# More Spewing. I dare you to peek.



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

The last part of the article. Pretty good reading.

Capital Games
Anti-Bushism: Before and After E Day
11/01/2004 @ 1:01pm

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1966

The good news is that--no matter what occurs on Election Day (or the days and weeks afterward, if it takes that long)--about half of the country (give or take that crucial 1 or 2 percent) and much more than half of the nation's cultural and intellectual community has rejected Bush's leadership and agenda during a time of war and quasi-war. Bush really must be doing something wrong to piss off both the Financial Times and LaDuke, who was Nader's running mate in 2000, and cause each to endorse (even if haltingly) John Kerry. It should tell Bush something that his war in Iraq has so bitterly divided the nation. But there is no sign that Bush has absorbed any lessons. He has mainly responded to Kerry's critique of the war with derision and false accusations. Even in the red-hot crucible of a neck-and-neck election, a commander in chief engaged in a controversial war overseas can still be expected to discuss the matter in a serious manner. But not Bush. He would rather push buttons than discuss points.

Commentators have observed that this election is a contest for the soul of the nation. There is limited truth to that. The United States is a country split along various fault lines: Red States versus Blue States. Rs versus Ds. Town versus country. Traditionalists versus modernists. Those who question authority versus those who crave authority. Those who believe Bush lied the nation to war versus those who don't. Those who accept the findings that Iraq had no WMDs versus those who still believe Saddam Hussein was loaded with WMDs. Those who want a man of action who is guided more by principles than analysis versus those who appreciate a fellow who fully analyzes a situation before he acts. And these divides will remain after the votes are added up and a winner announced (or appointed).

This election will not resolve the underlying issues that animate these various sociological, cultural and political face-offs. In a winner-take-all system, it may appear as if one said has vanquished the other. But that will be a false impression. The clash over values, ideals and policies will not be done. It will, however, certainly be a relief for our side if Bushism and all it represents (dishonesty in government, unnecessary war, tax cuts favoring the best off) receives a slap-down and has to regroup, while Kerry strives (we can hope) to make good on his promise. Half the nation or so will still be on the other side, and the fray will continue. Yet putting hope aside regarding the final tally and looking at this half-full/half-empty election before the counting is done, participants in the anti-Bush coalition (from Eminem to The Economist) can perhaps be encouraged that they have forced a close fight that will decide a battle but not a war.


----------



## SniperPride (Sep 20, 2004)

lol please! enough links.... Bush divided the nation with the war? sounds like someone is forgeting how close the election was in 2000? Its just as close as it is now. Now would that be because bush did a bad job? or because kerry is a nutjob? Why would it be so close if bush did such a horrible job?? Opinions please?


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Because we are all so scared.

      

9-11, 9-11, 9-11

      

Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism

      

I will hand it to you that people feel safer with Bush. But we are conditioned with fear. I am not afraid. If it is going to happen, it will. As does a lighning strike. A numbers game. Just my opinion.

      

RC


----------



## SniperPride (Sep 20, 2004)

Plus kerry is not a good candidate, really honestly, if the Dems would have put forward a good candidate, I would have thought about voting for them, but not a chance now.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

SniperPride said:


> Plus kerry is not a good candidate, really honestly, if the Dems would have put forward a good candidate, I would have thought about voting for them, but not a chance now.


I agree entirely. Kerry is a schmo. But that isn't enough for me. I was a Deaniac.

The party has no balls anymore.

I want balls.

RC


----------



## SniperPride (Sep 20, 2004)

lol remember "wrong war at the wrong time..."etc etc. Dean said that before kerry ever did, at the dem caucus' sitting at the same table as kerry who said he still supported bush's decision for the war. After kerry saw dean leading the polls he changed to the anti war guy and got much support. I have video clips of it all.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I will hand it to you that people feel safer with Bush. But we are conditioned with fear. I am not afraid. If it is going to happen, it will. As does a lighning strike. A numbers game. Just my opinion.


Anyone that isn't afraid of the threat doesn't have the knowledge or judgement to recognize what we are facing. You can deny the facts if you want but the idea that the war on terror is somehow not a realistic concern is beyond the pale. Ask the 3000 dead from the last attack if they think its a real threat, Oh I forgot they can't answer you can they? Well maybe you should ask their families if it was real, ask their children if they "really" miss their parents, maybe that will give you the dose of reality you need.
Robert,that engineeering degree your busting your butt for won't do you a bit of good if a nuke, or dirty bomb or biological WMD is set off in one of our cities which is their goal. NOT some imagined goal but their STATED GOAL!
A terrorist event of this nature will crush our economy into a a third world type economy for many many years, people will flee the cities in droves all industrial activities will stop due to workforce and material supply problems created by this mass exodus of the cities. These refugees will strain all medical facilites already strained by the attack and probably suffer from lack of food and medical attention due to the disruption of these type of supply chains which are only days long.

_If you look closely at this weekends Osama Bin Laden's commercial for the Kerry campaign broadcast on Al-Jazeera, he makes it very clear that he wants Kerry in the White House._ *Do you hear that? The Islamic terrorist who slaughtered 3,000 people on 9/11 wants to elect John Kerry. Why would 48% of the country follow Osama's lead?

Bin Laden's video was filled with Democratic talking points, including the Michael Moore accusation that George Bush sat idly by in a classroom in Florida while the airplanes hit the towers. Isn't that nice? Osama's a Michael Moore fan! Who would have guessed it? Better yet who would be suprised :eyeroll: Osama also echoed Kerry on Patriot Act,WOW I wonder why Osama doesn't like the Patriot act and accused George Bush of stealing the 2000 election in Florida. Sounds like Osama got the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD in the mail from Michael Moore, or maybe the DNC sent him a copy!

John Kerry has found a new Democratic constituency to go with the teacher's unions and the trial lawyers: Islamic terrorists. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the continued Islamic terrorist reign of Osama Bin Laden. After all, that's just what Kerry wants you to do.

This is the most difficult enemy we have ever faced and almost half the country has no idea how important it is, they want to put their "hate Bush" venom about the so called "stolen" ( it wasn't) election in front of the good of the country.

This type thinking will get many thousands of Americans killed and may well send the world into a nuclear war.

Bush is no conservative hes' well to the left of the middle hes spent tons of money and supported numerous liberal causes yet the irrational hatred from the supposed "stolen" (again it wasn't) election continues.

The strangest thing to me Robert, is that you will know full well what Kerrys about, what a phony he is, that a vote for him at this point in history is to the countries great detriment. Yet, when your country and your fellow citizens really need you, partisanship wins. Were the tables turned I sure would vote for a Democrat, there are higher causes we have as citizens and this vote is one such cause.

All of you that vote for Kerry should feel the warm embrace of Osama as he looks over your shoulder, and is emboldened with the belief that you cowed in front of his threatening video tape. Emboldened and planning his next attack on the America, the "great Satan" he so despises. 
Is it really more important to you to vent your anger toward George Bush, a good man who had nothing to do with the frustrating closeness of the last election, than it is to vent your anger toward Osama,an evil man that murdered 3000 of your fellow citizens, that is your choice. This is the most important decision of our lifetime leave partisanship out of it and do the right thing. *


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"Robert,that engineeering degree your busting your butt for won't do you a bit of good if a nuke, or dirty bomb or biological WMD is set off in one of our cities which is their goal. NOT some imagined goal but their STATED GOAL! "

YEAH! lets get those Iraqi bastards... wait...

"Do you hear that? The Islamic terrorist who slaughtered 3,000 people on 9/11 wants to elect John Kerry. Why would 48% of the country follow Osama's lead? "

Bob I though you would be above this, pull your head out of your hiney.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Wow Bobm that is where you and I will differ. Spewing the same catch phrases that we hear daily doesn't work on me. Have you bought completely in to the gloom and doom that the administration and its talking heads spew forth?

I remember not that long ago that you said were going to vote against Bush. That you were not happy with his policies, being the libertarian that you are.

Do you think I am trivializing the horrible losses of 9/11 because I do not see your fear? Please don't try to paint me as naive, the college classes may be deceiving, but I ain't that wet behind the ears anymore.

No Bobm, I don't see it your way. Was 9/11 the first terrorist attack the world has known? Will it be the last? Do you think we can really kill all of the nuts that want a piece of us? I do not. Does that make me an appeaser who is unwilling to defend and protect us? I certainly do not think so.

If we are so afraid of bio/nuke/dirty weapons, then why don't we police these WMDs?

I could glean dozens of bold statements from y'all that proudly state that the US won't bow to the will of foreign entities. Yet we must not heed Osama in his supposed attempts to sway the vote. What did W say about him again?

*"I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]*

Take is as you may, but that speaks for itself.

Should we fight terror? Hell yes. But let's finish what we started before picking new beefs.

RC


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Robert

I only want to make one point where I think you have interpreted something incorrectly. Your statement about Bush saying he wasn't that concerned about Osama. I think you have taken that the wrong way. Here is how I interpret what Bush said. I think any reasonable person would be concerned about Osama, but the war on terror far outweighs the search for a single man. I would guess that if you or I were running this war we would not let a single man, no matter how important, take our focus of the real goal. During WWII we were after Hitler no doubt, but I'll bet not even 5% of our effort was aimed directly at Hitler. I think the media and very partisan people paint the picture that Bush doesn't care about Osama. I am sure he is very concerned about the man, but the reality is there are perhaps more pressing concerns at the moment. If Iraq is to vote in January that is perhaps more important for the short term. I can't seriously believe that Bush doesn't want very much to capture Osama. I can't believe there is a patriotic democrat or republican that doesn't want Osama captured. To think otherwise is to let emotion cloud logic. Many who say they believe this don't, they simply want us to believe that they believe it. The goal is, perhaps we will be gullible enough to swallow it. It's simply a ploy for political advantage. Every election the cheap shots get cheaper, and America becomes more divided.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Should we fight terror? Hell yes. But let's finish what we started before picking new beefs.


RC

Kerry has a thirty years historical record of not having the stomach for finishing this and that is indisputable fact.

Robert I don't expect to convince you but I will say this is all about judgement. Ask yourself if your judgement is better than it was when you were MTs' age (15 I think he said). I'll answer it for you, of course it is. Well that process never ends if your a thinking person. All of us start out with liberal idealistic viewpoints but as we age we begin to realize that while they are good sounding ideas most are unworkable in the real world. Thats why the vast majority of older people are conservative on most issues.
I'm 52 and I can tell you that when I get around my friends that are my age or older the conversation has often turned to reflection about the "truths" we held as fact when we were your age and we ask ourselves " what could we have been thinking". You will someday ask yourself the same question about your vote for Kerry. Those so called "catch phrases" you say I'm using I believe in to my core they are not stated for effect.

Your quote from Bush


> "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]


shows your lack of experience and judgement, *that statement was a strategic statement made with the intention to disrespect Osama because Bush has the good judgement to realize that anything he says that indicates that Osama is a important man will be splashed all over the Muslim media and will raise Osamas' stature in the terrorist mind.* IF you had the judgement I'm talking about you would of been able to recognize that immediately.

You stated that I said I wasn't going to vote for Bush which is fact I did say that in a moment of anger about his liberal leaing social policies. In fact *once I said it and realized what a stupid position I had taken it was the catalyst for the ongoing political discussion I began to engage everyone in and the whole reason this important forum exists. *

Bush is a liberal republican on spending but not anywhere near as liberal as Kerry, so my choice is clear. 
Bush will finish this war or at least follow thru on it until his next term is finished, this war is not going to be finshed soon it may well take as long as the cold war did to overcome literally generations, Kerry will run from it and cede our soverienty ( sp??) to the UN.

Robert the bright side is that as you age you will become more conservative and your judgement will continue to improve and I sincerly hope to meet you one of these days and that we become lifelong friends so that in twenty years we can rehash this, if I'm still around. Like everyone I do enjoy getting to say I told you so :wink:


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Bobm, 
You once told me that the reason I didn't think you were moderate is because you didn't share the same views as me.

Now you tell me that I lack judgement because I don't share the same views as you. What gives.

Then you patronize me?

Back up your strategic theory about the Bush statement.

Then you follow up with a classic knee-jerk one-liner right from the lips of Limbaugh about giving sovereignty to the UN. Back it up.

I am trying to make an effort to back up my point with citations and you respond with the typical spew. You get all emotional with your armageddon predictions and then you tell me I am to stupid/naive to know what I am doing.

Bobm, you are better than that. Come up with something, back it up.

RC


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman,

What Bush said can be taken many ways. The fact that he said it is what gets me. People quickly seize soundbites like "global test" that may be taken out of context. Here is a classic soundbite. We quickly forgot what the focus was in the war on terror.

At least our good friends the Germans are taking care of business for us in Afghanistan.

The fact that Osama is even able to chime in his 2 cents on the election is sad. He should be dead.

Why isn't he.

RC


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

"I will hand it to you that people feel safer with Bush. But we are conditioned with fear. I am not afraid. If it is going to happen, it will. As does a lighning strike. A numbers game. Just my opinion. '

Of course you are not afraid you live in ND. We probably aren't first on the terrorist places to attack. People living in big cities care.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I'm not so sure that we are safer with Bush. Are we making more friends or are we making more enemies?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"Thats why the vast majority of older people are conservative on most issues. "

Close Bob, but it has nothing to do with logic as you age. The older folks vote for Bush because they were raised in a time when the word republican didnt make one think of lies, unjust war, and the restriction of rights. I have a feeling that as my age group grows old they will not take this usual path, but rather be liberals.


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

Mt, Can you explain why some 70% of our troops support Bush as President?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I would say that part of the reason is that they support the war in Iraq and "hope" like I do that it is the right thing to do. Only time will tell and there are no easy answers. I do remember another war in another place that was just as difficult of a situation as we are now in and it was hard to tell friend from foe and the end result was not pretty. I had a high draft number and was lucky enough to not have to go but many of my friends went to war and came back as changed men or some did not come back at all. I too "hope" that it is the right thing to do.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

jacks said:


> "I will hand it to you that people feel safer with Bush. But we are conditioned with fear. I am not afraid. If it is going to happen, it will. As does a lighning strike. A numbers game. Just my opinion. '
> 
> Of course you are not afraid you live in ND. We probably aren't first on the terrorist places to attack. People living in big cities care.


Then why are the "big cities" on either coast going to be voting blue? while the entire midwest goes red?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

jacks said:


> Mt, Can you explain why some 70% of our troops support Bush as President?


This one is too easy, I'm going to have to knock it out of the park. Lets say you were a soldier, and last month your best buddy who we'll call Bob was killed by an IED. If you voted against Bush, and therefore against the war in Iraq you are admiting that the war in Iraq was unjustified. This means that your best friend died for an unjust cause. Therefore in honor of their fallen friends the soldiers feel the need to continue support for the war in Iraq, and thus the support for Bush.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

jacks said:


> "I will hand it to you that people feel safer with Bush. But we are conditioned with fear. I am not afraid. If it is going to happen, it will. As does a lighning strike. A numbers game. Just my opinion. '
> 
> Of course you are not afraid you live in ND. We probably aren't first on the terrorist places to attack. People living in big cities care.


I live in Raleigh/Durham North Carolina. About 4 hours from DC. Nice try.

RC from the big city.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

From what I understand they are also very concerned about what Bush's exit strategy is for Iraq? Anyone have any ideas?


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

"I live in Raleigh/Durham North Carolina. About 4 hours from DC. Nice try. "

Not sure what you are trying to say there. Do you think you will feel the effects of an attack 4 hours away from DC?

Sorry MT, looks more like you hit into a double play. Very weak comeback. If Kerry is President he is not going to immediately leave Iraq. Have you heard otherwise? So that soldier is still going to finish his job over in Iraq he will just have to follow a leader that he does not believe in, Jane Fonda I mean John Kerry.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Kerry is against the war in Iraq, that does not mean that he plans an immediate yank out of troops. Bush supports the war (it is his folly after all), thus they choose him.


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

I'll tell you what.... I will support a man like President Bush any day of the week when I know he will decisivly strike back at the terrorists responsible for attacks in the magnitude of 9/11. With Kerry, I'm not so sure. Would we have gone after them to the extent we did if Kerry was president at the time? I am again not so sure. We would have had to pass the senator's "global test" in order to defend our country. I imagine we would have spun our wheels for a year or more before doing something.

On Iraq.... if by chance there were WMDs there, and they were used for an attack on America, the same people who attack Bush, such as Michael Moore, would want his head on a platter for not doing enough to prevent the tragedy in the first place.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

"I remember not that long ago that you said were going to vote against Bush. That you were not happy with his policies, being the libertarian that you are."
--Yes, we Libertarians Disagree with some of Bush's policies, but he is still alot closer to our ideals than a spineless poll chaser like Kerry.

"This one is too easy, I'm going to have to knock it out of the park. Lets say you were a soldier, and last month your best buddy who we'll call Bob was killed by an IED. If you voted against Bush, and therefore against the war in Iraq you are admiting that the war in Iraq was unjustified. This means that your best friend died for an unjust cause. Therefore in honor of their fallen friends the soldiers feel the need to continue support for the war in Iraq, and thus the support for Bush."
--Would you like me to hand you some more straws to grasp at? The soldiers supported Bush from the Begining, or they would have left right away. if the disagreed so much they could just do something stupid, get discharged, and sent home.

"Kerry is against the war in Iraq,"
--at least untill public oppinion changes.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

jamartinmg2 said:


> I'll tell you what.... I will support a man like President Bush any day of the week when I know he will decisivly strike back at the terrorists responsible for attacks in the magnitude of 9/11. With Kerry, I'm not so sure. Would we have gone after them to the extent we did if Kerry was president at the time? I am again not so sure. We would have had to pass the senator's "global test" in order to defend our country. I imagine we would have spun our wheels for a year or more before doing something.
> 
> On Iraq.... if by chance there were WMDs there, and they were used for an attack on America, the same people who attack Bush, such as Michael Moore, would want his head on a platter for not doing enough to prevent the tragedy in the first place.


Actually yes we would have passed said global test. Almost all nations supported our attack on Afghanistan, because it was JUSTIFIED. Bush really was between a rock and a hard place on the issue of Iraq, which makes me wonder why he didn't do more research and fact checking before diving head first into the already volitile middle east. Bush is not a bad man, just a bad wizard.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Bobm,
> 
> 
> > You once told me that the reason I didn't think you were moderate is because you didn't share the same views as me.
> ...


*I am not smarter, better or any other "whatever" than you. I just have almost twice as much lifes experience and have been seriously following world politics since Vietnam( what were you doing in 1969). I have a big headstart on noodling this stuff out, and whether you believe that or not is up to you. Look at MT and ask yoursef if you think your judgement on these or any other issues is better than his? That was all I meant, hes not stupid he just doesn't know what hes talking about and there is a huge difference.*

I have come to realize my father is a heck of a lot more knowledgable than he was when I was young I wonder how he became so smart :wink:

Hows your liberal cat doing, I haven't seen any improvement in my conservative dog and it breaks my heart.

I'm going to watch TV and see what the politco's are chattering about have a good evening and try to relax.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"I not smarter, better or any other "whatever" than you. I just have almost twice as much lifes experience and have been seriously following world politics since Vietnam( what were you doing in 1969). I have a big headstart on noodling this stuff out, and whether you believe that or not is up to you. Look at MT and ask yoursef if you think your judgement on these or any other issues is better than his? That was all I meant, hes not stupid he just doesn't know what hes talking about and there is a huge difference. "

That was a compliment Bob, I was trying to say that such a statement as "osama backs kerry" is below the belt, and below your level. I know that you can do better than that, not to mention osama said to "vote for Bush, hes a moron" from what i've heard.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Tiger I like you and I like that you take an interest in these issues at your age, it shows an maturity thats rare in kids your age. I asked you the otherday why you don't go hunting and I don't think I got any response PM me if you don't want to post it.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Oh and don;t kid yourself Osama does back Kerry for all the reasons I 've been talking about. Bush has made Osamas life miserable Thank God.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I wouldn't say that, he looks pretty comfortable launching attacks from that cave, don't kid yourself he is still as dangerous as ever.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Precisely why we cannot afford an appeaser like Kerry to get into power


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"I asked you the otherday why you don't go hunting and I don't think I got any response PM me if you don't want to post it."

Sorry, I think I missed that. I have no qualms with hunting and I plan to go out for deer next year, I had planned on it this year but it didn't pan out. So far I've done some varminting but that's about the extent of it.

"Precisely why we cannot afford an appeaser like Kerry to get into power"

Bob, if he is issuing threats from a cave, and obviously having people carry out orders (spain bombings) then Bush has failed, we've got a chance to turn this ship around before we hit the rapids, and I do so hope that we do.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT

Not only did you not hit it out of the park, you didn't connect. Steeeeeeerike. There are many soldiers in Iraq and I would venture to guess there are many reasons that those soldiers support Bush. If you are serious about understanding this look back in history a bit. I can not remember a time when the military has not supported conservatives. Not republicans, conservatives. I would bet a months salary that they would support Zell Miller ( I know, I know I perhaps spelled this wrong).

There are perhaps so many reasons for the military supporting Bush that I could not possibly address them all. First and foremost their philosophies match the conservative values more. This gap has widened much in my lifetime. Back in the late 1940's through the mid 1960's they were perhaps more neutral. Like I have said many times before I was democrat, not liberal, democrat. Since the antiwar marches of 1968 1969 and on the democratic party changed. Like myself the military did not follow the new democrat platform.

Over time I have worried about the American people become desensitized by the everyday corruption of our society, and our political agendas. We think little of what we see about us today, and the younger generation has no reference point. If you could bring a man or woman from 1960 to life again, and show them America, they would be horrified. Younger people will say the world has progressed, and older people will think yes but in the wrong direction. The technological advances have been wonderful, but personal integrity has suffered. We think little of a politician who lies, but in 1960 people like (well I will not get partisan) would be hard pressed to get a job as dog catcher.

Keep in mind that no nation on earth has survived for a relatively long time. We will be gone some day. That day may be sooner, or it may be later. Corruption, and loss or morality are the two major reasons for the nations that have succumb. History teaches us over and over yet new generations refuse to see.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"There are perhaps so many reasons for the military supporting Bush that I could not possibly address them all. First and foremost their philosophies match the conservative values more. This gap has widened much in my lifetime. Back in the late 1940's through the mid 1960's they were perhaps more neutral. Like I have said many times before I was democrat, not liberal, democrat. Since the antiwar marches of 1968 1969 and on the democratic party changed. Like myself the military did not follow the new democrat platform. "

Close, plains my boy. This is why they joined the military, not why they support Bush.

"Keep in mind that no nation on earth has survived for a relatively long time. We will be gone some day. That day may be sooner, or it may be later. Corruption, and loss or morality are the two major reasons for the nations that have succumb. History teaches us over and over yet new generations refuse to see."

Excluding the entire east, yeah you're right.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> "Close, plains my boy. This is why they joined the military, not why they support Bush.


That is true also, they join because they believe in conservative values, and they support Bush because they believe in conservative values, and they also believe in Bush's strategy.

I am surprised however that you brought up that they join because they believe in conservative values. Does this not mean that liberals don't do their part to protect America? Just like they want to tax the rich because they don't want to do their part to financially support America. As a matter of fact many would like America to support them. Does this show you how much their attitude has changed since John Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"That is true also, they join because they believe in conservative values, and they support Bush because they believe in conservative values, and they also believe in Bush's strategy. "

I'm rather sure that they didn't join because of their stance on gay marriage. More likely they couldn't afford to go to college, and believed that the war was just.


----------

