# Did you vote for Bush?



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

They lied to the public about WMD hoping to win quickly and gain politically; the oil would flow and democracy would march on acorss the region... Nobody would be judging the winners and their lies would be forgotten. It was contageous, even prominent Democrats jumped into it. Now, vicrtory is not even on sight, but only the lies remain with Bush administration. What next?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

One of two things.

1. The situation in Iraq gets better, Bush is almost forgotten, and people continue to vote the way they did ten years ago.

2. The situation in Iraq remains the same or gets worse, Bush is viewed as a terrible president, and the people vote Democrat to get the sour taste of Neo Con out of their mouth.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Sevendogs , the only lie I see here is how you jump to conclushions. I do not belive that President Bush or his administration has lied even once!! If he had he would be impeached for such a colossal lie!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Well, he lied about getting a warrant for wiretaps, for one.



> Thought a few more of his attempts to mislead the country would wake you up.
> 
> Strike one
> April 2004
> ...


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

As well as fudge ups like this

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/12/iraq.w ... topstories


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Sevendogs, I have a few beefs with W also, but it's hard to discuss them when you can't be realistic. Some of you are to radical to look at the truth. The truth is nearly every nation that has any type of intelligence thought the same thing. England, France, and Germany. Not just that, but republicans and democrats also believed the intelligence. Many, many people are to blame for what at present appears like poor intelligence. I am not willing to believe that everyone made this bad of a mistake. There is still the chance that they were moved. They had more advanced warning than I would have ever given them.
What I am getting at is bad intelligence is much different than a lie. I don't always keep up with the news, and it would be good if things on here would follow reality not partisanship. We are not always going to agree, but we can still learn some things from each other if things are kept realistic. Bush lied isn't realistic. 
I am sure getting tired of defending him, but you guys who are unrealistic force me into it. I always have to stick up for the honest guy even if he ticks me off.

Yes, I voted for Bush, but I hope someone comes up and runs who is for :
1 Secure our boarders
2 Takes environmental concerns seriously
3 Supports the second amendment
4 Balances economics with environmental issues, fair salaries, fair taxation, 
5 Puts quality of life before the buck
6 Is willing to take on Iran if they don't nock of the nuke development
7 Carries through with Iraq
8 Opposes Gay Marriage
9 Willing to appoint judges that follow the constitution rather than attempt to legislate from the bench
10 Is not pro abortion on demand (no government money to pay for them, and I am not part of it)
11 Puts America before France, Germany, Soviet Union, China
12 Doesn't bow to the United Nations

I could go on, but you get the idea.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It isn't argued that he simply got bad intelligence, but rather that he refused to speak of the experts who claimed that there were no WMDs. He trumped up evidence to support his preconcieved notion that Iraq deserved to be attacked. This has come out more and more as time has progressed. We can see it in the Plame case, where the president denounces those who released information concerning Iraq and other governmental actions, while at the same time releasing their own secret information to reptimand critics and bolster their false claim.



> There is still the chance that they were moved.


You should really let this notion go. The idea that someone is guilty even if proving such was not found is biased and unAmerican.



> Bush lied isn't realistic.


What of the many, many other instances? What of the claim that he would always get warrants for wiretaps, which he then later changed by saying that he had approved warrantless wiretapping? What of withholding information from the grand jury investigation into the Plame case? What about his claim that no one could have forseen the levy break in New Orleans when he was fully breifed on the matter? If Iraq was the only strike against this president I would agree, but is is not.



> Opposes Gay Marriage


Not to toss this thread off topic, and perhaps it deserves to be discussed in it's own thread again, but is this not unAmerican as well? It seems that the neo con position is if the majority does not do something, no one should be able to. Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, certainly no more than gay relationships do, and I doubt anyone would seriously consider banning homosexuality altogether. It seems to me that the American spirit has always been and should always be that one can do anything so long as those actions do not pose a great risk to others nor themselves. Gay marriage poses no such risk.


----------



## Scoonafish (Oct 9, 2005)

MT...you bore me. If God came down and sat beside, and talked to you, you would argue with him that he was not God. Then you would tell him he was wrong and offer up a biased left wing web site telling God why he is not not real. MT, you don't offer a different point of view...you simply parrot all the left wing websites. You have the right to say whatever you want. You don't have the right to be heard. I don't think you understand that yet. And I, for one, and I can't speak or others... I am tired of "hearing" you. And that is the beauty of free speech...i can turn you off.

And i have.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> He trumped up evidence to support his preconcieved notion that Iraq deserved to be attacked.
> [
> 
> That is crap!! Define trumped up! If it were true we would have a new President by now!!
> ...


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2005)

I say "Plainsman in '08" :beer:

You have my vote.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2005)

I say "Plainsman in '08" :beer:

You have my vote.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> That is crap!! Define trumped up! If it were true we would have a new President by now!!


I wish that were so, but with a Republican majority in Congress he can essientially get away with murder. This is not to mention that the American people will become amazingly docile about any issue if it is thrown under the heading "national security". Do not trust that the system will always work as it should, it generally does not.

Here are a few links you may find interesting-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... aeda_x.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/ura ... 08-03.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer



> Also it is better to shoot a guy pulling out a water pistol than not shoot one pulling out a real gun!! Chew on that for awile!!


It is better to kill the innocent due to a reaction caused by fear than it is to kill an actual threat?

Scoona I find what you say funny and rather hypocritical. You have simply parroted what other members on this board have said, while at the same time ignoring the fact that the majority of the members fall in line with their party on such issues. You are welcome to "turn me off", but denial can only last so long.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

George W sounded great on the campaign trail but look what happened!!!!!! Wow, did we get suckered....


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Oh, I almost forgot, I did not vote for George W. However I will say this, in my opinion we did not really have much of choice with the two candidates that were on the ballot. Hope we can come up with better choices for the next election.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Kerry was unelectable, and Bush is incompetent.


----------



## dennis_d (Feb 1, 2006)

i always read the topics in the political forum, but never post. i just have to on this one. why is it that republicans can never admit that bush has made mistakes? im not going to get into anything specific, but the guy has dropped the ball on several occasions and if anyone says that he has, its blown off by conservatives as "liberal media" crap. i dont consider myslef liberal, and yeah i voted for the guy, but the war in iraq is turning out to be a very exspensive fiasco. and plainsman c'mon..gay marriage makes your list?!? what about health care, s.s, massive debt from college expenses, environmental issues, the list goes on and on.


----------



## roostman (Jan 20, 2006)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Kerry was unelectable, and Bush is incompetent.


 So MT out of the two you got to pick from we probably came out ahead on the deal? Kerry was unelectable, if the Dem's would of had a half way decent representative to run Bush might not have got in, but the case is Kerry would not have been any better and in my opinion it would have been worse. We have who we have until his term is up, unless he does something to get himself impeached, which I don't see that happening you just have to live with it. Instead of ripping on Bush every change you can and seeing what garbage you can find or makeup on him why don't you try to do something positive with your time? 8)


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Kerry was unelectable, if the Dem's would of had a half way decent representative to run Bush might not have got in, but the case is Kerry would not have been any better and in my opinion it would have been worse.


It seems to me that Kerry actually had some idea as to what he was doing. Kerry was unelectable because he wind surfed, looked like Lurch, and came off as an east coast elite to many people. He lost because half of winning the presidency is a beauty pagent. Bush makes a plan and sticks to it no matter how circumstances change, resulting in messes like Iraq.



> Instead of ripping on Bush every change you can and seeing what garbage you can find or makeup on him why don't you try to do something positive with your time?


Make up? That is just burying your head in the sand.

Why don't I look for positives? In this administration there have been very few. It is hard to notice a drop of good in a sea of bad.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Did I vote for Bush????

No,but it was not an easy decision.It would be real easy if the election were held tomorrow......

Bush so far vs. Kerry unknown?I'll take the unknown.


----------



## Dave_w (May 25, 2005)

"Illegal" wiretapping? Nope, perfectly within the law. And besides which, Congress authorized it, anyway. *cough*cough* Patriot Act. Don't like it? Blame your silly senators, who apparently never read anything past the title.

Lied about WMDs? Go read "A Soldier's Story". Good book. Some of our folks were apparently using abandoned labs as barracks. Add that to the fact that we have a large number of former Iraqi high-ups admitting "Yeah, we had `em, but Hussein sent them to Syria shortly before the war in order to embarass the United States."

And no, that wasn't even the issue in Iraq. Neither was democracy. Or oil (although, as a side point, since oil is what keeps our economy running, if you're not willing to fight for it, what are you willing to fight for?). The issue was that Saddam Hussein was a Bad Dude, that he was threatening the United States, that he had an NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons program, and that he had a whole bunch of conventional weapons he wasn't supposed to have (missiles that could hit Israel, for example, or our merchant ships in the Strait of Hormuz). Add that to the fact that he was massacring his people left and right. And no, I don't really give a hoot as to our supporting him during the Cold War. It was the Cold-freakin`-War, and we had bigger things to worry about.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> "Illegal" wiretapping? Nope, perfectly within the law. And besides which, Congress authorized it, anyway. *cough*cough* Patriot Act. Don't like it? Blame your silly senators, who apparently never read anything past the title.


Whether it is within the law is still being debated. Many trustworthy associations (BAR) have stated that it appears to be illegal, however. As to the Patriot Act authorizing it, I don't know anything about that, but this administration has claimed that the vote to go to war in Iraq gave them this capability, though the wording specifically states otherwise.



> Lied about WMDs? Go read "A Soldier's Story". Good book. Some of our folks were apparently using abandoned labs as barracks. Add that to the fact that we have a large number of former Iraqi high-ups admitting "Yeah, we had `em, but Hussein sent them to Syria shortly before the war in order to embarass the United States."


Were these the same "mobile chemical weapons labs" that turned out to be harmless trailers?



> (although, as a side point, since oil is what keeps our economy running, if you're not willing to fight for it, what are you willing to fight for?).


I'm not one for living and dying by the dollar, especially not literally.



> The issue was that Saddam Hussein was a Bad Dude, that he was threatening the United States, that he had an NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons program, and that he had a whole bunch of conventional weapons he wasn't supposed to have (missiles that could hit Israel, for example, or our merchant ships in the Strait of Hormuz).


This is a nice thought, but it is idealistic. There are a lot of "bad dudes" in this world who may or may not be a threat to the US. We do not have the right nor the resources to depose them.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

dennis-d


> and plainsman c'mon..gay marriage makes your list?!? what about health care, s.s, massive debt from college expenses, environmental issues, the list goes on and on.


Hey criticism is a good thing dennis, but come on now read my post again and get beyond the gay marriage,

You said what about:



> Health care.


OK, that's a good question. At the moment I don't have a plan. Does anyone?


> SS.


Bush had a good plan people believed the sky was falling


> Environmental -


I wrote in my original post: 2 Takes environmental concerns seriously



> the list goes on and on.


I wrote in my original post: I could go on, but you get the idea.

To me it looks like we agree except for the gay marriage. That may be because your younger, and all your life you have heard it is genetic. What do psychologist call it when you get used to something, oh ya desensitized. People younger than I have become desensitized. Well the guy said it was genetic before he did his studies, but no one has found a genetic link to this day. Also, I am older and gay just doesn't sit well with me. I would leave them alone, but they have to be in the media constantly , marching in their gay pride parades , and constantly trying to cram it down our throat (no pun intended). I see gay marriage as an attack on real marriage, real couples, and religious values. I also see it as a social degradation. If they were a teacher or a minister, I don't think they could resist teaching it to the kids. My god our schools have kids reading Johnny has two daddy's as we speak. No thank you.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Also, I am older and gay just doesn't sit well with me. I would leave them alone, but they have to be in the media constantly , marching in their gay pride parades , and constantly trying to cram it down our throat (no pun intended).


This is America. They are free to do such, just as you are free to do so if you choose. Banning something just because you dislike it is not the American way. I recall the statement "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."



> I see gay marriage as an attack on real marriage, real couples, and religious values.


How? Are you less capable of being in a straight relationship, or getting married in the classical sense? Is your religion made less important to you or less potent because somewhere in the world two men are kissing or are sharing their lives together?



> I also see it as a social degradation.


Wasn't this same line of thought used to try to keep schools from being integrated? Your belief seems rather antiquated to me.



> If they were a teacher or a minister, I don't think they could resist teaching it to the kids.


Teachers are always effected by their roots and beliefs and their teaching stlye reflects it. It is part of society and frankly it needs to be taught. Don't misunderstand me, I don't want to see it promoted, but just like other things which people would prefer to sweet under the rug (sex ed) it needs to be discussed. You can only shield children from the real world before so long. The longer it goes on the harder it will be for them to assimilate into society.


----------



## dennis_d (Feb 1, 2006)

well im 28 plainsman, dont know if im younger than you or not(im assuming so). im also not sure if my age affects my views on it. to me if two gay ppl want to get married more power to them, it doesnt affect me. personally id like to see politicians focus their time on more relevant topics. i think that most ppl are agianst gay marriage because of religious beliefs and i dont think religion has any place in politics.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> to me if two gay ppl want to get married more power to them, it doesnt affect me.


Whats a ppl?
Would you fee comfortable explaining this to your great grandmother. If not then you know there is something wrong with this behavior. I'm not against the people (god bless them), but I am against their behavior. Also, it affects you very much. Do you know how much health insurance would go up? Do you have any idea how much it would cost society through retirement systems when the gay wife gets survivor benefits. It will become a huge expense.



> i dont think religion has any place in politics.


You think this way because the media has been misinterpreting the constitution for the past 40 years, and perhaps longer. The separation of church and state is not in the constitution. What the first amendment is (most people think it is freedom of speech only) is freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Government is supposed to keep it's nose out of religion, but the people are part of government. If the people are religious people then government automatically through them is affected by religion.

If gays would mind their own business, I would mind mine. They however can not help but flaunt it and that will eventually make people get very sick of them. Why is it most child molesting cases now are men molesting little boys? Please don't tell me that doesn't mean the man is homosexual. If he wasn't he would be molesting little girls. Our society is getting to sick.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Would you fee comfortable explaining this to your great grandmother. If not then you know there is something wrong with this behavior.


That is completely illogical.



> but I am against their behavior


Again, wasn't this the same type of logic used to try to prevent integration? "I don't hate them because they are black, I hate them because they are uncivilized."



> Also, it affects you very much. Do you know how much health insurance would go up? Do you have any idea how much it would cost society through retirement systems when the gay wife gets survivor benefits. It will become a huge expense.


So then let us abandon marriage altogether. You are either suggesting that we do that, or that women are too feeble to provide for themselves. Either way, again your views are very antiquated.



> If the people are religious people then government automatically through them is affected by religion.


Then you could argue that government has a place in religion too simply because the people who are in government also attend church, and would want regulation over that as well. The separation is absolute and works both ways.



> If gays would mind their own business, I would mind mine. They however can not help but flaunt it and that will eventually make people get very sick of them.


Why should they be forced to mind their buisness? Is this not a free country? Do you hate the blacks for having black pride rallies? Do you not see the parallels between your line of thought and that used by racists?



> Please don't tell me that doesn't mean the man is homosexual. If he wasn't he would be molesting little girls. Our society is getting to sick.


If they were gay why wouldn't they be attracted to men of their own age? They are sick mentally, you can't try to justify their actions through a lifestyle. Would you prefer seeing little girls molested?


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Kerry was unelectable, and Bush is incompetent.


This is what I agree with 100%.


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> One of two things.
> 
> 1. The situation in Iraq gets better, Bush is almost forgotten, and people continue to vote the way they did ten years ago.
> 
> 2. The situation in Iraq remains the same or gets worse, Bush is viewed as a terrible president, and the people vote Democrat to get the sour taste of Neo Con out of their mouth.


Now, Kerry is strong, because he is an experienced war portester. It is turning similar to what we lived through in Vietnam war era. Now, when we deal with Iran with clear objectives to get WMD, we are bound in Iraq and we drained our resources.


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

Some on that side , some on this side. 
I think we all can agree to disagree , and there has been so much on these issues that they are just about worn out . But then for sure there will be a brand new one .
I'll never give up on the idea that GW is the worst most incompetant President to ever walk the face of this earth .Depending on what you believe in as far as what government is and is not responsible for , GW has bungled just about everything he has touched . And he's not done !
But you see - Here's the big thing . He actually thinks ALL the things he has done and wants to do are all the RIGHT THINGS to do !!
So we have to remember to agree to disagree with not what he does , but what we think he should or should not be doing. He's a bum , but he has nothing to do with it .


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Believe NOTHING you here and half of what you see, then you will be much wiser and will never vote for a democrat.
Masters of deceit are always looking to spin something to benefit their cause. uke:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Believe NOTHING you here and half of what you see, then you will be much wiser and will never vote for a democrat.


Indeed, I'm certain that if I closed my eyes and hoped for the best I would support Bush too.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

I voted for Bush, and if he were able to run again I would vote for him again.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I voted for the standing President and proud of it, now the terrorist aren't being paid by our gov't, their being distroyed by it! :beer:


----------



## kills 4 fun (Jan 29, 2006)

You all voted wrong then, should have been Kerry, then maybe the the whole 911 thing wouldnt have happened. I think it was all a personal attack on Bush, funded by Iraq and carried out by Osama...


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Our country has been attacked more under the Democrats in power then ever been attacked under any other parties combined, the differance is the Dem's are so spineless that they lie to the public to make them feel good about being attacked and planes being blown up are called accidents and World trade center attacks were called DOMISTIC terrorism and the list goes on and on. Just sort thru the facts (if you know the differance) and then :idea: .


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Our country has been attacked more under the Democrats in power then ever been attacked under any other parties combined


There are only two major parties.... I don't even know if the claim that Democrats got attacked more holds water.



> the differance is the Dem's are so spineless that that lie to the public to make them feel good about being attacked and planes being blown up are called accidents and World trade center attacks were called DOMISTIC terrorism and the list goes on and on


Again, what in God's name are you talking about?



> I voted for the standing President and proud of it, now the terrorist aren't being paid by our gov't, their being distroyed by it!


Huh? Do you draw these conclusions within your own mind or is there some horribly tainted and incorrect news source that you rely on?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

How's the view where your heads at? Dark in there? :eyeroll:


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

kills 4 fun said:


> You all voted wrong then, should have been Kerry, then maybe the the whole 911 thing wouldnt have happened. I think it was all a personal attack on Bush, funded by Iraq and carried out by Osama...


Here we go again, 9/11 is Bush's fault, and 9/11 had nothing to do with "Slick Willy" ignoring or doing nothing about all the terrorist attacks / activities during his 2 terms.

Some of you guys sound just like a broken record "It's Bush's fault, it's Bush's fault, it's Bush's fault, no WMDs, no WMDs, no WMDs, illegal wiretaps, illegal wiretaps, illegal wiretaps", etc.

I voted for Bush and am damn proud of it. If you don't like it here, move to Irag or Iran and take the hollywood stars who said they would move out of the country if Bush got elected with you.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

kills 4 fun said:


> You all voted wrong then, should have been Kerry, then maybe the the whole 911 thing wouldnt have happened. I think it was all a personal attack on Bush, funded by Iraq and carried out by Osama...


Luckly the majority of voters are far more rational than you.....


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Some of you guys sound just like a broken record "It's Bush's fault, it's Bush's fault, it's Bush's fault, no WMDs, no WMDs, no WMDs, illegal wiretaps, illegal wiretaps, illegal wiretaps", etc.


Because those are serious issues that cannot be ignored.



> I voted for Bush and am damn proud of it. If you don't like it here, move to Irag or Iran and take the hollywood stars who said they would move out of the country if Bush got elected with you.


A statement just as ridiculous as it was during the Vietnam war.


----------



## kills 4 fun (Jan 29, 2006)

If I had to move out of a free country for what I believe in then this would not be a free country. SO basically what you are saying is that is somebody dont agree with you they should have to move out of the country. I hope you dont mind me asking but who died and made you the f****** King? As far as Bush getting elected, I cant help it if the republicans know how to rig an election[/quote]


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

Rig an election?? Also wasn't 9/11 before Kerry even ran? And, do any democrats remember that Bush was the one who captured Sadam? I voted for Bush and also damn proud!! As a side note, Maybe if Clinton wouldn't have been so "busy" with little Monica and been doing his job overseas then 9/11 wouldnt have happened!!! God bless those of us like ABBK, Bore 224, Hill Billy, and others who still see things in a positive sense.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> And, do any democrats remember that Bush was the one who captured Sadam?


At what cost?



> As a side note, Maybe if Clinton wouldn't have been so "busy" with little Monica and been doing his job overseas then 9/11 wouldnt have happened!!!


What a silly notion. You do realize that we have the terrorist threat from one nation and added it to another. Simply because we haven't been hit again is a product of the amount of time it takes for these terrorists to act. Recall that it took them 9 years to plan 9/11. If we do get hit down the road I'm certain the Republicans will attempt to blame that on the next Democrat in office, too.


----------



## kills 4 fun (Jan 29, 2006)

It's not really a Dem. or Rep. thing as far as who is to blame for an attack. But it is the way it is handled afterwards. We already see how the republicans handled it and cant wait till next election to get a Dem. in there to clean up this God awful mess.


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

By clean up you must mean "tuck tail and run." Are you telling me ol Lady Clinton is going to handle the war in Iraq? She couldnt even keep tabs on her husband's "under the table" life. (no pun intended) And thats a good point MT, 9/11 did take 9 yrs to plan and Bill Clinton was in office for eight of them.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Are you telling me ol Lady Clinton is going to handle the war in Iraq? She couldnt even keep tabs on her husband's "under the table" life. (no pun intended)


It is sad that you would vote against a person because their husband had an affair. It has no effect on the way she would lead the nation nor does it indicate anything about her. It is simply a scummy neocon method to personally attack yet another candidate. If you wish to hate Hillary so be it but do it for a decent reason.



> By clean up you must mean "tuck tail and run."


No, he means undo the problems created by this administration and attempt to leave as rapidly as possible without doing any more harm to Iraq.



> And thats a good point MT, 9/11 did take 9 yrs to plan and Bill Clinton was in office for eight of them.


It began under a Republican president.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Yea, 
Clinton had the Navy blow off 100 tomahawk missiles (at over 1 million per missile) to scare Bin ladin :eyeroll: Wow think where we'd be right now if he would have told the Navy to take out Bin ladin instead of being a candy ***. Just think of the over 100 million wasted on missiles not ment to do anything, could have feed homeless and bought them homes.
When the Clintons left the white house the healing of the nation Started the scum was removed by the people NOT RIGGED by anyone but the people. :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Yea,
> Clinton had the Navy blow off 100 tomahawk missiles (at over 1 million per missile) to scare Bin ladin :eyeroll: Wow think where we'd be right now if he would have told the Navy to take out Bin ladin instead of being a candy a$$. Just think of the over 100 million wasted on missiles not ment to do anything, could have feed homeless and bought them homes.
> When the Clintons left the white house the healing of the nation Started the scum was removed by the people NOT RIGGED by anyone but the people. :beer:


Well you certainly couldn't claim that Clinton remained motionless.

Also consider that some 80 million a day is being spent in Iraq (if my memory serves). It seems to me that said money was better spent trying to scare off a terrorist than in a stalemated war.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Well you certainly couldn't claim that Clinton remained motionless.


Yes, but he could have said Booo, and it would have been $100 million cheaper and just as affective.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Yes, but he could have said Booo, and it would have been $100 million cheaper and just as affective.


The only difference being that those missles could have hit Bin Laden. This is not to mention that the Republicans aren't in much of a place to criticize Clinton, after all Bush outsourced catching Bin Laden when he was in our grasp to Afghan warlords, after 9/11.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:
> 
> 
> > Yea,
> ...




Your right now we got to spend 80 million per day on top of all the money Clinton wasted taking neg. action to fix his screw ups. I'm glad you finely see what your GREAT democrats caused. uke:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Your right now we got to spend 80 million per day on top of all the money Clinton wasted taking neg. action to fix his screw ups.


Ok, I'll bite. How can you blame the Iraq war on Clinton?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Your right now we got to spend 80 million per day on top of all the money Clinton wasted taking neg. action to fix his screw ups.
> 
> 
> Ok, I'll bite. How can you blame the Iraq war on Clinton?


You should pay NODAK OUTDOORS for the education your getting from their site but you still have a long way to go, maybe your parents could help out a little, we can't do it all. :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You create the majority of your facts. This is another example of that.


----------



## kills 4 fun (Jan 29, 2006)

So what if Clinton spent 100 million in tomahawk missiles to scare Bin Laden, atleast his money went toward Bin Laden. We are now spending Millions a day for a country that could care less if we were there or not. They were better off. Why go in after WMD then change to Iraqi Freedom. Dont make any damn sense, an probably never will as long as Bush and his Posse run washington.... Dick CHeney made over 8 million last year, off Halliburton, come on it dont take a rocket scientist to see how Halliburton won that contract. There are so many other comapanies that could have out bid and done better.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Kills 4 fun

I like many of your posts so don't take this wrong. I have some points, some questions, and some in between things I am not sure of.
First off these oil companies are gouging the heck out of us so I have no love for them. Had to make that point first. I did see a competitor of Halliburton interviewed on TV one night and he was asked why he thought Halliburton got the contract. He said the company he worked for was large, but thought that Halliburton was the only company in the United States large enough to handle the contract. This might be the simple explanation for them having the contract.
I don't know about Cheney making eight million. Here is my question: When running for an office like this don't the candidates have to divest themselves of shares or stocks in large influential companies. I know many government employees who make modest salaries can not have stocks or bonds in companies that might have ties to the type of work they do.
Lastly it's hard to know if the war is being run right. None of us have sat down to a Pentagon strategy briefing. I would guess the lowest guy on the totem pole there knows far more than I.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> We are now spending Millions a day for a country that could care less if we were there or not.


How many Iraqis have you spoken with personally? 
I have spoken with several and the ones I have talked with all say that they think that George W. is a hero and they are very greatful for us being there. Just wondering where you got your info. I would guess you got it from the media and not the "real" source!!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> We are now spending Millions a day for a country that could care less if we were there or not.


What planet are you living on? I don't know where you are getting your information from but you certainly need a new source.



> Dick CHeney made over 8 million last year, off Halliburton


You get that information from the same source as before. Tell you what, why don't you just provide the source your getting this garbage from so we can all read it. You wouldn't be a proud member of little Barbara Striesand's fan club and maybe on her mailing list would you. Sure sounds like some of the stuff she regurgitates all the time. Seriously, lets see a cite for this stuff your claiming........


----------



## kills 4 fun (Jan 29, 2006)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dick_Cheney

http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/cheney.htm


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> How many Iraqis have you spoken with personally?
> I have spoken with several and the ones I have talked with all say that they think that George W. is a hero and they are very greatful for us being there. Just wondering where you got your info. I would guess you got it from the media and not the "real" source!!


Most are happy that we deposed Saddam, but on the same note the vast majority (80%+) want us out.


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2006)

I voted for bush,


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Here's the FACTS about The Cheney's Income so he won't be slandered any more about it.
Oh by the way liberals look how much the Cheneys donated, about $6.87 million to charity,you should be ashaimed of yourselfs for talking smack about him.



> Bush Pays Taxes, Cheney Awaits Refund
> From the Associated Press
> April 15, 2006
> 
> ...


So get the FACTS before uke: your liberal lies.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Oh by the way liberals look how much the Cheneys donated, about $6.87 million to charity,you should be ashaimed of yourselfs for talking smack about him.


You can't buy your way into heaven.

As to the liberal lies, from the information you posted he made about 8 million. Which lies do you speak of?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

kills 4 fun

One of the first things that I seen was the words neo conservative. This is akin to commy liberal. Both of these terms indicate very strong partisanship. I don't know about you but sites that use either of these terms leave me wanting for credability. Would you agree?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> One of the first things that I seen was the words neo conservative. This is akin to commy liberal. Both of these terms indicate very strong partisanship. I don't know about you but sites that use either of these terms leave me wanting for credability. Would you agree?


I disagree with this. "Commie liberal" or "pinko" implies that said people follow the doctrine of communism and are presumably anti-America. Neo conservative simply means that they are a new form of conservative, hence neo. This is absolutely true. For one, the conservatives of old were about fiscal conservation while the neo-conservatives spend liberally.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That wouldn't be to bad, I had it explained to me by a very liberal friend that it meant fascist . He uses the term as if he was swearing at me, hence my feelings towards it. As a matter of fact he is normally red in the face and angry when he uses the term.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Any loser with a computer and access to a web site can type what he wants and people like MT an K4F will believe whatever the person types cause it sounds more inline with what they believe.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> That wouldn't be to bad, I had it explained to me by a very liberal friend that it meant fascist . He uses the term as if he was swearing at me, hence my feelings towards it. As a matter of fact he is normally red in the face and angry when he uses the term.


Plainsman,
Here's something for ya to read on NEOCONS:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/180


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I find it quite ironic that said article claims that the neocons aligned themselves with Reagan considering their economic policies are quite the opposite of his. Reagan also did the opposite of the neocon position concerning Gorbachev and the Soviet Union.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dick_Cheney


Oh wow, a radical left wing attack blog that is devoted to fiction. I notice they tried to hide this *"the vice president's financial records reveal he is receiving between $100,000 and $1 million in "deferred compensation" from the company where he served as CEO for five years. The payment is not a bonus for a job well done: Cheney decided to take his severance package over five years instead of in a lump sum"* That's a far stretch from the 8 million you claimed and even then they run the field from $100,000 to 1,000,000. Guess they want to be on the safe side. Bottom line..... the VP still has no ties to Halliburton except for receiving a severance package given to him prior to being sworn in as VP, but you already knew that didn't you.

http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/cheney.htm[/quote]

Same as the other site......... attack, attack, attack and no proof to back up the accusations. For you to believe this garbage would be akin to me believing Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh........ You disappoint me kills 4 fun.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Oh wow, a radical left wing attack blog that is devoted to fiction. I notice they tried to hide this "the vice president's financial records reveal he is receiving between $100,000 and $1 million in "deferred compensation" from the company where he served as CEO for five years. The payment is not a bonus for a job well done: Cheney decided to take his severance package over five years instead of in a lump sum" That's a far stretch from the 8 million you claimed and even then they run the field from $100,000 to 1,000,000. Guess they want to be on the safe side. Bottom line..... the VP still has no ties to Halliburton except for receiving a severance package given to him prior to being sworn in as VP, but you already knew that didn't you.


That isn't his only source of income, you know. The idea that he doesn't still have a vested interest in the company that he chaired is silly.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> The idea that he doesn't still have a vested interest in the company that he chaired is silly.


Prove it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp ... VF&b=23898

Worth a look. Not the most nonpartisan source they do have some solid information.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

How do you figure it is solid? It is a 2 plus year old article that uses information from 2000 before the election and some from 2003 with no proof other than conjecture that the VP has ties with the company. The Boston Globe and New York Times would be my last source of honest information and this site is riddled with it. I receive a pension from the military, does that mean I still have ties with the military.... of course not. It is not as bad as the two cites kills4fun put out but it still is nothing more than political spin and doesn't pass the smell test.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> The Boston Globe and New York Times would be my last source of honest information and this site is riddled with it.


Well that says quite a bit.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

The information that I thought was most interesting was that Cheney is due a 1.9 million refund. For those of you who care to learn something about the tax code, I suspect the 5+ million was put in a charitable remainder unit trust, which is why he gets a 1.9 million refund this year. I recall when he and his wife made the book deal, they already had told the public they would donate the proceeds to charity. You donate 5.9 million to a worthy cause and get back 1.9 million from all the federal taxpayers perfectly legal by the way. 
As to the useless comment about vested interest, vested interests in legal terms, only occur when you have money invested in something. Deferred compensation is not and never has been a vested interest.

However, the Bush tax report makes me laugh out loud. See how his property taxes went up by almost 25%. It is his own budget that raised his taxes, just like most of us who got an income tax cut. Less federal money to states, less state money to local government, higher property taxes to pay for local services.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

S


> unday, Nov. 13, 2005 7:23 p.m. EST
> Peter Schweizer: Clintons Underpaid Taxes
> 
> Just last week, Bill Clinton decried the Bush tax cuts as "unethical" and "immoral," because they allowed wealthy folks like himself to avoid "paying their fair share."
> ...


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Are you telling me ol Lady Clinton is going to handle the war in Iraq? She couldnt even keep tabs on her husband's "under the table" life. (no pun intended)
> 
> 
> It is sad that you would vote against a person because their husband had an affair. It has no effect on the way she would lead the nation nor does it indicate anything about her. It is simply a scummy neocon method to personally attack yet another candidate. If you wish to hate Hillary so be it but do it for a decent reason.
> ...





> A letter was written to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaida in Iraq, from Bin Laden's right hand man in Al-Qaida stating to let Vietnam be the example, and if they increase the attacks, the USA will abandon the cause because of the pressure they will receive at home and abroad. The Democrats are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do, when they speak out against this war. *Anyone supporting a withdrawal from Iraq before we finish the course, is a supporter of Al-Qaida, and that's the bottom line. If you don't support the war on terrorism, then you are an Al-Qaida supporter. *


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

Right on ABBK, RIGHT ON!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Isin't the free exchange of ideas a basic American principle? If all it took to strip U.S. citizens of their rights was a state of war, we wouldn't be a free country for very long. What you are suggesting is far more unAmerican than opposing a war.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Mar 1, 2006)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Isin't the free exchange of ideas a basic American principle? If all it took to strip U.S. citizens of their rights was a state of war, we wouldn't be a free country for very long. What you are suggesting is far more unAmerican than opposing a war.


There was people with those same ideas during the all the wars our Country's been thru; just a good thing there wasn't very many or we'd be like France always waiting to get someone else to fight our battles.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Just last week, Bill Clinton decried the Bush tax cuts as "unethical" and "immoral," because they allowed wealthy folks like himself to avoid "paying their fair share."

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

As for that statement ... All I have to say, is this ...

Anyone (including Bill Clinton) who thinks they are paying too little ... can surely send in more ... I don't imagine the Government will turn it down.

Infact ... I say send it directly to John Kerry or Ted Kennedy with a note attached as to what your intentions with the money are ... ...

Then follow the money ... Who knows, could be an interesting little "Snipe Hunt"


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

DecoyDummy said:


> Just last week, Bill Clinton decried the Bush tax cuts as "unethical" and "immoral," because they allowed wealthy folks like himself to avoid "paying their fair share."
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


That's the problem; they want everyone else to pay and they want to DODGE paying what they owe. uke:


----------



## Eagle Eye (Mar 1, 2006)

Those Clinton's still screwing the American people?


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

I'm a gun owner . I don't believe in abortion . I was raised a Christian . As a hard working man all my life I believe in personal responsibility . I served my country in the military . I didn't vote for Bush because I had a bad feeling about him and I was right . I don't know why some of you people think that incompetant chimp could be the wolrd savior . Like he is the only man that can DO ANYTHING ??? Sounds like pagan worship to me .


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

atec said:


> I'm a gun owner . I don't believe in abortion . I was raised a Christian . As a hard working man all my life I believe in personal responsibility . I served my country in the military . I didn't vote for Bush because I had a bad feeling about him and I was right . I don't know why some of you people think that incompetant chimp could be the wolrd savior . Like he is the only man that can DO ANYTHING ??? Sounds like pagan worship to me .


You really think Kerry would have been better, give me a brake! :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

What makes you think that someone competent (Kerry) could do any worse?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Let's face it the guy(Kerry) is spineless and wasn't elected by the people of this country for a very good reason, he's a moron. uke:


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

The post question was " Did You Vote For Bush ".
I didn't say Kerry was good for anything . I said I didn't vote for bush . And learn how to spell . btw - What kind of drugs do they have up there , or is it the thin air ?


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

> I'm a gun owner . I don't believe in abortion . I was raised a Christian . As a hard working man all my life I believe in personal responsibility . I served my country in the military . I didn't vote for Bush because I had a bad feeling about him and I was right . I don't know why some of you people think that incompetant chimp could be the wolrd savior . Like he is the only man that can DO ANYTHING ??? Sounds like pagan worship to me .


Before you go talking to anybody about spelling , you should proof read your own paragraph. DUH


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> Sevendogs, I have a few beefs with W also, but it's hard to discuss them when you can't be realistic. Some of you are to radical to look at the truth. The truth is nearly every nation that has any type of intelligence thought the same thing. England, France, and Germany. Not just that, but republicans and democrats also believed the intelligence. Many, many people are to blame for what at present appears like poor intelligence. I am not willing to believe that everyone made this bad of a mistake. There is still the chance that they were moved. They had more advanced warning than I would have ever given them.
> What I am getting at is bad intelligence is much different than a lie. I don't always keep up with the news, and it would be good if things on here would follow reality not partisanship. We are not always going to agree, but we can still learn some things from each other if things are kept realistic. Bush lied isn't realistic.
> I am sure getting tired of defending him, but you guys who are unrealistic force me into it. I always have to stick up for the honest guy even if he ticks me off.
> 
> ...


I agree all those are important issues, but I still think ideological things like gay marriage and abortions overshadowed everything else. Too many people were told in their churches: "Vote for Bush", and people did not thing much about the consequences. They wanted to defeat thos dam "liberals", once and for all! It was so stupid...


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

dennis_d said:


> i always read the topics in the political forum, but never post. i just have to on this one. why is it that republicans can never admit that bush has made mistakes? im not going to get into anything specific, but the guy has dropped the ball on several occasions and if anyone says that he has, its blown off by conservatives as "liberal media" crap. i dont consider myslef liberal, and yeah i voted for the guy, but the war in iraq is turning out to be a very exspensive fiasco. and plainsman c'mon..gay marriage makes your list?!? what about health care, s.s, massive debt from college expenses, environmental issues, the list goes on and on.


There are good and well qualified people in both parties, among Republicans and among Democrats. A great leader of our nation would see beyond "liberals/conservatives" fight, unite us and lead us to progress. Many of us became too arrogant and sunk into ignorance about other countries. Too many of us were thinking that starting and winning war would automatically make other people living more like us prosperous. This is how painting rosy pictures about prospects of Iraq was helped to get into trouble.


----------

