ANWR to me is the equivelant of putting a loaf of bread in the corner of the attic and not allowing it to be touched while you tear up the kitchen floor looking for crumbs.
I think it is safe to assume where you stand
I just wanted to give you another perspective on this however. Overtax us? Have you seen our debt recently? While many older people don't see it as a problem, when my generation grows up and get jobs, these debts would need to be paid sooner or later. Instead of overspending now and then increasing taxes significantly or cutting social programs a few decades later, a gradual increase in taxes does make sense in the long run.
No one is forcing 'alternative' values on anyone. It is simply a question of choice and rights. Doesn't every American have the right to live his or her life the way he or she wants as long as it doesn't hurt someone else?
Disarming is an interesting issue. I don't know if their stance is that strong but I also have a hard time believing people need assualt rifles in their homes for 'self defense'. Also, a waiting period for gun purchases is an excellent idea and I don't think the current administration has done much to bring about such a law.
I am not sure where the property rights issue is coming up from...feel free to educate me.
Again, you have your opinions and I have mine. This is just another perspective on the issues.
clegg
Quote:
On 2004-08-08 00:07, realagent wrote:
I don't put much weight in either of thier millitary records. What we need to look at is the groups supporting each side. I would like to see more coverage of the arguments going on when a party's platform is put together. Is a party made up of groups who want to disarm us, overtax us, force "alternative" values on us, take away our private property rights? If so, I dont care how the candidate B.S.'s on an issue. It is obvious how he will act.
There are many issues that pisses me off about Bush. Especially, regarding his soft (or non-existant) stand on illegal immigration. We are witnessing nothing short of the mexicanization of America. We have to normalize the flow of immigrants from Mexico - by a quoto system applicable to all countries. But to keep pandering to those who will not adhere to legal entry should not be provided with the benefits of citizenship - and that certainly relates to any government benefits. But bush and Kerry will not enforce the laws out of fear of losing some mex votes. From that standpoint, Bush doesnt have a prayer....those mex are always going to vote democrat. Because they know the dems believe in taking from the productive element and giving to the parasite element. The immigrant lobby says they only come here to work...but cut off all the free government assistance to the wets and you will see a dramantic reduction in that flood of mexicans.
So, while Im not happy with Bush, he is at least the lesser of two evils. Election of Kerry will assure the completion of socialism in this country.
As to Iraq, we have already achieved the objective of going into that country....to defeat Saddam and overthrow that dictatorship. Our objective was never to get into "nation building" . So, lets declare victory and move out. Let Iraq people fight the insurgents and rebuild their own country. The have the oil wealth to do so. The truth is we cannot afford to keep spending $5B a month in Iraq to provide them with modern metropolis. We need that money to rebuild our own aging infrastructure in this country. Im not against providing them with a certain amount of military equiptment and supplies, but if they dont have the guts to fight for themselves they deserve what they get. That was the problem in Vietnam. The S. vietnamese expected us to fight their war while they sat by and sucked up the corruption dollars. They deserved to lose to N. Vietnam. The same in S. Korea. Bring our troops out of there. S. Korea should be able to defend themselves against a bankrupt N. Korea. And , guess who is the second largest food receipient of U.S. aid? NORTH KOREA.. We run a stupid foreign policy. It should be a sane policy that states, "if you are our friend, we help you, if you are an unfriendly or enemy we let you starve". But then ,we let the liberals and their ilk turn that upside down.
I want to gag concerning the whole politic situation.
[ Edited by buddy on Date 08/08/2004 ]
[ Edited by buddy on Date 08/08/2004 ]
[ Edited by buddy on Date 08/08/2004 ]
[ Edited by buddy on Date 08/08/2004 ]
[ Edited by buddy on Date 08/08/2004 ][ Edited by buddy on Date 08/08/2004 ]
buddy, I think you are simplifying the issues a little. I do agree that Bush's attempt to buy the Mexican votes was pitiful, most of the states with large mexican populations are strongly democratic anyways.
However, in Iraq, if we just went in, killed the leader and left, we would end up with a new Saddam in five years. The only reason we are there is to enforce a puppet gov't or atleast a pro US gov't, not only for the oil but to ensure it doesn't breed radicals. They do have the oil wealth but they do not have the infrastructure to pump out oil as efficiently as...say, Saudi Arabia. The point being, leaving Iraq in a state of chaos will get us back to square one. Getting rid of one man does not solve the problem. Keeping in mind, this one man had very little to do with Al-Qaeda. He didn't like America and he certainly has the right to have his opinions as long as he doesn't act on them.
As for the food to N.Korea...the leaders of N. Korea are very happy, wealthy and live the good life. Stopping that aid will kill the millions of average people who are starving to begin with. That is the problem with sanctions..it affects the poor folks. And the people are not strong enough to lead a rebellion against the gov't either. The food we send is food we don't need so its not a big expense anyways.
Again, just another take. I do agree with a lot of you that it comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils but I think Kerry will be the better choice this time around.
Clegg
Here is a solution to a lot of our countries political and Military problems:
Reinstate the draft. Make every young person in this country serve in the military or some other simular capacity for 2 years.
This will do several things:It will get this countries youth directly envolved in these exact issues.
As I high school teacher and a former marine, I can tell you that the kids today are apathtic to what is going on in the World today. Maybe if everyone was directly effected-more people would hold our leaders accountable with our foreign policy.
The draft is why the 60's were such a political time for everyone-because everyone was involved whether they wanted to be or not. Today I do not know a single military sole in Iraq and that is sad. Sad because they were sent there by our leaders. I look around and you would not even know that a war is going on in Iraq. Imagine how they feel when they come home and see us going about our daily lives.
In 1974 our government got smart. We now have an "all volunteer force", full of working class and lower working class kids. These kids are promised exciting opportunities and a great career but what 90% get is training in a job that does not convert to any job in the civillian world. I know this because I was one of them. (There are a few jobs that are an exception)null
Maybe it was God's will that America liberate Iraq. George Sr. should have finished the job during his watch. There's no doubt in my mind that George Sr. made one of the most costly mistakes in US history. Maybe Jr's motivation was to finish what his daddy didn't. Nevertheless, 200 billion dollars has been spent because Sr. didn't finish the job. Maybe we should send him the bill.
I do agree that Bush is soft on immigration, which could have devastating implications for our country in the long-term, but I believe he has been right on about the war, and I'm not just talking about the war in Iraq. Really, the war in Iraq is merely a small part of the bigger picture: the war on terror, and if I'm hearing right, Iran is next, and possibly Syria is on the list as well. Our United States of America as we know it in severe danger. We need a President that is going to be tough on terror, and one that is not afraid to stand up for what is right for our country.
Although John Kerry has been quite vague about his stance on just about every issue, or he has changed his stance on those he has been clear about, I have gathered that he wants to pander to the United Nations. What would have happened if George Bush had decided to just go along with that joke of an organization? We probably never would have gone to war at all, even in Afghanistan, let alone Iraq, and, I believe, we already would have been attacked by terrorists again. Many, many terrorist attempts have been thwarted, and we also know that Bin Laden is intent upon attacking us again before the election. I'm sure glad Bush is the President right now.
We are winning this war. I'm not upset that we haven't caught Bin Laden yet, because in the process of searching for him, we have found and arrested many of his leaders, uncovering several detailed terrorist plots in the process.
No matter who our President is, we are not safe. I know that. But I feel a whole lot safer under a man like President Bush, who I believe truly loves our country, and who has enough backbone to confront the evil in this world that so threatens us.
Not only do I believe that we would be in more danger through terrorists under John Kerry, but I believe that we are in danger of losing our national sovereignty under Presidents such as John Kerry. He is as liberal as you can get, and in my opinion, borderline socialist. I'm not talking about all democrats when I say this--I'm talking about the ones that are way farther left, such as Kerry. They would like nothing better than to see us under the thumb of the UN, and going along like a giant puppet under its ultra-liberal agenda. It just so happens that I like Bush, but even if I didn't, I would vote for him anyway just to vote against Kerry. I've even researched the idea of moving overseas if he is elected just because I am afraid of what is going to become of our country if he is elected.
It's not about what they say. It's about their record. And I'm not talking about their military records. I'm talking about job records in Washington. John Kerry is all about huge taxes, government spending, and pandering to the UN. I can't say that I agree with George Bush on everything, but I do agree with him on the things that are very important.
And as for the economy, which is secondary to the aforementioned issues, the economy started to decrease just before President Bush took office, and it has been growing and improving of late, despite the fact that we are at war. Of course, people who don't like Bush don't seem to remember that. And we have to expect some setbacks in the economy during war. War is expensive. The fact that the economy is improving in a time of war , I think, says a lot for George Bush's economic policies.
I hope this isn't considered argumentative. I just feel very strongly about these things, and my intention is only to express my opinion.
Candace
With the exception of Clegg I dont need to respond to other posts. But Clegg does need a reality check.
Notwithstanding any reasoning as to whether or not we should give aid, comfort and sustenance to other countries(and their citizens), the simple economic reality is that this country is on the edge of bankrupcy. The one legitimate issue which Kerry raised about the deficit is a crucial issue. However, it didnt do him much good since the majority of people dont understand economics. The real national debt is closer to ten trillion rather that the reported 7 trillion....and our budget deficit and trade deficit is growing out of control. While we let cheap foreign goods come into this country without tarriffs(to do otherwise would bring about cries of taft-hartley and a lecture about free-trade being best etc) our exports are too expensive to compete in the markets of other countries. The chinese are are running the biggest trade deficit with us because they not only have an advantage of cheap labor but they have pegged their currency(the yuan/reminbi) at 8.3 to the dollar - to keep their currency artificially
cheap. This is in violation of the WTS rules - which they agreed to after we let them join that World Trade Organization. But one government official after another has gone to China to plead with them to let their currency float. But, china basically gave them the finger. And we dont have the guts to levy tarrifs in proportion to that currency manipulation. They are expected to run a $500B trade deficit with us for current year. While it might give the american consumer cheaper goods those imports from China are Bankrupting many manufacturing plants all over the country who cant complete with those chinese products. The dollar is losing value in the currency markets because other countries realize this situation. Bush doesnt want to intervene because strangely enough the cheaper dollar does help us export more goods at cheaper price. The only reason the dollar is halfway stable is because Japan is out there buying those fiat dollars to drive up the price of dollars vis-a-vis the yen because a higher dollar helps them to survive by selling their cars and goods to America.
But ,suffice to say, this situation cannot last. The world is flooded with dollars. The other things which stabilizes that situation(FOR THE TIME BEING) is (1)the dollar is used as a reserve currency(in lieu of gold);(2)petroleum is denominated in dollars.
But the situation is fast becoming unmanageable. All of the printing press money that we are using to fund the entitlements; the war; immigrant costs , and ,yes, the giveaways to the rest of the world is causing the rest of the world to worry about holding on to US assets(stocks, bonds, etc). Since we are continually refunding our debt with auction sale of bonds, how long will it take before the rest of the world will refuse the buy our debt?
Of course, Im sure you are aware that foreigners and their countries buy about 60% of our debt. But, when they do lose faith in the value of the dollar they will sell those bonds, sell their us stocks and then who will but out debt? Talk about stock market and bond market panic. We should look to Argentina as to what can happen with a collapse of a courntry"s currency.
We have got to stop all the heart rending reasons to milk the treasure for more entitlements. Pull our troops out of no-win situations and learn to live within our means.
But back to Irag. It is a no-win deal. There are too many factions veying for power. Aside from sunni, shite, and curds tribal loyalty come first with them. No matter who is elected, conflict will continue by those who lost. The only way to rule and suppress the situation is to have another ruthless dictator like Saddam. Only this time they ,hopefully, have the message: kill each other but dont pose a threat to America. That the best we can hope for. Suppose in a free election they vote in Al Sadar. Will we go against a democratic process. Lets get out of this cragmire. It might happen that in the future we have to come back and bomb all those nice infrastructure we built.
I know everyone wants to get involved one way or another with politics, but I'd hope this website sticks with business at hand and goes with building a successful real estate investing venture.
I know John Kerry is a snake in the grass and his work cannot be trusted, but can we please stick with real estate?
Thank you.
Here it is short and sweet so listen up and bypass the typo's. John kerry voted to cut CIA spending. Now Clinton caused 9/11 here is how.
1.trade center attacked 1993.(CLINTON DOES NOTHING)
2.cole war ship bombed.(CLINTON DOES NOTHING)
3.the embassy's were bombed in kenya and the other one i forgot the city.(CLINTON DOES NOTHING.)
So now everyone seen CLINTON was a coward. So now George Bush is in office 9/11 happens and we take out talabain,and www.saddam.The night we started attacking saddam the North Korean President went into hiding and said he thought he was next.(REMEBER N. KOREA CLAIMS TO HAVE THE BOMB AND WANTS 300,000,000 to shut down and follow the pelifaril treaty it signed years www.ago.I AM PROUD TO HAVE A LEADER TO SHOW FORCE AND GO AFTER THE EVILS OF THE AL QADIA.
((((((KILL THEM ALL ))) )))))
I vote the person NOT the party.
DEMOCROOKS has never giving me anyone to vote for. And on saddam he was evil killer,rapist,torchure happy pervert. Last part.
Would you help a homeless person?Would you stop a rape?Would you stop the starving of your neighbor? IF YOU SAID YES than why not the iragi people?
If you answered no to helping any of these people than SCREW YOU!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
charlottehomebuyers for president.
All in favor say.... "I"
Shellback,
If you read the description of this forum, it says anything but real estate. I'm not a moderator, nor do I want to be, but I would say this topic is appropriate for this forum.
charlottehomebuyers,
Thank you. Very well said. That's what I call calling a spade a spade. I couldn't have said it better myself.
While I would stop short of blaming any one particular person for 9/11, I do agree that the Clinton administration did increase our vulnerability to these types of attacks.
Not to mention that he sold our nuclear secrets to China.....But I guess that's a whole new topic!
Candace
Thats all nice and great and I wouldn't disagree with many of your points. However, the issue is that we didn't go into Iraq to save the people of Iraq. We went to protect ourselves from weapons he supposedly had. If we had initially stated our objective to be a humanitarian mission, it would be a whole different ball game and no one would be calling this administration a bunch of liars. Personally, I do think Bush has good intentions and have a hard time believing any of this was for oil. I have a bigger problem with his administration. I don't think he is a strong leader within his administration and there are members who easily influence him.
Again, we didn't go to save the people of Iraq. If we did, the world would have a different perspective on the whole war. Also, I don't like how people group Al-Qaeda and Saddam together. There is absolutely no connection. Initially, many claims had been made by the gov't but now even they say it is possible members of al-qaeda met with the iraqi gov't but they can't back it up. So, it is a shaky claim at best. I just don't think we should have gone to Iraq under the pretense of fighting terrorism.
As for Clinton, I won't protect his ass, he should have done something during his presidency. That said, don't forget that members of the Taliban had visited George Bush when he was the governor of Texas. Not only did Bush welcome them in his home but Rumsfield took them around Texas sightseeing in cars paid for by the texan taxpayers. And oh...this was after the bombing of the Cole and the Embassies when we knew Bin Laden was responsible and that he was living in Afghanistan. I don't think anyone saw 9/11 coming. Clinton or Bush.
Regards,
Clegg
Quote:
On 2004-08-08 21:38, charlottehomebuyers wrote:
Here it is short and sweet so listen up and bypass the typo's. John kerry voted to cut CIA spending. Now Clinton caused 9/11 here is how.
1.trade center attacked 1993.(CLINTON DOES NOTHING)
2.cole war ship bombed.(CLINTON DOES NOTHING)
3.the embassy's were bombed in kenya and the other one i forgot the city.(CLINTON DOES NOTHING.)
So now everyone seen CLINTON was a coward. So now George Bush is in office 9/11 happens and we take out talabain,and http://www.saddam.The night we started attacking saddam the North Korean President went into hiding and said he thought he was next.(REMEBER N. KOREA CLAIMS TO HAVE THE BOMB AND WANTS 300,000,000 to shut down and follow the pelifaril treaty it signed years http://www.ago.I AM PROUD TO HAVE A LEADER TO SHOW FORCE AND GO AFTER THE EVILS OF THE AL QADIA.
((((((KILL THEM ALL ))) )))))
I vote the person NOT the party.
DEMOCROOKS has never giving me anyone to vote for. And on saddam he was evil killer,rapist,torchure happy pervert. Last part.
Would you help a homeless person?Would you stop a rape?Would you stop the starving of your neighbor? IF YOU SAID YES than why not the iragi people?
If you answered no to helping any of these people than SCREW YOU!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I unfairly singled Gregg out since I had mainly only read his post. But after reading the other posts there is enough naivte and leftwing thinking in the rest of them to clog a sewer drain. Thank God, I am in my late 60s and was educated by teachers and professors who limited course study to unbiased subject matter and did not seek to proselytize students with marxist philosophy and beliefs by putting their spin on the curricula. And we were not imbued with a blame america first attitude .When I read some of the posts on this board many seemed to have a guilt trip about how America operates and about our free enterprise system (capitalism). It is a sytem that has produced the highest stadard of living in the world. And, it has been the benefactor for every country in the world...most of whom are total ingrates, who continue to insult the hand that feeds them. They think it is their right to receive aid and assistance from the american iT IS NOT. China and Russia are now attempting to emulate our capitalist system - with great success I might add. The truth is marxism and socialism(similar viruses) has mainly been discredited in most ever cournty except america - it still flourishes in academia here. One German University said that to have diversity of opinion they wanted hire a marxist porfessor but could not find any left in Europe. They said they had to turn to America to find one where there were still plenty of candidates. Additionally, we have a teaching profession that is turning out students who thinks america is the mean warlord of the world ,and that we trying to steal oil from others,etc,etc ad naseum. The main problem is that the teachers, for the most part, are block voters for the democrats and contribute their NEA dues into the coffers of the dems. And that monopoly continues to want more and more tax money -even though that now get a national average of about $34,000 per student. Money is not the http://www.solution.Teachers need to be certified annually to prove that they have a solid knowledge ot the subject matter they teach. We are turning out high school graduates who cannot point out England or Spain on the map, nor can they name the three branches of goverment. The real solution is to provide vouchers and let the market handle the problem. The better teachers will thrive and draw in students to these schools. The incompetents will fade into the obscuity they deserve. THEN, perhaps we wont have teachers having 2nd and 3rd graders putting condums on
cucumbers. They wont get indoctrinated with "Johnnie has two daddies/mommies". Using out schools to effect social engineering is not the mission of schools. Even when they desegregated the schools, for the most part whites congregate with whites and black congegate with blacks;latinos congrgate with latinos. Look in the school cafeteria. And there is nothing wrong with one race seeking to interelate and interact primarily with their own race....notwithstanding all the propagada to the contrary. Ir is simply nature. Black birds nest with blace bird;blue jays nest with blue jays; redbirds nest with redbirds. No-one forced that fact of nature.
But this anti-americanism extends beyond the schools. The left wants to stamp out morality by treating the christian relegion as something to be banned from the public view and therefore from acceptance. SEPARATION OF STATE AND RELIGION does not mean it cannnt exist in public places. It was only meant to forbid the enforcement of religion on a secular state function. Display is not enforecement. Ah, but someone might say it could offend some moslem or hindu, etc. To those who might be "offended" should be told that American was founded as a judeo-christian nation...and if they dont like it they can get the hell out. If I went to live in a moslem country and start complaining about those guys in those towers yelling "Alah who wec bah". would they stop it or gang up on me with a lot of pointy knives? These marxists also hope to destroy the Boy Scouts which believes in a code of morality. That one organization provided me with a moral compass I still have today..."that I will do my duty to God and my country...." For the lefties it molds minds in an opposite direction to accepting the state as the supreme being -not God.
But then "Summerj"equates any reference to God as running off the taliban? We fought the taliban because they were harbingers of terror and training for terrorists in the world. We didnt forbid the practice of their religion. So, that is a stupid analogy. He also says Kerry should be president because he had military service. Who gives a sh_t? That doesnt have anything to do with his ability to lead this nation. In fact, he hasnt given any hard opinion about any of the important issues we face. Because he is wanting to be "plastic man" who is both for and against all issues. Wha t a phoney. He also writes that the UN sanctions were working, Are you an idiot or just uninformed? We now know that the UN was getting huge kickbacks of that oil for food program. Saddam played that organization for the corrupt fools they are. And for the same reasons the leaders in Russia, France and Germany was pocketing fortunes from that program. No wonder they didnt want to depose uncle Saddam from power.
"Arborlis" thinks it ia all about a "secret combination" to help bush?? Obviously, he is a big Michael Moore fan , and believes the marxist garbage Moore dishes out. God, what a pitiful bunch of posts by people who only see evil by this country. As I previously wrote there are some real problems out there that needs addressing.
And ,yes, Gregg, I say let them starve. Anyway, that food first goes to the military to keep them healthy enough to fight us....the people gets the leavings. Also, by supplying them with food leaves the little dictator with the ability to concentrate his resources on weapon programs instead of buying food.
OK thats it. I tire of those juvenile views posted in this thread.
[ Edited by buddy on Date 08/09/2004 ]
[ Edited by buddy on Date 08/09/2004 ]
[ Edited by buddy on Date 08/09/2004 ][ Edited by buddy on Date 08/09/2004 ]
Buddy,
I applaud you on your courageous post. What you said is absolutely true. The democrat party just keeps going farther and farther to the left, towards communism. And the American public is, unfortunately, buying it. We see it in the liberal professors at our major universities who promote marxist philospies. Jimmy Carter was even quoted as saying that we shouldn't fear Communism, but we should instead fear the "fear of Communism."
I'll tell you what I fear: I fear the day when we aren't afraid of Communism. Marxism is a Satanic philosophy that robs a person of any individuality, as well as individual rights. And people like Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Daschle, Michael Moore, and most of Hollywood, are doing their level best to push us right into Communism. What amazes me about it, though, is the fact that push for this, even though they themselves are going to lose too, if we go Communist. Do they really think the Marxist philosophy would allow special treatment for them just because they supported it?
I hope to God that Christians everywhere will stop hiding behind "separation of church and state" and get out and vote for what is right. This election is about the future of our country, not just about the next four years. John Kerry is, in my opinion, at least as big a threat to our country, as is Bin Laden. I don't say that lightly. It is one thing to have an enemy from without, but if John Kerry is elected, then one of our biggest enemies will be sleeping in the White House, next to his rich, I-hate-America wife.
Candace
Astrojunkie --
It sounds like you're growing up! Am I right?
Regards-
C-Rog
Quote:
On 2004-08-07 13:33, astrojunkie wrote:
I'm not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers here. I have a great deal of respect for our veterans and soldiers serving now, but it occurs to me that one should not base thier vote on one issue like Senator Kerry’s Vietnam record or the soldiers opinion of Predident Bush, or whatever else is advertised on the TV and radio campaign ads from both sides.
This election is to decide who is to be our leader for the next 4 years and I would hope that the group of professionals we are would look at ALL the issues and make an educated decision based on that research.
Regardless of your party affiliation, military, educational, religious, ethnic or whatever background there are many issues afloat here that need attention and Senator Kerry's Vietnam service isn't one of them.
.
Buddy, you make excellent points and I still fail to see where you feel we disagree. Capitalism is the heart and soul of this country.
What ammuses me is the love people here have for capitalism and a fairly good understanding of our economic system but still strongly support a leader who has put this country deeper into debt than any other president. The man spends like there is no tomorrow. Last year the U.S. gov't spent some seven million researching the effects of cow farts on the environment and classified it under energy research. I don't know about you but I don't think there are enough cows in the world who can fart long enough to supply the US of A with its energy needs.
Again, as I have stated a few times before, my biggest problem with Bush is his frivolous spending and a massive government. And his denial of most scientific ideas and thoughts.
I don't know where you see a load of anti-americanism. There are some radical left wing liberals the same way there are radical right wing conservatives and you would be foolish to argue otherwise.
"Ah, but someone might say it could offend some moslem or hindu, etc. To those who might be "offended" should be told that American was founded as a judeo-christian nation...and if they dont like it they can get the hell out. If I went to live in a moslem country and start complaining about those guys in those towers yelling "Alah who wec bah". would they stop it or gang up on me with a lot of pointy knives?"
I am not sure how to respond to that. You are backing up your argument by pointing out that since these backward nations who kill anyone who disagrees with their views, we should do the same? This country is diverse. It is very different from what it was 400 years ago. The wealthiest parts of this country are also the most diverse parts. And I am not talking about loads of illegal mexican diversity but the immigration from asia and parts of europe. Ever heard of the brain drain? We have the brightest workers in the world who come here looking for oppurtunity and sometimes the basic human rights. Historically, our strongest economic growth has occured when we have had the largest increase in immigrants. Today, asians are the second wealthiest racial group after the Jews and the asians have been here much shorter. They come here, they work, start businesses and pay high taxes. Are you saying they don't have the same rights as any other american to send their childred to school and not be taught religiously biased information? The 90's was our biggest economic growth in history. It was also, unless I am mistaken, the largest population growth in our history. And it came from immigrants. Who do not share the same religious values as you or me. And the fact that Saudi Arabia or Iran might not let them practice their religion is not a valid argument for us. If that is the sort of government you want to live under maybe this is the wrong country for you.
As for North Korea or any other piss poor nation we send some leftover food to, I suggest you read up on some world events and world history. Regardless of whether we send food or not, the leaders continue concentrating their resources on the military, not the people. That is why we usually make a strong effort to send food to the people through air drops and what not and try to sidestep the government whenever possible.
I think you are a little confused as to what you are trying to argue. You start off defending america and everything that makes this country great and end up with the same arguments a Saudi might use to defend his government. You should clear up on america and its values and the things that make this the greatest nation in the world.
The following is not just for you but for everyone here: Kerry is no saint who will save this nation but Bush has made many mistakes and arguing otherwise is foolish. Stop taking such a republican vs. democratic stance and look at the issues. Many promises made by Bush have not been kept. He has also gone against many values that are strictly republican. We all have our priorities in life and therefore prefer different candidates. Whether a guy wants to bone another guy is none of my business and I couldn't care less but a lot of people here obviously do. At the end of the day, we all have our opinions and that is the core of America. This site is overwhelmingly republican and that is no suprise so I am pretty much arguing against everyone else. Some people are taking things a little too personal and launching personal attacks against me not knowing me or where I come from. I know I do the same above so ignore the personal attack. I hope my views won't be coming into play when I need some advice with a deal! At the end of the day, lets hope whoever gets elected continues with whatever Bush has done and is good ( and I do believe there are good things he has done ) and fixes the mistakes he has made without letting his ego come in the way.
Regards,
clegg
It's no secret that George Bush is a member of a secret society. Below the pyramid on a dollar bill are words that read, novus ordo seclorum. Buddy, go find out what that means.
Abraham Lincoln once said that America would never be destroyed from the outside. He said if we falter, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. The family is the central unit of society. A nation's strength or weakness is directly related to the strength or weakness of it's families. It's no secret that homes in modern America are filled with all the diabolical tools necessary to bring them and this country to ruin and rubble. Shall I name them? Pornography, beer, liquor, illicit drugs, violence, adultery, murder, lies, greed, hatred and intollerance. America has become a nation of greedy, self endulgent, sabbath breaking, covenant breaking hypocrites. It has been prophesied that in the last days the constitution will hang by a single thread. Unless the people of this great land repent and families are strengthened, the destiny of America will be one of horror. The total and complete annihilation of the wicked from off of the face of this land forever. Seeing that these calamities shall come, shouldn't we do more than just vote for the best candidate?
God lives, and the constitution is the workmanship of His hands, through the instrumentality of His servants, the Forefathers. The enemy is very subtle.
not that i think political discussions belong here, but...
those ads were inaccurate, which is why kerry's attorneys are noting that they are libelous. the vets that say they served with him were not anywhere near him, except that they were somewhere in vietnam at the same time he was. they never had contact with him. and the name of the doctor who claims to have worked on his "superficial" wound appears nowhere on any of kerry's medical reports. the ad is entirely fabricated.
this, we might all note, is an ad put out by the same group who attacked john mccain when he ran in 2000. they claimed not only that he was a traitor when he was a pow, but also that he adopted a black baby. in fact, it was from bangladesh and not black, but who cares? racism has no place in politics.
but, who care about details?
John Kerry is my choice for president. The world laughs at us now ever since Bush became president. He is a boop! Who are you kidding. He has disgraced this nation. Even Clinton (with all his personal mishaps) was looked up to by other nations. I remember the members of the UN giving him a standing ovation even after he was in the process of being impeached. Bush should not have been president. He was nominated by the Republican party and elected there because he carried the Bush name-NO OTHER REASON. He is like a little boy running this country. What a shame!
my 3 cents,
I keep hearing about WMDs and how there isnt any there and we should leave iraq alone. Does anyone realize that saddam is a PROVEN tyrant that commits mass slaughters of people and torture every day? It seem to me a lot of americans are selfish and say "hey if there are no WMDs and they arent going to bomb us then lets stay out of it". as a stronger country we should be helping those in need and who are suffering from phycotic killers for no reason. I know it costs the lives of soldiers and that is traggic, but look at the good we could accomplish by risking americans lives to save thousands of others. there is a world beyond this one and people better stop thinking about themselves instead of others. I am very scared for this country and its safety if john kerry is elected. you have been warned.
Sheesh, this is a hot topic.
The reality of the situation is, regardless of the outcome in November, I am still going to buy and sell houses.
-- and C-Rog, it had to happen some day.
dlitedan, were you for our actions in bosnia? ethiopia? any other actions we took when clinton was in office? i doubt it. bush even ran on an anti-nation building platform. if it didn't make me so mad, i'd find it funny that so many so-called "conservatives" are all of a sudden all about going in and restructuring other nations.
<<as a stronger country we should be helping those in need and who are suffering from phycotic killers for no reason. >>
may i quote you if a democrat is in office and does something similar? i doubt he or she would get the same kind of support from you.
<<I am very scared for this country and its safety if john kerry is elected. you have been warned.>>
i feel duly warned that you will be scared.
First, I'd like to address the comment about Bill Clinton getting the standing ovation at the UN: The fact that the UN likes a President is an indication to me that there is something wrong. They liked Bill Clinton because of his liberal stance on the issues. George Bush is disliked by much of the world because he is a conservative. George Bush was elected because of his conservative values, and because of the hope that he would bring integrity back to the White House. I know many of you would say otherwise, but I think he has done that. I don't agree with Bush on every issue, but I always try to go on the assumption that there is a lot that we, the American Public, are not allowed to know.
Also, I don't consider what we are doing in Iraq nation-building. We are repairing the damage we have done since being there. We went into Iraq to depose an evil dictator, and now rather than punish the Iraqi people by leaving our mess for them to clean up, we are picking up after ourselves. And we have to stay until a new government is installed in order to avoid the rise of a new Saddam-type dictator.
Although I am the first to admit that we have a long ways to go before our country could truly be considered safe (it it ever could), I believe we have come a long ways under George Bush's administration towards that goal.
I also want to add that the UN does not have the best interests of the US at heart. We cannot wait for the UN to agree with us before we take action in situations concerning our national security. There is no one alive that can convince me that Iraq under Saddam wasn't a threat to our national security. If the UN had its way, we would still be trying to negotiate with him despite the fact that he was breaking all of the rules.
John Kerry has indicated that he would cooperate with the UN. The UN would like nothing more than to have our country do its bidding (by the way, the UN is anti-American).
For this reason as well as others, I, too, am afraid for the safety of our country under John Kerry.
Candace
We didn't go to save the poor people of Iraq. There are other dictators who treat their citizens far worse and most of them weren't even put into power by us. I have a problem with the fact that we were lied to when we got into Iraq, not that we are saving innocent civilians.
clegg
Quote:
On 2004-08-10 14:25, dlitedan wrote:
my 3 cents,
I keep hearing about WMDs and how there isnt any there and we should leave iraq alone. Does anyone realize that saddam is a PROVEN tyrant that commits mass slaughters of people and torture every day? It seem to me a lot of americans are selfish and say "hey if there are no WMDs and they arent going to bomb us then lets stay out of it". as a stronger country we should be helping those in need and who are suffering from phycotic killers for no reason. I know it costs the lives of soldiers and that is traggic, but look at the good we could accomplish by risking americans lives to save thousands of others. there is a world beyond this one and people better stop thinking about themselves instead of others. I am very scared for this country and its safety if john kerry is elected. you have been warned.
Clegg, you said this-
"That said, I have had god in my school (I went to a public school in NY and then a private catholic school in IL) and no one has a problem with it till it takes over other measures of reason. It becomes a very shady line. Once it is entered, how far does it go? I don't believe having no god in schools affects a student in any way. That said, I don't think there is any school with no god in it as well. If you want your kids to have a religious upbringing, do it at home or Sunday school or whatever. They spend most of their time at home any ways."
I have read every post in this thread thus far and I am astonished at so many of the quickly typed and poorly thought out responses. All have made some intelligent responses and gone on to completely sound like idiots. Clegg the day has 24 hours in it and that is all, regardless of what we dream it has. Simple math partner and I am a veteran a college graduate and a parent of two children and a successful business man all at the age of 30. On with the simple math. The average adult worker in the united states works 47 hours a week over a six day work week and evryone gets a 30 min or 1hour lunch each day that is and average 8hours and 30minutes monday through friday the average parent is at work and another 6 hours on Saturday. The average adult sleeps 7 hours a night are you still with me on the math if not here it is.
24 x 7=168 hours in a week
8.5 x 5= 42.5 hours M-F
6 x 1= 6 hours on Saturday
7 x 7= 49 hours sleep
42.5 + 6 + 49 =97.5 hours
168-97.5= 70.5hours that an adult has left to shop for food buy clothes for the family do homework perform yard work take care of other required life sustaining events in the life of ones family and possibly take part in a chosen religious education and worship service of some sort. Far less than the " Most of the time children are home statement" YOU MADE. Personally we as americans spend to much time boasting our accomplishments and intelligence that we completely over complicate everything in our lives especially politics and the issues. Simply put "Perception is reality" whatever you nit wits percieve something to be is what it is, if you percieve it to be good for you it will be until you percieve it to be bad and then it will be. And if you are a fool you will over complicate that statement and percieve it as BAD too and continue to do little but talk of things rather than do something to change them. A man once wrote "All that evil needs to succeed is for GOOD MEN to do nothing." -----Proud American that would like to listen to people with positive remarks on the state of America and positive solutions to America's problems rather than pissing and moaning.
Ah newcreation, we meet again.
Quote:
First, I'd like to address the comment about Bill Clinton getting the standing ovation at the UN: The fact that the UN likes a President is an indication to me that there is something wrong.
Being respected by the world community is wrong but being hated by everyone means we are on the right track? America is one of the most liberal nations in the world. For a woman who claims to be a card-carrying Republican, you must have realized very little George Bush has done is conservative, beside use his religion as a compass to guide the nation.
Quote: that he would bring integrity back to the White House
Oh come on..integrity back into the white house? Bill Clinton had sex with an ugly woman and was afraid to admit it, every other college kid in america can relate to that. What he did wasn't right and doesn't go well with conservative values, I agree. But lying about having sex and taking a nation to war and being responsible for over 900 american lives, in my humble view, is a far bigger crime. Obviously, taking this stance puts me at the risk of being labeled as 'Un-american" and a "traitor' and what not. Some people just don't get what being an American is all about.
Quote: Also, I don't consider what we are doing in Iraq nation-building. We are repairing the damage we have done since being there.
Yes, finally someone agrees! And to make sure it doesn't becoming a breeding ground for terrorism.
Quote: We went into Iraq to depose an evil dictator
It would seem you have been misinformed. We went into Iraq to take away weapons of mass destruction from a leader who didn't like us and had the weapons and the ability to attack american military interests around the world.
Quote: but I always try to go on the assumption that there is a lot that we, the American Public, are not allowed to know.
A scary thought but yes, I would certainly hope so too. The bigger issue arises when the Senate Intelligence Comm. does not know and neither do most of our allies...secrets so powerful we didn't share with the U.N. and other allies so they can agree and help us in Iraq? I doubt there is a secret so powerful only a handful of men deserve to know. And by the way, we cannot go into war based on such secrets.
Quote: And we have to stay until a new government is installed in order to avoid the rise of a new Saddam-type dictator.
Again, we agree. It would be nice if we could get some assitance though. In case you didn't notice, our military is having a tough time coping. We may be the most powerful military but the bombing from a mile above is over, we now need troops on the ground. Troops we don't seem to have. And we do not ask the U.N. who have agreed to help as long as they can take over the operation. The U.S. want to lead foreign troops into Iraq under its own authority. Do you blame any country for not agreeing? Which politician would do that? Imagine France asking for ten thousand troops so they can start a war..and yea, those ten thousand troops would be under the authority of the French military, not American. I am sure the American tax payer and the servicemen and women would be thrilled.
Quote: Although I am the first to admit that we have a long ways to go before our country could truly be considered safe.
Yes, unfortunately, you are right. It would certainly help though if we went after the terrorists, the networks and the nations that support terror networks instead of wasting billions of dollars and hundreds of lives on...another nation for secrets we are not important enough to know.
Quote: I also want to add that the UN does not have the best interests of the US at heart. (by the way, the UN is anti-American).
With such powerful arguments, I can't possibly disagree. By the way, the UN cannot afford to be anti-american. They fully supported Afghanistan because we had a case for war and it was made clear. Looking back, it is hard to argue the U.N. was wrong with Iraq. Remember the footage of Powell pulling up one evidence after another, pinpointing massive chemical plants and how the weapons are being transported? We also don't seem to like the ICC and call it unamerican. After Abu-Ghraib, we don't have much going for us. And the ICC is one of the most pro american organizations. Plenty of cases have been brought up against american soldiers and it has put down every single one of them. It maintains that the U.S. is fighting a war and laws are not being broken. The U.N. is not unamerican. Disagreeing with us on Iraq, sadly enough, gives them a stronger track record than us.
Quote:There is no one alive that can convince me that Iraq under Saddam wasn't a threat to our national security.
Please elaborate. Saddam was a ruthless dictator who ruled his land with an iron fist. He hated america. He did not have the resources to launch an attack against america. He did not have any weapons to launch an attack with. He did not have any military bases capable enough of even firing a weapon long enough to touch any american base. He did not have any terrorist networks operating within his country. As long as he was in power, he would not let any terrorist network enter his country because it was a threat to his power. The only proof of any connection whatsoever was a meeting between a high ranking Iraqi official and a al-qaeda operative that took place in Prague, I believe. That was what Dick Cheney had said in a Meet The Press episode when we were making the case for war. About a month and a half ago, he was doing an interview on TV where he said...he DID NOT ever make that claim since this information was only likely, not guranteed. I obviously found that ammusing because they ran a rerun of the Meet the Press episode a few days later where he goes on to make that assertation. I don't hold that against him though, all politicians lie, democrats or republicans.
Anyways, I haven't had a chance to read your opinion on the other thread yet. Will do so later tonight. I will stop getting involved in these discussions in a few days, I waste too much time here and not enough looking for deals or reading other relevant forums
Besides, arguing on an internet forum board will not change anyone's mind.
Regards,
clegg
While I am on a role here let me add That all of you, whether you are a Democrat or not, who support all of these widely left and liberal views and down with conservative beliefs that are pushing our way of life from capitalism to socialism are posting on a site dedicated to free capitalism in buying and selling real estate for profit and if you get your way with your rhetoric will no longer have the luxury of doing just that. Nor will Michael Moore and others like him have the freedom of speech to spew the filth from their putride mouths that they so freely state is their right. Freedom of speech is just that If I want to talk about Christianity I can just like they can talk against it but don't you dare tell me when and where I can and can't My tax dollars helped build that Federal Building or state building too. So start an arguement about something that will genuinely make a difference in our lives not just your God forsaken egos.
Let me say that I dont like either candidates, and I am scared of what Kerry will do. But after reading about how much Bush has supposedly done for this country , it seems as though someone needs to gather there facts. I actually think that Bush is better than Gore (who actually won the ballot) but there are some issues that we will be paying for during the next election. I dont think the administration has been entirely truthful with the information they have given us, or there real agenda for attacking Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1021534,00.html
There are other personal concerns over why we were attacked and exactly by whom.
http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10149
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0324/dailyUpdate.html?s=entt
But what worries me that absolute most over this whole election and for whom I should vote is the tie between Kerry and Bush
http://www.ancestry.netscape.com/landing/strange/bush4/index.htm?o_xid=10429&o_lid=10429&o_xt=10429&sourcecode=10429
http://www.ancestry.netscape.com/landing/strange/bush4/tree.htm
lol
Kyle
[ Edited by KyleGatton on Date 08/10/2004 ]
Clegg you really should relax my last post was not directed at you or to you. If you read my first post in its entirety you would understand that I did say I read every post thus far and was quite frankly astonished at the number of Ignorants and there widely unintelligent statements. Not in any way do I disagree with all you have said just simply make all your statements with the same accuracy as all of your others. We have a very lazy America today and people don't bother to look any further than the first thing they hear. And the last staements in my first post were not meant as an insult to you either, they were simple thought for all who have and are participating here. If I wanted to insult you I would have said something like, "Don't flatter yourself that you would command all of my attention with my statements. You said yourself that arguing is a waste of time so why respond to my post with anger and distaste. By your own words you would be contradicting yourself by lowering yourself to a level you have already condemned as a waste of time." Something we all Should know is very bad in real estate transactions- wasting time that is.
Fair enough, I misjudged. And yes, I am wasting time with arguments I can't really win, not on an internet forum board. But, I have a week and a half to kill and nothing better to do.
But since you mention it, I will drop by the gym. Its been a good 5 days.
Clegg
Aren't we lucky we haven't pissed off the moderators yet? It's getting hot in here!
George Bush is bad for the country. John Kerry would be very much worse. The real pity is they can't both loose, leaving the office vacant.
1. Iraq HAD WMD's (He used them on the iranians and his own people). This is not disputed.
2. Iraq's WMD's Dissappeared
3. There is no evidence of their destruction (which is not a simple process that goes undocumented and without evidences)
4. We don't know where they are now. He had them...where did they go???....does that bother anyone besides me???
5. WMD's were not found in Iraq (could be burried, could have been exported, sold, etc)
6. Whether or not we should have been there the first time is a separate arguement. However, Sadaam was in violation of 17 UN resolutions. My question is why did we allow him to jerk us (the USA and the UN) around for so long. We should have taken him out of power years ago.
7. The UN should have led the coalition....why didn't they??? MONEY!!! Interestingly, The USA is being crucified by the media. They say we went in there for money. True, we have oil interests, but it cost us billions of dollars. France, Germany, and Russia DIDN'T want to go into iraq (drum roll.......) BECAUSE OF MONEY! Iraq was giving them tons of money for contract work. The Oil for food program became a buyout. Frankly, they had a pretty good thing going, financially speaking, and the USA ruined it for them! The league of nations (UN Version 1.0) Failed because it had no power to enforce it's will. Not that I love the UN, but as soon as it looses it's power it's no more than a preacher in the street saying "do this, do that"
I agree that the STATED reasons for going in there were a bit thin, but the fact is we should have been in there years ago. Clinton should have been in there. Clinton was the president for 8 years and president durring numerous Al Quaida attacks. Bush was only in office 8 months when the towers were hit. Why isn't Clinton being blamed for any of this???
Additionally....We liberated 50 Million Iraqies. They love what we've done for them. They don't like that we're still there, but we can't leave now or IRAQ WILL BE SOLD TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER! Leaving now allows a rich, powerful terrorist to have a good, steady income. Not a good situation for us.
It took the USA a long time to get our constitution worked out. A democracy is a fragile things. Ours is still under fire and we're still figuring out how to interpret it. Imagine if our police forces, CIA, FBI, military, government, local elected leaders, etc, etc, etc.....ceased to exist tomorrow. How long would it take to rebuild our country. Rebuilding Iraq can't and won't happen overnight...and if it does, it won't be very stable.
Tangent....Since when is President of the USA a world popularity contest. Bet the French would love a president who put soda in their drinking fountains. Why do we want the approval of countries that we don't agree with???
Interestingly enough, John Kerry was a very strong supporter of us going into Iraq. Where's his support now??? Once again, trying to tell people what they want to hear rather than sticking to his guns. What a flake. Kerry is a socialist. This country was made great, and will stay great, because of capitalism. Not by putting heavy taxes on everyone that is contributing to the economy. If John Kerry wins, we'll need an extra dose of God blessing America.
I hated Bush's Health care reform. I wish he'd take a stand on Imigration and do something about it. I wish that he'd address the budget crisis and the pending economical crisis. That said, I think he's made good decisions on tough issues. I believe he's a man of principals rather than politics. I'll be voting for Bush come November.
Hey guys. Really like your feedback on all of this. But alas, this thread would go on and on, so I must lock it.
Thanks guys.