Letter to Kerry from Soldier
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Wow talk about someone that makes facts up as they go, you must be a Kerry supporter huh?
Liberated a country where 75% don’t want us? Hello, check your facts and figures. I think you will find that just about anybody who has been there and talked with the people and even done some polls will tell you that 75% or MORE are glad we went there, glad we did what we did and WANT us to stay until they are under FULL control…
The question:
Are we better off now then 4 years ago is the most stupidest question one could ask at this time. The real question is:
Are we better off today then we would have been if Algore was President and the answer is an ABSOLUTE YES!!!!!!!!! Have you seen the hard left nut case in action the past few years, damn the boy needs some serious medication or something…
YES, in large part what is going on today is Bill Clintons fault for refusing to be a man, a real leader and dealing with the problem of terrorist. There is absolutely nothing wrong with putting blame where it dually belongs.
I will agree there have been major problems in the world with terrorist for over 20 years and perhaps we should have gotten involved as a county much sooner but you know as well as I know the liberals would have NEVER let that happen. Remember liberals like Clinton practice appeasement which has been proven time and time again to NEVER WORK! (North Korea and Clinton comes to mind)
By Clintons inactions for his 8 years in office and some of his major screw ups gave the impression to terrorist around the world that America was a VERY WEAK country, he made us look like that disgusting *** country France for God sakes and that is indeed sad, how can anybody be as weak as France?
So do you think you would have been better off today had Algore been in office? That is the REAL question you should ask unless you’re scared and terrified of the real answer.
Remember before you answer that look at your ol’ boy the extremist left wing nut Algore and what he has said. Algore gives me nightmares to think what he would have done had he been in office. He would have either gave up, like France or the nut case may have launched a full nuclear attack on the Middle East. The man is not stable and hasn’t been for a very long time.
At least we know the real Algore, a complete left wing extremist who ran out of his medication but what is even scarier is Kerry a man that will say anything at anytime to anyone to make them happy. What is scary is no one, NO ONE knows what Kerry would REALLY do in any situation since he is always on both sides of the issue, not that is as terrifying as worrying about the next terrorist attack (thanks Clinton)
Liberated a country where 75% don’t want us? Hello, check your facts and figures. I think you will find that just about anybody who has been there and talked with the people and even done some polls will tell you that 75% or MORE are glad we went there, glad we did what we did and WANT us to stay until they are under FULL control…
The question:
Are we better off now then 4 years ago is the most stupidest question one could ask at this time. The real question is:
Are we better off today then we would have been if Algore was President and the answer is an ABSOLUTE YES!!!!!!!!! Have you seen the hard left nut case in action the past few years, damn the boy needs some serious medication or something…
YES, in large part what is going on today is Bill Clintons fault for refusing to be a man, a real leader and dealing with the problem of terrorist. There is absolutely nothing wrong with putting blame where it dually belongs.
I will agree there have been major problems in the world with terrorist for over 20 years and perhaps we should have gotten involved as a county much sooner but you know as well as I know the liberals would have NEVER let that happen. Remember liberals like Clinton practice appeasement which has been proven time and time again to NEVER WORK! (North Korea and Clinton comes to mind)
By Clintons inactions for his 8 years in office and some of his major screw ups gave the impression to terrorist around the world that America was a VERY WEAK country, he made us look like that disgusting *** country France for God sakes and that is indeed sad, how can anybody be as weak as France?
So do you think you would have been better off today had Algore been in office? That is the REAL question you should ask unless you’re scared and terrified of the real answer.
Remember before you answer that look at your ol’ boy the extremist left wing nut Algore and what he has said. Algore gives me nightmares to think what he would have done had he been in office. He would have either gave up, like France or the nut case may have launched a full nuclear attack on the Middle East. The man is not stable and hasn’t been for a very long time.
At least we know the real Algore, a complete left wing extremist who ran out of his medication but what is even scarier is Kerry a man that will say anything at anytime to anyone to make them happy. What is scary is no one, NO ONE knows what Kerry would REALLY do in any situation since he is always on both sides of the issue, not that is as terrifying as worrying about the next terrorist attack (thanks Clinton)
Last edited by 01 XLT Sport; May 31, 2004 at 01:16 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by 01 XLT Sport
Interesting read especially since it is from a war vet…
The following was sent to a Marine chat net by a retired Marine Master Sergeant who was in S-2, 3rd Bn, 1st Marines, Korea in 1954. It calls into serious question John Kerry's military actions in Vietnam. We present it to give our readers another perspective to the media's one-sided "war hero" adulation, and to open his actions to the light of public discourse. -- The Editors.
I was in the Delta shortly after John Kerry left. I know that area well. I know the operations he was involved in well. I know the tactics and the doctrine used, and I know the equipment. Although I was attached to CTF-116 (PBRs) I spent a fair amount of time with CTF-115 (swift boats), Kerry's command.
Interesting read especially since it is from a war vet…
The following was sent to a Marine chat net by a retired Marine Master Sergeant who was in S-2, 3rd Bn, 1st Marines, Korea in 1954. It calls into serious question John Kerry's military actions in Vietnam. We present it to give our readers another perspective to the media's one-sided "war hero" adulation, and to open his actions to the light of public discourse. -- The Editors.
I was in the Delta shortly after John Kerry left. I know that area well. I know the operations he was involved in well. I know the tactics and the doctrine used, and I know the equipment. Although I was attached to CTF-116 (PBRs) I spent a fair amount of time with CTF-115 (swift boats), Kerry's command.
Originally posted by BHibbs
So you DO go around asking Veteran's of war just how "severe" their wounds were that earned them their purple hearts....
Takes a lot of guts, especially from someone who's never been in combat themselves...
So you DO go around asking Veteran's of war just how "severe" their wounds were that earned them their purple hearts....
Takes a lot of guts, especially from someone who's never been in combat themselves...
The problem with liberal minded people is they refuse to completely read the facts and skip over “important” things such as from my original post. I would say, after completely reading the article that the gentleman did INDEED see combat…
I don’t know, maybe it’s me and how I read…
Perhaps that remark was pointed my way. Well I simple stated at the beginning of the post ”Interesting read, especially since it’s from a war vet.”
Oh, and combat, well that depends on what the definition of combat IS
Sorry I couldn’t help myself to that little bit of Clinton humor…
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
From: Northern Arizona
"Highest gas prices Ever"
Anyone that knows how the industry works realizes that this has NOTHING to do with the Presidency. We have not the number of refineries available to process the oil to create the quantity that would allow for lower prices. Remember, the availability of an item (usually) is what controls the price. And while we get a large amount of oil from other areas than OPEC, the Middle East just might have a "vested" interest in making this administration look bad. Further, if we want to think "partisan", it is the more left leaning ecological groups that have prevented the building of more refineries and the minimal ANWR drilling which would help.
"Highest Trade Deficit Ever"
The deficit follows by years the Presidential occupancy. Which means, if we want to point a finger, it was Pres. Clinton who was / is responsible. And if you would look up some of the terrible allowances made (the selling of Main frames to China, the selling of guidance systems to European countries, all these allowed for long guarded secrets of industry to fall into the wrong hands)
you would see that the deficit was rising when Bush took office.
"Record Budget deficit that's only going to get worse"
I happen to agree it is going up and I wish we would spend less. However we have also suffered setbacks due the 9/11 attack and all the resultant expenditures. It takes money to fight a war. If you would look at what happened in WWII regarding the deficit, this will be balanced in perspective.
"Liberated a country where 75% of the people there Don't want us"
Ahh? You should not drink and post. Even those rather partisan observers (and those who don't have some election interest in making things look worse) will admit that "most" of Iraq is extremely happy (percentages range from 70% to 90%) with our presence. Read a book called the "Closed Circle" by David Pryce-Jones. It is remarkable and really opened my eyes as to the vastly different outlook in the Middle East. Certainly we cannot maintain an
occupation role forever, but we aren't. Iraq's population is overjoyed at what is happening.
"Got involved in a war over WMD when in fact they had none"
Come on. None of us here are so unfriendly that we resort to obvious subtrafuge. There is NO doubt in any minds that SH and Iraq did have and did use WMD. All of the UN countries agreed that they did, even those who did not join the coalition. All of the current Democrats who have disingenuously jumped on the "no WMDs" bandwagon all are ON RECORD as (earlier and some in Clinton's presidency) stating that "the WMD Iraq possesses pose a clear and present danger to world peace and the US" (paraphrased). These WMD are comprised of items that could be hidden in TWO STATION WAGONS. And I could hide such in a country the size of California (Iraq's size) easily. Indeed several Migs have been discovered completely hidden under the desert. The discussions leading up to the war and the footdragging gave SH sufficient time to transport and / or hide them anywhere. Perhaps we will never find them. Worse, they may already be in the hands of Syrian terrorist camps and we might well find them in America. Remember Serin gas found in Jordan?
"Meanwhile, North Korea, Syria, and Iran are building Nukes."
Right you are. And recall that both Reagan and the two Bush Presidents asked for (and were ridiculed often about) a limited ABM system. Well, some two years ago Bush stated he hoped to deploy a very limited such system in Alaska and the Pacific NW. Many screamed (of course they screamed when Bush got us out of MAD with the 'defunct' USSR - but hey, you know what MAD stood for?_) and did so right up UNTIL the statement about N. Korea that you so accurately made was publically announced by Kim. We have successfully stopped ICBMs in most of the last several tests. I live on the west coast. This makes me happy.
"Spent hundreds of Billions of dollars so far on "Homeland" security and you can still just walk across our southern boarders unopposed."
Right. And I can see the pacifists and the liberals just sit back comfortably when (or if) any Republican placed a fence (like Israel is doing... and who in America is screaming about that????) or armed National Guard on the borders. Let's be honest in the discourse. Did you know that 'water fountains' in the middle of the 'immigrant' pathes are being suggested by some. I completely agree that we need to stop this... NORTH and SOUTH. But it is NOT President Bush doing nothing. It is a very complex issue. But culpability is on both parties shoulders.
"Highest unemployment Rate in 10 years."
The economy expanded at an 8.2 percent annual rate from July to September, the fastest since the first three months of 1984 and more than double the 3.3 percent rate of this year's second quarter. The rate is forecast to rose to average 4.1 percent next year, based on the median forecast in a Bloomberg survey.
Here's a link so people can understand the concept of unemployment, how it is created, so forth (currently 5.6 % it is NOT the most in ten years, unless you listen to Bill Moyer) it was 5.8 in April of '95 - it was 6.4 in April of '94 - the unemployment level is heading down and all BLS show this.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm#overview
"Huge increases in spending."
You already mentioned this. Spending in and of itself is not the issue. Why is the issue. Some is good, some currently is not.
"Millions of Manufacturing jobs Lost"
This is true only in the sense that such has been going on for years. First and foremost, speak to some of the labor unions (I do not vilify or support all unions but they do have a lot to do with costs) - America is NO longer and has not been for years, a manufacturing based economy. Period!
"Drug benefit that's too complicated and cost 3 times what Bush said it would. All without negotiating any discounts."
Cannot answer this... but all medical (and I am a doctor) is far more complicated than you care to look at. The benefits of HMOs are questionable. socialized medicine is outrageous in all other countries and the idea here that MDs (I am not) make millions is a joke.
Credibility with world Diplomacy lost, and More of the world hates the US more than Ever.
STill haven't caught OBL, the person actually Responsible for the WTC attacks.
"Tax Cuts" have created more increases in State Taxes, School Levies, College tuitions, and other fees to the point I'm paying MORE in taxes than when I did with a Dem in office.
I AM NOT SURE where it was WRITTEN that everyone gets everything they need? The BIG business links go out both ways and there are AS many (or more) links to the Democrats as to the Republicans. Issue is really greed and that is 'bipartisan' to say the least.
Look the real issue for ALL of us is this... do we want a war over hear on our streets? Like Israel experiences day in and day out? I know I don't. Talk to the average military guy and you will see they prefer President Bush. His overall demeanor and outlook are really more pro-military (does no one recall how the Clintons would not ALLOW uniformed personnel into the white house??? Come on!) than many Democrats. I want a strong military outlook now. I have grandchildren and an opponent that says, "We will beat America and the free nations because they care more about living than we care about dying" (I paraphrased the Islamic OBL letter - and BTW, OBL was not the thinker behind 9/11 - it was his second in command and most terrorist experts agree on that - he will be caught. The Delta forces are doing a lot better job than would be expected UNDER J. KERRY's suggestion that we use the FBI [not that they are not good, but they are not equipped to fight a war such as this] - and legal action)
Well, the battle goes on. But I mean NO DISRESPECT to anyone here. MY comments are meant only to point out what I feel are valid DIFFERENCEs and, while I have family in the military, I realize that OTHERS might feel differently. We need to THINK at least as much as we FEEL, IMHO.
God Bless America. I'm taking my F-150 out for a flight... see you all on the "FREEWAYS" of America (did you know that IKE created them?).
Anyone that knows how the industry works realizes that this has NOTHING to do with the Presidency. We have not the number of refineries available to process the oil to create the quantity that would allow for lower prices. Remember, the availability of an item (usually) is what controls the price. And while we get a large amount of oil from other areas than OPEC, the Middle East just might have a "vested" interest in making this administration look bad. Further, if we want to think "partisan", it is the more left leaning ecological groups that have prevented the building of more refineries and the minimal ANWR drilling which would help.
"Highest Trade Deficit Ever"
The deficit follows by years the Presidential occupancy. Which means, if we want to point a finger, it was Pres. Clinton who was / is responsible. And if you would look up some of the terrible allowances made (the selling of Main frames to China, the selling of guidance systems to European countries, all these allowed for long guarded secrets of industry to fall into the wrong hands)
you would see that the deficit was rising when Bush took office.
"Record Budget deficit that's only going to get worse"
I happen to agree it is going up and I wish we would spend less. However we have also suffered setbacks due the 9/11 attack and all the resultant expenditures. It takes money to fight a war. If you would look at what happened in WWII regarding the deficit, this will be balanced in perspective.
"Liberated a country where 75% of the people there Don't want us"
Ahh? You should not drink and post. Even those rather partisan observers (and those who don't have some election interest in making things look worse) will admit that "most" of Iraq is extremely happy (percentages range from 70% to 90%) with our presence. Read a book called the "Closed Circle" by David Pryce-Jones. It is remarkable and really opened my eyes as to the vastly different outlook in the Middle East. Certainly we cannot maintain an
occupation role forever, but we aren't. Iraq's population is overjoyed at what is happening.
"Got involved in a war over WMD when in fact they had none"
Come on. None of us here are so unfriendly that we resort to obvious subtrafuge. There is NO doubt in any minds that SH and Iraq did have and did use WMD. All of the UN countries agreed that they did, even those who did not join the coalition. All of the current Democrats who have disingenuously jumped on the "no WMDs" bandwagon all are ON RECORD as (earlier and some in Clinton's presidency) stating that "the WMD Iraq possesses pose a clear and present danger to world peace and the US" (paraphrased). These WMD are comprised of items that could be hidden in TWO STATION WAGONS. And I could hide such in a country the size of California (Iraq's size) easily. Indeed several Migs have been discovered completely hidden under the desert. The discussions leading up to the war and the footdragging gave SH sufficient time to transport and / or hide them anywhere. Perhaps we will never find them. Worse, they may already be in the hands of Syrian terrorist camps and we might well find them in America. Remember Serin gas found in Jordan?
"Meanwhile, North Korea, Syria, and Iran are building Nukes."
Right you are. And recall that both Reagan and the two Bush Presidents asked for (and were ridiculed often about) a limited ABM system. Well, some two years ago Bush stated he hoped to deploy a very limited such system in Alaska and the Pacific NW. Many screamed (of course they screamed when Bush got us out of MAD with the 'defunct' USSR - but hey, you know what MAD stood for?_) and did so right up UNTIL the statement about N. Korea that you so accurately made was publically announced by Kim. We have successfully stopped ICBMs in most of the last several tests. I live on the west coast. This makes me happy.
"Spent hundreds of Billions of dollars so far on "Homeland" security and you can still just walk across our southern boarders unopposed."
Right. And I can see the pacifists and the liberals just sit back comfortably when (or if) any Republican placed a fence (like Israel is doing... and who in America is screaming about that????) or armed National Guard on the borders. Let's be honest in the discourse. Did you know that 'water fountains' in the middle of the 'immigrant' pathes are being suggested by some. I completely agree that we need to stop this... NORTH and SOUTH. But it is NOT President Bush doing nothing. It is a very complex issue. But culpability is on both parties shoulders.
"Highest unemployment Rate in 10 years."
The economy expanded at an 8.2 percent annual rate from July to September, the fastest since the first three months of 1984 and more than double the 3.3 percent rate of this year's second quarter. The rate is forecast to rose to average 4.1 percent next year, based on the median forecast in a Bloomberg survey.
Here's a link so people can understand the concept of unemployment, how it is created, so forth (currently 5.6 % it is NOT the most in ten years, unless you listen to Bill Moyer) it was 5.8 in April of '95 - it was 6.4 in April of '94 - the unemployment level is heading down and all BLS show this.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm#overview
"Huge increases in spending."
You already mentioned this. Spending in and of itself is not the issue. Why is the issue. Some is good, some currently is not.
"Millions of Manufacturing jobs Lost"
This is true only in the sense that such has been going on for years. First and foremost, speak to some of the labor unions (I do not vilify or support all unions but they do have a lot to do with costs) - America is NO longer and has not been for years, a manufacturing based economy. Period!
"Drug benefit that's too complicated and cost 3 times what Bush said it would. All without negotiating any discounts."
Cannot answer this... but all medical (and I am a doctor) is far more complicated than you care to look at. The benefits of HMOs are questionable. socialized medicine is outrageous in all other countries and the idea here that MDs (I am not) make millions is a joke.
Credibility with world Diplomacy lost, and More of the world hates the US more than Ever.
STill haven't caught OBL, the person actually Responsible for the WTC attacks.
"Tax Cuts" have created more increases in State Taxes, School Levies, College tuitions, and other fees to the point I'm paying MORE in taxes than when I did with a Dem in office.
I AM NOT SURE where it was WRITTEN that everyone gets everything they need? The BIG business links go out both ways and there are AS many (or more) links to the Democrats as to the Republicans. Issue is really greed and that is 'bipartisan' to say the least.
Look the real issue for ALL of us is this... do we want a war over hear on our streets? Like Israel experiences day in and day out? I know I don't. Talk to the average military guy and you will see they prefer President Bush. His overall demeanor and outlook are really more pro-military (does no one recall how the Clintons would not ALLOW uniformed personnel into the white house??? Come on!) than many Democrats. I want a strong military outlook now. I have grandchildren and an opponent that says, "We will beat America and the free nations because they care more about living than we care about dying" (I paraphrased the Islamic OBL letter - and BTW, OBL was not the thinker behind 9/11 - it was his second in command and most terrorist experts agree on that - he will be caught. The Delta forces are doing a lot better job than would be expected UNDER J. KERRY's suggestion that we use the FBI [not that they are not good, but they are not equipped to fight a war such as this] - and legal action)
Well, the battle goes on. But I mean NO DISRESPECT to anyone here. MY comments are meant only to point out what I feel are valid DIFFERENCEs and, while I have family in the military, I realize that OTHERS might feel differently. We need to THINK at least as much as we FEEL, IMHO.
God Bless America. I'm taking my F-150 out for a flight... see you all on the "FREEWAYS" of America (did you know that IKE created them?).
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
"In the poll, 80 percent of the Iraqis questioned reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May12.html
Yea, I guess I was wrong, it's not 75% it's 82!
Where do you guys get your "facts" from anyway??
Basically, Yes, I DO think Gore could have done a better job. Could he really have done any Worse?? Doesn't matter anyway. Gore's not up for election. It's Kerry, remember?
Pass the buck, blame the other guy, take no responsibility. That's enough for me alone to vote for the other party.
I suggest you research how a President can influence the price of gas. I think you'll be surprised.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May12.html
Yea, I guess I was wrong, it's not 75% it's 82!
Where do you guys get your "facts" from anyway??
Basically, Yes, I DO think Gore could have done a better job. Could he really have done any Worse?? Doesn't matter anyway. Gore's not up for election. It's Kerry, remember?
Pass the buck, blame the other guy, take no responsibility. That's enough for me alone to vote for the other party.
I suggest you research how a President can influence the price of gas. I think you'll be surprised.....
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
"Doesn't matter anyway. Gore's not up for election." You're right, but these are the tactics of the Bush Disciple. Divert attention or blame Clinton. We are much better off with a BS artist in office according to them. If a liar, like quoted below, is what you believe in, I feel sorry for you. Six short months and Osama, the number one priority, is no longer important.
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
F150online
Founder
Founder
Joined: Nov 1996
Posts: 3,008
Likes: 0
From: Roswell, GA USA
Regardless of whether you are a liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, and regardless of which party is in office or what political position is being contested, from President to Mayor...know what makes political arguments so funny and IMO ironic?
The fact is that the side you are for always blames the side you are against (i.e. the incumbent in this case) for all the problems of the world. This is nothing new. Same thing happens at the local and state level, regardless of whether Democratics or Republicans are in power.
Doesn't this essentially mean that your side, if it is the side challenging for power, is completely and utterly ineffective?
If your candidate was such an accomplished leader, then how is it that he or she not been able to get anything accomplished to make things better during the past few years?
Wouldn't an effective leader (a Senator, a Congressman, a Governor, a Mayor, a Selectman, etc., etc.) be able to effect change regardless of who is in power?
Isn't that why they were elected in the first place?
So, in terms of this presidential election. Liberal Dems will say that Bush has turned the country into hell in a handbasket. Wasn't Kerry a Senator during this time? So, isn't he partially responsible as well?
Or, is the highest ranking incumbent for the position being contested the only elected leader that can effect change and always the one that is 100% responsible for anything negative? Why even bother having any other political "leaders?"
Yet, at the same time, when something positive occurs for the nation, state, city, municipality, either political party will proudly stand up and claim and accept responsibility. How can it happen both ways?
I have always found this to be one of the most amusing parts of political arguments.
Banter on and please don't interpet this is a partisan commentatry. It's not, just an observation from someone raised in a political family with very little respect for politicians.
The fact is that the side you are for always blames the side you are against (i.e. the incumbent in this case) for all the problems of the world. This is nothing new. Same thing happens at the local and state level, regardless of whether Democratics or Republicans are in power.
Doesn't this essentially mean that your side, if it is the side challenging for power, is completely and utterly ineffective?
If your candidate was such an accomplished leader, then how is it that he or she not been able to get anything accomplished to make things better during the past few years?
Wouldn't an effective leader (a Senator, a Congressman, a Governor, a Mayor, a Selectman, etc., etc.) be able to effect change regardless of who is in power?
Isn't that why they were elected in the first place?
So, in terms of this presidential election. Liberal Dems will say that Bush has turned the country into hell in a handbasket. Wasn't Kerry a Senator during this time? So, isn't he partially responsible as well?
Or, is the highest ranking incumbent for the position being contested the only elected leader that can effect change and always the one that is 100% responsible for anything negative? Why even bother having any other political "leaders?"
Yet, at the same time, when something positive occurs for the nation, state, city, municipality, either political party will proudly stand up and claim and accept responsibility. How can it happen both ways?
I have always found this to be one of the most amusing parts of political arguments.
Banter on and please don't interpet this is a partisan commentatry. It's not, just an observation from someone raised in a political family with very little respect for politicians.
Last edited by webmaster; Jun 1, 2004 at 11:52 AM.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
From: FL
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...ll_040314.html
I think you may find this article to be a little less biased.
I just want to say I've been seeing more stories from soldiers and civilians that have been/are in Iraq. The stories are a stark difference from what the Washinton Post is reporting.
I think you may find this article to be a little less biased.
I just want to say I've been seeing more stories from soldiers and civilians that have been/are in Iraq. The stories are a stark difference from what the Washinton Post is reporting.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Good post Webmaster… 
Very true indeed but the problem is perspective, rather its right or wrong the guy at the top, this case the President gets the blame for things that happen, good or bad.
Problem with that is the guy at the top, the President really doesn’t have all that much power. Sure he can send the military anywhere in the world he pleases and that is some serious power but other then that he is basically powerless.
He really cannot affect the economy, gas prices, jobs, unemployment, or just about anything else that affects each and every citizen. He can use his position to “persuade” and “lead” others where he thinks they should go.
For example the tax cuts, who is really responsible for that? Well in large part the President because he was effective in his leadership and persuasion of getting them through Congress and the Senate. However with out enough votes in both houses the tax cuts would have NEVER been passed and it took many more votes then just one party to get them through. Therefore when you hear people complaining about tax cuts causing problems then it is BOTH parties fault, if that were truly the case. Most people know tax cuts and always good, always a win-win situation.
The war on Iraq falls under President Bush as well for responsibility. However it took BOTH parties voting FOR the war to make it actually possible so therefore when people complain about the war, or just going to war in Iraq to begin with it was BOTH parties that said they stood behind it and supported it.
So it really gets back to “who” can, to the best of their ability, lead and persuade the public as well as both houses in the causes they feel are important.
In this case I think it is President Bush as well as most the public because they believe him more then they do Kerry and that is Kerry’s weakest point, among other things, but Kerry is very weak in leadership skills and being able to persuade people.
Kerry is weak because of his 20 plus years of on the job training. He has showed many times that he will say anything to anyone at anytime to get what he wants. That causes many in the public to pause and think, “Can I trust what this guy is telling me TODAY?”
Many think I am a hard-core Bush supporter. I am not but I do think he is the best man for the job at hand. Had the democrats used their brains and logic a little better they would have had John Edwards as their candidate.
For some reason BOTH parties think very illogically when it comes to elections and for some stupid reason they “believe” the nomination should go to the one they think “deserves” it rather then WHO is most qualified.
That’s too bad for both parties, this time it is the democrats that let that belief field a very unsuitable candidate as they did in 2000.
Could the Republicans have done better in 2000 with a candidate? Maybe, we will never know but I do know at this moment in time President Bush is the right man for the job at this time as was Kennedy for the Cuba missile crisis. Had Nixon been President at that time I “think” it would have turned out much different and for the worse. Kennedy did an excellent job with the Bay of Pig’s and I think at this time there was no one in the field for 2000 that could have handled 911 as well as President Bush has…
Very true indeed but the problem is perspective, rather its right or wrong the guy at the top, this case the President gets the blame for things that happen, good or bad.
Problem with that is the guy at the top, the President really doesn’t have all that much power. Sure he can send the military anywhere in the world he pleases and that is some serious power but other then that he is basically powerless.
He really cannot affect the economy, gas prices, jobs, unemployment, or just about anything else that affects each and every citizen. He can use his position to “persuade” and “lead” others where he thinks they should go.
For example the tax cuts, who is really responsible for that? Well in large part the President because he was effective in his leadership and persuasion of getting them through Congress and the Senate. However with out enough votes in both houses the tax cuts would have NEVER been passed and it took many more votes then just one party to get them through. Therefore when you hear people complaining about tax cuts causing problems then it is BOTH parties fault, if that were truly the case. Most people know tax cuts and always good, always a win-win situation.
The war on Iraq falls under President Bush as well for responsibility. However it took BOTH parties voting FOR the war to make it actually possible so therefore when people complain about the war, or just going to war in Iraq to begin with it was BOTH parties that said they stood behind it and supported it.
So it really gets back to “who” can, to the best of their ability, lead and persuade the public as well as both houses in the causes they feel are important.
In this case I think it is President Bush as well as most the public because they believe him more then they do Kerry and that is Kerry’s weakest point, among other things, but Kerry is very weak in leadership skills and being able to persuade people.
Kerry is weak because of his 20 plus years of on the job training. He has showed many times that he will say anything to anyone at anytime to get what he wants. That causes many in the public to pause and think, “Can I trust what this guy is telling me TODAY?”
Many think I am a hard-core Bush supporter. I am not but I do think he is the best man for the job at hand. Had the democrats used their brains and logic a little better they would have had John Edwards as their candidate.
For some reason BOTH parties think very illogically when it comes to elections and for some stupid reason they “believe” the nomination should go to the one they think “deserves” it rather then WHO is most qualified.
That’s too bad for both parties, this time it is the democrats that let that belief field a very unsuitable candidate as they did in 2000.
Could the Republicans have done better in 2000 with a candidate? Maybe, we will never know but I do know at this moment in time President Bush is the right man for the job at this time as was Kennedy for the Cuba missile crisis. Had Nixon been President at that time I “think” it would have turned out much different and for the worse. Kennedy did an excellent job with the Bay of Pig’s and I think at this time there was no one in the field for 2000 that could have handled 911 as well as President Bush has…
Last edited by 01 XLT Sport; Jun 1, 2004 at 12:58 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 691
Likes: 1
From: Gulf Coast
So you DO go around asking Veteran's of war just how "severe" their wounds were that earned them their purple hearts....
YES I DO!!! The wounds he received were so minor he lost no time in the boat. I have served in combat zones and was injured (minor) in those areas. Look at all of the grunts who received minor injuries and were told tough get your butt up there and fight. No medals there but they and me were injured in a combat zone. Where are the medals for them/us. So yes I question his medals. I know, as anyone who has served in the military that the medals go to the BS artists. It all comes down to how the package is written. Kerry gets a star for violating standard operating procedure and going ashore. I have a friend who evacuated a school on 9-11, that was a few minutes later (I think he said about 5) completely destroyed, who received an Achievment medal (the one you currently get for showing up to work everyday and not pissing anyone off). So just in case I was not clear YES I QUESTION KERRY'S MEDALS.
As far as the polls go it does not specify what cities or what areas in those cities. I bet if you go the public housing in your city most, if not all, of the residence have a poor view on the governemtn/police and have been victims of crime within the last few weeks or months. Conversely if you go to the good area of your town,m most people have a positive view of the governement/police and have not been a victim of a crime recently. What I am saying is we don't know the methodology of the survey so we can not put too much faith in the results. Since it is being published by the Washington Post, a VERY left wing newspaper, I question it even more.
YES I DO!!! The wounds he received were so minor he lost no time in the boat. I have served in combat zones and was injured (minor) in those areas. Look at all of the grunts who received minor injuries and were told tough get your butt up there and fight. No medals there but they and me were injured in a combat zone. Where are the medals for them/us. So yes I question his medals. I know, as anyone who has served in the military that the medals go to the BS artists. It all comes down to how the package is written. Kerry gets a star for violating standard operating procedure and going ashore. I have a friend who evacuated a school on 9-11, that was a few minutes later (I think he said about 5) completely destroyed, who received an Achievment medal (the one you currently get for showing up to work everyday and not pissing anyone off). So just in case I was not clear YES I QUESTION KERRY'S MEDALS.
As far as the polls go it does not specify what cities or what areas in those cities. I bet if you go the public housing in your city most, if not all, of the residence have a poor view on the governemtn/police and have been victims of crime within the last few weeks or months. Conversely if you go to the good area of your town,m most people have a positive view of the governement/police and have not been a victim of a crime recently. What I am saying is we don't know the methodology of the survey so we can not put too much faith in the results. Since it is being published by the Washington Post, a VERY left wing newspaper, I question it even more.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
"I think at this time there was no one in the field for 2000 that could have handled 911 as well as President Bush has…"
What, exactly, is it that you feel Bush has done as far as handling 9-11?
What, exactly, is it that you feel Bush has done as far as handling 9-11?
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Good points Webmaster.
1depd, why don't you do a little research and Find out the methodology. Instead you choose to deny reality. This survey was posted on all the major news outlets. Of course, you won't look it up yourself, so you'll just deny the facts because they don't suit your purpose... Or it's ok to take these votes out of context and make it look like Kerry doesn't support our troops. It's just wrong!
Honestly, I'm not a hardcore liberal or anything like that. I just get frustrated when people don't see the facts or tell straight out Lies. This poll is the best source of information we have. A poll by definition is a random sample that represents the entire population. It was conducted by our Own government.
I just find it unbelieveable that you can rip on a true veteran that actually participated in battle while at the same time Back a guy that was AWOL for 8 months....
Do you seriously want me to go through the list of campaigne "promises" Bush made that he renigged on? "Low, temporary budget deficits, lock box Social security etc..." The webmaster's right, Regardless of who or what they represent, they're ALL politicians!
1depd, why don't you do a little research and Find out the methodology. Instead you choose to deny reality. This survey was posted on all the major news outlets. Of course, you won't look it up yourself, so you'll just deny the facts because they don't suit your purpose... Or it's ok to take these votes out of context and make it look like Kerry doesn't support our troops. It's just wrong!
Honestly, I'm not a hardcore liberal or anything like that. I just get frustrated when people don't see the facts or tell straight out Lies. This poll is the best source of information we have. A poll by definition is a random sample that represents the entire population. It was conducted by our Own government.
I just find it unbelieveable that you can rip on a true veteran that actually participated in battle while at the same time Back a guy that was AWOL for 8 months....
Do you seriously want me to go through the list of campaigne "promises" Bush made that he renigged on? "Low, temporary budget deficits, lock box Social security etc..." The webmaster's right, Regardless of who or what they represent, they're ALL politicians!
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
From: FL
Originally posted by BHibbs
I just find it unbelieveable that you can rip on a true veteran that actually participated in battle while at the same time Back a guy that was AWOL for 8 months....
I just find it unbelieveable that you can rip on a true veteran that actually participated in battle while at the same time Back a guy that was AWOL for 8 months....
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 691
Likes: 1
From: Gulf Coast
Contrary to what some on the left suggest an Honorable Discharge means the person completed their term of enlistment as required.
I guess I failed to state my position clearly. I never said the survey results were false. I merely stated since the areas the survey was taken was not disclosed I brings the survey results into question. That does not mean I do not believe the results it merely means I do not put a lot of faith in it.
I guess I failed to state my position clearly. I never said the survey results were false. I merely stated since the areas the survey was taken was not disclosed I brings the survey results into question. That does not mean I do not believe the results it merely means I do not put a lot of faith in it.
Last edited by 1depd; Jun 1, 2004 at 03:03 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Polls:
I agree with 1depd, unless you know the source of the poll, where it was taking, how many participated in the poll then the results are useless.
I could put together a poll that would give any results I wish for by simple doing my homework.
I could make one poll using real people and asking 1,000 who they wanted as President and depending how I frame the question and where I take the poll I could get that 80% favor Kerry or that 80% favor Bush…
If that vast majority of people in Iraq (75%) or what ever this poll states did NOT want us there then we would NOT be there. If it were “really” 75% there would be mass uprisings and mass protest in the streets. This is not happening which further proves that this little misguided poll in completely inaccurate…
Numbers are one thing, reality is what really counts and the reality of the matter is the vast majority of the people in Iraq LOVE what we did for them and WANT us to stay until the job is complete…
I agree with 1depd, unless you know the source of the poll, where it was taking, how many participated in the poll then the results are useless.
I could put together a poll that would give any results I wish for by simple doing my homework.
I could make one poll using real people and asking 1,000 who they wanted as President and depending how I frame the question and where I take the poll I could get that 80% favor Kerry or that 80% favor Bush…
If that vast majority of people in Iraq (75%) or what ever this poll states did NOT want us there then we would NOT be there. If it were “really” 75% there would be mass uprisings and mass protest in the streets. This is not happening which further proves that this little misguided poll in completely inaccurate…
Numbers are one thing, reality is what really counts and the reality of the matter is the vast majority of the people in Iraq LOVE what we did for them and WANT us to stay until the job is complete…