Im sorry I was addressing you with the wrong name....it was about 330am and i was getting bleary eyed and struggling to stay focused as it was
As you arent my grammar teacher, and proper spelling, punctuation etc are not required....it is not a concern of mine if you worry more about my
grammar than the ideas im expressing....Which by the way kinda supports MWM's contentions about speech/intelligence....the abillity to communicate
does not correlate to an lack of intelligence. Does the name Dr Stephen Hawkings ring a bell? You know, the theoretical physisist in the wheelchair
that "speaks" by typing with his eyes and using a voice machine?
As we were obviously conversing and you appeared to have no problems understanding me....i question your concerns over this...seems petty and off
topic. Im not going to jump thru hoops for you and personally dont care if i have a few gramatical/spelling errors. (Gramar errors left in for your
It was good of you to ask if english was my second language tho as otherwise i feel you would have insulted everyone that posts here for whom
english IS the second language, and who may not know the proper rules of english grammar or spelling.
you see I never posted anything about Bush being AWOL, although he certainly didn't sign up to go to Nam did he?
Lets look at your first post, second sentance for the real answer,
Bush may not have deserted by the definition of the word, but he sure avoided the war, he certainly did not sign up for it like Kerry,
Hmm desertion...AWOL...arent they the same? So you DID post something about this topic.
As Bush was in the national guard, it was entirely possible that his unit would have been activated, and he could have served in Nam. This is not
burning his draft card or fleeing to Canada. This was service in a recognised branch of defense.
27jd fails to back up allegations of corruption here,
Yeah, Im blindly accepting the rhetoric. Sorry.
Well, hopefully spending time here with us trying to "DENY IGNORANCE" will help cure your blind eye and aid in your discerning rhetoric from
I'm sure if I had solid proof of ..........
Hmm....proof of anything youve been speculating perhaps?
I CAN SPECULATE HOWEVER MUCH I WISH, IF EVERY DISCUSSION WAS VOID OF OPINION AND SPECULATION WE WOULD ALL BE ROBOTS!
surely you can, but dont be so suprised when someone calls you out on where the real facts are. As far as opinion, your entitled to one, but based
upon the one you express, i question how informed as a citizen you really are (not how much you think you are) and if your really going to vote based
upon things with no real basis or substance, even when shown more evidence to the contrary. This type of citizen/vote scares me more that either Bush
or Kerry in the whitehouse as its symptomatic of the voter malise this country needs to get over.
27jd struggles with this one,
Many companies got a chance to bid? Sorry, it was a no-bid contract buddy.
according to your own source,
The system has been awarding billions of dollars in military contracts to private firms.
Please note the PLURAL TERM firms, meaning more than one firm is getting government contracts. Yes Halliburton got one mentioned contract (out of how
many) that was no bid...big deal. There are other companies involved.
Halliburton’s government relations director says
Why did they get the no-bid contract to put out oil fires for the Army? “We are the only company in the United States that had the kind of systems in
place, people in place, contacts in place, to do that kind of thing,” says Dominy.
But he acknowledges the perception of cronyism it creates, which is a view only a look inside the process could dispel. “In fact, I wish I could
embed [critics] inside the Department of Defense contracting system. Once they’d done that, they’d have religion just like I do about how the system
cannot be influenced,” he tells Kroft.
Sounds like the FEDS chose the right company that could get the job done. This does not indicate giving it to someone that cant do the job, because
of political alliegences.
Also, because some of these contracts may deal with classified info/materials etc...mabey we the public dont really know the decision processes at the
D.O.D. to be able to state that this WAS cronyism as a fact...we would be making that up as speculation.
Lets look deeper, at the time the war was starting
Even before the war in Iraq began March 20, the Bush administration was considering plans to help rebuild the country after fighting ceased. According
to news reports in early March, the U.S. Agency for International Development secretly asked six U.S. companies to submit bids for a $900 million
government contract to repair and reconstruct water systems, roads, bridges, schools and hospitals in Iraq.
Hmm that would be 6 different companies here, not one.
Now indeed, the president DID restrict the bidding to only companies in countries that aided the war effort, which is the right thing to do as the
other countries werent willing to put their lives on the line to deserve a chance at the profits potential of rebuilding. Too bad France.
This site also lists contracts awarded so far at that time, which company, how much they donate to whom (Rep/Dem), and what the contract was
for....a reminder, this is just the start of the war effort and the contracts at that point....many more have come down the pipe since then. I wont
take up space posting what my link will allow you to read yourself, but notice that out of 9 contracts listed at that point 5 went to Rep sponsors and
4 went to Dem sponsors (where the companies support went)
But oh yeah...ONLY EVIL BUSH BUDDIES GET CONTRACTS RIGHT?
27jd's answer to my question about if i should dig up stuff on Kerry's cronies.
This is an attack Bush thread, not attack Kerry one....im sure its out there somewhere.
Besides, BOTH sides have significant clout with companies both domestic and foriegn. This proves what...that politics means influence over the
private sector...no duh.
the economy was doing great under Clinton, until your champion Bush came along.
What MWM1331 said! (he got one of my votes also)
A point to which you conceed to him 2 posts later.
27jd responds with sarcasm to my question "Liberating a country from invasion by a dictator is bad?" with,
Theres that noble cause I was expecting! You do not disappoint. Im sure they were very concerned about the people of that region
Are you saying that you were not in favor of Liberating a country from invasion by a dictator, which was approved thru the UN, and to which a large
group of nations all participated?
There are many reasons to have done this, not just for the bennefit of the Quaiti people...regional stability, oil intrests (for many countries), or
how about because it was just the honorable and just thing to do.
Imagine a post 9-11 world where the USA did not oppose saddams land grab...would he be more brazen if we had let him get away with it and we were
dealing with terrorist to? I can only immagine how both he and terrorist would be plotting the WEAK DO NOTHING AMERICANS then. I like our new
policy of "think twice about a butt whipping" better than allowing the perception that the USA is too scared to take actions if nessisary.
its not just the potential for corruption, some things are obvious, and their dealings are obviously corrupt. Just like the mafia
As i look and compare the mafia's history with that of say Bush and or Halliburton...I see no history of behaivior and violating the laws that are
similar between the mob and the others.....How are you judging Halliburtons actions to be criminal when it doenst appear that they have any criminal
history to indicate there are crimes occuring...not even any investigations of this....what criteria are you using that the law doesnt to determine
illegalities? any evidence? oh thats right if you had proof,
I would be dead.
as you have said.
27jd's appraisal of Saudi efforts at westernization efforts,
We pulled most of our military out of Saudi Arabia last I heard. And we're talking about a brutal regime here, they can reign in militants much more
quickly than you state. They know full well who they are and where. Change is not in the works, at best they are creating the illusion it is, and its
got you snowed.
So you think that a mostly fundamentalist, theocratic state can just decide to crack down on its own people without reprocussions....up to and
including causing armed insurrection (internal terrorism)? Saudis are killing Saudis already. The Saudi people that have died because of this
infighting paid the price for the royal families decision to change and "westernize".
This change might take a generation or longer before overall attitudes there will really show this change. To crack down any harder on their
own citizens risks a revolution, which would be bad and a bloodbath. Is that what you want? Yet another destabalized mid east nation?
You seem to need to dig your way out of the snow on this one..what a shallow view you have of this situation.
So our millitary is mostly withdrawn from there? This actually helps the Saudi Gov as some of the internal preassure about USA forces there is
dimminished. Besides, like 1/2 our army isnt next door should the Saudis request millitary assistance. Why would they...the Gov there is stable and
working with the west...unless they go wild internally or threaten the USA, we have no reason to put troops there, theyre needed elsewhere.
USA forces assisting them to crackdown wouldnt help them, it would probably hurt them as then to terrorists, they gave up the nations soveringty
to the west. If they rule on their own, while not favored, at least its an Islamist regime (as they percieve things). As opposed to the USA dominated
Iraqi Government. Which do you think the Saudis would like more?
27jd says Bush
has been a major player as far back as he could have been.
Didnt anyone ever tell you
Hate the game not the player. Indeed, some people are born with a silver spoon, Hmm let me guess...Bush sr made some kind of deal with the devil to
have a son and make sure Bush jr would grow up to be President...Hate him because he was born to an influential family now eh? Sounds like angst from
those less fortunate if you ask me.
27jd states semi correctly states...
He (BUSH) is forcing religion by passing laws against stem-cell research, passing laws banning gay marriage, and abortion rights just to name a few
Hmm, yes the President, as the chief of the EXECUTVE branch of GOV, is both setting a tone for legislation he'd like to see (adgenda), as well as
signing into law those bills that he recieves that he approves of.
Those pieces of legislation come from CONGRESS! Or the LEGISLATIVE branch of GOV. This is really basic Civics 101 in play here....
So where is your blame for CONGRESS for even passing legislation to the President that you dont approve of? You do realize that you as a citizen
have far more power over your Senator or Congress person than you do the President? Why arent you holding them accountable for creating such
"terrible" (subjective) legislation for the President to approve of? Bush cant make it into law without their efforts creating legislation
Oh yeah, It's all Bush's fault. How soon people forget the basic workings of this GOV.
As far as this issue "forcing religion" from either Congress or the Whitehouse, I dont think that all the people involved in these bills have
the same religon, indeed some may not believe in god at all. Yet they seemed to have passed these things into law. (Thru democratic means) How many
hundreds of your Senators and Congress people had to agree on this BEFORE Bush could have his way with it? (sign or veto)
But oh yeah....BUSH is tho only one responsible here. Democracy doesnt count here.
during Bush's press conference yesterday, he stated that if he knew before we went to war with Iraq, what we know now, he still wouldve invaded.
I'll take it for granted this statement is true.
GOOD!!! ME TOO.....
Look this whole terror/mid east crisis thing comes down to the idea that the west specifically the USA, doenst have the guts, the willpower, the
determination to stick it out and to take an active role over there. (for whatever reason) I dont believe that Saddam actually believed we would take
him out until too late. The president IS correct when he says this is an ideological battle. How long did the terrorists observe the UN's (and
the wests) reluctance to actually ENFORCE 10 years worth of sanctions they passed against Iraq? How much more empowered would they be now if they had
seen us cave in and do nothing time and again?
The time for do nothing, isolationist politics are over.