F*** the Republican party

[Flex]

What do I see in Bush?

I see a man that does what he says he's going to do.
I see a man that truely cares for the american people.
I see a man that will not compromise US security.
I see a man that tells the truth.

Will not compromise US security is the ONLY one i will give you. But are we defending US security by invading Iraq? what happened to those WMD's? i guess we were wrong about those.

Truely caring for the American people? I think you gotta take taht back. Americans are still needlessly getting killed in the middle east.

And tells the truth? come on, man. he doesnt even know what he's saying when he reads off his note cards.

And does what he says he's going to? Stickboy, the economy is in shambles. they're are no jobs. republicans try to take credit that they have bettered the economy and created jobs, ya, well guess what, that was after you killed the economy in the first place. Remember teh Clinton era? the economy was booming. and oil and gas prices? didnt Bush promise to lower those? it costs me $800 to fill my freakin' tank, half way.

whatever. its an endless debate that has no right answer. like i said, i'm not even a democrat, but i just can't stand Bush. the fuckin guy is crooked as a dog's hind leg. "Thanks for getting me into office, dad".

 

[M.J.H.]

Gotta' agree. I absolutely hate Bush.

 

[Monolith]

Monolith, I'll give you Korea and Vietnam. Those are endlessly debated foreign conflicts for their own respective reasons of whether or not we should've got involved.

But OMG, are you EVEN trying to be serious be mentioning WW1 and ESPECIALLY WW2 here?????

Are you saying that if a Republican was in power during Pearl Harbor, he would've forgiven the Japanese, because obviously they went off-course and bombed Pearl Harbor by accident. They were obviously supposed to hit "Squirrel Harbor", a non-US target of the allies. The republican president would've then invited Mussolini to join him for espresso to talk about how the U.S. doesnt care Italy is trying to take over the Mediteranean. And finally our great rep. pres. would fly over to Nazi Germany and tell Hitler simply to "cut it out, Adolf". When all the axis powers finally conquered the rest of the world, save the US, our pres. would get those evil m-fer's to let the US live seperately in our own peaceful democracy, while they ruled the rest of the world in a tyrranical, evil, slavery, fascist, murderous rule.

Have you ever even taken a history class?

Monolith, as stupid as my sarcasm sounds right there, your comment about how a Democrat "got us into" WW1, and ESPECIALLY WW2 is 100x worse.

I was merely putting everything into context. Would you have preferred if i just said "OMG DEMOCRATS GOT US INTO EVERY STUPID WAR IN THIS CENTURY" while ignoring that they also got us into two "righteous" wars? A democrat did "get us into" WW1 and WW2. I didnt say if it was good or bad. Easy now, take a deep breath.

Did you even scroll down to the second half of my post, in which i disregarded WW1 and WW2?

 

[Monolith]

Well, I have just a few corrections on your Republican warrior lovefest....first of all, it was Eisenhower who got us into Vietnam, a conflict that could have been settled quickly several times by both Truman and Eisenhower. Ike considered using the Bomb to rescue the poor besieged French, who were busy trying to maintain a decayed colonial outpost while we were pumping food and materials into their homeland to keep THEM from voting for a communist government. In the end, it was the General who decided NOT to send American troops in to rescue the French, because he feared too many casualties in jungle terrain.

Eisenhower had several hundred civilian and military advisors in vietnam. JFK increased that number to 15,000 almost immediately after his election.

And i find it interesting that your tone suggests a disdain for Eisenhower not supporting the french.

 

[Monolith]

You don't re-elect a President who talks about being a "wartime" leader and then does everything possible to promote divisive domestic policies. You can't preach about crusading for "freedom" and then have a military officer running around the country telling people this is a "holy war." And you can't tell your people that you are freeing someone else while you campaign for half a dozen constitutional amendments that further restrict freedom at home.

A "wartime" President promotes unity. . .not proselytize one group's religious beliefs while disrespecting others. He started off fine after 9/11. . .and then deteriorated at the direction of Karl Rove until he sounds like a puppet of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and every fearmongering weird-ass this country has ever produced.
The Party has already as good as lost one Senate seat in Illinois, since Allen Keyes, who at least is honest in his embracing of the Republican Party platform, has managed to alienate even the moderate Republicans. The Prez needs to be real careful about running on some of that platform - I don't think most people are interested in spending a fortune freeing Iraq so we can become a regulated theocracy HERE. Nor do I want our manufactured government for Iraq turning into the Bush model for our own - though he is stuck promoting it now.

So... what exactly are these "divisve domestic policies"? And can you explain to me why the US government/military seems to go out of its way to respect islam throughout this "holy war"? I mean, we haven't rounded up muslim's in internment camps as our democratic president did to the Japanese in world war 2, have we? We havent just bombed the Shia mosque in Najaf because its filled with terrorists, have we? In fact, does not the mere mention of anti-islamic behaviour bring about the wrath of a few hundred civil liberties groups? Hell, when rednecks like Jerry Falwell started blabbering about how bad islam was, Bush actually said "Islam... is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others." He's iterated on numerous occasions that he feels the terrorists are simply trying to hijack the islamic faith.

And what exactly are these "half dozen constitutional amendments" that are going to restrict our freedoms...? The only proposed amendment im aware of is the one on gay marriage, and while i dont agree with that, im not concerned. A constitutional amendment is a massive undertaking, one that even Bush couldnt muster the support for with a second term. Anyway, when you figure out what those other amendments are, let me know.

Again, Bush hasn't done a thing to antagonize Islam any further than necessary. He in fact does all he can to illustrate this as a war on terror, and not a war on Islam. How you could see it as anything else is disconcerting.

 

[crisg555]

sorry to keep babbling,

but when Bush makes a speech, does he even read it first????

He looks like a fuckin idiot when he talks. he looks like its all brand new information for him. WTF is he talking about???

I've always wondered that. I hear his bloopers all the time on the radio. You would think they would sit down with him, and practice before the speech. I think that's embarrasing.


In regards to who to vote for president, I'm still not sure who I would vote for

. Is there a third candidate....

 

[Monolith]

You might be surprised...as a man who "truely cares for the american people" he might have some explainin' to do about a slew of constitutional amendments designed to restrict civil rights, especially some which he hasn't personally endorsed. Let's see him explain the compassion in that Party's platform.

A Texas accent and an "aw shucks" tone preesnted by a man with a Yale education sounds more Hollywood than truthful to me. And his famous claim to be a "uniter, not a divider" should be an interesting "truth" to explore.

I was going to play nice, but this made me mad.

Stop using this typical democratic subversion of "if i say it enough some people will start to believe it." There is no "slew" of proposed constitutional amendments. There is one, which has no chance of being passed.

I realize how hard it is to find legitimate reasons to hate Bush, but you could at least try to make them believable.

 

[Flex]

Would you have preferred if i just said "OMG DEMOCRATS GOT US INTO EVERY STUPID WAR IN THIS CENTURY" while ignoring that they also got us into two "righteous" wars?

Did you even scroll down to the second half of my post, in which i disregarded WW1 and WW2?

Actually, i would've prefered that. the world wars were about as "righteous" and def. as neccesary as your gonna get.

And no, i didnt see that part in the 2nd half of your post. i went back to reread it, but i still didnt see it.

BTW, what about the current war in Iraq? is that considered a war? thats certainly not started by the democrats. that was started by a dickhead who needed to retaliate against somebody, and since he couldnt find the real culprits, he went after someone who us Americans know of very well and dislike, Saddam.

well, if this is considered a war, what republican pres. is gonna bail us out this time? certainly not Bush

 

[Flex]

I realize how hard it is to find legitimate reasons to hate Bush

are you being serious? actually, i can't find a reason NOT to hate him.
I dont even wanna comment this is so ridiculous.

and don't think i'm some pissed off democrat, cuz you republicans like to play that card all too often. I'd actually consider myself a free-lancer. in other words, i'll vote for who i think will do the best job. whether its rep. or dem., it matters to me not.

But damn, PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE give me reasons why you guys are so pro-Bush. i honestly, sincerely don't know why????????? the economy sucks. don't get me started on the war. civil rights are going down the shitter. His father got him into college, and his brother helped cheat him into the office.

In all honesty, PLEASE give me some reasons. i'm very curious.

 

[Flex]

Again, Bush hasn't done a thing to antagonize Islam any further than necessary.

He in fact does all he can to illustrate this as a war on terror, and not a war on Islam.

Oh, you don't think so?

I agree with you they he has repeatedly said this is a war on terror. But how do you think ALL the people in the middle east see it when we go in there and blow the shit out of Iraq? People "over there" don't hate our "way of life", like Bush keeps blabbering about. They hate the fact that we put our noses where they don't belong.

If there are terrorists in Iraq, so be it, go to war there. But so far he hasnt had ANY proof there is. Or the so-called WMD. or any other BS reason he has given.

 

[kbm8795]

Eisenhower had several hundred civilian and military advisors in vietnam. JFK increased that number to 15,000 almost immediately after his election.

And i find it interesting that your tone suggests a disdain for Eisenhower not supporting the french.

Not at all - if I felt his actions disdainful, I'd have no trouble typing that word to describe them at all. The point is, France asked Ike to save them at Dien Bien Phu - he considered using the Bomb and committing U.S. troops and decided against it because of casualty projections. Truman's mistake in that country was not recognizing the independence movement.

We were supplying the French troops in Indochina with most of their supplies and feeding the French at home at the same time.

A lot of things happened between that point in the Eisenhower Administration and JFK's decision.

 

[kbm8795]

I was going to play nice, but this made me mad.

Stop using this typical democratic subversion of "if i say it enough some people will start to believe it." There is no "slew" of proposed constitutional amendments. There is one, which has no chance of being passed.

I realize how hard it is to find legitimate reasons to hate Bush, but you could at least try to make them believable.

Read the Republican Party's platform as drafted in New York. Then look over Party proposals that are currently pending in Congress.

 

[kbm8795]

So... what exactly are these "divisve domestic policies"? And can you explain to me why the US government/military seems to go out of its way to respect islam throughout this "holy war"? I mean, we haven't rounded up muslim's in internment camps as our democratic president did to the Japanese in world war 2, have we? We havent just bombed the Shia mosque in Najaf because its filled with terrorists, have we? In fact, does not the mere mention of anti-islamic behaviour bring about the wrath of a few hundred civil liberties groups? Hell, when rednecks like Jerry Falwell started blabbering about how bad islam was, Bush actually said "Islam... is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others." He's iterated on numerous occasions that he feels the terrorists are simply trying to hijack the islamic faith.

And what exactly are these "half dozen constitutional amendments" that are going to restrict our freedoms...? The only proposed amendment im aware of is the one on gay marriage, and while i dont agree with that, im not concerned. A constitutional amendment is a massive undertaking, one that even Bush couldnt muster the support for with a second term. Anyway, when you figure out what those other amendments are, let me know.

Again, Bush hasn't done a thing to antagonize Islam any further than necessary. He in fact does all he can to illustrate this as a war on terror, and not a war on Islam. How you could see it as anything else is disconcerting.

Read the Republican Party platform and look at the Party's sponsored proposals in Congress. I'm not your research assistant.

Funny - he did little to punish that American military officer running around the country telling people this was a christian Holy War against Islam.

 

[maniclion]

World War I and II - Many republicans of the day were under the impression Jews were trying to take over America. Good thing a Democrat was in office.
Korea - McCarthyism of the Republicans of the time. Eisenhower slandering Truman that he was being soft on Commies.
Vietnam - Funding was started by Eisenhower and also his Dominoe Theory made it hard to change American minds, the only way to get elected was pretend to agree. Kennedy would have never sent troops to fight, but Johnson who was more of a Liberal Republican (thats what a Texas Democrat is) was trying to be half the man Kennedy was.

 

[gr81]

Stop using this typical democratic subversion of "if i say it enough some people will start to believe it." There is no "slew" of proposed constitutional amendments. There is one, which has no chance of being passed.

you mean kindof like repeating to the public over and over again that there are weapons of mass destruction until they buy it?? kindof like that? there actually is and if you paid attention you will know this

 

[kbm8795]

mmmm...hmm...and while the Prez was trying to sound inclusive about Islam, his leading support televangelists were blasting away at every other religion on the face of the planet as inferior. As their reward, the prez circumvented Congressional stalling on approval of his "faith-based" initiative to funnel tax dollars into charity work performed by those same televangelists. So Pat Robertson dug a few wells in India, and blasted the Hindu religion while dedicating them. Then the Party proposed a whole set of new provisions, including one to allow churches to endorse political candidates and campaign from the pulpit (even though nearly 70% of Americans polled are against that...but we don't get to "vote" on those things), supported a bill that would allow employees to practice their beliefs during work, even if it violated the company's customer service and human resources policies), sponsored a bill to establish a national hymn, and allow federal dollars to pour into religious institutions that remain exempt from non-discrimination employment laws. We could go into his secrecy in matters of national policy, the lack of press conferences, the ties of his family with the Second Christ, Rev. Moon, owner of the Washington Times, his appeals to the Pope to intervene in gathering support from the Catholic Church for his domestic social policies, the alteration of studies conducted by the National Science Board to better align findings with his religious and ideological beliefs, an economic policy so out of touch that half of all new bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. A prescription drug card policy that is so poorly explained and so confusing that only 14% of seniors eligible will use the plan. . .and of course the flipflopping on the 9/11 commission hearings, the we-can't-win-the-war-on -terrorism followed by yes-we-can-I -didn't-mean -it-that-way the next day, the "anyone can enter into any contract they like" followed by the sudden rant about "activist" judges who threw out his own state's sodomy laws for invasion of privacy and arbitrary enforcement (laws he supported as governor). Then he supports that constitutional amendment, knowing that the proposed draft could outlaw even a privately funded health insurance benefit, backtracks and suddenly says he thinks states can define civil unions, except as Leader of his Party, the Party proposed amendments in those states that would prohibit them by lumping those in with a vote on marriage. Then he signs into a law a partial ban on abortions, while his Party campaigns for a permanent ban on ALL abortions via still another constitutional amendment. We have the outsourcing of jobs, which his Administration said was "good" for the country, the importation of temporary labor from Mexico, the higher defense budget that still closes military bases around the country. . .

 

[Rich46yo]

KBM did you ever hear the word "paragraph"? I hope you all get used to Bush. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5915140/site/newsweek/ There is no way the American people are going to replace him with John Kerry. Actually I called this outcome a couple of months ago..................take care...............Rich

 

[Monolith]

Actually, i would've prefered that. the world wars were about as "righteous" and def. as neccesary as your gonna get.

And no, i didnt see that part in the 2nd half of your post. i went back to reread it, but i still didnt see it.

BTW, what about the current war in Iraq? is that considered a war? thats certainly not started by the democrats. that was started by a dickhead who needed to retaliate against somebody, and since he couldnt find the real culprits, he went after someone who us Americans know of very well and dislike, Saddam.

well, if this is considered a war, what republican pres. is gonna bail us out this time? certainly not Bush

How is Bush a "dickhead" for toppling a regime who - at the time - appeared to have stockpiles of WMD? The same guy who gassed his own people? The same guy who invaded his neighbors? The same guy who launched missiles into Israel? The same guy who ordered an assassination attempt on our president? The same guy who fired at UN aircraft patrolling "no fly zones" for 12 years? The same guy who refused to let weapons inspectors confirm that he wasn't trying to procure or build WMD?

I honestly dont understand the controversy here. There's one less dictator in the world, millions of people are freed, and all people in the states can think about is their 50 cent higher gas and how "worthless" it was that 1000 US servicemen died to liberate an entire country.

 

[Monolith]

are you being serious? actually, i can't find a reason NOT to hate him.
I dont even wanna comment this is so ridiculous.

and don't think i'm some pissed off democrat, cuz you republicans like to play that card all too often. I'd actually consider myself a free-lancer. in other words, i'll vote for who i think will do the best job. whether its rep. or dem., it matters to me not.

But damn, PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE give me reasons why you guys are so pro-Bush. i honestly, sincerely don't know why????????? the economy sucks. don't get me started on the war. civil rights are going down the shitter. His father got him into college, and his brother helped cheat him into the office.

In all honesty, PLEASE give me some reasons. i'm very curious.

You've told us all that youre a "free-lancer" two dozen times already. Constantly repeating it doesnt make you sound any more erudite. Really, we believe you.

The economy is doing pretty well in my eyes. My grandmother just sold her house for a great price. There was actually a bidding war right before the deal closed. There are "now hiring" signs at the local Costco and Stop&Shop. Home Depot just opened a new store 5 minutes from my house. Wal-Mart is building a new store right next to it. All of my friends found part time jobs over the summer, and none have had problems finding a job that fits their class schedule now that the new semester is starting. After the market crashed in late 2000, most of my stocks took a big hit and then either remainded stagnant or had 12 month graphs that looked like a 92 year old heart attack victims heart monitor. Over the past 12 to 18 months, theyve slowly yet consistently risen. If you look at a graph of the past 125 years on Wall Street, you'd see that a boom period like we had in the 90's comes along once every 50 years or so. And, usually, it's followed by a horrific crash. Amazingly, this one hasnt crashed. Things were rough for a couple years, but it was never as bad as past economic downturns.

As for civil rights, think you can clarify what exactly youre talking about? I keep seeing these generalizations thrown about, but nothing specific. I know you're not talking about the Patriot Act.

 

[Monolith]

I agree with you they he has repeatedly said this is a war on terror. But how do you think ALL the people in the middle east see it when we go in there and blow the shit out of Iraq? People "over there" don't hate our "way of life", like Bush keeps blabbering about. They hate the fact that we put our noses where they don't belong.

So, what should we do? Do we stop funding Israel? Do we stop supplying them with arms and technology? Do we allow the only democracy in the middle east to then be invaded by every single one of its neighbors, again?

For that matter, should we just sit idly by while dictators and theocracys take hold all over the world? The United States is founded on the principle that every person is entitled to certain unalienable rights. Wouldn't it be hypocritical for us to allow such maniacal dictatorships to flourish while declaring how firmly we believe in our individual rights? We salute the flag that symbolizes our resolve for equality, yet when the time comes to show the world how firmly we believe in these ideals, we decide that 1000 american lives are more valuable than several million living under tyranny. Or that an extra 50 cents per gallon of gasoline is far too high a price to pay just so we can stop a dictator from murdering and torturing his citizens, from paying the families of suicide bombers, and from using the black gold buried under his country to create the 3rd largest standing army in the world... with which he uses to force his will upon his neighbors.

Again, i fail to see how we could act any differently. Democracy is not yet a guaranteed evolutionary step for humanity. It was wiped out once more than 2000 years ago by people deemed "backwards" and "uncivilized." With communism and dictatorships still dominating the world's political heirarchy, we have no choice but to be aggressive. We can not sit by and hope the world turns out alright. A tyrannical government can take hold much faster than a democracy. As such, it is our duty to ensure democracy survives these first few hundred years of its rebirth. Simply looking at your life as a mutable, unaltering point in time is naive. Time moves at a much faster pace than any of us realize. Humanity has only been here for the blink of an eye. Civilization hasnt existed long enough to even be counted on the cosmic scale. Our ability to see beyond our current lives, and to look towards the future of our race is what should separate us from lesser animals. Our ability to look at the bigger picture, and to not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed with the here and now are vital to our future. The defense of democracy is the most justifiable war i can imagine. The gift of democracy is the most precious gift we can leave for future generations, no matter where on earth they live.

 

[Monolith]

Read the Republican Party platform and look at the Party's sponsored proposals in Congress. I'm not your research assistant.

Funny - he did little to punish that American military officer running around the country telling people this was a christian Holy War against Islam.

If you're not willing to qualify your accusations, then shut the fuck up.

Boykin, the guy im assuming youre referring to, made those comments at a single church. He wasn't running around the country. That said, the choice to fire him or not is complicated. There is a separation of church and state. There is also freedom of religion. When you have a person of strong religious faith who works for and directs aspects of the government, which right wins? Personally, i think that unless he is found to have used religion as a pretext for actions that would not otherwise have been taken, he should keep his job.

From his history, it appears that he's served admirably thus far. He was involved in the Iranian hostage crisis of 1980, Grenada, Panama and Mogadishu. He even won a purple heart. I'd be hesitant to fire someone that experienced, too.

 

[Flex]

Wouldn't it be hypocritical for us to allow such maniacal dictatorships to flourish while declaring how firmly we believe in our individual rights?

I agree it SUCKS that people don't have the luck (and it is luck to be born into a free country like the US) that we were born with.

but at the same time, WHY Iraq?

you've already given all the reasons why Saddam is such a bad guy. But we've known that since Desert Storm.

If Bush wanted to spread freedom and liberty and all those great US values, why Iraq? Do you know how much other shit is going on all over the world? in Africa, where people are getting slaughtered just as bad if not worse than Iraq....in certain parts of Europe, where its still like the middle ages....and in other parts of the middle east???

Again Monolith, i'm not argueing that people all over the world shouldnt be as "lucky" as we are. I think many of the troubles of the world fuckin suck. People just don't, can't and/or won't realize how to live in harmony with each other.

But in this case, it seems Bush wanted to "liberate" Iraq b/c he couldnt catch the real 9/11 terrorists. He knew the country would back him in a war because we were in such a state of shock, and he didnt know who to go after, except good old, faithful Saddam.

 

[Monolith]

I agree it SUCKS that people don't have the luck (and it is luck to be born into a free country like the US) that we were born with.

but at the same time, WHY Iraq?

you've already given all the reasons why Saddam is such a bad guy. But we've known that since Desert Storm.

If Bush wanted to spread freedom and liberty and all those great US values, why Iraq? Do you know how much other shit is going on all over the world? in Africa, where people are getting slaughtered just as bad if not worse than Iraq....in certain parts of Europe, where its still like the middle ages....and in other parts of the middle east???

Again Monolith, i'm not argueing that people all over the world shouldnt be as "lucky" as we are. I think many of the troubles of the world fuckin suck. People just don't, can't and/or won't realize how to live in harmony with each other.

But in this case, it seems Bush wanted to "liberate" Iraq b/c he couldnt catch the real 9/11 terrorists. He knew the country would back him in a war because we were in such a state of shock, and he didnt know who to go after, except good old, faithful Saddam.

Yes, there are many other countries besides Iraq with evil dictators and oppressed people. But because we can't help all of them should not be a reason for us to give up trying.

I agree that the original argument for war with Iraq was Saddam's posession of WMD's. Thus far, we haven't found any. But it's important to realize that at that time all of our intelligence pointed to links between Al Qaeda, Iraq, and a drive toward procuring or producing WMD's. After having been attacked in New York, and then to be told that Iraq could be a source of this malevolence, i'm not sure if anyone put in that situation could make a different decision.

If this were a matter of us invading a democratic country like France, then i could understand the outrage. Deciding to invade a democratic nation is not a decision to be made over just bits and pieces of intelligence. But when you're facing a dictator, there are only two outcomes: You free a subjugated people, or you free a subjugated people and remove a source of global terrorism.

 

[kbm8795]

KBM did you ever hear the word "paragraph"? I hope you all get used to Bush. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5915140/site/newsweek/ There is no way the American people are going to replace him with John Kerry. Actually I called this outcome a couple of months ago..................take care...............Rich

Why Rich...I'm so flattered you paused from one of your rants long enough to notice.


I'm not too worried about a bounce in the polls - people don't know the Party platform yet. Besides, since when did you ever trust something the liberal media printed?

 

[M.J.H.]

 

[kbm8795]

If you're not willing to qualify your accusations, then shut the fuck up.

Boykin, the guy im assuming youre referring to, made those comments at a single church. He wasn't running around the country. That said, the choice to fire him or not is complicated. There is a separation of church and state. There is also freedom of religion. When you have a person of strong religious faith who works for and directs aspects of the government, which right wins? Personally, i think that unless he is found to have used religion as a pretext for actions that would not otherwise have been taken, he should keep his job.

From his history, it appears that he's served admirably thus far. He was involved in the Iranian hostage crisis of 1980, Grenada, Panama and Mogadishu. He even won a purple heart. I'd be hesitant to fire someone that experienced, too.

Uh...if you aren't able to research enough to justify your support for a political party, I think you are the one way out of line here. It shouldn't be too hard to look at the Party's platform text. Besides, I've already mentioned two of the amendments in previous posts, and several of the proposals that would require amendments.

Now, as far as Boykin is concerned, he did a lot more than just speak at one church. There is a fairly well-documented trail of his presentations in quite a few different places, including reports of explaining the conflicts in those terms to other soldiers on the base and incidents reported back to Mogadishu. I'm afraid he represents a religious belief in this country that claims the concept of seperation of church and state is a myth and that the nation has an official religion. Just because the military barely disciplined him over one incident doesn't mean there wasn't a long trail they ignored.

Serving well has never been any barrier to drumming out other distinguished service personnel, including the gay ones who served admirably. Why....that's another plank in the Party's platform...

When you have someone working for the government that doesn't endorse or establish an official religion, and you have a strong faith, you do your job, and maintain your own relationship with the Creator. Otherwise, you aren't behaving any differently than the radical religious adversary he claimed we are waging "holy war" against. He isn't wearing the uniform issued him by his Church.

 

[Stickboy]

Will not compromise US security is the ONLY one i will give you. But are we defending US security by invading Iraq? what happened to those WMD's? i guess we were wrong about those.

Yeah, the intel was bad. We KNOW he had WMD's because we sold them to him. He could not account for their destruction - part of the agreement to end Gulf War I.

Truely caring for the American people? I think you gotta take taht back. Americans are still needlessly getting killed in the middle east.

How many of those Americans are there involuntary? You are talking military folks, who VOLUNTEERED to join the service.

And tells the truth? come on, man. he doesnt even know what he's saying when he reads off his note cards.

Oh, I'm sorry didn't realize you were suddenly physic. You accuse Bush of lying, but there is no proof that he has. Amazingly enough, Kerry has, I believe, FOUR different versions of what has happened in his past.

So, yeah, come on man. Yank your chain if you wish, don't yank mine.

And does what he says he's going to? Stickboy, the economy is in shambles. they're are no jobs. republicans try to take credit that they have bettered the economy and created jobs, ya, well guess what, that was after you killed the economy in the first place. Remember teh Clinton era? the economy was booming. and oil and gas prices? didnt Bush promise to lower those? it costs me $800 to fill my freakin' tank, half way.

How is the economy in shambles? Care to elborate? Seems to be doing just fine.

whatever. its an endless debate that has no right answer. like i said, i'm not even a democrat, but i just can't stand Bush. the fuckin guy is crooked as a dog's hind leg. "Thanks for getting me into office, dad".

Actually, there IS a right answer. You make accustations, now BACK THEM UP with actual facts (include sources). Where do you get your news from? The back of a comic book?

Not to be insulting, but .........damn.

 

[gr81]

just b/c you deny things, it doesn't mean they aren't going on ya know. thats a tactic almost as advanced as if I can't see then it's not happening.. very impressive

 

[phoenix0]

lol i know this is a stupid reason but i really dont like kerry cause his face scares me...lol btw check this out http://www.jibjab.com/default.asp click on this land

 

[Rich46yo]

Don't be to flattered, I didn't actually read your post, try using paragraphs next time. I sit here and read some of the posts you children are typing it and Im astounded how none of you know WHY we invaded Iraq. Are any of you old enough to remember Gulf-l? And all those cease fire agreements
and UN resolutions against Saddam's Iraq. You know, the ones that authorized force if he violated them?

Which he did, hundreds of times. He slaughtered the Shiites while the world community forced us to sit and watch. He obstructed the UN inspectors, harassed them, hid much of his WMDs, much of which he still cant account for. He eventually kicked them out of the country. He shot at our airplanes, tried to assassinate a former US president, starved his people while using the UN oil for food money to rebuild his army. How many chances were we supposed to give this guy? How many more UN resolutions? How much more political bullshit? He'd already started two major wars, had almost ignited a WW by lobbing scuds at Israel. It would have only been a matter of time before he reconstituted his military.

How many more chances could you have given this madman? Saddam would have always, ALWAYS, been a threat to America and our vital oil supply. The same clowns badmouthing Bush now about Iraq, and shrieking "no blood for oil" are all driving SUVs, have good jobs, and are watching their IRA's grow. If our ME oil supply was to be interrupted their comfy little selfish lives would be ruined and they'd all be howling for Bush's head ,and screaming to send the neighbors kid to war to re-open the oil pipeline. What fucking hypocrites!

There maybe little evidence that Saddam supported Al Qaeda but hes supported many other ME terrorist organizations and they are all our enemies. The only problem with the Iraq war is that Saddam should have been dealt with earlier.

And last we sent our armies 1/2 across the world to destroy Saddam because we had to make a fashion statement to the worlds tyrants that we COULD do it. The world don't run on love so get used to it. The only way this war will end this is if we bring democracy and freedom to these Islamic dictatorships . And its only going to happen thru the use of force. North Korea too! Its madness to let these tyranny's develop nukes and strategic delivery systems .

But we cant risk the lives of the wonderful young people in our armed forces just to "bring freedom" to the worlds oppressed. We can only do it if American interests are threatened. Thats it!
Frankly I think its a testament to the goodness and humanity of the American people that we are spending so much of our blood,wealth, and effort to rebuild Iraq and trying to give them freedom from tyrants like Saddam. We could have just annihilated them, as Russia did in Chechnya .....take care......................................Rich

Why Rich...I'm so flattered you paused from one of your rants long enough to notice.


I'm not too worried about a bounce in the polls - people don't know the Party platform yet. Besides, since when did you ever trust something the liberal media printed?