Re: I prefer Bush in a skirt and pom-pom ...
PRIVATE
"TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
[
Follow Ups ] [
Post Followup ] [
The AAA Frame Message Board ] [
FAQ ]PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
Posted by Billy on September 03, 2004 at 15:49:55:
In Reply to: Re: I prefer Bush in a skirt and pom-pom ... posted by Ron on September 03, 2004 at 14:35:11:
“How about a guy whose 3 people hearts are in question?”
Being questioned by who? A bunch of upper crust, deferment
getting, draft dodgers who wouldn’t sign up for two bus tours around Manhattan
let alone Vietnam. The Swift Boat Assholes for Truth” have done more damage to
the service of the Vietnam vets than Kerry ever did testifying before congress
as a 20 year old. He could have got a deferment or a cushy spot in the guard but
he volunteered and went. Put himself in harms way. Have you ever had the
experience of being shot at? I have. It takes guts to put yourself in that
position. Guts or madness. The US Government issued the guy 3 purple hearts. Now
you can question every purple heart that was ever issued. People who have never
been in harms way have a hell of a lot on nerve. These guys are despicable.
“How about a guy who wants to fight terrorists with "sensitivity".
Sensitivity=nuance as in what is required to devise and enact a strategy. I am sure you realize that but want to parse and spin the words.
“How about a guy who wants to let the UN decide when/if the US military can be
used. (Funny, Clinton didn't even get Congressional approval and Kerry wants
approval from everyone including Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!) :p
I have heard almost all of his speeches and cannot cite one that he even implies this. Is this right out of Carl Roves office?
“How about a guy who voted against almost every weapons package in his 20 year senatorial career.”
This is an outright lie from RNC talking points. Cheany
voted against more weapons systems then Kerry in his career. So the Whitehouse
sets up Democrats with a new military spending bill that features body armor for
the solders months after the morons realize that they wouldn’t be lobbing
chocolate bars at the solders as they walked down the streets of Baghdad. Only
it has a multi-million dollar give away to Halliburton. If they vote for and
raise a concern about the war they are flip flopping, If they take exception to
the bill then they are soft on defense and non supportive of the military…nice.
Let's say for arguments sake that all of the weapons programs that Kerry had
voted against were defeated and that the Gore was President and now Kerry.
Then let's assume that the US was unfortunate enough to suffer more terrorist
attacks...
Do you think that he would look back on his senatorial career and say "gee, i
wish i handn't voted against the b2 and all of those missile systems, because
now i'm going to have to send a lot of young soldiers into a ground battle
because I have nothing to shoot at these bastards from the air".....
Huh? This one is too whacked out to even respond to. What does the B2 and missile systems have to do with recruiting Arab children, raised in Madras’s to want to die for Islam? Just a question.
yup, that's a guy that I want running the US military. A soft, monied, flip flopping, wind surfer from Massachusettes....... I think I'll stick with the Texan.
No. You are right. We need a sanctimonious moron who an never admit a mistake, wraps himself in the flag and patronizes himself to the evangelical extreme. A person who when he flips the script has to have everything he says spun and explained to the public by his handlers. Who’s every piece of legislation leaving his desk supports corporations over the individual. Who supports legislation that says that if I by a book from Barns and Noble with my credit card, and that book is not on John Ashcroft’s approved must read list, it’s OK to make a note of the purchase just in case we need to talk to Billy in the future. I fear another 4 years for what it may do to this country’s civil rights. I for one do not live in fear of a terrorist attack. If it happens I will fight and if need be die. The RNC would like me to live in fear with W being depicted as my savior and protector. Keep dreaming.
I'm going outside to wash/wax my V8 powered American, gas guzzling sports car,
be back later :)
Certainly your right. I may be wrong but I’ll assume you have no children.
Re: I prefer Bush in a skirt and pom-pom ...
PRIVATE
"TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
[
Follow Ups ] [
Post Followup ] [
The AAA Frame Message Board ] [
FAQ ]PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
Posted by Doug W on September 03, 2004 at 19:25:02:
In Reply to: Re: I prefer Bush in a skirt and pom-pom ... posted by Billy on September 03, 2004 at 15:49:55:
You have the fu**** nerve to call the swift vets despicable! Who the f*** are you? 254 men, with distinguished service say Kerry is a dirtbag. have you read "Unfit For Command?" I have. This lowlife piece of sh*t thought he had a safe "out" from combat and then things changed and he found himself in harms way. His every action from that time on was to stay out of danger while accumulating the necessary purple hearts to get the hell out of there. He pursued this single-minded goal over all concern for rules, mission and the regard for his fellows. they all hated his guts. When he got his phony purple hearts they were all glad and said good riddance to bad garbage.
If I am wrong, please find for me one instance EVER where someone got 3 purple hearts in 4 months of service WITH NO HOSPITILZATION AND NO INJURIES TO SHOW TO THIS DAY.
Re: I prefer Bush in a skirt and pom-pom ...
PRIVATE
"TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
[
Follow Ups ] [
Post Followup ] [
The AAA Frame Message Board ] [
FAQ ]PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
Posted by Marc on September 03, 2004 at 16:43:56:
In Reply to: Re: I prefer Bush in a skirt and pom-pom ... posted by Billy on September 03, 2004 at 15:49:55:
Billy -
Fabulous response. And for style points, I loved the following:
So the Whitehouse sets up Democrats with a new military spending bill that features body armor for the solders months after the morons realize that they wouldn’t be lobbing chocolate bars at the solders as they walked down the streets of Baghdad. Only it has a multi-million dollar give away to Halliburton.
And you've got Ron figured out. He's almost a caricature of a white male with a few bucks whose rhetoric would sound much more meaningful if he had a son or daughter he could donate to the conflict or if he were washing the "tank" instead of the vette. ;-)
Marc
P.S. Who are you?
Re: I prefer Bush in a skirt and pom-pom ...
PRIVATE
"TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
[
Follow Ups ] [
Post Followup ] [
The AAA Frame Message Board ] [
FAQ ]PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
Posted by Doug W on September 03, 2004 at 21:48:57:
In Reply to: Re: I prefer Bush in a skirt and pom-pom ... posted by Marc on September 03, 2004 at 16:43:56:
You obviously have no understanding of what was and is required to maintain the freedom that you so cavalierly take for granted as your due, and the people and their families who make up our military. Nobody “donates” their progeny. Young adults volunteer. What nation are you talking about where parents “donate” their children to the military. This is an intentional inflammatory LIE!
The freedom you enjoy here in the United States is the most rare and precious thing in the history of the human race. For the entire history of mankind, before our constitution, the common man lived at the whim of one type of tyrant or another. There is absolutely nothing aside from the armed might of the soldier that has changed this paradigm.
And you have no regard for this gift or the blood that was shed to procure it and the blood that is required to maintain it. You ungrateful sot!
There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are “white” and who have “a few bucks” who burst with pride that their sons are fighting for our security and the freedom of others in remote regions of the Earth. You spit on them; those who put their lives on the line and the families that support them. I can’t even imagine where you are coming from with these vile statements.
The magnitude of your complacency and ingratitude is beyond my comprehension.
Re: I prefer Bush in a skirt and pom-pom ...
PRIVATE
"TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
[
Follow Ups ] [
Post Followup ] [
The AAA Frame Message Board ] [
FAQ ]PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
Posted by JK on September 03, 2004 at 14:51:52:
In Reply to: Re: I prefer Bush in a skirt and pom-pom ... posted by Ron on September 03, 2004 at 14:35:11:
Bush glosses over facts:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush_fact_check_2
Re: I prefer Bush in a skirt and pom-pom ...
PRIVATE
"TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
[
Follow Ups ] [
Post Followup ] [
The AAA Frame Message Board ] [
FAQ ]PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
Posted by Doug W on September 03, 2004 at 18:32:08:
In Reply to: Re: I prefer Bush in a skirt and pom-pom ... posted by JK on September 03, 2004 at 14:51:52:
Yeah! And remember when FDR said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself?" Talk about glossing over facts! What about cancer, hurricanes, rabies, contentious divorces, layoffs, bullets and bombs, DEATH! FDR; a master glosser-over.
This glossing over of facts has got to stop. I guess we are all guilty to some extent. I called in sick one day last year without describing the color of my phlegm! Imagine!
Is Bush supposed to mention that, although we killed and captured ¾ of the al Qaeda leadership, “Oh, by the way, they have all been replaced by equally evil and competent surrogates.” Is this even true? I would like this commie “reporter” to name the new leaders who have replaced the ones killed and captured. Who are these legions flocking to the cause that puts an American target on their backsides and makes them pariahs in the new world of anti-terrorism engineered by our president? WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE NEW BIN LADEN? WHO IS THE NEW KALID SHIEK MUHAMMED? WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE THAT THIS SHITBIRD “REPORTER” FROM THE RADICAL LEFTWING, ANTI-AMERICAN AP CLAIMS HAVE REPLACED THOSE WE HAVE VANQUISHED? I WANT SOME NAMES!
The nations that stand beside us in this fight do not have the population, resources and military of the United States. As the world’s leading nation in every conceivable aspect, and as the acknowledged protector of liberty, proven in three world wars, and the liberator of billions, we will of course lose more treasure and soldiers in the battle against evil than these other nations.
The free world has become accustomed to the protection of the United States and complacent in their assurance of same while allowing their militaries to lapse in the pursuit of Socialist nirvana. Meanwhile, the forces of evil have not slumbered.
The risk to these nations in standing beside us is not exactly proportional to ours. There is no nation on Earth with our ability and resolve to combat evil. However, they have put political consequences on the line. They have given their moral imprimatur to the fight against Islamo-Fascism. This is no small thing. They have put themselves in harm’s way at home. Supporting nations have been attacked and supporting leaders have been assassinated. Political futures are in jeopardy. Where does this puny little “reporter” come off denigrating their support because they have not lost as many soldiers?
A man with no moral compass whatsoever has labeled them, “The coalition of the bribed and coerced.” This effete little rich boy has no idea of the size of the pot that these leaders have pushed onto the table in their backing of our actions. They have risked all and sacrificed much , as has president Bush, in this battle. They count on our continued support; a support they will not receive under a Kerry administration. Do you think you have trepidation towards this election? Imagine the gamble that the free world has riding on it.
This idiot says Bush glossed over Kerry’s “nuanced” position on raising taxes. Right. Kerry wants to rollback the tax relief to the “rich” and give more tax cuts to the middle class! Oh yeah. Kerry has been a senator for 20 years. Show me ONE SINGLE TIME where he has supported any tax cut for the middle class OR ANY TAX CUT AT ALL FOR ANYBODY! This filthy scumbag is a tax increase maniac! There is no way on Earth that he will ever propose to reduce any tax! Bush DID NOT gloss over Kerry’s tax policies? Everybody on the planet knows that there is no upper limit to the taxes that this commie garbage will impose ON EVERYBODY!
The tax trick of the Left is very simple. It’s a vote buying scheme for the ignorant. (That is, of course why they oppose education). It is to shift all taxes to the high-earners, (those being in the minority), to garner votes from the normal earners (those being the vast majority). This is tremendously clever for short term political gain. Since the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of taxes, you can reduce the taxes for the low 50% ad infinitum, to zero even, and have minimal effect on government revenue while (and here is the kicker for the Communist Left) giving no benefit to the economy. The Demoncrat Party is the very embodiment of Sir Alex Fraser Tytler’s theory of the suicide of democracies. If you took his glum assessment and wanted to create a party to actualize it, today’s Demoncrat Party is the ideal. It is the ultimate Ponzi scheme. Only, the end result is not the loss of life savings for some trusting widow, but the end of a great nation.
I agree with this reporter on Bush’s education mish mash. You cannot improve education while expanding the federal role. I laughed out loud at this point in his speech while hurling epithets at the TV. A difficult maneuver for which I deserve a 9.9. On education, Bush is a monstrous tyrant and asshole supremo. He is either a disingenuous liar and fraud or an imbecile!
As for the 87 billion – Kerry was nuanced in his “no” vote. Bush glossed over this nuance. Bullshit! Kerry was acting true to form. He hates the military and has voted against every single cent for the military for his entire stint in the Senate. “Oh, there was no collective bargaining and no bids for the contracts to Haliburton, though!” This is crap! You don’t engage in the bidding process, which can last up to a year, in the middle of a war! That is why you have pre-bidded contracts in waiting. This is common sense and one of the few places where our government has planned ahead. Haliburton was awarded these contracts by established methods in anticipation of future need. Clinton used them in the same way in his wars. Haliburton is a great American company of which we should all be proud. It is one of the few companies on Earth that can provide these needed services.
Kerry’s “nuanced” opposition to these contracts is simply an excuse to vote as he always has: against our military and our troops! Nothing was “glossed over.” Kerry opposed money for the military. He always has and he always will cravenly grabbing any excuse that comes to hand. I mean, give me a break, he voted against it because, “it included no-bid contracts for companies?” While our soldiers are waiting for spare parts, ammo and armor Kerry is concerned with, “no-bid contracts for companies???” This is the essence of a pewling, little, Socialist bureaucrat whose labor constituency comes first over all and whose ignorance of evil in the world is non-existent.
This is a guy who came back from a war and hurled the most vicious slander against his fellow soldiers that could ever be hurled. He hated our soldiers then and he hates them now. Any “nuanced” opposition to funding our military can be easily explained. There is no need to gloss over anything on this point. It is all easily evident.
Then from “Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who tracks the accuracy of campaign rhetoric”, an impartial observer I’m sure, who says, Bush, “distorts Kerry's positions by suggesting that he opposed Medicare reform when he instead favored an alternative. “ What is the alternative to reform? The status quo!!! In other words, he opposed reform, just as Bush said!
The article pays some due to the fact that an acceptance speech at the national convention cannot be expected to praise the opposition and will attempt to concentrate the party message succinctly but, this article has gone far out of whack in it’s characterization of “glossing over.” Bush was more accurate in his description of the opposition than anything I have heard from the other side and far more decent and circumspect.