|
Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
Quote:
- What makes John Kerry "an opportunistic liar"? - What proof do you have that John Kerry doesn't intend to fullfill any of the plans he's putting forth on his campaing trail? Maybe you hate John Kerry because George Bush hasen't been able to fullfill the promises he made during his campaign in 99/00: George W. Bush: 100 Days of Broken Promises As for "Kerry has been in the Senate a very long time and he has done nothing of consequence except to get rich", perhaps you should spend less time believeing everything you see on TV, and actually do some research for yourself. You can find John Kerry's Senate record here: John Kerry's Senate Record. It's pretty lengthy, but if you're going to smear Kerry's record or accomplishments, at least make sure you know what you're talking about. As for the "rich" comment, Kerry's been completely open with his finances. He inherited a good chunk from his parents, but the majority of his current wealth comes from wife. You can see Kerry's finances here: John Kerry income record George W Bush was rich (and still is) when he ran for the Presidency in 99/00, but it's Kerry you're siding against. Hmm... Quote:
"take the war to any nation that would willingly harbor, support, or defend terrorism and or terrorist." So I guess if, say, an American in Seattle drove a truck full of propane tanks into the Space Needle, we could expect Bush to invade the Washington area with as much vigor as he did Iraq? Unlikely. North Korea posed (and still does) a much bigger threat to the US than Iraq did, yet Bush wanted to go into Iraq. The Bush Administration doesn't care where the terrorists are or might be, otherwise Iraq would have been futher down the list of Countries to invade. Still believe that Bush truely cares about stopping/ending terrorism? - AP: Superiors Hindered Terror Prosecutors - Unmasking of Qaeda mole a security blunder - "Iraq is the chosen battleground for this fight against evil. Away from Pakistan and their nuclear weapons of mass destruction, we wage this war of idealism that the right for all people to live free and to live free from tyranny and terrorism is the right thing to do." So apparently Iraq was worse than Pakistan, even though Pakistan has nuclear weapons (as you point out), but Iraq doesn't, and apparently never did? Hmmm... CIA Intelligence Reports Seven Months Before 9/11 Said Iraq Posed No Threat To U.S., Containment Was Working Quote:
Oh, but I guess since it's the United States doing it, it's not called terrorism. Hmmm... Quote:
Quote:
Or perhaps you're referring to the proposed switch from American Dollars to Euros for selling Iraqi oil? Hmmm, I wonder what that would have done to the US economy... The real reasons Bush went to war Quote:
"European conflict" What conflict are you referring to here? Quote:
Hmmm... You see, this is one of the huge flaws with the Republican Party; the view that everything is black or white, good or evil. If you don't Subscribe to Republican beliefs, you get labled as a Liberal, and you sumarily get dragged through the mud. The scarier corner of the Republican Party even believes that if you're not white, then you're not pure. Eugenics Backer Causes Stir in Tenn. Race I don't hold any misguided beliefs that the Democratic Party his it's kooks too, but nothing compares to the ones the Republican Party has. Anyways, back to your first assessment of me. No, I don't like Saddam, nor do I view him as a War Hero. Anyone who takes pleasure in taking away human life deserves whatever fate eventually befalls them. Bush Mocks Condemed Killer Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What, you still think Bush took the US to Iraq to, what, free the poor Iraqi people? <insert continuous laugh track here> Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
?!?! Yeah, I'm sure the Iraqi people appreciate it. Quote:
<insert drumming fingers on desk> What could it be... Oh yeah: Germany actively attacked Britain, and invaded every surrounding country. IRAQ NEVER INVADED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! As Charlie Brown would say, "good grief"! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
President Bush Receiving Orders from God? Quote:
Quote:
<Whispering> Psssst... You do know that Fox News isn't really 'Fair & Balanced', right? Quote:
How about providing us with some links to support all the good work the US is doing in Iraq and to their people? I'm sure it would be news to them... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm glad to hear that you're keeping an open mind. I'd like to think that I am too. Afterall, we were all born with a brain, and to not use it is a waste. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Quote:
The old adage that "one vote doesn't count" is a crock. By casting that vote you are, most importantly, standing up for yourself. That one vote says "Hey! This is who I am, this is what I believe, and nobody can take this away from me"! |
Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
You’re out of line with your intentional hostile and somewhat rude responses. If you cannot discuss this topic like a grown up, then there is really no point in discussing it with you at all.
If you missed the meaning of what I said well then there is no point in me trying to clarify it for you. You have already made up your mind to ignore the clear meaning of my comments in favor of twisting them out of their intended meaning for the purpose of serving your POV. There really is no point in continuing this discussion if this is all that you are going to do. In fact, I am fed up with the essence of hatred that your post seems to contain. At this point, as I read further down your post, I can see that I was mistaken about your intentions. You are actively and deliberately attacking my point of view and opinion with hostile intent. This is unfortunate as I had considered you to be a levelheaded person open to discussion over or differing points of view. Your more interested in posting attacks filled with venomous content that can only be classified as demented hatred is truly disappointing. END OF POST - Original Post Deleted - Lets just agree to disagree from this point forward. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif |
Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
Disclaimer
Ok an edit is needed here to avoid any hard feelings. First and foremost this is just a post. I wish to apologize up front. So please do not take my words to mean that I am a tight *** or a stuck up jerk. In this post I am responded to an attack, and like in any game, intimidation plays a roll. With that in mind, enjoy the read and please if you do get pissed off, take it out on me, and not your animals. (P.S. Nothing in this post is intended to be taken as a personalized attack. I am merely playing the game by the rules set forth in the post to which I am responding. I don't think he meant to come off as a mean person even if that is how his post seemed to present him.) End Disclaimer I have to agree with Atrocities, and go one step further; you are deliberately being closed minded and intentionally argumentative. You are attempting to goat him into responding to your rants at your level, and I am proud that he did not take your bait. However, I have and I am not bit afraid of challenging your warped sources of information. I checked out your links and if the information contained in them is what you’re basing your arguments on, then you have no arguments. Quote:
Quote:
<font color="blue"> “The fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations (CNO), Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, said -- 30 years ago when he was still CNO -- that during his own command of US naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass, by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets. "We had virtually to straight-jacket him to keep him under control," the admiral said. "Bud" Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions -- but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage. John Kerry just bet the farm on a fairy-tale Version of his Vietnam service, figuring, no doubt, that it always worked for him before. What he doesn't realize is that huge numbers of veterans who didn't care if he was a Senator from the People's Republic of Massachusetts will crawl across broken glass to keep him from becoming Commander-in-Chief. That battle is now joined.” – Scott Swett, webmaster of WinterSoldier.com (7/31/04) In 1992, John Kerry came to the defense of Bill Clinton, whose avoidance of service had become a campaign issue for George H. W. Bush. “I'm here personally to express my anger, as a veteran,” Mr Kerry told National Public Radio, “that a president who would stand before this nation in his inaugural address and promise to put Vietnam behind us is now breaking yet another promise and trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.” </font> POW/MIA Against John Kerry Read what they have to say. <font color="blue">As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, he and his staff advised Hanoi's communists government how to close POW/MIA cases, with little or no regard for the truth. In November 1992, members of the Committee, led by Senator John Kerry, traveled to Hanoi. During that visit, Sr. Col. Pham Duc Dai turned over his wartime journal supposedly detailing the ambush, death and burial of four men, from the 196th Light Infantry Brigade. Dai described how he participated in the death and burial of the four Americans. John Kerry was exuberant in his praise of Vietnamese cooperation. Using the revelations contained in the diary, Kerry called for further U.S. trade concessions to the Vietnamese and he announced that he had gotten an accounting of four men. The problem.... Dai lied. But Kerry never retracted his praise for Vietnamese "cooperation." On October 26, 1993, Pulitzer Prize winning author Sydney H. Schanberg wrote" "Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, in his haste to carry out his agenda of getting the While House to remove the embargo against Vietnam, has done some extraordinary things. One of his recurring feats has been to try to turn fiction into truth....." John Kerry had one goal, to close the POW/MIA issue, and open trade with Vietnam. Our opposition to John Kerry is not based on political motivation. We are the wives, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters and extended family members whose loved ones are the victims of John Kerry's rush to normalization relations with Vietnam. The John Kerry we know, signs a report stating servicemen were left behind at the end of the Vietnam War, doesn't ask what happened to them, and rewards Vietnam for withholding the truth John Kerry clearly demonstrated his priorities, placing trade with Vietnam over the truth about servicemen listed as Prisoner or Missing in Action. This is not a trait we want in a Commander-in-Chief. John Kerry brought the Vietnam War into this campaign. So we say "Bring it On." All we want is the truth and John Kerry, by his actions, has made this goal far more difficult to reach. Therefore, it is our intent to make it far more difficult if not impossible for John Kerry to reach his goal. Dedicated to the defeat of John F. Kerry, we are the families of American Servicemen listed as Prisoner of War or Missing in Action, left behind at the end of America's wars.</font> And Kerry’s own campaign backtracked on August 24th when they came out and said that Kerry’s first purple heart award, and I quote; “My have been self-inflicted Read More If you want to read more about what our vets think of John F. Kerry and his military record, just follow one of the 128 links on this site Kerry portrays himself as a hunter yet he is the: <font color="blue"> most anti-gun Presidential nominee in United States history. Since his election to the U.S. Senate in 1984, John F. Kerry has cast 59 votes on issues involving firearms rights and hunting. These votes included votes to ban guns, to impose waiting periods on gun buyers, to financially punish gun manufactures for operating a legal business and to restrict the free speech of Second Amendment advocates. In addition, Kerry currently is a co-sponsor of S. 1431, which would ban all semi-automatic shotguns, all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and many other guns, calling the whole lot "assault weapons." </font> And it should be noted that his photo op as a he claimed himself to be a hunter, he was using a semi-automatic shotgun. I know the second amendment means nothing to Canadans, but it does mean a lot to us Americans. So please do not begin a debate over this. More from Kerry’s military voting record. <font color="blue">] Kerry has voted for at least seven major reductions in Defense and Military spending, necessary for our national security: 1) In 1996 - Introduced Bill to slash Defense Department Funding by $6.5 Billion. 2) In 1995 - Voted to freeze Defense spending for 7 years, slashing over $34 billion from Defense. 3) Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution - Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training." 4) In 1993 - Introduced plan to cut numerous Defense programs, including: Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year. 5) Has voted repeatedly to cut Defense spending, including: In 1993, voted against increased Defense spending for Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years. In 1992, voted to cut $6 billion from Defense. In 1991, voted to slash over $3 Billion from Defense. Shift money to social programs. In 1991, voted to cut defense spending by 2% Voted repeatedly to cut or eliminate funding for B-2 Stealth Bomber Voted repeatedly against Missile Defense - Weapons Kerry sought to phase out were VITAL in Iraq. "Kerry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might-the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03) Military hardware he felt we no longer need since the "cold war" is past. The money would be better spent on "social" programs. These weapons are now the core of our military might. F-16 Fighting Falcons. B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s M1 Abrams Patriot Missile AH-64 Apache Helicopter Tomahawk Cruise Missile Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser 6) During 1980s Kerry And Michael Dukakis joined forces with liberal group dedicated to slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget..."("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs," The Associated Press, 6/3/88) 7) While running for Congress in 1972, Kerry promised to cut Defense Spending. "On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress," Kerry said he would 'bring a different kind of message to the president." He said he would, "Vote against military appropriations." ("Candidate's For Congress Capture Campus In Andover," Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72) "So you can look at all the potential threats of the world, and when you add the expenditures of all of our allies to the United States of America, you have to stop and say to yourself, 'What is it that we are really preparing for in a post-cold-war world?'" (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/15/96, p. S5061) </font> I can keep going if you want me too. Kerry has billed himself as the right man at the right time however his Senate voting record proves otherwise. He says he is a hunter, and a war hero, yet the proof shows us otherwise. Kerry stated that “trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.” And what has he done? He has used his questionable Vietnam service record in an attempt to gain election to the White House. Like what was said, he is an opportunistic liar who doesn't intend to fulfill any of the plans he's putting forth on his campaing trail. To him they are just an ends to a means. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Secondly, your doing exactly what a liberal turn coat, truth bending, spin doctor would do, your warping the meaning of what he did say to fit your own views. You are using conjecture and assuming facts that are not in play. Case in point you say: “ In other words” which clearly means that you are attempting to read into Atrocities statement something that was not there. This proves that you are the ranting loon my friend. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Oh one Last thing, you know that the distinction between Human Rights Abuses and Terrorism are vast. Human rights abuses deal with what Saddam was doing to his own people when he starved, gassed, tortured, killed, imprisoned, and denied them medical attention while presiding over them as their leader. Terrorism on the other hand deals with small Groups of individuals who are determined to kill innocent people to send a message of fear. On the surface they do appear similar, but underneath the surface, they are very much different kinds of horrors. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Democrats want to protect everyone from their rights and freedoms by passing laws that limit an individuals right to choose. To a democrat there is no personal responsibility for one own actions so long as you can blame it on someone or something else. Republicans want to protect you from “their” money. They are big business and view the American people as little more than slaves from a renewable resource. Quote:
Offer us up some real proof. Present us with legitimate facts that support your contention that Bush takes pleasure in murder. Where is your actual evidence, do you have any news reports, videotape, and or printed articles from legitimate sites that prove that Bush has ever taken “pleasure” from the suffering of others? Most likely you do not so again, you are argument is meaningless. Quote:
Secondly his out right criminal treatment of his own people had gone on for far to long. Taking the food and medicine that was earmarked for his people and selling them on the black market in order to build his personal wealth added to the misery of his people. He was also supporting terrorism in Israel and elsewhere in the world and that fact cannot be denied. Additionally, Saddam, the leader of a hostile country ordered the assignations of a former President of the United States. No in any other part of the world, that would have been considered an act of war. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
<font color="blue"> “documents seized by Israel from Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah and other terrorist operational centers in the West Bank show in extraordinary detail how Iraq has been funding terror and mayhem against Israeli civilians during the Last two years.” Link “MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said. He said the information was given to U.S. intelligence officers and that U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his gratitude to a top Russian intelligence official.” Link “Insight reviewed some 350 pages of Iraq-related documents in both English and Arabic, in addition to hundreds of pages more on financial aid from Saudi Arabia and direct military assistance from Syria and Iran. The evidence of their involvement in Palestinian terrorist operations is massive, direct and overwhelming.” </font> There are more, many more examples of his ties to terrorism, but this post is already way to long and I have grown tired of reading your post. From what I take from it, your post is nothing more than an instrument designed to incite a war of words. You list questionable web sites as your source material and attack Atrocities fact based evidence by taking it out of context and twisting his meaning. You referred to Atrocities as a ranting loon when in fact it was you who was doing the ranting. If any one here is a loon, you’d already have my vote. (This has just been opinion, and who knows, I could be wrong, but not today. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif) |
Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
Quote:
|
Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
FOX has a news channel?? I did not kown that.
|
Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
I don't have the time to read through everyone's points and respond to them in full at the moment, but I just had to point out a few things from CNC's post.
First, the endorsements and condemnations of Kerry by various veterans Groups... I consider all of them highly suspect. I've known quite a few war veterans, and one thing nearly all of them had in common was the tendency to exagerrate EVERYTHING they say, even more so when it comes to war stories. Do I think Kerry is a war hero? No, but then again, he actually went to Vietnam, which is more than can be said for Clinton or Bush. Do I think Kerry is a terrible person from all the veterans' stories? Definitely no, as it's already been shown in various media outlets that many of those veterans attacking Kerry didn't serve at the same time Kerry did, and those that were there at the same time, most had either no or very short-lived contact with him. It all sounds to me like one big grudge-match between various camps of veterans. There are probably several veterans that oppose Kerry simply for the fact that he turned war-protester once he returned from duty. And in the end, the whole mess just stinks of political tactics to discount any areas where Kerry could possibly have an advantage over Bush; especially when the possibility of a percieved advantage when it comes to commanding the military is just about all that Bush has when you look at some of the public opinion polls. Second thing I wanted to point out was the cuts to defense spending that Kerry voted for. I would like everyone to take a careful look at those dates in CNC's points one through five. All after 1991. And when did the Cold War end, everybody? 1991? Right! I really don't see the problem in cutting military spending when all that needed to be done was maintain a portion of the current military hardware, since there was no huge imminent threat to the US. To attempt a very poor analogy, it's like having your house covered in rat traps already, and then after the rats nest kills the fattest rats and the rest run away and disappear from your house, you keep spending money on bait for the rat traps IN ADDITION TO BUYING EVEN MORE TRAPS. It is simply not necessary, the major threat is gone, and the current traps are more than sufficient for any mice that may want to take up residence. And this isn't even getting into the fact that most likely all of those bills had many other provisions in them that would also cause Kerry to vote against. Common, ugly political tactic; present bill where it states that "Every person has rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", then also bundle that with a provision that says people who make less than $10k a year have to pay for and attend poverty counseling sessions, or else pay a $1k/year fine. If someone votes against the bill, the fact that they voted against "Every person has rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is held against them, no mention of other undesirable provisions in the bill. As for the Cold War years points, joining with Dukakis in a lobbying group dedicated to cutting military spending and the '72 campaign promise to do so, I see this as just a reaction to the huge amounts of spending that were already occuring. It doesn't look like he voted for it at all, and I don't have the time currently to look it up, so I will do so later or hope someone else will to clarify. But without the votes, it just seems to me that he's helping to give voice to dissenters, a vital part of a democracy. And for the point on opposing missile defense, there are many people that oppose it for the simple fact that it hasn't been demonstrated to actually WORK yet. Money for research on missile defense is fine, and doesn't hinge on Congressional funding, but on the discretionary research budget of the DoD. Funding actual deployments of the technology that fails most of the time is ridiculous. I'll try to get back to the rest of the stuff later today. |
Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
Becareful Will, CNC is a Democrate. And if he is voting for Bush this year, that means he's done his homework over the subjects. I have learned a long time ago to never argue with him over politics. Mocho bad mojo.
And honestly, everything is suspect. Katchoo proved that. No matter what your source of information is, someone can always find a another source to say exactly the oposite. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif |
Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
Atrocites:
Yeah, I probably did come off as hostile. For some reason I'm getting easily rilled up when discussing Politics lately, especially American Politics. So I apoligize for running at you with a proverbial hatchet. Atrocities, the one key thing I wanted to know was why you considered Kerry a liar. If your reasons why are the same as CNC's reasons, then that's fine, but if there's another reason, one that I may not have heard about yet, then I would love to hear it. In the end my mind does open up; my stubborn side doesn't keep it closed all the time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif CNC: Thank you for the links. Since you took the time to post them, I'll take the time to go through them. |
Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
Ok, most of the rest of the points are highly inflamatory, and don't deal with the issues much, if at all. So I'll go ahead and ignore the rest of it.
And AT, I hold both the Republican and Democratic parties in utter contempt. It's just I usually have less of a problem with Democrats than I do with Republicans, since the idealogical community that I despise the most in the US (conservative Evangelical Christians, eg. those who love their faith so much they want everyone else to have that faith too... or else) tends to overwhelmingly go Republican, and they determine some of their more distasteful (in my view) policies. Most of the Republicans I know who don't put the "neo-conservative" labels on themselves would fit far better in the Libertarian Party, since the Republican leadership has unfortunately been taken over by the so-called neo-conservative elements. Pretty much my view on the entire military aspect of the candidates is that Kerry has some experience commanding a very small number of soldiers (five at a time, I believe), and none commanding any significant number. Bush has the three and a half years he got as President, and I think he botched most of it. Afghanistan was pretty much a necessity any way you look at it, he would have been crucified if there wasn't swift action there. Then I think there are two ways to look at Iraq: either it was chosen over other viable targets (such as N. Korea) because there were already other factors aiding in the war attempt (trouble with UN sanctions) as well as it's location close to other Middle-eastern states where it was suspected terrorists were harbored; or, it was chosen because it was a slightly easier target (again because of UN sanctions and the demolishment of the Iraqi military in Gulf War I), control over oil (auto-magically gain the support of probably 25% of the country there), personal grudge over the assasination plot against Daddy, or any of the other conspiracy theories that have floated around. While the conspiracy theory points ARE possible, the first option would have to be the primary reason for any sane person. So, in my view, immediately after invading Afghanistan, the talk of invading Iraq that came up was Bush mistake #1. Everything before that was pretty much auto-pilot, it would have happened no matter who was President (my opinion, but I don't see how anyone could think differently). The military should have focused on cleaning out Afghanistan and ensuring a stable new government, then moved on to the next target. Bush mistake #2 was not listening to his military advisors, who knew what they were doing, and sending fewer troops than recommended into Iraq. While the neutralization of Iraq was still swift, it could have gone smoother, and a larger force would have been able to prevent the next mistake... With Bush mistake #3 being again not listening to his military advisors, and keeping an insufficient police force in Iraq after the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco (I can't see how anyone would think that Bush's little stunt of showing up on the carrier was a smart move, especially considering that it was premature). There were a lot of analogies used for the search for weapons about how Iraq was about the size of California, making searching the entire country difficult. Well, to borrow from that, imagine going into California, and removing all the local police, the CHP, the National Guard, etc., in the state, and replacing them with a vastly smaller force of "police troops", who patrolled mostly in the major cities and the routes between them. What would happen to California then? Well, very quickly, gangs would gain control of large parts of the cities, and small Groups of bandits would have free reign over the rural areas. Which is exactly what is happening in Iraq. So, Bush has consistently overestimated the abilities of his armies, and consistently underestimated the abilities of his opponents, on his opponents' home ground. With that record, you will forgive me if I do not want to give him a chance to learn from his mistakes, I'll take chances with someone else. |
Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
I know that your post was not directed at me Will, but I would still like to respond to it if you don’t mind. (If you do mind, well then I apologize now for I am going to respond to it.)
I respect your point of view, and although I do agree with much of what you have to say, I do have some questions for you. I would like to know if you are a specialist on the military, their tactics and capabilities? Are you a political specialist and or annalist? Have you ever been in the white house, or have ever sat in attendance during any of the meetings between Bush and his military advisors? Are you privy to special information that the rest of us are not, or are all your points just your opinion and nothing more? You see, unless you are in the loop, your out of it. And those out of the look love to speculate and arm chair quarterback the choices of those who are in the loop. You speak of mistakes that Bush has made. Do you have any written proof from any legitimate source that can cohobate your statements? Are you privy to special information that the rest of us are not? Do you have confirmation that Bush has made mistakes from solid military sources that can be quoted and or verified? Or are you more likely or not basing your statements on your own best assumption of the facts at hand? Facts at hand that are often not complete, lack vital information, and are most likely from subjective sources. Subjective sources being not directly from the source to which they are reportedly reporting on. More often than not they are little more than hearsay and rumor until cohobated. I see no cohabitation of your contention that Bush has made mistakes, therefore I can only conclude that these mistakes you speak of are little more than your opinion of Bush’s performance. However since you are most likely not a military tactical specialist, and are probably not a political annalist, and have no connection to the leaders of our armed forces, I can only surmise that your opinions that the President has made mistakes lack credibility and are little more than your personal beliefs based not on fact, but on personal observations which lack professional credibility. Welcome to the club. As for the religious aspects of the Republican Party, I don't know, as I have never really paid much attention to them. All I do know is that they have been under attack lately by people who want the words “In God We Trust,” removed from our currency, and the words “Under God” censored from the Pledge of Allegiance. I have read that many people, namely lesbian woman’s Groups and teenage girls, oppose them because they have a strong stance against abortion. I have no facts to back this up, therefore I will not comment on it. I challenge you to do the same, and produce facts to back up your comments. My “observations” of the Democratic party is that they fear personal responsibility and have historically voted to limit personal freedoms, write laws to protect us from our freedom of choice, and support the corrupt ambulance chasing actions of trial lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits. Hell look at what they are doing over the Swift Vote adds right now. The Democrats, specifically Kerry's campaign, have dumped over sixty three million dollars worth of negative adds into the president’s lap, and he watered them without fuss. Now here comes the Swift Vote with there two hundred and fifty thousands dollars worth of ads and Mr. Kerry and his Democrat supporters are crying foul. I really just want to yell, "OH GIVE ME A BREAK MR. KERRY AND SUCK IT UP!" You see the Kerry people love to dish it out, but can't stand to get it back. Do the math, sixty three million dollars to two hundred and fifty thousand. And now they want a court order to stop these vets right to voice their views. What is Kerry afraid of? Is he afraid that the truth will come out, and that truth will be that he manufactured situations and doctored his reports in order to get medals? I think that that is where this controversy is heading and he and his supporters know this so they want to use the courts, and make law, to prevent those who know the truth from ever telling any one of it. That is what the Democrats do. They whine and boo hoo like spoiled rotten children whenever things don't go their way. They lie, they sue, and they do whatever they can to make the light of truth to go away. Again, this is just based upon my personal observations that just so happen to be shared by a great deal of Americans. Look at what Gore did in 2000; He sued over the results of the election. Fast-forward to day, and you see Kerry and his camp suing to stop adds that put him and his candidacy for the presidency in jeopardy. As to the spin doctoring that these men, the Swift Vets, are making things up, well I ask you, why would they? What do they possibly hope to gain? Nothing, they are just American veterans who happened to have served with Kerry and they are telling us that he is not the right man for the job. And if history has ever taught us anything, its to listen to our vets. The majority of our military and are veterans, as well as their families, support Bush. This tells me two things, one he has their confidence, and Kerry does not, and two, they would rather have a man of proven character in office over that of a man who's character is in question. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.