Kerry Politicizing Military Again! [Archive]

ratm1966

06-07-2004, 09:29 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where was Kerry's outrage then? Oh wait, that was a Democrat president.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is your outrage now? Oh wait, now its a Republican president.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest with you, I wasn't outraged then, and I am not outraged now. Shit happens like that all of the time. I was just pointing out how Kerry is now politicizing it, when he did nothing about it when Clinton implemented a stop-loss.

The difference between Clinton doing it and Bush doing it is that under Clinton Administration, they whittled down the military by forcing people out early, and then realized that they forced too many out. Because of this, they enacted a stoploss and wouldn't let anyone out until the end strength rose back up. His stop-loss was also across the board with all 4 branches of the military. Bush is doing it because of the war with Iraq, and only with the Army, to prevent us from not having enough soldiers out there. It shouldn't last long though, because he is also going to increase the authorized numbers of the Army so they can recruit more people.

marksiwel

06-07-2004, 10:33 PM

Man oh man, thats it. I cant take this anymore. No More will I stand by while the Bush vs. Kerry BS goes on. I am voting Libeatrian (Sp?) I know they wont win, but I still like the Idea of making the fire deparment a business.
Lady "Help My House is on Fire!"
Fireman "Are you a Visa/Mastercard Member?"
Lady "No"
Fire Man "sorry cant help you, unless you want to sign up now it only takes 20-30 minutes."

Its like when I got into a car wreck, I called the non-emergency number and they said they couldnt send a car over because it was on private property, and no one was hurt. So I called them back and said a Black Man parked across 3 handicapped spaces with his Mustang and if they could please send a police car.
AND Damn in five minutes a cop was there! So when they cant make any money coming out they wont, but when they are looking at like 2000 dollars in fines they come within seconds. BASTARDS!

_Rambling over_

Matt1

06-07-2004, 10:39 PM

First off, I don't know whether Kerry supported the stop-loss under Clinton or not. I did a Nexus-Lexis search and couldn't find anything either way. Secondly, so what if he didn't criticize Clinton? Why do people, on both sides, hold politicians to inhuman standards when it comes to their opinions? Aren't they allowed to grow, develop, and change their minds just like everyone else? Opinions change as events change. I don't hold Bush to what he said about nation building in the 2000 campaign, because I realize a lot of shit has happened between then and now.

As for "politicizing" the military, managing the military is the President's primary role. He's the Commander-In-Chief. Why shouldn't the way he's conducted himself as such be fair game for legitimate criticism?

Mighty_Wingman

06-08-2004, 12:23 AM

I noticed you didn't refute "the draft" or "the missing link" thing.

Ahah ! So you Admit it ! /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

Razorback

06-08-2004, 12:57 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I did a Nexus-Lexis search and couldn't find anything either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sure hope you are not paying for that search out of your own pockets. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

Matt1

06-08-2004, 01:15 AM

Thankfully no. My college's web page has a link for students that I frequently use and abuse for my own purposes. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

Dr3vil

06-08-2004, 06:30 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I knew people who already had jobs ligned up for when they retired, and lost them. Where was Kerry's outrage then? Oh wait, that was a Democrat president.

[/ QUOTE ] I think there's a key distinction in that people recalled during Clinton's years weren't facing the same chance of being killed that our current soldiers enjoy. Granted, it's the same fuck up, and granted, it's only being politicized because people who already hate Bush and the war want yet another reason to, but we shouldn't neglect that it's come at a higher cost. Particularly when Bush hasn't gone out of his way to seek foreign aid after getting us into a unilateral effort that's become too big to finish without policies like these and massive debt generation. This policy is being criticized for a lack of foresight, but its treatment as our only option is its most egregious fault.

People are decrying this in large part because there's a Republican in the white house, but Iraq has been a grade A snafu from so many angles (insufficient public support, international support, and intelligence going in, etc.), that it's ridiculous to dismiss all critcisms of it as comming from THEM. Politics is a game about sheep herding stupid people, but if you concentrate on the politicized criticisms too much to bother looking at the possibly genuine ones, you've been wrangled with the rest of them.

I don't like Kerry either, he's a sell-out and articles like this proove it, but I only care about what a politician can do for me. If a genuinely well-meaning person can't end this war in a reasonable time or economically brace us for the retirement of the baby boom generation, I'll take the ass hole who can in a heartbeat.

Razorback

06-08-2004, 07:57 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
People are decrying this in large part because there's a Republican in the white house, but Iraq has been a grade A snafu from so many angles

[/ QUOTE ]

Since "snafu" means "situtation normal all [censored] up" I will have to strongly disagree with you. I have at least one friend serving in Iraq who is no great fan of Bush, and yet he was infuriated when he read that Iraq was being called a "mess."

What he had seen was so different from what was being reported, and while he had lost a good friend early in his deployment, and been through a dozen close calls, he felt that the mission was being "completely dicked around by the media."

The one thing that he said to me that really has made me think was this (and I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him, the spelling errors etc are his):

"What has become a theme around home is that people support us but not the war. Well the actions in this war are part of my mission and it is what I take pride in. All of the good we have done here that never makes it to TV. It pisses me off!! Are we going to come back from this war and be told that we did good but that our mission was a waste? That [leaving out name] died for nothing? It just feels to some of us like the media and some people around the world are trying to make this into Vietnam. You supprt us? Thanks! You think our mission is shit? Then dont tell me you support us because it feels like total bvullshit! I would love to see every single one of the people who says that we are failing at our mission come here and look at what is happening. 3 battles a week, a month, does not make a failure in a city of millions. We have done so much for these people and yet it seems like cnn or bcc can only show the bad."

I also thought this posting (from another board) from a soldier who had just returned home made me laugh and yet was sad to think that our service people might feel this way:

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I half expected to come back home and being greeted by some peacenik saying "Thank you for your service, baby killer!

[/ QUOTE ]

DangerSeeker

06-08-2004, 12:01 PM

I know a soldier who has always been decidedly right who is back now, and he takes the opposite stance as your friend. He thinks the thing serves no purpose, and told me with a look that gave me the creeps that he's seen and done things that he'll have to live with the rest of his life. He in no way supports the war, but does support the troops. They are not one and the same. Just because somebody over there there believes in what they are doing, that doesn't mean they all do. Just because somebody over there has a different outlook than I do, doesn't mean I don't support that soldier as much.

I think the real thing to look at is that, based on our two examples, being in the service seems to change your politics.

karmattack

06-08-2004, 12:21 PM

You can support those who are willing to defend and die for our nation and at the same time discourage the concept of war.

support troops

do not support concept of war

Sound like different things to me. That said, I have a friend with the same stance as your friend, Danger. He was a medic. He supports what he thought the war was about in the beginning (liberating an oppressed nation) but admits that he feels, through what he experienced, that's not the real reason we're there. He doesn't support the war.

Matt1

06-08-2004, 01:51 PM

I support the concept of war. Just not the way this was one has been carried out.

Zens_7s

06-08-2004, 02:19 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
support troops

do not support concept of war

Sound like different things to me.

[/ QUOTE ] I support you in your life, as a friend, even though we have very different political views and opinions. How is that different? People and concepts are two different things.

I guess I relate it back to business...no matter where you work there will be decisions made that you do not agree with on an individual basis. If you work for the city water department and they decide to raise their rates should your friends and co-workers shun you for working for the water department? I am guessing that you would expect people to understand that you are an individual in a big organization and you deserve the support.

Also, troops are not just working in Iraq. They are all over the world working jobs most of us wouldn't touch. For all the media attention on the negative side of troops right now, we tend to forget that the majority are working jobs that have positive impact to foreign and domestic relations. Especially those that are attempting to keep us safe from another terrorist attack. Not every U.S. troop is involved in the war, and the majority will never see active battle at all.

RobinHoodDaffy

06-08-2004, 02:37 PM

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
http://www.snipp.org/aggeggioso/cards/cards/kodos.gif

karmattack

06-08-2004, 04:20 PM

So are you saying that you agree with me? I guess I was confused by your preface.

And if there's any confusion, my statements weren't commands like "You should support the troops. You should not support the concept of war." I was just saying that those are two completely different concepts, as in:

support for U.S. troops does not equal support for war (as a concept or otherwise). Though one might lead you to support the other, they are not the same. And lack of support for one does not equal lack of support for the other.

jjcourtright

06-08-2004, 04:49 PM

That is quite like what I heard on the local conservative talk show yesterday. The host claimed that the 80,000 people that went to the parade that we had to welcome home the troops were showing their support not only for the troops, but also for our Commander-in-Chief. I disagree. I definitely support our troops. My job involves supporting the troops. I took my family to the parade to show the soldiers that I do support them. Just because I think that our President was wrong in sending them there, doesn't mean that I think they are doing wrong. Everything that they are doing is right(with a few exceptions).

Razorback

06-08-2004, 05:12 PM

I wonder how many friends of democrats will return from the war having "changed their ideology" based on it, and how many friends of republicans will have returned from the war "proud to have served for a righteous cause."

/forums/images/icons/wink.gif

jjcourtright

06-08-2004, 05:15 PM

You read my mind! I'm sure there are plenty that go both ways, but you can't use a contrary story to prove your point, now can you.

Razorback

06-08-2004, 05:18 PM

"Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die."

karmattack

06-08-2004, 05:27 PM

Seriously, I didn't meet the guy I'm talking about until after he served. He moved across the street from some other friends of mine and came to one of their parties. I met him there and he told me all about his service. Now, you could say that we are friends because our ideologies are the same, but that isn't true either. He is far more conservative than I am. Obviously we're not just friends because of our stance on the war. And you could say that we're "friends" just for the sake of conversations like these, which you'll just have to trust me isn't true.

Just a coincidence.

I'm sure your assumption is more correct than not though.

JIM

06-08-2004, 09:09 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I noticed you didn't refute "the draft" or "the missing link" thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh snippity snap!!!
Thanks for reminding Me.

You're wrong on those counts too!
Well...maybe not on the monkey man thing...

But have'nt You noticed that Kerry looks like He's one of the undead? For Christ's sake, the Man looks like He died and no one told Him! /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

ratm1966

06-08-2004, 09:58 PM

I work with dozens of people who were there during the opening days of the war, and I know a lot of people who have been stationed over there since then, and none of them have changed their opinion about the war.

We don't get people who try to get out of going over there either. As a matter of fact, most of the people that go from here, actually volunteer to go. Even before the war started. We had more volunteers to go than we had positions opened for them. Not because they are ate up maggots, but because they believe in why we are there and want to do their part to make sure everything ends with a success.

Hell, I even work with a couple of people who didn't vote for Bush, and probably won't this time either, but they still support the mission and have even volunteered to go over there.

I dunno, I guess I am just trying to provide some insight to the other point of view. All in all, you are always gonna have people who like the President and will blindly support everything he does. Just as you will always have people who don't like him, and will oppose everything he does, just because of him. Then you will also have the middle of the roaders. Those who don't like him, but will support some of the things he does because they believe they are the right things to do and those who like him, but won't support some of the things he does, because they believe they are wrong.

Now back to Kerry. In my opinion he is a two faced bastard that can't seem to stick with one decision because he thinks his polls will drop. At least Bush is continuing on, no matter what people think of him.

JIM

06-09-2004, 12:04 AM

Yup.

The friends and people I know who have gone overseas have the same feelings and views on the mision they were sent on. No bellyaching from them. They were'nt exactly crazy about what they saw, etc., but they had a job to do and did it with honor.

More on Kerry... That sorry P.O.S. has voted against every important piece of military equipment that has come around for the last twenty, twenty-five years or so.
He voted "no" on the:

F-14 Tomcat
F-15 Eagle
F-16 Falcon
B-1 Bomber
B-2 Stealth Bomber
AH-64 Apache
AV-8B Harrier
Aegis Crusier
M1 Abrams
Bradley Fighting Vehicle
Tomahawk Cruise Missle System
Trident Missle System
Patriot Missle System

I can not believe this guy! He wants to be commander in chief of our Armed Forces!?!?! Screw that!

F*ck Him. F*ck Him in His stupid ass. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

Mighty_Wingman

06-09-2004, 03:06 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
But have'nt You noticed that Kerry looks like He's one of the undead? For Christ's sake, the Man looks like He died and no one told Him!

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you seen the the little parody pics where he's compared to "Lerch" and "Herman Munster" , I saw them when Ryall linked to the VeiwAskew boards a little while ago someone over there has them as their sig. Funny stuff.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
More on Kerry... That sorry P.O.S. has voted against every important piece of military equipment that has come around for the last twenty, twenty-five years or so.
He voted "no" on the:

F-14 Tomcat
F-15 Eagle
F-16 Falcon
B-1 Bomber
B-2 Stealth Bomber
AH-64 Apache
AV-8B Harrier
Aegis Crusier
M1 Abrams
Bradley Fighting Vehicle
Tomahawk Cruise Missle System
Trident Missle System
Patriot Missle System

I can not believe this guy! He wants to be commander in chief of our Armed Forces!?!?! Screw that!

F*ck Him. F*ck Him in His stupid ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jim, you're relying too much on what you hear from campaign ads, which are subjective Bullshit whichever side they come from.

Spinsanity (http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_05_02_archive.html)

I keep tryin to get people to go here it's a fantastic source of non-partisan facts, and will help you to weed through Bullshit in the future.

But incase you're not in a clicking mood:
“The Bush campaign began airing a new ad in key states last week claiming that "Kerry even voted against body armor for our troops on the front line of the war on terror." That charge, however, is based on an October 2003 vote against a large supplemental appropriations bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (as the Bush campaign admits on its Web site). While the legislation did include funds for additional body armor, Kerry voted against the entire bill, not body armor specifically.

The ad is only the latest example of Bush's misleading tactic of portraying votes by Kerry against massive appropriations bills as if they were directed against individual provisions within the bills. The campaign has made a number of similar allegations about Kerry's votes on weapons systems in previous ads. The Massachusetts senator did support cuts or elimination of a number of weapons systems, but Bush has claimed that Kerry voted against various weapons based solely on his opposition to appropriations bills containing billions of dollars in spending beyond the items Bush singled out.”

To be absolutely fair Jim, Cheney also voted against a large number of these “mass appropriation bills “ many of the same ones. Do not take my word for it . Look it up.

Dr3vil

06-09-2004, 03:40 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
ratm:
At least Bush is continuing on, no matter what people think of him.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, when the people whose opinions he doesn't care for are the electorate I have trouble seeing the virtue in sticking to your guns (pun intended). I mean granted, he wasn't elected by the consent of a plurality, so you'd almost have to expect him to not care what most American's think, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Bush has the integrity necessary to stick with his every bad decision to the bitter end; that's not the kind of integrity we need right now.

Kerry will do anything for votes, but if he'll also do anything to win back the support of the international community, his lack of a backbone could be the greatest thing we've got going.

EDIT: One more thing, I support our troops and not the war, because I like our troops living and war kills them. It's the same with any war, you can support a soldier's life or their cause, but not both.

Razorback

06-09-2004, 09:56 AM

That is the game. Kerry plays it and Bush plays it. Their ads are just a Kenobi... facts from a certain point of view. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Droogan_Leader

06-09-2004, 02:48 PM

So you're saying Bush is an idiot with principles, and should be replaced by a snake in the grass with no concept of honor.

Sounds like a catch-22 to me. If that's your reality, I'd suggest you just stay at home--save your gas.

jjcourtright

06-09-2004, 03:33 PM

How did you interpret his post that way? He doesn't call Bush an idiot, and he didn't say that Kerry lacks honor. Lots of people seem to be thinking along the "lesser of two evils" line. Does that mean that they shouldn't vote? That seems pretty silly.

Matt1

06-09-2004, 05:48 PM

So are you saying that because both sides do it we shouldn't care when they do?

ratm1966

06-09-2004, 09:27 PM

I would rather have a President who is willing to make the tough decisions, even when they aren't popular with the voters, as opposed to a President who only does things to please the voters.

JIM

06-09-2004, 10:19 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Jim, you're relying too much on what you hear from campaign ads, which are subjective Bullshit whichever side they come from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, here is some detail info, I don't listen to anyone's campaign B.S. by the way. You can look it up if You want:

B-1 Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

B-2 Stealth Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

F-14 Tomcat. (H. R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

F-15 Eagle. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

F-16 Falcon. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

AV-8B Harrier. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay)

AH-64 Apache Helicopter. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay)

Patriot Missile. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Aegis Cruiser. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Trident Missile. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

M-1 Abrams. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Bradley Fighting Vehicle. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Tomahawk Cruise Missile. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry has a bone to pick with the Military and has shown His distaste for them through His actions. He consistantly tries to undermine the security of this country in doing so.
Why? I wish I knew...

In other news... the Democratic party has unveiled their new seal:

http://home.ripway.com/2004-2/76526/baby.jpg

Matt1

06-10-2004, 12:49 AM

Or, to put it another way...

S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay
H. R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay
H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay

3 votes ranging from 14 to nine years ago, over the span of his entire political career. Yep, definitely a consistent record of someone who hates the military. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

bwdial

06-10-2004, 09:54 AM

Well said.
I have a hypothetical question, which on the surface might seem to be completely unrelated, but I beseech all of you to bear with me.
Say you are going to cook out on the grill and have a nice dinner on your deck. I don't know what it's like in other parts of the country, but here in Tampa, the mosquitos and no-see-ums will eat you alive.
Is it more efficient to run around the back yard with a can of bug spray, or would I be better off just hanging a bug zapper at the other end of the deck?

karmattack

06-10-2004, 11:00 AM

I guess it depends on whether or not you are about to try and equate human beings to insects.

karmattack

06-10-2004, 11:21 AM

I'm not a Democrat, but if I was, I would rather be personified as a baby crying for its needs than the blind, hateful, rhetoric-spouting herded sheep you're portraying.

I take you to task, JIM -- read this. And when you're done and you're about to check the context of my resources......go ahead and take a minute this time and check your own.

FROM FACTCHECK.ORG:

Summary

Bush ads released April 26 recycle some distortions of Kerry's voting record on military hardware. We've de-bunked these half-truths before but the Bush campaign persists.

The ads -- many targeted to specific states -- repeat the claim that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream weapons including Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Apache helicopters, and also repeat the claim that he voted against body armor for frontline troops in Iraq. In fact, Kerry voted against a few large Pentagon money bills, of which Bradleys, Apaches and body armor were small parts, but not against those items specifically.

Analysis

On April 26 the Bush campaign released a total of 10 ads, all repeating claims that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream military hardware "vital to winning the war on terror."

Bush Ad: National Version

"Weapons"

Bush: I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.

Announcer: As our troops defend America in the War on Terror, they must have what it takes to win. Yet, John Kerry has repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror: Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Patriot Missiles, B-2 Stealth Bombers, F-18 Fighter Jets and more.

Kerry even voted against body armor for our troops on the front line of the War on Terror. John Kerry’s record on national security: Troubling.

Misleading Claims

The claims are misleading, as we've pointed out before in articles we posted on Feb. 26 and March 16. The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.

The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry's vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill to finance military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total.

Missing Context

It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:

Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time.

--------------------

"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office." --President George H.W. Bush, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

(3 days later...)

"Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend." Then-secretary of defense Dick Cheney who then proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.

Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testified about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

[/ QUOTE ]

(source: "John Kerry's Defense Defense by Larry Kaplan)

Razorback

06-10-2004, 12:30 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I'm not a Democrat

[/ QUOTE ]

But you agree with nearly everything for which the party stands. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

bwdial

06-10-2004, 12:41 PM

Human beings that set out to kill innocent men, women and children and who do so in the name of their God, are, in my book the equivalent of insects.
My point was, that this military action is a very important component of the war on terror. I hate to think of our military personnel being harmed, but the function of the military is to defend citizens from attack. If the jihadists are coming from all over the world to try and kill American military personnel in Iraq, they aren't killing American citizens here. In effect, they are smoking themselves out of their own holes.

karmattack

06-10-2004, 12:41 PM

Much. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Matt1

06-10-2004, 02:36 PM

Yes, I agree. If the terrorists are all in Iraq, they aren't going to be killing people in places like Spain or Saudi Arabia or... oops.

The "bug zapper" argument doesn't hold water. If you believe that, I have some tiger spray I'd like to sell you.

bwdial

06-10-2004, 03:02 PM

I didn't say the bug zapper would get all of the terrorists, much as a bug zapper on my deck doesn't help keep my neighbors' decks bug free, but it has occupied a lot of their resources.
I don't think this is the primary reason for the war. I do think it's a factor. Hitting terrorists overseas and occupying them halfway around the world is better than having buses and train stations bombed on a monthly basis here.

blind_monkey

06-10-2004, 03:11 PM

hello love,

/forums/images/icons/cool.gif

you ok?

jjcourtright

06-10-2004, 03:12 PM

Monthly basis?

karmattack

06-10-2004, 03:14 PM

I don't know. You were pretty rough, and I'm not into the whole "teeth" thing. But I guess I can't complain for $5.00.

bwdial

06-10-2004, 04:00 PM

Hypothetically. How often does shit in Israel get blown up? Shit's getting blown up in Iraq every other day or so.
Bi-monthly...quarterly...yearly.
My point is that the war in Iraq is a distraction for the jihadists. They see military targets there as much more accessable, and hope, that by blowing shit up, we'll cut and run like we did in Somalia.

jjcourtright

06-10-2004, 04:11 PM

I knew what you meant, I was just giving you shit for being sloppy.

Razorback

06-10-2004, 04:23 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
They see military targets there as much more accessable, and hope, that by blowing shit up, we'll cut and run like we did in Somalia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even the most nutty terrorist will eventually realize that the US is not running away from this fight. That is why they will start to aim for softer targets... like Spain, France, Italy, and whatever other country they believe has a paper will.

jjcourtright

06-10-2004, 04:28 PM

What happens if they get the feeling that we have a large amount of troops over there, and decide to do something here? I'm of course not saying that we should pull out to prevent that, as I've stated before I believe that we have to see it through over there. Your post just put that thought into my mind.

Jason_Brown

06-10-2004, 04:47 PM

Perhaps the plot for a made-for-tv sequel to "Red Dawn" or "Invasion U.S.A."? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

jjcourtright

06-10-2004, 04:50 PM

Would Swayze be in said Red Dawn sequel? If so, I'm definitely in!

Razorback

06-10-2004, 05:22 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
What happens if they get the feeling that we have a large amount of troops over there, and decide to do something here?

[/ QUOTE ]

They already did something over here. Why do some people forget that so quickly?

bwdial

06-10-2004, 05:31 PM

There's nothing they could do that the military could respond to. They ain't gonna start dropping from the skies with parachutes, cause it ain't they's style.
(hey, if I'm gonna catch shit for bein' sloppy, I mine as well go all the way. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif )

jjcourtright

06-10-2004, 05:50 PM

I just don't even know how to respond to that.

They did that when a large part of our military was not deployed half way around the world. What happens now?

DangerSeeker

06-10-2004, 05:56 PM

You mean AFTER-M*A*S*H? Yes, we've tried to move on...

Be strong...

Razorback

06-10-2004, 11:16 PM

I don't understand what is so confusing. What difference does it make where our military is deployed? They are terrorists, not fashionably destructive.

JIM

06-10-2004, 11:35 PM

Sonofabitch!!!

Cheney's an [censored] too!
Read this (http://www.polkonline.com/stories/060604/opi_cheneyrecord.shtml)

F*ck Him. F*ck Him in His stupid ass too!!!
Damnit Dubya, why oh why did You pick HIM!?!?

Oh, Karma... I'm not blind or hateful. I'm just an American who gives a shit about His country. Unlike You there sparkles! /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

Matt1

06-11-2004, 12:13 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
sparkles!

[/ QUOTE ]
Sparkles? What is he a teenage striper or something? A pet monkey? I don't understand!

And you're right, it's definitely not hateful to accuse someone of not giving a shit about their country because they disagree with you. Epitome of tolerance that is. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

Razorback

06-11-2004, 01:31 AM

Karma gives a shit about his country... he is just wrong in the way he wants to go about showing it. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

bwdial

06-11-2004, 09:35 AM

That sumbitch cut the A-10?!?! That's my favorite plane!
I hope Dubya drops him (or he resigns for health reasons) and picks somebody with balls.

ratm1966

06-11-2004, 11:17 AM

You know, when you have plans to replace aging airframes with newer ones, you don't continue making the older ones. That is just a waste of money. What you have to understand is, that the Air Force will not normally retire a plane without having something to replace it.

Dave

06-11-2004, 01:28 PM

If you could tell me what replaced it then, that would be great.

TomHarrington

06-11-2004, 01:38 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
If you could tell me what replaced it then, that would be great.

[/ QUOTE ]

I give you the F-35a:
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/images/F35_large.jpg

bwdial

06-11-2004, 01:49 PM

Slow and low, taking incredible amounts of punishment while doling out an exponentially higher amount. I don't see the F-35 being able to do that. Does it have a GAU-8 30mm cannon chewing up tanks like a polar bear at a penguin buffet? No! I want firepower...traditional, airborne, hand to hand combat firepower. I want our troops to look up, see A-10 Thunderbolts and know that whatever has them pinned down, is mere seconds from a steady diet of 30mm depleted uranium death! /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

karmattack

06-11-2004, 01:53 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
http://home.ripway.com/2004-2/76526/baby.jpg http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a301/a301.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today

-Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

-The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

-Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

-“Standing Tall for America” means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

-A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

-Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

-The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.

-Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

-If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.

-A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

-HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

-Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

-Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

-Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.

-A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

-Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

-The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s driving record is none of our business.

-You support states’ rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.

-What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the ’80s is irrelevant.

-Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

TomHarrington

06-11-2004, 01:58 PM

That's the problem, isn't it, when you try to make the aircraft everything to everyone? Jack of all trades, master of none. I hear ya, but this is what the Air Force and Lockheed Martin say is replacing....well, everything. A-10's, F-16's, F-18's, F-14's, Etc.

Almost forgot this. (http://www.airtoaircombat.com/compare.asp)

Matt1

06-11-2004, 03:52 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe Bush lied. Exerted pressure on the intelligence community to produce intelligence that could bolster his case, yes. Discounted evidence that might contradict his case, sure. Accepted at face value intelligence from dubious sources, definetly. But I don't believe he lied.

Practically everyone believed Saddam had some manner of weapons of mass destruction before the war. The questions at the time were what kind, how much did he have, and were they actually a threat to us? It was on those points that opinion started to diverge. Not too many people argued that he had nothing at all.

ILovePapaSmurf

06-11-2004, 04:05 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Practically everyone believed Saddam had some manner of weapons of mass destruction before the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly we believed he did because Bush kept pushing the issue into our heads.

Now, I don't know if there are still some in existence, but I would like to see some more proof to give more solid evidence why we still have troops over in Iraq.

Dave

06-11-2004, 04:08 PM

Because if we pull out now, we do even more damage to the region than has already been done.

karmattack

06-11-2004, 04:10 PM

Yeah, I found that pretty strong too. I let it be that way though, considering what I was responding to. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

I also found the Republican response to this list which points out some funny things. I have to admit that the funniest thing about it to me is how different the language is (and honestly, how much of the logic is distorted by emotion and hate).

Things You Have To Believe To Be A Democrat Today:

1. Drug addiction is a disease that should be treated with compassion and understanding...unless the addict is a Conservative talk show host.

2. The United States should be subservient to the United Nations. Our highest authority is not God and the U.S. Constitution, but a collective of tinpot dictators (and their appeasers) and the U.N. charter.

3. Government should relax drug laws regardless of the potential for abuse, but should pass new and unConstitutional anti-gun laws because of the potential for abuse.

4. Calls for increased security after a terrorist attack are "political opportunism," but calls for more gun control after a criminal's spree killing is "a logical solution."

5. "It Takes a Village" means everything you want it to mean...except creeping socialist government involvement in the nuclear family.

6. Disarming innocent, law-abiding citizens helps protect them from evil, lawless terrorists and other thugs.

7. Slowly killing an unborn innocent by tearing it apart limb from limb is good. Slowly killing an innocent disabled woman by starving her to death is good. Quickly killing terrorists, convicted murderers and rapists is BAD.

8. Every religion should be respected and promoted in public schools the name of diversity, so long as that religion isn't Christianity.

9. The best way to support our troops is to criticize their every move. This will let them know they're thought of often.

10. Sexual harassment, groping and drug use are degenerate if you're the governor of California, but it's okay if you're the President of the United States.

11. Sex education should be required so that teens can make informed choices about sex, but gun education should be banned because it will turn those same teens into maniacal mass-murderers.

12. Minorities are blameless for the hatred of the racist; women are blameless for the hatred of the rapist; but America is entirely at fault for the hatred of Islamofascists.

13. Poverty is the cause of all terrorism...which is why the leaders of al Qaeda are typically U.S.-educated and were raised in wealth and luxury.

14. The Patriot Act is a horrific compromise of Constitutional rights, but anti-Second Amendment laws and Franklin Roosevelt's Presidential Order 9066 must be regarded "reasonable precautions."

15. We should unquestioningly honor the wishes of our age-old allies, even when said allies no longer act like our allies and have vested economic interests in propping up our enemies.

16. Socialized medicine is the ideal. Nevermind all those people who spend every dime they have to get to the United States so they can get quality medical care...that their nation's socialized medical community can't provide.

17. Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Natalie Maines are perfectly qualified to criticize our leadership, but Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlton Heston, and Dennis Miller are just ignorant political hacks.

18. John Lott's research on how gun ownership reduces crime is junk science, but Michael Bellesiles is still an authority on why gun control is good (even though he was forced to resign from Emory due to research misconduct over his book "Arming America").

19. Bush's toppling the Saddam regime was a "diversion," but Clinton's lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at Iraq in the thick of the Lewinsky sex scandal was "sending a message."

20. A president who lies under oath is okay, but a president who references sixteen words from an allies' intelligence report should be dragged through the streets naked.

21. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning Second Amendment rights and shopping the courts for judges sympathetic to causes that wouldn't pass in any legislature.

22. "The People" in the First Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Fourth Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Ninth Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Tenth Amendment means The People; but "the People" in the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791) means the National Guard (created by an Act of Congress in 1903).

23. You support a woman's "right to choose" to kill her unborn child, but don't believe that same woman is competent enough to homeschool the children she bears.

24. Proven draft-dodging is irrelevant, but baseless claims of AWOL status is crucial to national security.

25. Threatening to boycott Dr. Laura's and Rush Limbaugh's advertisers is exercising Freedom of Speech, but threatening to boycott CBS's "The Reagans" and Liberal actors over their asinine anti-American remarks is censorship and McCarthyist blacklisting.

TomHarrington

06-11-2004, 04:13 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Because if we pull out now, we do even more damage to the region than has already been done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about the Iraq occupation now, or something else?

karmattack

06-11-2004, 04:18 PM

I seriously like this one:

"21. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning Second Amendment rights and shopping the courts for judges sympathetic to causes that wouldn't pass in any legislature."

Well, except for the part about the judges because that's pot-and-kettle. The bit about the 2nd Amendment is a good call though. I'm going to make sure and point that out to some of my friends.

Dave

06-11-2004, 04:19 PM

I thought we were still talking about the Olsen twins, is this in the wrong Thread?

Razorback

06-11-2004, 04:33 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law only applies to poor people.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Democrats would believe this had their president been in the same situation.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if those people are poor!

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-“Standing Tall for America” means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying that Indian's don't deserve to work? See? Democrats want brown people to starve and die!!!

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only should a woman be able to destroy whatever life is growing in her body but a man should be able to beat his wife if she gets out of line!

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least they only hate homosexuals and one female senator, and not their entire country like Democrats.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know! I say we cut that shit even more, by another 0.00003%!

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

But only if you are married to someone in the Kennedy family.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't give those things out for free! This is not a socialist republic.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our allies have low self-esteem from being incapable of surviving without us. So we slap them around, tell them they suck, and then hold them and tell them we love them.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because for-profit organizations should only worry about the client and not the investor. Damn the investors! We must give things away until the country crumbles into the ocean.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry, we are providing the worst possible social health care for the Iraqi's by putting the Canadians in charge.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if we are going to teach our kids fiction in schools (and call it history) then why not the most read fiction?

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.

[/ QUOTE ]

How come Democrats always miss the years when a Democrat was in office?

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congress was just pissed off that Clinton got on some hot BBW action.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is total [censored] bullshit!

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s driving record is none of our business.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really want to see Hillary's driving record and Bush's cattle trades.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-You support states’ rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh that guy is so evil... you do know that he is going to stuff the ballot box in November, right?

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the ’80s is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am trying to remember caring about either.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't that a big Clinton thing? Oh wait, I forgot the rules. Yeah, dirty Republicans! Damn them to hell!!!!!!

TomHarrington

06-11-2004, 04:35 PM

Oh, maybe. I understood "Off-Topic" to be a ciphered reference to "Olsen Twins." So, unless I'm way-off here, they're always relevant.

Razorback

06-11-2004, 04:38 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
and honestly, how much of the logic is distorted by emotion and hate

[/ QUOTE ]

Brother, that is exactly how they both sound to the ear of the opposing side.

TomHarrington

06-11-2004, 04:40 PM

Ha! That was some funny stuff, RB. I guess comedy is non-partisan.

DangerSeeker

06-11-2004, 05:23 PM

You're telling me! I'm laughing so hard my heart's bleeding!

ratm1966

06-12-2004, 01:32 AM

The F-22 and the different variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Marine and Navy variants will have Vertical landing and take-off capability. The Air Force variant won't.

Oh, and people complain that we replace so many aircraft with so few, but I pose this question. Do we really need as many when the newer aircraft incorporate stealth technology? If the other side can't really pick you up on RADAR, then they won't really be sending their planes up after you. Besides, other than SAMs, what real air threat have we faced in any of our last conflicts? None! The other side hid their aircraft and didn't send them up. When they did, their pilots were no match for ours.

Dr3vil

06-12-2004, 12:47 PM

Wow, lotta action, gotta catch up.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
RB:
That is the game. Kerry plays it and Bush plays it. Their ads are just a Kenobi... facts from a certain point of view. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ] I'm trying to look at the effects of the adds and the effectiveness of their candidates. What they stand for, but can't effectively communicate is empiracally irrelevant, but what they don't stand for and can convice people of matters. You can get there more than one way, but the only facts are in the bottom line of what's gonna happen.

And now the KarmarB quotes:

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Droogan:
So you're saying Bush is an idiot with principles, and should be replaced by a snake in the grass with no concept of honor.

Sounds like a catch-22 to me. If that's your reality, I'd suggest you just stay at home--save your gas.

[/ QUOTE ]What reality do you live in that who a leader is matters more than the quality of the job they can do? There's nothing catch 22 about it, there's scum that can do good work, scum that can't, and a lot of hype to gain blind allegiance.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I'm not a Democrat

[/ QUOTE ]

But you agree with nearly everything for which the party stands. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]Same here. In case you hadn't noticed, the only thing this party stands for is getting Bush out of office. Kerry-McCain wouldn't even be a bi-partisan ticket, hell it would be more democratic since it better fullfills the only party value of anyone but Bush. It's a simple platform that openly allows a wide range of ideologies. Republicans who speak out against Bush for damn near anything tend to get silenced with a quickness.
<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Democrats would believe this had their president been in the same situation.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm sorry, it's possible, but the insipidity of supporting military action against the will of the U.N. to punish a violation of a U.N. resolution seems more the purview of the Church going crowd. Bleeding heart liberals would more likely aid a country against the will of an inconsequential committee. Saying both parties blindly support their president ignores respective party trademarks on economics and foreign policy.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-“Standing Tall for America” means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying that Indian's don't deserve to work? See? Democrats want brown people to starve and die!!!

[/ QUOTE ]The problem isn't that they're taking our jobs, that only means they can do something better than us, the problem is that we don't have the job training programs to get out of work technicians and telephoners doing the jobs America doesn't suck at.

People hate outsourcing in principle because people are stupid, theoretically the unemployment created by outsourcing only exists in the short term. It's our government's unwillingness to educate the work force, and it's willingness to cut those education instead of taxing people with 99% disposable income, that make outsourcing a problem.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least they only hate homosexuals and one female senator, and not their entire country like Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ] Are you going to tell me I "hate freedom" too? There's a subtle distinction between hating what someone/something is and what they're doing, I know it violates all conventional logic, but you can oppose the current government's actions and still love the country. I don't, but I still like this country. It works alright on paper, and it has a lot of potential, it's just acting a little too warlike and developing an addiction to murder.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our allies have low self-esteem from being incapable of surviving without us. So we slap them around, tell them they suck, and then hold them and tell them we love them.

[/ QUOTE ] And I wouldn't have a problem with that - if it worked. As it stands they're still pissed at us, and any support we still have is a train bombing away from being pulled (Brittain, probably less than that). Fortunately, Bush seems to be doing the same to the plurality of the electorate who never voted for him, and they're not quite as dependant, even if the world's most powerful leader can rise to glory while in spite of democracy.