$1600...it won't break me or make me. How far does it go...not far. Maybe if he tacked another "0" on there, huh? What can a person buy with $1600? I don't think it's worth someone's life but people don't look at it that way. I do, and in MY book it's "chump change".

And how long will she get to keep the $1600? The national debt is so out of whack and bush keeps digging us deeper and faster into it. Somebody, somewhere, somehow is going to have to pay. Who do you suppose is going to pay? Probably not on bush's watch though, he'll let the next president deal with it and get the blame for it.

What amazes me is people will vote for someone that basically tells his supporters "You need me as your leader because you will DIE if you vote for the other guy". If that's the case, then we're all in for a world of hurt, because bush can only be in four more years. I guess then, we're all dead, since nobody can do it but bush.

I know the man, but more importantly, what is his message?

You agree with him on 60-70% of the time. On what issues?

"There are some who feel that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on." He said it. My "in your face" republican friend flatly denies it and refuses to look and learn. If she doesn't see it fly out of his mouth on t.v. during one of his speeches, she doesn't believe it.

She cannot talk about bush without taking it EXTREMELY personal. She says what she wants to say, and walks out without entertaining the FACT that there is another side to listen to. One of my coworkers put a full newspaper page on her desk regarding bush. She walks in, says, "What's this", picks it up, wrinkles it, and throws it away. Are all republicans like that? Not even interested. If you're defending her, and it sounds as if you might be, be careful or I might start thinking that your an "extreme republican" also.

My mother, who is in California, voted for bush. I emailed her saying that I cannot understand why anyone would vote for bush. She emailed me this thing on "Clinton did this...not bad / bush did this same thing...bad". Eluding to why is it so bad when bush does it, but it wasn't bad when Clinton did it. So what...she's voting for bush because of Clinton?? And that's all I ever get...stupid ***** like that and I STILL can't figure out why people voted for him. I wish I could just get a straight answer from someone. I spell everything out, why I don't like bush and nobody can tell me why they do, except for saying things like...."I got $1600 back", or "he has values", or "he has morals", or "I agree with him 60-70% of the time".

"I'm an ARMY OF 2 MOM and Bush INVITED Iraqi's to attack our CHILDREN with his "BRING ’EM ON" message!" and he DID say it!

That's two for two screwu, wrong again. I don't have two sons in the service. I have one son and one daughter. Again, maybe you were wrong about bush too.

Want to try for three?

I'm an ARMY OF 2 MOM and Bush INVITED Iraqi's to attack our CHILDREN with his "BRING ’EM ON" message! And he DID say it!

Not to criticize your opinion, but you can't paint everyone with such broad strokes.

There is a vocal minority that insists Bush supporters are ALL anti-gay/pro-war idiots who blindly follow all the other sheep.

Wrong.

Army of 2 Mom,

Thank you for your response and I will try and explain why I voted for President rather then Kerry. I hope this doesn’t get to long, but you have been around a bit so you may know me good…

First a few things I do NOT agree with President Bush on:

The $400 plus billion dollar Medicaid bill he signed for senior citizens. I don’t recall all the details so bare with me here. From all the reading I had done on it the basic problem seemed to be summarized as “some seniors, not many, but a small minority where having problems getting and paying for their prescriptions”.

Now before you call me or think of me as cold hearted hear me out. First, for the minority of seniors that were having problems getting or paying for prescriptions I was and still am ALL FOR helping them out, program or no program, no problem for me.

The problem is two fold, first, and this is my opinion, is that President Bush used this for political purposes, which one must admit was a smart move since Democrats have for over 20 – 30 years continued to complain about prescriptions for seniors but NEVER did anything about it to keep it as an “election issue”.

Anyway, I still did NOT approve of even President Bush using it for an election issues, or to mute that issue for this election.

Second, not all seniors needed the benefits of this $400 plus billion dollar program, Bill Gates don’t need these benefits or thousands or others. I am sorry but if you’re a senior and you can NOT afford to purchase Viagra then TOUGH LOVE I don’t want to be paying for it, of which this new program WILL pay for. That is just one example.

Point of my disagreement is very few, a small minority of seniors actually needed help and someone could have came up with a nice program to take care of them, the actual needy for much, much less then $400 billion.

There are some other issues but again trying to keep this short…


Why I voted for President Bush vs. Kerry:

Military spending, Bush is and will spend more money on the military which is and should always be the biggest priority of the Federal Government since that is their MAIN responsibility if you refer to the Constitution.

Tax cuts that WILL and have been proven time and time again to not only spur the economy but WILL bring in more federal revenue, more then tax hike of equal value. It happen during President Reagan’s time as it did during President Kennedy’s time. Reagan, like Kennedy, and learned the lesson from Kennedy, learned that when you cut taxes it fuels the economy. Not so much the tax cuts you and I get but business in general, be it small business or big business. I see it at my place of employment, they are buying and have been buying and investing in capital equipment, this new equipment is affording us, our company to be more efficient which means we can produce more product in less time with less people.

That means some of our business we had sent to China and Taiwan we are bring back. First because the quality in China and Taiwan absolutely SUCK so it cost much more money to rework defective product let alone all the shipping cost.

Now I mention we are becoming more efficient, producing more product in less time with less people but guess what? We are NOT letting anyone go and have been hiring for the past 3 – 6 months.

Since we can produce more, in less time with less people, are product has become MORE competitive so we can cut prices to move or sell larger quantities which means MORE production which means we need MORE people.

More people working means more people paying taxes to the federal government. Our company selling more products and making more money per year means more taxes paid to the federal government. Right now we are on track to make approx. 23% more money this year then last. This would not have been possible without some capital equipment investment.

It can be argued that the capital investment would have taken place regardless but I can tell you with confidence our company would NOT have made these investments without the extra cash they have, had from the tax cuts. I am not the CEO but I am in higher management and we were basically breaking even for a few years and President Bush’s tax cuts did indeed help to keep our company afloat. Without them we most likely would still be afloat but not with the man power we have now and it would have taken longer to get where we are now. We have approx. 25 – 30 new people due to the changes we have made in the past 6 months or so and this was due to the tax cuts.

Sorry I have gone real long here and wanted to give some more reasons for why I voted for Bush rather then Kerry. Perhaps in future post I just wanted to explain the best I could about the issues, or at least an issue for now that I do NOT agree with Bush on, and then give you a reason and explain why I did vote and agree with Bush…

My daughter was misinformed and lied to by her recruiter in my living room and in his office. We were all lied to involving three different matters.

On one of the issues, he had to write a letter on Army letterhead stating that he caused the matter in question, and that my daughter should not be held responsible. Of course, he refused to write it at first and kept blaming it on my daughter. To get this letter, I had to talk directly to his superior at the his office.

The recruiter is a sergeant. His superior, I believe is a first sergeant. I told him of the lies that were told to my daughter, myself and my fiancé, by the recruiter and his previous commander. He told me he would make him write the letter, and has had problems with him. The letter was faxed to me the next day and I faxed it to two entities, which released her from responsibility.

My son was also lied to, but not as badly as my daughter was.

RE: Bring them on…

"I am shaking my head in disbelief," said Senator Frank Lautenberg. "When I served in the Army in Europe during World War II, I never heard any military commander -- let alone the commander in chief -- invite enemies to attack U.S. troops."

AND

"He's president -- you don't taunt the enemy," **** Gephardt told a group of about 35 at the state library. "You try to keep our troops safe, you try to help them in what they're doing .... This phony, macho business is not getting us where we need to be."

AND

One of Gephardt's rivals for the nomination, Bob Graham, criticized Bush's remark during a campaign stop in New Hampshire. The Florida senator said the phrase "may be appropriate for a referee in a Las Vegas boxing match, but not for the man we trust to lead our men and women who are in harm's way."

AND

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said Bush's comment was "unwise, unworthy of the office and his role as commander in chief, and unhelpful to American soldiers under fire."

AND

Howard Dean, a vocal opponent of the war, called Bush's comment "incredibly reckless rhetoric." "These men and women are risking their lives every day, and the president who sent them on this mission showed tremendous insensitivity to the dangers they face," the former Vermont governor said.

Yes, it was my daughter's decision, based on lies.

I'm an ARMY OF 2 MOM and Bush INVITED Iraqi's to attack our CHILDREN with his "BRING ’EM ON" message! And he DID say it!

Go back and read Jordan or Mike or whoever.
I quoted Sport and filled in the italics with my own words.

I'm an ARMY OF 2 MOM and Bush INVITED Iraqi's to attack our CHILDREN with his "BRING ’EM ON" message! And he DID say it!

Good God, you are long winded...that's okay; I can handle it, so am I.

First I have to say thank-you for not degrading you or me by spewing sarcasm and name-calling.

You are one of the few here, (I can pretty much count the "few" on one hand), that has been polite and has actually given me "substance" as to why someone would vote for bush.

I've copied it into a word file and will read it again with interest tomorrow when my brain is not so fatigued...it's past my bedtime.

See you on the board...

Army of 2 Mom

1st issue military recruiter=lier. One of the main things a freind of mine who was in recruiter school told me was that they have to memorize recruitment speeches verbatum. That way they are given in a manner that the military can defend and not lose a court case. Your son and daughter should have investigated the military more through other channels than a recruiter.

As far as your quotes about not inviting an army to attack us. You are correct if the opposing army is out there to fight. When we are dealing with a terrorist army then the situation differs from WWII. Essentially they are criminals and do not stand toe to toe with a power. It would be like you standing toe to toe with Mike Tyson, in his prime, you will lose. The basic theory of a terrorist unit fighting is that they are too weak to stand up and fight the government, but they are strong enough to still impact the policies by leaving roadside bombs to kill troops and kidnapping people and showing their killing on film. Look at the countries who have pulled out because they had a person killed. If a terrorist group does not come out in the open and fight the time to eradicate them is greatly extended. By goading them into a fight W was calling a weaker foe out to face the coalition armies. Similar to Mike Tyson calling you out to fight, you go out your still gonna get your butt kicked only much faster than if you run and hide.

Many of our current probelms with the violence of the situation in Iraq can be traced back to a small city called Mogadishu. Clintoon allowed a warlord, not even a general, to kick us out of a country by killing a few military personnel. The warlord didn't even control one city but was able to beat vastly overwhelming forces from several countries. I was PI$$ED when he withdrew. It makes us a big target.

As far as why I voted for Bush, I'll try to keep this short.
1) I've got a plan. The plan was not explained. It was just asserted that Kerry had a plan.

2) Kerry seemed to want to solve all of the problems while only increasing the tax on people making more then 200,000. This did not seem credible. And I plan to make over 200,000 eventually.

3) You can not increase the taxes on the rich without impacting the middle class. The rich are rich because they prolly own a business. Are you willing to take a pay cut. I'm not and that is what the tax increase would be. The rich would increase the cost of their products to cover the increase in taxes, prolly more.

4) Bush is letting the military run operations in Iraq. Kerry sounded as if he would start running it. Sounds alot like Vietnam, when any airstrikes had to be cleared by Washington.

5) Tax cuts work. One person might only get back 1600. but a million would get back 1,600,000,000 and with the way Americans spend almost all of it would go back into circulation and generate revenue for many businesses.

6) Bush restored funding to the military so it could afford to train and adequately equip it's troops. One of the reasons many troops didn't have the new body armor is because Clintoon would not alllocate enough money to train and supply even the meger equipment needed. Bush had to put money into areas that needed it most. Many miltary leaders believe logistics wins wars. I personally saw the newest cargo plans in the Air Force sit on a tarmac during campaigns because they could not be fixed due to lack of funding, under Clintoon's rule.

7) Kerry claimed to be a law enforcment officer. He worked in the prosecutors office. That is a lawyer not a law enforcement officer. If he was so Pro Law enforcment why did hte largest police union in America not support him. Kerry wanted to inject federal oversight into local law enforcment, because he believed most agencies were descriminatory and ineffective.

I could go on for days and many pages but I won't these are just a few of the reasons.

Being a volunteer myself, I have heard countless tales of how recruiters lied.

I see your rants about the recruiters lies but I don't see any substance. Can you tell us what those lies were? It may shed some light on why your so angry.

Not sure why you are so hostile to me...
I clearly understand that the italics are your words.
Those are the words I was politely commenting on.

It's not just you Jordan not Mike, it's most of us. You see, she has this inferiority complex, you know the zero post count thingy.......

She's probably a very nice person if we could just get past that attitude. OOPS, I've already said too much..... *stands back cowering*

why do I have this picture in my head of a woman sitting in front of a computer sputtering in rage while typing furiously...

Good luck, I've already asked her to qualify some of her previous statements, she's yet to substantiate any of her claims.