# vote democrat



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

i am a republican, but i think i will be voting against bush in this next election. the things he has done in the last months has just ****** me off and should do the same to every other hunter. we are expected to lose 40% of our current wetlands thanks to his new legislation and the firing of the corps scientists to get what he wants to destroy our environment. i don't like a single deomcratic candidate, but i will vote for one if bush doesn't change :******: :******: :******: :******:


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

Bingo,
Get the antichrist out of office.
Anyone would be better for our interests than this big business, natural resource sucking pin head.
I wish I was old enough, cause then I would run. I am sure all of you on here would vote for me, RIGHT?
I would even take Dan Buiede as my running mate.
cootkiller


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Anyone would be better for our interests than this big business, natural resource sucking pin head.

Sounds like a description of Gov. Hoeven


----------



## deacon (Sep 12, 2003)

All politicians are screwed up and ruining our country. They are all rich and greedy. If people knew exactly what these guys made including all their perks it would make you sick!!! None of them have their own opinion or follow what the people that voted for them want, it is all party politics. The Republicans are greedy and the Democrats want more and more regulations and provide to the needy. They both suck!!!


----------



## Blake Hermel (Sep 10, 2002)

with that being said
Vote Jesse!

BAHAHAHAH yea right :beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I'm beginning to think the next election will be 1 issue oriented.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I don't know if it will be only one issue but I can tell you there will be one issue that will have priority with me!!!


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

Finally, sportsmen with good sense!

I've been bellyaching to my misguided buddies here in Montana how their votes for republicans are against their better interests. Here's how the conversation usually goes: (me) "You _ ing idiot. Why do you always vote republican." (them) "Because republicans are trying to grow the economy and they'll never take our guns away." (me) "You _ ing idiot. Do you really think the Bush tax cuts are designed to help you and your piddly middle-*** income? Be serious. The tax breaks help the top 1 percent income earners in this country--who don't invest in jobs by the way--they invest in Cayman Islands bank accounts while they're simultaneously ripping off your mutual funds. And don't tell me that one day you'll be one of those top income earners. The chances of that happening--especially while you're living in Montana--are slimmer than the chances of you ever shagging Britney Spears. As for guns, sure they'll let you have your guns but where in the hell are you going to hunt with them? Bush is trying to drill for gas in the pristine elk hunting habitat of the Rocky Mountain Front and has publicly stated that wildlife would be better off managed as a private resource--like in Texas. His Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, is a former chief legal counsel to the Mountain States Legal Foundation, which tried to overturn Montana's streamside access law and makes no secret of its desire to rid Montana of its public land for corporate benefit and for multi-millionaires who want a piece of our paradise for their vacation homes. Don't even get me started on wetlands, air quality, protecting the piddly-*** Missouri River barge business at the expense of sportsmen, and of course--this tragically misguided, misrepresented, mismanaged war for vanity, oil, corporate profits and family revenge."

Wake up America and wake up sportsmen! Things are falling apart around us rapidly but there's still time to save what's left. The hard part is that you have to shut off the tube, get off your ***, learn about what's going on around you (and don't trust the big corporate-controlled media conglomerates like FOX, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.--read independently owned newspapers and websites like buzzflash.com), tell everyone you know whether they'll listen or not, write letters to the editor, write your Congressman and VOTE dammit!


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

Vote the person not the party.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I agree with Tony on his Bush stuff http://www.tonydean.com/issues2.html


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I agree with pike, "the person not the party". I voted for Hoeven .....once. In the last session we had good friends on both sides of the isle and bitter enemies too. Both sides.

Some of the legislative races were only won by a few hundred votes last election. With 100,000+ sportsmen in the state, it will only take a small % to swing this election, assuming their spouses vote the same. It is up to us to make sure our issues are represented in the coming campaign. As sportsmen talk about actions to be taken and working together, this is a prime example. Get 6 to 10 like minded friends and ask your cadidates down for a visit. Give them your views, ask for their position, and hold them to it. *IT IS NOT TOO EARLY TO START*


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Wow...what a choice,

vote Democrat and lose our guns.

vote Republican and lose our places to hunt.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I have said before that one needs to look past the spin and look at the actions.

I see on the conservation side a real need for a strong proponet of conservation with a balance of overall good of the nation. One look at the current energy bill that promotes ethanol as an renewable resource and you see the politcal spin that clouds the issue of wetland loss.

Both parties are promoting this product but for different reasons. The Rep. to appear GREENER and the Dem. to secure the farmers vote. The real truth behind the issue will be increased tiling and draining of wetlands to raise more corn and a continued drain on our aquifers and fossil fuels to produce a *ZERO net gain in energy BTU's to produce the product.

See polarizing one party as being better than the other cannot be single issue based on a national level. Ken said it best and on a local level Dick spoke the truth becasue a Democrat and a Republican where the leaders against real change and compromise on the issues facing hunting in ND.

I posted on another site my feelings about our situation as a nation as I see it. While I do not agree with the actions as a whole on the conservation side of the issues I will vote for my families security and future safety. While I may lose the ducks in the sky, one needs to realize that in the grand scheme of things the war on terror that has finally begun should have been done in the 80's and 90's instead of waiting until 9-11.

One cannot apply our train of thought on right and wrong to those that have no hope and empty belly's. We waited until Japan forced our entry into WWII while Hitler killed the Jews and anyone else that was opposed to him. We showed a unwillingness to do what was right in Korea which today is a threat again. We did stop the continued Russian spread of influence in Veitnam but managed the war based on public sentiment instead of military stratagey which wasted countless lives of our nations best.

We will never be the the freind of every nation but we should always be the most feared if pushed or bullied. I love my parents and respect them, but I also feared them to some degree. That fear kept me from doing things that may have changed my life and not for the better. We have lost that fear and only strong follow though of our current course against terrorism will reestablish that. That will come at a cost but I feel the price will be worth it. We have not had to sacrifice as our parents and grandparents did. How has our life changed and what have we given up since 9-11. Little if anything if we are honest. For those that chose to serve and have been called upon they are sacrificing so we do not have to. I do not want to live in fear of going to a movie or a basketball game that a bomb may go off. We fight our wars on foregin soil so that our citezens do not have to live in fear. I have not seen a single person from the democratic side of the debate give me the feeling I would be safer with them in office. Especially if old BIllary decides to throw her skirt into the mix.*


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

Ron

That was incredible. I have a few reasons for the way I vote, and I apologize to everyone ahead of time for not being as eloquent as Ron G.

I believe in conservative values, not the Republican party. I don't believe that the federal government has the right to the majority of my money so that some lame *** sitting in a trailer park or slum house can keep recieving what I work for. The tax breaks are helping me. The extra money I recieve go into my Roth IRA that I personally manage. Every extra dollar that goes in gets me that much closer to retiring when I chose. I chose what, where, when, and how that money is spent. I believe that the causes and charities that I give to are more efficient and produce more help than any federally managed, red-tape hog-tied, bureaucrat (def: any official who follows rules and routines blindly without THINKING) dominated welfare system.

I believe in a constructionist view of the Constitution, a conservative view. The Supreme Court, and all federal courts, should make rulings by how the Constitution reads and not by how they THINK IT SHOULD BE. The founding fathers of this country wrote a document that, as of this writing, is the greatest culmination of human thinking on governance throughout history. For the liberal mindset to believe that they know better than our founders is asinine.

I believe that education is a local issue and should not be dominated by a union ran, federally allocated system. Iowa used to be the top state in the nation in education, but as the amount of federal dollars increases, with federal control, we are slipping in the rankings.

I believe that abortion, drugs, and use of land is a state issue and not a federal issue. Before all of you start slamming me on this one, please read the Constitution all the way through, specifically the 10th admendment. The federal government has no control over these issues. Why do you think it to a vote on a new constitutional amendment for the government to impose prohibition? Because it had no jurisdiction. OK, this is more libertarian than conservative, but it's out there now.

These are just a few of the reasons I back conservatives. There are a few democrats that I really do admire within Congress, but they are very few and VERY far between.

IaHunter


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

I guess I forgot one thing. I also believe that a person who is willing to sell their soul to the federal government just because they believe that someone is getting something they aren't should go back to preschool. This is life, suck it up, get back on your own G*D D*MN FEET AND DO IT YOURSELF!!!! :******: Thanks for listening. :wink:

IaHunter


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

Your kidding yourselves if you think this energy bill is related to national security. That's what Cheney and his pals would love for you to believe. But this was a policy drafted in secret by Cheney and his friends in the energy production industry, with no public involvement whatsoever. I fail to see how massive subsidies to already profitable industries like oil and gas, mining, etc. helps our national security. The republicans will tell you that this helps reduce our dependence on arab oil. Bull. If we wanted to reduce our dependence on arab oil, we'd reject the farcical argument that we can produce enough fossil fuels in America by ravaging what special places we have left and turn our attention to developing alternative sources of energy, such as ethanol (given token attention in this legislation for political purposes as described by Gilmore), fuel cells, solar and wind.

Unlike some of you, I feel less secure as an American now that we've embarked on this misguided and misrepresented war. Unlike some of you, I'm not willing to sacrifice my hunting and fishing interests or anymore of our wild places just to line the pockets of the corporate elite in this nation.

Wake up everyone. You're being used. This is nothing short of a bait and switch con game. While you're all fretting about another 9-11 tragedy (which, ironically is MORE likely to occur now that we've ****** off the entire population of radical, militant muslims in the world), the republicans are busy giving away the store to the big corporations and starving the government of revenues needed to support popular programs like medicare, social security, environmental protection and education. I'm not naive enough to think these programs could use some waste reduction efforts, but I think this country would be a less desirable place to live without them.

As for Gilmore's assertion that we need to sacrifice like our grandparents did in WWII, I want to know exactly what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that we should sacrifice freedoms in this country in exchange for the perception of security? If so, you and I will never be able to agree.
If you're suggesting that we all need to sacrifice like our grandparents did by serving our country, then I'm all for it. If you want to draft me to fight in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia (the real culprits behind 9-11), then sign me up. Don't send me to die in a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, had no weapons of mass destruction and had no ties to Al-Qaeda. Don't send me to die in a country for revenge against a man who tried to kill Bush's father or to help Halliburton and Bechtel make billions off fat no-bid government contracts. If you want Americans to sacrifice again, it has to be for the right purpose and cannot be wrapped up in lies, personal family revenge and corporate greed.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

It will be a cold day in ..... before I ever vote a party ticket. I will only look at the issue and look at the indivdual and find out for what they believe in. I don't care for people who are blinded by the light if it is the right or the left. I am a centrist and vote the issue!!


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Lets look at our neighbor to the north, They are processing the tar sands in Alberta and it is expected soon to reach 1 million bbl. a day, also they have reduced their cost of production to $10.00 per barrel. The U.S now imports more oil and petroleum products from Canada than any other country.
And we have the oil shale in Colorado soaked with fossil fuel.About four times the reserves of Saudi Arabia, At least 1 trillion BBL. of it. The cost of this war would of gone a long way to finally developing and using our oil shale for our country so we could be at least close to energy dependent,


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

I'm afraid IAHUNTER has a pretty idealistic view of the world. It sure would be nice if EVERYBODY had the intelligence, ability, and attitude to get out their and get a job and pull their own weight. Unfortunately, not everyone has that intelligence and ability. And not everyone can afford a Roth IRA or 401K plan. (Frankly, I have no sympathy for those with a bad work attitude.) But, what are those other folks going to do?

Do you remember that idiot in your grade school class that was a bumbling fool. How was he supposed to get a job and take care of himself? Well, the country is full of those kinds of folks. What will happen to those folks if there is not some government involvement to provide some help for those folks? What will happen to rural North Dakota if farm subsidies (welfare) dry up?

Don't give the land and natural resources away to the greedy cattle, mining, farming, business, and outfitters just because you are a little ****** about some poor welfare person or senior citizen or farmer getting a little from the public trough. Count your own blessings and vote for those folks who are going to protect our natural resources. I don't think it's the conservative types that are going to do that. They are looking out for Number 1 and nobody else.

Geez, I really didn't want to get into this on this board. But, here it is. You now know me for what I am - an avowed conservation sympathizer. While, I'm at it, I will also confess that I am an avowed heterosexual!


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

As I've already stated before...

...I made the MISTAKE of voting for Bush last election and will not do so again. I'm not going to say I'd vote Democrat, because there isn't a whole lot there right now either, but if it comes down to it I'd much rather vote for a Democrat than Bush. If it isn't even close in ND (which it mostly likely won't be :roll: ) I'm going to vote libertarian. Either way I don't even come close to falling under either of the 'two parties' ideals.

Reasons for not voting Bush? He's a corporate money grubbing whore who HAS and will continue to rape our natural resources. ALL of his policys suck, and have hurt the country IMO. The only thing I like about him is his stance on second amendment rights...and at a time when our resources our being sold to the highest bidder I could care less about them banning a couple more assault rifles. Then he uses this "War on Terror" as a cop-out excuse as to why the country is in the shape it is.

Plus everything we were told about Iraq was nothing but lies. We've spent hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars on tracking down Osama and Hussein and we have neither (which I'm starting to seriously question whether we're even trying to find them; what would Bush use as an excuse after we did?)...and we've probably created more terrorists in the long run. Think if the all that money had been used right here in the US for education, social security, medicare, or even conservation?

I had hoped Bush would be a Teddy Roosevelt type Republican. :eyeroll:

Compassionate Conservatism My ***! :******:


----------



## pjb1816 (Sep 8, 2003)

:withstupid:

give me an amen for brother jones!

"amen"

-now seriously folks-

wow that was a long read, but good points to all who posted.

It seems like politics today has changed into such propaganda machine. I feel like when I'm watching fox news "we report, you decide" im watching the bush cheerleaders. Or "we distort, you decide" as Jon Stewart would say. I wish the bush administration would just tell us whats really goin on and not "distort" the truth.

Up to this point the only thing good that bush has done is keep gas prices low!

Makes me wonder in an alternate universe (not so far away) where gore won the 2000 election... if we really would have been better off?

im votin for sharpton! who's with me?

Phil

(and no I didnt vote gore, and I will not vote sharpton... I say that jokingly)


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

> I'm afraid IAHUNTER has a pretty idealistic view of the world


There is a new one. No one has ever said my views of the world were idealistic...pessimistic is more like it. I'm afraid that there are too many people out there who are willing to let faceless bureaucracies take their money and do those "good deeds" and feel like they did something. (Let me note that I am not accusing you of such thinking since I don't know you and have never had an indepth conversation on your views). Too many people view our governments as more of a babysitter that should always be there to smooth out every little bump in the road. But the costs, more in the sacrificing of liberties than in money, are too great. We, as humans, need all of those bumps. Hell, we need potholes. An INDIVIDUAL needs a sense of self reliance. Go to a grocery store and you will see the mother/father with a child that is always taken care of and given everything they want. What is that child usually doing? Bawling and screaming its spoiled, bratty head off. Guess what, that's where I see our country going and I see alot of that on the left side of the political spectrum. I would prefer it if the government kept its helping hands to itself. Call me idealistic...but I think you might be a touch bit wrong, in my opinion at least. And I'm glad that you are a hetrosexual, that's the natural way to be. :beer:


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

pjb1816 said:


> Makes me wonder in an alternate universe (not so far away) where gore won the 2000 election... if we really would have been better off?


Can you imagine Al Gore addressing the country after 9/11? Scary thought . . . .


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I certainly can't say I am happy with all "W" has done but I am very happy that Al Gore was not at that podium post 9-11. I shudder to think how we would have been kicked around as a nation!! I do, however really have many concerns about our outdoor heritage left in "w's" hands!! I don't know which is the lesser of two evils at this point!! :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

Yes I can imagine President Gore (he did win the election if you remember) addressing the nation after 9-11. Unlike Bush (who escaped Vietnam by having his daddy get him a cushy appointment to the National Guard--and even went AWOL for over a year to work on a congressional campaign), Gore served in the Army IN Vietnam. Maybe if the Supreme Court hadn't overstepped its bounds and placed Bush in the White House and had instead let the votes of the American people stand, we would have had the chance to see how Gore would have responded to 9-11. Or better yet, maybe he would have listened to the intelligence briefings Bush was given prior to 9-11 and ignored and prevented the whole tragedy from occurring in the first place. Ever wonder why Bush is stonewalling on the 9-11 investigation and won't divulge what he knew before the attacks? Ever wonder why Bush sent a jet around the country to pick up Saudis living in America (including relatives of bin Laden) on 9-12 and get them out of the country? These are not crazy conspiracy theories by the way. These stories have been reported in the Washington Post, New York Times and other legitimate news sources.

One other thing. All of you who have posted on this thread that you're not going to vote by party but rather for the individual candidate are making a big mistake. Normally, I'd agree with your strategy but the game has changed. Republicans control everything from the White House to the Senate to the House of Representatives to the Supreme Court to the majority of Governorships to the majority of state legislatures. They're not governing. They're ruling! Until there is meaningful opposition to this rulership, the republicans will ram their agenda down the collective throat of the American people. All voters who think that public lands, conservation, public hunting opportunities, a clean environment, middle class economic opportunity, affordable health care and education need to support democratic candidates until they control either the White House or Congress. The Founding Fathers intended our government to have checks and balances on power. None exist today.

As for those of you who believe Bush is pushing his energy bill for the benefit of national security, you couldn't possibly be more mistaken. I worked for three years on the Washington, D.C. legislative staff of a U.S. Senator (Max Baucus D-MT) and have personally experienced the influence of well-funded and well-orchestrated efforts of lobbyists. This bill, and almost all other legislation by the way, is written by lobbyists to protect and promote their narrow interests--namely making huge gobs of cash. This is not something unique to the Bush administration. It happened under Clinton; it happened under Bush Sr. and it happened under Reagan. The ONLY thing that will stop it is meaningful campaign finance reform. Modern legislators and presidential candidates are impossibly beholden to wealthy campaign contributors who must be paid back. Until we find a way to stop this, our middle-class and sportsmen interests will continue to take a back seat to corporate greed. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to make that happen.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

I don't think Gore would have had the results of his opinion poll back in time to address the country on 9/12. :roll: His "tour in Vietnam" consisted of taking photos of guys in the rear.

MTPheas, I disagree with most of what you say but you are on the money with campaign finance reform. That, combined with term limits, would fix a lot of things in my opinion.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Gore lost the election because he is anti-gun, if you lose your 2nd ammendment rights you also lose your hunting heritage. Bush is pro 2nd ammendment and pro gun owner rights.


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

MTPheas

Thanks for giving your job history, it is easier to understand your distorded views. That was a joke  . I enjoy reading your posts, even if they make me a little hot :******: . Now:



> Maybe if the Supreme Court hadn't overstepped its bounds and placed Bush in the White House and had instead let the votes of the American people stand, we would have had the chance to see how Gore would have responded to 9-11


Maybe your have forgotten, I haven't, WHY the Supreme Court stepped into the case? The Florida Supreme Court was overstepping its boundries by rewriting the voting laws of Florida (if you remember, the democrats started to bring up the first and most lawsuits in the Florida election to get things to go their way). Only the state legislature has the right to decide how the voting shall be done within its respective state. The court systems then decide whether or not that system falls within constitutional boundries. Florida's Supreme Court is a liberal leaning court that takes the view that the constitution should be interpeted to the social conditions at the time, while the US Supreme Court is more of a constructionist leaning court the believes that the constitution should be read at its literal meaning.

Now, instead of going around and telling everyone who stands still for longer than a second that the supreme court "stole" the election, give the correct history behind the election.

IaHunter


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

If the Dems' were in charge would you be screaming "Vote Republican" so that we could have these checks and balances in place?

I doubt it.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Ditto........Ditto!!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

Stevepike. Nope. You got me. Don't think I'd ever do that. You can't blame a guy for raging when he's on the losing side of a hostile takeover though can you?

As for djleye--ditto?! Please don't tell me you're a Limbaugh dittohead. Speaking of that big fat drug addict hatemonger, did you see that he's now being investigated for money laundering in connection with his illicit drug purchases? The plot thickens.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

:sniper: Well, I wasn't going to get into this one, but I can't take it anymore. MTPHEAS, you call the Wash Post and the New York Times legitimate papers, come on. My God after reading your post I wonder why you don't run to the bathroom and get it over with. I agree with IAHUNTER, if you want something, WORK YOUR A$$ OFF AND GO GET IT. With your kind of attitude, I'll never have this or that and neither will you so let's just all say f**k it, one thing is for sure YOU WON'T GET IT. You people have to get off of your behinds, stop whining and looking for a hand out. As far as Cheney, Iraq, and the whole Halliburton thing, I work in the oil and gas industry, not for Halliburton either, I can't think of one other company with the resources to handle this type of job.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Would you vote for someone that blanatly stated facts that where skewed or ignored physical information that proved what they are saying and supporting was false?

Would you vote for someone that rewards and encourages people to destroy wetlands ?

Would you vote for someone that had the political power to enact meanigful change in use of the Missouri River System for the benifit of all?


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Wow! There are almost too many issues in here to address. One thing I have to say is that I love the fact that on 'this' web site you can debate issues with out some jacka$$ trying to start a verbal fight. I am really starting to appreciate this site.

Now, my 150 cents on these issues: I am Active military and I can tell you from everyone that I have talked to that it is refreshing to have a President with a back bone.

Some of you have the memory span of a gnat! Some of you in here are talking about a President that has his own itinerary and is lying to the people that voted him in. Some of you are complaining that he and his appointee's are doing 'secret' things to screw people. Some of you are complaining that they make too much money. Hello! Have a huge cup of wake the heck-up please!

The American people voted (twice) for a lying, cheating, adulterous, draft dodger who marched in the Red Square AGAINST THE USA! AND YOU ALL LOVED HIM THE WHOLE TIME HE WAS LYING HIS *** OFF ON NATIONAL TV! And now you have the audacity to say, "I am voting democrat to get someone honest"? PLEASE!

We have a President who went against the popular vote and said 'note on my watch you won't' and he pushed back, and hard! It was high time we 'got some of ours back' and started hitting back instead of turning the other cheek all the time.

Plus Mr. Bush has done more for the quality of life for the American Soldier then any president that I have been working for for the past 16 years! He has given us the largest pay raises then any republican or democrat before! And before you start *****ing about 'us' being over paid, my civilian counterpart in my MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) makes almost 75K more then I so do not go there with me!

I vote the issues and my family and I depend on the way I vote for our quality of life. I will always vote the issues but I will never vote for a Politician who will go on national TV, lie, smile, and lie some more while the whole time there is a great deal of proof and found guilty of lying! That stills trips me out how some of you could still vote for a guy like that and believe he is honest&#8230;

Thats just my opinion...

:sniper:


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

An honest politician is the oldest oxymoron there is.


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

And to that, Muzzy, I say :beer:

IaHunter


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

:beer: :beer: :sniper: Amen - SFC, as far as oil and gas companies drilling on protected lands, yes I do believe there needs to be a very close eye on this one. On the other hand, the restrictions on oil gas companies these days are very strict, there well locations are watched by the state and federal govs on a regular basis. After the well has produced its life and has been plugged and abandond, the site is reclaimed, native grass replanted and you would never know anything was there.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

MTpheas....NO, I am not a ditto head. I was merely agreeing with the previous two posts. I personally do not agree with very much of what Rusch has to say, but.....Don't put too much stock in him, I doubt if he really believes half of what he says. He is in it for the shock value!! It's talk radio!!


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Focus, guys. Focus!!

Protection of our natural resources.

Curbs on guides and outfitters.

Preservation of the North Dakotal hunting tradition.

That's where you ought to be if you care enough to be on this board. Don't let all those other issues get in the way of focusing on the objectives above.


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

Check out this article. Excellent current and historical information on this topic and others related to it. I know it's written by a Kennedy so a lot of you will disregard it but it does bring up some interesting perspectives.

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/na ... p?pid=2154

This topic and article reminded me of a funny thing that happened when I worked in D.C. that I thought you all might enjoy. The year was 1989 and the Senate was debating the energy bill. Ted Kennedy had recently been photographed on a sailboat off the coast of Nantucket buck naked with an unidentified woman. Senator Fritz Hollings from South Carolina had the floor and looked up from the podium as Kennedy walked into the chamber. Without cracking a smile, he said in his dignified southern drawl, "I see the Senator from Massachusetts has arrived. And I'm proud to announce that he has changed his position on offshore drillin." Everyone hit the floor laughing. Great moment.

SFC Rude. Noone ever said Clinton was honest. He wasn't. Neither is Bush. While Clinton lied about nailing a fat intern in the Oval Office, his successor lied about WMD and the reasons for putting our soldiers in harm's way.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Terrible Ted -- concrete evidence for why term limits are a great idea.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

No wmd's? I suppose that's why they uncovered thousands upon thousands of gas masks. The wmd's will be found and when it does happen you non-believers will be cryin your beer. One thing is for sure, we got the pres. with the KAHOOONIES to do it. :sniper:


----------



## Lars (Sep 5, 2003)

If you guys who are badmouthing the POTUS would only step back and think for a second. No matter who is in office, there will be issues that people don't agree with, but don't ever say what were doing in Iraq is wrong because WMD has not been found. From a military officer's standpoint, I cringe at the thought of gore being in office when it was time for the U.S. to take action or as his case would have been, no action.

I work in the Pentagon and am hip deep in Iraq everyday. Just hours ago, I was in a briefing with the SecDef. He briefed us on all the good things we have accomplished in Iraq thusfar and the sucess is absolutely staggering. The bottom line is that we have freed an oppressed people from a ruthless dictator....but some of you won't accept that as a worthy enough cause. Some of you are deadset on the WMD issue and insist that everything we have done and every life lost was a mistake because you "were lied to". So go ahead and vote against him and get your vengance. We true Americans are busting our ***** for a President that has engaged us in a worthy and noble cause. WMD or not, we are there, we are staying there until the mission has been accomplished, and thank god we have a President like Mr. Bush.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

:beer:  Amen Lars, some people just can't look at the good that has been done, they focus on all things negative.


----------



## Lars (Sep 5, 2003)

Racer66, hey I see you are from Tioga. I lived there the first two years of my life. Dave and Barb Armstrong are my godparents, don't happen to know them do you?


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Lars, don't know of any Armstrongs around here, moved here in 1988 right out of college. Thanks for the serving our country, it's much appreciated.


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

Lars, I think you're hip deep in a little more than just Iraq. Listen, noone appreciates the sacrifices that America's service men and women are making in Iraq more than I do. However, the American people we sold on this war under the premise that Iraq presented an imminent WMD threat to our country. The war was not sold to us as an opportunity to rid Iraq of its ruthless dictator. Even the POTUS himself admitted this several weeks ago. If ridding the Iraqis of this ruthless dictator was the ultimate goal, the POTUS should have said so in his State of the Union Address. One question Lars, if we're now in the business of ridding the world of its ruthless dictators, are we not obligated to enact coups in Indonesia, Cuba, Somalia and about a hundred other places? There's lots of bad guys out there. Why single out this one when the threat to our country just wasn't there?

By the way, I congratulate the military on its accomplishments in Iraq, but as Rumsfeld has said himself, "it's going to be a long hard slog." Many more lives will be lost and many billions of dollars will be wasted before we know how this thing will shake out.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Lars (Sir),

Thats what I have been trying to say and I couldn't agree with you more. Hooah!

:sniper:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Note: A democrat in the White House......no surprise here.

Subject: Fwd: USS Liberty

In a message dated 11/15/03 7:54:55 AM Central Standard Time, JPUTW2 writes:

into the Israeli Attack on USS Liberty, 
the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft 
while the Ship was Under Attack, and the 
Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government 
CAPITOL HILL, WASHINGTON, D.C. 
OCTOBER 22, 2003

ADMIRAL THOMAS H. MOORER, UNITED STATES NAVY, (RET.) 
FORMER CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

GENERAL RAYMOND G. DAVIS, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, (MOH)* 
FORMER ASSISTANT COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS

REAR ADMIRAL MERLIN STARING, UNITED STATES NAVY, (RET.) 
FORMER JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY HH

AMBASSADOR JAMES AKINS, (RET.) 
FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO SAUDI ARABIA

Chief Attorney of the 1967 Court of Inquiry 
Captain Boston's Affidavit 
Commonly Asked Questions about USS Liberty 
Who are the Commissioners of this Independent Investigation?

We, the undersigned, having undertaken an independent investigation 
of Israel's attack on USS Liberty, including eyewitness testimony from 
surviving crewmembers, a review of naval and other official records, an 
examination of official statements by the Israeli and American 
governments, a study of the conclusions of all previous official inquiries, 
and a consideration of important new evidence and recent statements from 
individuals having direct knowledge of the attack or the cover up, hereby 
find the following:

1. That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial surveillance, 
Israel launched a two-hour air and naval attack against USS Liberty, the 
world's most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead and 172 
wounded American servicemen (a casualty rate of seventy percent, in a crew 
of 294);

2. That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 minutes, during 
which time unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on USS 
Liberty's bridge, and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship, causing 
821 holes, more than 100 of which were rocket-size; survivors estimate 30 or 
more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli 
planes which were jamming all five American emergency radio channels;

3. That the torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of 
torpedoes, but the machine-gunning of Liberty's firefighters and 
stretcher-bearers as they struggled to save their ship and crew; the Israeli 
torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the 
Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to 
rescue the most seriously wounded;

4. That there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a 
deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; 
evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State 
Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA director Richard 
Helms, former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom, USA (Ret.), 
Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.), and Marshal Carter; former NSA deputy 
directors Oliver Kirby and Major General John Morrison, USAF (Ret.), and 
former Ambassador Dwight Porter, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon in 1967;

5. That in attacking USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder 
against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States;

6. That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately 
prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty by 
recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under 
attack; evidence of the recall of rescue aircraft is supported by statements 
of Captain Joe Tully, Commanding Officer of the aircraft carrier USS 
Saratoga, and Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis, the Sixth Fleet carrier division 
commander, at the time of the attack; never before in American naval history 
has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack;

7. That although Liberty was saved from almost certain destruction 
through the heroic efforts of the ship's Captain, William L. McGonagle 
(MOH), and his brave crew, surviving crewmembers were later threatened with 
"court-martial, imprisonment or worse" if they exposed the truth; and were 
abandoned by their own government;

8. That due to the influence of Israel's powerful supporters in the 
United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this 
attack from the American people;

9. That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the 
United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has 
never been thoroughly investigated by Congress; to this day, no surviving 
crewmember has been permitted to officially and publicly testify about the 
attack;

10. That there has been an official cover-up without precedent in 
American naval history; the existence of such a cover-up is now supported by 
statements of Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, USN (Ret.), former Judge Advocate 
General of the Navy; and Captain Ward Boston, USN, (Ret.), the chief counsel 
to the Navy's 1967 Court of Inquiry of Liberty attack;

11. That the truth about Israel's attack and subsequent White House 
cover-up continues to be officially concealed from the American people to 
the present day and is a national disgrace;

12. That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected 
officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any 
foreign nation, and specifically are unwilling to challenge Israel's 
interests when they conflict with American interests; this policy, evidenced 
by the failure to defend USS Liberty and the subsequent official cover-up of 
the Israeli attack, endangers the safety of Americans and the security of 
the United States.

WHEREUPON, we, the undersigned, in order to fulfill our duty to the 
brave crew of USS Liberty and to all Americans who are asked to serve in our 
Armed Forces, hereby call upon the Department of the Navy, the Congress of 
the United States and the American people to immediately take the following 
actions:

FIRST: That a new Court of Inquiry be convened by the Department of the 
Navy, operating with Congressional oversight, to take public testimony from 
surviving crewmembers; and to thoroughly investigate the circumstances of 
the attack on the USS Liberty, with full cooperation from the National 
Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and the military 
intelligence services, and to determine Israel's possible motive in 
launching said attack on a U.S. naval vessel;

SECOND: That every appropriate committee of the Congress of the United 
States investigate the actions of the White House and Defense Department 
that prevented the rescue of the USS Liberty, thereafter threatened her 
surviving officers and men if they exposed the truth, and covered up the 
true circumstances of the attack from the American people; and

THIRD: That the eighth day of June of every year be proclaimed to be 
hereafter known as USS LIBERTY REMEMBRANCE DAY, in order to commemorate USS 
Liberty's heroic crew; and to educate the American people of the danger to 
our national security inherent in any passionate attachment of our elected 
officials for any foreign nation.

We, the undersigned, hereby affix our hands and seals, this 22nd day of 
October, 2003.

Thomas H. Moorer 
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

General of Marines Raymond G. Davis, USMC, MOH*

Merlin Staring 
Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, USN, Ret., 
Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy,

James Akins 
Ambassador James Akins, Ret., 
Former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia,

*IN MEMORIAM: General of Marines Raymond G. Davis, one of America's 
most decorated military heroes (including the Congressional Medal of 
Honor), Vice Chairman of this panel and one of the principal members of this 
Independent Commission of Inquiry, passed away in Conyers, Georgia, on 
September 3, 2003.

** [1] Captain Ward Boston, USN, JAGC, Ret, the chief Navy attorney 
for the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry into the Israeli attack, has recently 
come forward to repudiate the Court's conclusion that the attack was "a case 
of mistaken identity". Captain Boston has revealed that all available 
evidence, in fact, pointed in exactly the opposite direction--that it was a 
deliberate attack on a clearly identified American ship. In his affidavit 
dated October 9, 2003, Captain Boston states, "Admiral Kidd and I believed 
with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and 
injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and 
murder its entire crew. I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook 
the attack, as well as their superiors who had ordered the attack, were 
aware that the ship was American." [See Exhibit attached]. Captain Boston 
stated that he has personal knowledge that Admiral Kidd found the attack to 
be "a case of mistaken identity" in 1967 only because he was under 
direct orders to do so by Defense Secretary McNamara and President Johnson.

[2] Lieutenant Commander David E. Lewis, USS Liberty's chief intelligence 
officer (who was severely wounded in the attack) has reported a conversation 
with Admiral Lawrence R. Geis, the Sixth Fleet carrier division commander, 
who visited Lewis after he had been medically evacuated by helicopter to the 
aircraft carrier USS America. According to Lewis, "He (Admiral Geis) said 
that he wanted somebody to know that we weren't forgotten...attempts HAD 
been made to come to our assistance. He said that he had launched a flight 
of aircraft to come to our assistance, and he had then called Washington. 
Secretary McNamara came on the line and ordered the recall of the aircraft, 
which he did. Concurrently he said that since he suspected that they 
were afraid that there might have been nuclear weapons on board, he 
reconfigured another flight of aircraft--strictly conventional weaponry--and 
re-launched it. After the second launch, he again called Washington to let 
them know what was going on. Again, Secretary McNamara ordered the aircraft 
recalled. Not understanding why, he requested confirmation of the order; and 
the next higher in command came on to confirm that...President 
Johnson...with the instructions that the aircraft were to be returned, that 
he would not have his allies embarrassed, he didn't care who was killed or 
what was done to the ship... or words to that effect. With that, Admiral 
Geis swore me to secrecy for his lifetime. I had been silent up until I found out 
from Admiral Moorer that Admiral Geis had passed away" [transcript from 
NBC's Liberty Story, aired on national television 1/27/92]. This 
statement by Commander Lewis has recently been corroborated by Tony Hart, a 
Navy communications technician stationed at the U.S. Navy Base in Morocco in 
June, 1967. Mr. Hart connected the telephone conversation between Secretary 
McNamara and Admiral Geis and stayed on the line to keep them connected. 
Hart has been recorded as saying that he overheard Admiral Geis refusing 
McNamara's order to recall the Sixth Fleet rescue aircraft while the ship 
was under attack. Mr.Hart reported that McNamara responded, "we are not 
going to war over a bunch of dead sailors."

[3] New evidence of intercepted radio communications between attacking 
Israeli pilots and the Israeli War Room, recorded by a U.S. Navy EC-121spy 
plane, in which the Israeli pilots report seeing Liberty's American flag 
collected by investigative author James Bamford--for 9 
years the Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight 
with Peter Jennings (and author of Body of Secrets, which includes chapter 
entitled Blood about the attack on USS Liberty). A similar radio message was 
intercepted by the EC-121 from the Israeli motor torpedo boats. This 
corroborates statements by surviving crewmembers, by Ambassador Dwight 
Porter, and by senior National Security Agency officials concerning NSA 
intercepts of Israeli pilot communications identifying the ship as American.

(A comment from the originator of this Email: Note: I add to this the reason why the Israeli's were so determined to destroy the Liberty. At the time of the initial attack the intercept operators on board the ship were very busy copying Israeli radio traffic from the Al Arish area which revealed that Ariel Sharon's troops were engaged in commiting war crimes. They were systematically slaughtering Egyptian POW's. Dave)

I normally do not like to cut and paste but this one is worth looking at.


----------



## Lars (Sep 5, 2003)

MTPheas,

I have personally read the CIA Intel reports, and all the other intel we collected on Iraq before the war...the same reports that the POTUS was briefed on. I assure you sir, the POTUS did not deliberately mislead you, lie to you or sell a war for a cause that he didn't believe was justified or for a threat that was not there. ANYONE in his shoes would have come to the same conclusion. Someday, these reports will be declassified and you will see for yourself. After that, you will forgive the POTUS for making that statement and appreciate the war for what it was and did for a nation.

And you are right, there is a lot more to be done and lots of bad guys out there. It's going to be a wild ride, so hang on tight and don't let go...we need you on our side.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Lars,

Let me get this straight.

You are working in the Pentagon. You have read classified material. While not divulging what you have read, you are engaged in a little Internet dialogue about this stuff.

I think you should probably disengage from this immediately. I don't want MY employees in the Pentagon talking with anyone over the Internet about any national security matters. My cousin was there during 9/11. His boss was killed. He has not said a word to me about anything more than that. I think you should follow his lead.

Talk about hunting and fishing all you want. But, don't try to be our Pentagon insider.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

Thank You!
Perry, I thought that I was the only one that tthought that lars was way way way out of line. Truthfully, lars is not actually in the pentagon but more than likely someone just trying to be bigger than they really are.

I personally am going to ignore is babble, which is all that it really is.

cootkiller


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I think you guys are a little paranoid. What Lars has told us is completely innocent. What in the world could you do with the information that he has given. Not a thing.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Useless? Most likely.

However, he still shouldn't be talking about that stuff while in the position he is in, whatever it is.


----------



## Lars (Sep 5, 2003)

There were no secrets told here but I appreciate you keeping me in check PT!


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Hillary Clinton defended Pres Bush for acting on the Iraq briefings he got from the CIA. That says a lot to me.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Was this before or after she attacked him on the war issues? What you see in Billary is a continuted effort to put another Clintion in the White House. If she came out and said anything less, then it would be an admittion that the actions CLintion took would then be in question also losing even more credablity and making it harder for her to step in and run for President. She has given more double speak on this issue than even Teddy or old KKK Byrd himself.

Rollins a Democrat has been very aware of her agenda and the lenghts she will go to obtain them, even to the point of damageing security and financial integrity of our nation. This has nothing to do with her being a woman or a democrat but being IMHO a very bad person that cares little for anyone that is between her and the goals she set. If Bill would not have had the baggage that he did, I do believe she would have ran instead of Gore.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

I wasn't trying to say anything good about her--just pointing out that she came to the defense of Bush on an issue that many liberals are attacking him on.

As far as her running for Pres, I'm sure you will see plenty of Hillary bumper stickers in 2008 :eyeroll:


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

CORY FARLEY 
RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
11/21/2003 03:10 pm 
Ah, man, I ought to resist this. It's going to cause more trouble than it's worth . . . .

No, there's a way. Let's try this:

What follows is a blatant anti-Republican screed, unless it's a diatribe. Diatribe, I guess. The dictionary says a screed has to be both long and tiresome; a diatribe only has to be abusive.

I realize it's one-sided and that many patriotic Americans will be offended by it. Since I already realize that, it isn't necessary for any patriotic Americans to tell me about it.

I'm going to use it anyway, because it's pretty funny. I got it under the heading, "Things you have to believe to be a Republican today."

o 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.

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

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

o "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

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

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

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

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

o If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

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

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

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

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

o 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.

o 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.

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

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

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

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

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

I would, of course, print a comparable list of things you have to believe to be a Democrat, if I had one, and if it were funny, and if . . . .

No. You send one, and I'll print it even if hell doesn't freeze over.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

MTPheas,

Not only did he lie about an intern, he also lied the 17 times we had 'incidents' during his terms of Presidency when he said that we would find out who did this and punish them.

It is refreshing to have a President that follows through with his words even against the PC crowd out there.

Even IF there are no WMD (Which I believe there are.) all you had to do was watch 60 minutes last night to learn other reasons why we had to do it. The mass graves that were filled after the first war that were paved over and became roads. There are thousands of unknown remains that were murdered under Saddam.

Even in a pole released today that was done by some folks from England, the best thing that has happened to them in the past 365 days is the end of the regime of Saddam while the worst thing was getting bombed for almost a year.

For some of you, ignorance is bliss, I choose to stay informed by ALL sources.

:sniper:


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Amen, again Rude, MTPheas is far gone on this issue.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

this is kind of a good political site http://www.newsmax.com/

But so is this one :wink: http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/index.htm


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

oke: This is for those of you in the conspiracy theory format that believes we have microphones in your TV's and wearing tin foil on your head will keep the aliens from reading your mind.

What Lars said is available on over 3000 web related cites. Doubt me? I can prove it.

Jim next door is not a Red Russian with a cycle and hammer flag hidden in his garage listening to you on your ham radio and mailing the information to his boss in a hollowed out wooded leg from a table to try and over through the US government so relax.

Lars, titch, titch. :splat:

Nuff said.


----------

