Bush and the Army that supports him.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Giuliani said yesterday, "no matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there."

That statement W is going to inflame lots fo military personal families that are here in the US while their loves ones are fighting bu# war, when my husband heard that statement, he a retired marine and veteran of first gulf war could not believe it, he said for the first time that, thet statement is the worst thing to say when at the beginning of the invasion all bu# wanted was to protect the oil fields in Iraq, the protection of the people and the protection of the ammo scattered all over the city was not priority, and now they one to blame the military, for the decisions of others?

My husband said, "the troops only take orders and when they are ordered to do a mission they do it." Guarding the areas where the explosives were was not priority at the time.

The statement that stupid man did is going to make more damage than people think to the families of military personnel in Iraq.

I highly reccomend it for you.
Going on record to bad mouth the CINC while active duty? It's not going to happen. Don't confuse that for wide spread support.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON

Originally posted by Herman
Now that's wrong right there. Kerry isn't against the war...well it's hard to tell.

No it's not. He is against the way this president jumped to war.

But he does plan to continue the war. He speaks quite frequently of winning the war on terror.

He was for the war, then refused to fund it

I believe that Kerry and some other senator came up with a bill that proposed a way to fund the 87 billion thru specific means, rather than simply taking 87 billion out of the budget with no real way to pay for it. I think it was then voted down, and Kerry ended up voting against the final bill which appropriated 87 billion without specifying exactly where it would come from. So he refused to write a blank check when we could have easily diverted the 87 billion from another source to fund the troops, but the other congressmen didn't agree.

Do you have any non-biased sources to back that up? If so, that his plan would even work? If so, that he even put forth the bill to be voted on?

Kerry tried just as hard as Bush to avoid it.

You have non-biased sources to back that claim up?

That's just the thing, non-biased sources wouldn't report that There are countless sites about this, do a search on google yourself to find it! You probably won't believe any of it anyway, and I don't blame you.

Originally posted by Herman
But he does plan to continue the war. He speaks quite frequently of winning the war on terror.

He doesn't have a freaking choice, lol. You pull out now, and Iraq truly will be the 'terrorist haven' that Bush and co. tried to convince it was to start with. We are stuck there for the forseeable future, and we have only Bush to blame for that. We are now forced to see this thru to the end, or else Iraq will more than likely become a far worse threat to us than it ever was before.

Do you have any non-biased sources to back that up? If so, that his plan would even work? If so, that he even put forth the bill to be voted on?

I'll say it again. I don't argue a particular side to the death, I argue who is right. That means I don't lie, because I have no horse in any of this. I'm not a lifelong democrat, and I'm not a lifelong Republican. So when you accuse me of making stuff up, it just weakens your argument because it's like you can't argue against the point I'm making, so you just bring up the 'you're lying!' argument. But np.

Taken from: www.washingtonpost.com...

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, introduced legislation yesterday to finance the $87 billion package by reducing the size of Bush's tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. The proposal, cosponsored by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a presidential aspirant, would increase the top tax rates from 2005 through 2010 for those with taxable incomes of more than $312,000 a year.

And yes, it was voted on. It was defeated something like 57-42, and Kerry voted in favor of it (hence, the I voted for it). It didn't pass, and the final one that simply handed over 87 billion without it being taken from anywhere specifically did pass (hence the, I voted against it).

That's just the thing, non-biased sources wouldn't report that

There are countless sites about this, do a search on google yourself to find it! You probably won't believe any of it anyway, and I don't blame you.

Then don't just spew forth lies please. I don't do that, and don't expect fellow posters to do that either.

I don't know why anyone cares about the War on Terror.

It certainly is NOT something to make a choice about candidates. It's pretty much a non-issue at this point.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON

Originally posted by Herman
But he does plan to continue the war. He speaks quite frequently of winning the war on terror.

He doesn't have a freaking choice, lol. You pull out now, and Iraq truly will be the 'terrorist haven' that Bush and co. tried to convince it was to start with. We are stuck there for the forseeable future, and we have only Bush to blame for that. We are now forced to see this thru to the end, or else Iraq will more than likely become a far worse threat to us than it ever was before.

So, you believe that Kerry would be better at fighting this war than Bush? This is about who will win, not who you like. Just because you say he got us into this "mess", it doesn't mean someone else has to get him out.

Do you have any non-biased sources to back that up? If so, that his plan would even work? If so, that he even put forth the bill to be voted on?

I'll say it again. I don't argue a particular side to the death, I argue who is right. That means I don't lie, because I have no horse in any of this. I'm not a lifelong democrat, and I'm not a lifelong Republican. So when you accuse me of making stuff up, it just weakens your argument because it's like you can't argue against the point I'm making, so you just bring up the 'you're lying!' argument. But np.

Taken from: www.washingtonpost.com...

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, introduced legislation yesterday to finance the $87 billion package by reducing the size of Bush's tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. The proposal, cosponsored by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a presidential aspirant, would increase the top tax rates from 2005 through 2010 for those with taxable incomes of more than $312,000 a year.

First of all, I didn't say you were lying. I wanted to know if you had un-biased sources. This doesn't say anything about Kerry proposing a different bill, it says that he thought of a better way for America to pay for the bill....Making the rich pay for the bill. That's John Kerry's solution, punish the rich further than they're already punished.

And yes, it was voted on. It was defeated something like 57-42, and Kerry voted in favor of it (hence, the I voted for it). It didn't pass, and the final one that simply handed over 87 billion without it being taken from anywhere specifically did pass (hence the, I voted against it).

That's just the thing, non-biased sources wouldn't report that

There are countless sites about this, do a search on google yourself to find it! You probably won't believe any of it anyway, and I don't blame you.

Then don't just spew forth lies please. I don't do that, and don't expect fellow posters to do that either.

Did I spew forth lies? What lies did I spew? I told you to search it, they have numerous articals that you can easily find on google about that subject. Just do a search!

Originally posted by Herman
So, you believe that Kerry would be better at fighting this war than Bush? This is about who will win, not who you like. Just because you say he got us into this "mess", it doesn't mean someone else has to get him out.

As Kerry has said: how can you fix it when you don't admit it's broken? Bush apparently doesn't realize what he's done wrong, so what in the world would lead me to believe he's somehow going to magically make things better? When he's had a year to get the Iraq situation on the right track, and it's only gotten WORSE. FAR worse.

This doesn't say anything about Kerry proposing a different bill, it says that he thought of a better way for America to pay for the bill....Making the rich pay for the bill. That's John Kerry's solution, punish the rich further than they're already punished.

He co-sponsored an amendment that would have specified a definitive way to pay for the bill, it's semantics. And I can see you buy into the propaganda if you think the rich are being 'punished further' lol.

Did I spew forth lies? What lies did I spew?

You lied and when I called you on it, you admitted as much. There's articles on the internet that says Kerry eats babies too, am I to believe them as well? Please don't equate propaganda with truth. Kerry was not drafted into the armed services, he voluntarily enlisted for service in Vietnam. To say that he unsuccessfully tried to dodge the Vietnam situation in the same way that Bush sucessfully dodged it is a disgrace.

To win the war on terror, you need a serious and severe withdraw from world politics.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON

Originally posted by Herman
So, you believe that Kerry would be better at fighting this war than Bush? This is about who will win, not who you like. Just because you say he got us into this "mess", it doesn't mean someone else has to get him out.

As Kerry has said: how can you fix it when you don't admit it's broken? Bush apparently doesn't realize what he's done wrong, so what in the world would lead me to believe he's somehow going to magically make things better? When he's had a year to get the Iraq situation on the right track, and it's only gotten WORSE. FAR worse.

Well, this is just a difference in opinions. I think that Bush can win this. Kerry doesn't have a definate plan on winning this war. That's what we need to do...win. We don't need to pull out, we need to win. Bush can win it.

This doesn't say anything about Kerry proposing a different bill, it says that he thought of a better way for America to pay for the bill....Making the rich pay for the bill. That's John Kerry's solution, punish the rich further than they're already punished

He co-sponsored an amendment that would have specified a definitive way to pay for the bill, it's semantics. And I can see you buy into the propaganda if you think the rich are being 'punished further' lol.

So how are they not being punished? The top ....2% (I believe without looking it up) pay over 50% of the tax burden!!! How is this not being punished? If it was the same percentage, they'd still be taxed more money, but it would be be same percentage as the poor people. When 30-40% of your income is taken away because you make a lot of money, that's being punished.

Did I spew forth lies? What lies did I spew?

You lied and when I called you on it, you admitted as much. There's articles on the internet that says Kerry eats babies too, am I to believe them as well? Please don't equate propaganda with truth. Kerry was not drafted into the armed services, he voluntarily enlisted for service in Vietnam. To say that he unsuccessfully tried to dodge the Vietnam situation in the same way that Bush sucessfully dodged it is a disgrace.

You people need to redefine your definition of lies. Yes, there are articals about Kerry eating babies. These are jokes. This is where your common sense needs to kick in and say "Is there really ANY validity behind these arguments? Is it even possible?". I know you've used websites to site your material before. You used one to tell me that Kerry had a plan to pay for the bill! Am I to say you lied because all you did was show me a website? The information about Kerry is in a published book, as well as MORE than just one or two websites. This means that it should be considered. I didn't lie, and you know it.

[Edited on 30-10-2004 by Herman]

[Edited on 31-10-2004 by Herman]

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
To win the war on terror, you need a serious and severe withdraw from world politics.

I partially agree with you on this. In a way, that's what Bush did. He stuck with what he knew was right, and with the support of 40 nations went through with it regardless of what some politicians thought about it. I know you don't agree, and that's fine. I need to find a way to end this paragraph, so here you go

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I don't know why anyone cares about the War on Terror.

It certainly is NOT something to make a choice about candidates. It's pretty much a non-issue at this point.

HERE! HERE!
By last count, some 2,800+ people in the U.S. died in 2001 due to terrorist related activity. 2.5 million people in the U.S. died of various other reasons. Stop worrying about Osama and do yourselves a favor, Look out for that bus! Put out that cigarette! Wash your hands!

The fear of terrorism is an illusionary construct developed to cow the ignorant populous, divert attention, and prop-up the military-industrial complex.

WAKE THE F-UP!

Originally posted by scottsquared
HERE! HERE!
By last count, some 2,800+ people in the U.S. died in 2001 due to terrorist related activity. 2.5 million people in the U.S. died of various other reasons. Stop worrying about Osama and do yourselves a favor, Look out for that bus! Put out that cigarette! Wash your hands!

The fear of terrorism is an illusionary construct developed to cow the ignorant populous, divert attention, and prop-up the military-industrial complex.

WAKE THE F-UP!

Just a point of clarity. Are you being serious and talking to me to "Wake the..."? Are you being sarcastic? Or are you telling others to "Wake the..."?

Just thought I'd ask before assuming.

My message, bereft of any sarcasm, was intended for all those members who have bought into the fear mongering of our politicos. What I am saying is: You have a greater chance of being run over by a drunken driver in this country than the .001% chance of being killed by a terrorist, and that figure is from 2001, today the chance is even less.

Jethro, I think you're on the same page as I am on this, tell me if I'm wrong.

This illogical, fear driven policymaking, is diverting attention from the very serious issues of environmental degradation, hunger, social security, civil rights for all, etc., etc.

Originally posted by scottsquared
Jethro, I think you're on the same page as I am on this, tell me if I'm wrong.

This illogical, fear driven policymaking, is diverting attention from the very serious issues of environmental degradation, hunger, social security, civil rights for all, etc., etc.

Yes, I am on the same page. The nightly news in my area, and I suspect many others, runs like an infomertial of hate and fear.

"Is this a possible terrorist plot?"

"Police are on the lookout for a black male 18-40 (that really lines it down)."

"What you need to know in case of a terrorist attack"

Duct Tape

Bottled Water

Gas Masks

Y2K

Sensational media has ruined us in part. The Big Two have meerly swept up the rest.

Originally posted by scottsquared
My message, bereft of any sarcasm, was intended for all those members who have bought into the fear mongering of our politicos. What I am saying is: You have a greater chance of being run over by a drunken driver in this country than the .001% chance of being killed by a terrorist, and that figure is from 2001, today the chance is even less.

Jethro, I think you're on the same page as I am on this, tell me if I'm wrong.

This illogical, fear driven policymaking, is diverting attention from the very serious issues of environmental degradation, hunger, social security, civil rights for all, etc., etc.

Take 9/11 away, then evaluate the Bush Presidency. You can, but only so far. You have a presidency predicated on fear &loathing & more fear. Why can't they speak on any of the myriad issues covering American's quality of life? They won't, because they can't. that' s the alpha & omega of considering 4 more years for them.

Originally posted by Bout Time
Take 9/11 away, then evaluate the Bush Presidency. You can, but only so far. You have a presidency predicated on fear &loathing & more fear. Why can't they speak on any of the myriad issues covering American's quality of life? They won't, because they can't. that' s the alpha & omega of considering 4 more years for them.

I think much the same could be said of Kerry, in his ineffectiveness that is.

What is Kerry good at that the President is not? Nothing of note, surely not his platform.

The things he is better at lend no credability to his candidacy in any way because he is advocating the same thing as the Bush family, more of the same garbage.

Different wrapping.