plsmith
|
posted on February 6, 2004 06:34:18 PM new
Good Lord, EAG, don't you get it yet? There's nothing to lose. (Well, there is, but Kerry won't be the one to save it.)
May I ask you -- just as you and me, on a chatboard, with nothing to "win" or "lose" -- have any of the recent changes in our laws made you the least bit uncomfortable? (Patriot Act, Ashcroft spying on federal judges, etc. )
Do you, personally, have any problem with your loss of privacy and rights?
|
Bear1949
|
posted on February 7, 2004 08:33:53 PM new
If President Bush was a deserter, Clinton never received a BJ from Monica in the oval office.
http://www.crossbearer.com/resume/The_Truth.pdf
"If you believe you can tell me what to think, I believe I can tell you where to go. Not all of us are sheep....."
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 7, 2004 09:43:40 PM new
ebayauctionguy George Bush has an Honorable Discharge........yes, eag, but you know they don't like the FACTS....much more interesting to come up with all the reasons he was a deserter who received an honorable discharge, anyway. LOL funny to reading though, isn't it? 
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 7, 2004 09:55:20 PM new
May I ask you -- just as you and me, on a chatboard, with nothing to "win" or "lose" -- have any of the recent changes in our laws made you the least bit uncomfortable? (Patriot Act, Ashcroft spying on federal judges, etc. )
Do you, personally, have any problem with your loss of privacy and rights?
Noted the question was not made to me...but I will answer anyway. NONE of the changes have affected me personally. NONE of these changes have or will affect those who are not working against our government. To say otherwise is just plain silly. The changes were necessary to give our law enforcement agencies the powers they need to deal with terrorists. We had to update to make the laws current with our new technologies. It's called 'being flexible' during these times. Our congress voted to pass these new changes....and guess what???? Democrats voted to pass these too.
Maybe you are aware that much of what has become "the Patriot Act" was signed into law during the clinton administration?
This president and his administration is doing all they can to deal with this new form of 'war'. And that's what will get this president re-elected. Can't tie their hands behind their backs and then say 'find those who want to destroy our way of life'. The changes were needed, many to keep current with our new technologies. And many democrats that I respect, like Lieberman, have agreed. Too many are putting the safety of our nation into the political areana....when it should be of GREAT concern to ALL American's...no matter their political party.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on February 7, 2004 10:20:47 PM new
May I ask you -- just as you and me, on a chatboard, with nothing to "win" or "lose" -- have any of the recent changes in our laws made you the least bit uncomfortable? (Patriot Act, Ashcroft spying on federal judges, etc. ) Do you, personally, have any problem with your loss of privacy and rights?
The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is the thought of a WOMD going off in a US city. We have little or no defense against suicidal terrorists in this country and I'm very surprised that they haven't hit us again. Once the threat is removed, then we can get rid of the Patriot Act.
------------------------------
It CAN be done. -Ronald Reagan
|
gravid
|
posted on February 8, 2004 04:27:07 AM new
Once the threat is removed, then we can get rid of the Patriot Act.
Oh grow up. You know there will never be a time there is not the possibility of a terrorist act.
They would never admit such a thing anyway even if there was no new terror attacks for a generation. To say all is clear would be to give up all these nifty powers.
The Patriot act is already being used against dangerous cab drivers and bus boys instead of real terrorists. I hope the damn thing gets used against you someday - and maybe there will be a tiny flash of understanding as you are hauled off to a secret cell with no trial and no attorney.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on February 8, 2004 04:42:05 AM new
Linda, EAG I think why these POS anti-Americans and POS foriegners, don't like the Patriot Act because their ilk are the types that would/will allow; in the name of "freedom" many more 9/11's and just right it off as being part of the "Global" community... they are so afraid of what the rest of the world thinks that it has turned them against their own country...
Patriot Act can be stopped, when our Legislature deems it is necessary to do so.
I am betting most of those whining, have never spent a day in the military or done anything worthwhile for this great country...
of course there are those that just naturally fear authority...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
heh, who really cares in a world were queers can be married...
|
Reamond
|
posted on February 8, 2004 08:14:59 AM new
The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is the thought of a WOMD going off in a US city
We've had this threat since at least 1950. If you include chem and bio, then we've had this threat since at least WWI.
The PA is severely flawed and needs to be changed.
We also need to get the drug addict deserter out of the White House.
[ edited by Reamond on Feb 8, 2004 08:16 AM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 9, 2004 06:12:56 AM new
Bush and Meet The Press - Weasel words of the most dispicable sort
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 9, 2004 10:04:52 AM new
It's Not Just About "AWOL"
by Trapper John
Sun Feb 8th, 2004 at 21:04:14 GMT
There's no question that the idea that Bush may have been AWOL during part of his tenure in the Guard is intriguing. But it's not nearly the most offensive aspect of his military history, and it's mired in uncertainty. We need to avoid getting caught up in the legalistic AWOL/not-AWOL arguments, and focus on what Bush himself admits when asked how he got out of the Guard 8 months early: "I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military."
Imagine with me a soldier named Joe Smith, from Southeast DC. Corporal Smith joined the DC Guard to pay for his undergrad degree at UDC -- he was the first member of his family to earn a four-year degree. Smith has been posted in Tikrit for the past six months, and despite the fact that his Guard commitment was due to end on Dec. 31, he isn't allowed to leave the service, due to Bush's stop-loss orders. But Smith applied to business schools before leaving for Iraq, and has just been accepted into Howard Business School.
Will Corporal Smith, who has already served longer than the term for which he signed up -- and who has served in a war zone -- be able to "work it out with the military" so that he can go to the "other" HBS? Hell no. And that, folks, is a powerful testament to the arrogant sense of entitlement that permeates every cell of George Walker Bush. The fact that he can characterize his service as entirely honorable, and apparently believes that it was somehow normal to "work out" a deal with the military so that he could return to his Ivy League roots -- at the same time that he keeps Guard members in Iraq long past the time when they should have gone home -- is appalling and foreign to regular Americans.
Bush got into the Texas Guard pilot program despite abysmal test scores, during a time that there was a draft on for an overseas war, and he was able to bail out early on that because he wanted to go to b-school. Today, Bush issues stop-loss orders that keep Guardsmen like Corporal Smith -- who unlike Bush, serve in an overseas war -- in the service indefinitely. And unlike George Walker Bush, son of a Representative/Ambassador/RNC chair and grandson of a Senator, the Smiths of today's Guard don't get to make it all stop just because they want to kill time at business school.
That is an issue which will resonate with Americans. Bush has never played by the rules forced on the rest of us, and his b-school/Guard dealings highlight the imbalance of the playing field.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 9, 2004 10:34:31 AM new
Continuing down this path just shows how VERY desperate some are. Four year old smear tactics being brought up again. YAWN...
Didn't make a difference then, not going to make a difference now.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Reamond
|
posted on February 9, 2004 11:13:47 AM new
The only "VERY desperate" thing I saw was Bush avoiding answering directly and specifically about his NG service.
It was also very telling when Bush was asked why he didn't volunteer to go to Vietnam.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 9, 2004 11:25:33 AM new
These are substatiated facts, linda. Facts that lead to the conclusion that your president after using his priviledged power to avoid service in the military led honorable soldiers into a war based on lies and deception in which over five hunded of those good soldiers were killed.
The American people will not "yawn" like you and be indifferent like you about such a duplicitous and dishonorable president.
Helen
|
kiara
|
posted on February 9, 2004 11:29:24 AM new
Didn't make a difference then, not going to make a difference now.
I think the difference this time is that there are over 500 freshly killed soldiers and a few thousand injured ones.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 9, 2004 11:38:22 AM new
Kiara - Well....compared to the 58,000 soldiers who died in vietnam.....under a democrat...no match.
-------------
It was also very telling when Bush was asked why he didn't volunteer to go to Vietnam.....LOL You hold an expectation that he should have volunteered to go off to war, but didn't hold clinton to that same standard? LOL He left the country to avoid serving our country. Bush has AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE. HUGE difference.
but don't let me interrupt your Bush bashing thread with FACTS. lol
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 9, 2004 11:48:22 AM new
It was so ludicrous when Bush said that what troubled him about Vietnam was that
"we had politicians making military decisions." As if it didn't happen this time around.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,925140,00.html
|
kiara
|
posted on February 9, 2004 01:33:58 PM new
Linda, I think you missed my point about the difference between four years ago and now.
And in your mind, don't include me with the Bush bashers. I like to question things and I also like to read different views and come to my own conclusions.
I think President Bush would sound much better if he said "Yes" instead of "Yeah" and "Going to" instead of "Gonna" when he's in front of the camera. It would help him to sound better educated and he should be setting an example for the younger people who are supposed to look up to him.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 9, 2004 02:13:31 PM new
look up to, Kiara? LOL Like all the teens that learned that oral sex, under the clinton administration and by the example set for them by him, wasn't really sex? That kind of example? lol Think I'd rather have the young people seeing the values this president has and overlooking the short comings of some of how he puts together a sentence.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
gravid
|
posted on February 9, 2004 02:29:37 PM new
Actually the teens already felt that way all by themselves. In fact a lot of them could not understand what all the fuss was about.
The real scary thing about these questions like his military service is the attitude of his supporters that it doesn't matter.
The King can do no wrong. As long as he keeps us safe he can do what he wants.
This is what you call a cult - where the unthinking bow to whatever their dominating personality wants. Just toss the rule of law out the window. People here would accept a war lord and toss the constitution in a heartbeat.
They are dominated by feeling instead of thinking and don't deserve the protections that have been built so carefully for them if they'd toss them so easily.
|
trai
|
posted on February 9, 2004 02:34:41 PM new
What I would rather see here instead of all the current bashing one way or another is to ask what we all can do now to bring the current crisis to a worthwhile conclusion.
No matter who gets into the white house is going to have the same problem in Iraq and the middle east to deal with.
Since we are all stuck there for some time to come what kind of policy would you think will work out the best for all concerned?
I do feel that if nato and the u.n. moves in that will take some of the heat and cost off the u.s.
Debate away and lets try to keep this civil or at least no blood letting.
|
kiara
|
posted on February 9, 2004 02:57:45 PM new
Yes, how could I forget that some think that oral sex is so much worse than dead soldiers?
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 9, 2004 04:24:02 PM new
She would also have us forget the dead soldiers - FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY.
|
bunnicula
|
posted on February 9, 2004 04:32:33 PM new
to quote Linda:
Kiara - Well....compared to the 58,000 soldiers who died in vietnam.....under a democrat...no match.
Hmm--she also chooses to ignore the fact that both Democrat AND Republican presidents presided...
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
[ edited by bunnicula on Feb 9, 2004 04:35 PM ]
|
gravid
|
posted on February 9, 2004 05:53:35 PM new
Well as Trai pointed out no matter who gets in there will still be soldiers in Iraq.
For that matter if Bush gets another term there may be soldiers in Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria , North Korea, Haiti, and who knows?
Nobody will just yank them home.
Nobody seems to be willing to impose a government. But they are not going to accept a religeous government unless somebody wants to vote in a fundy christian theocracy. They might go for that.
Looks like it's going to be a long meatgrinder no matter who is in.
I would go to one extreme or the other.
Either pull out or depopulate the whole damn region. Nothing inbetween will work no matter how long they keep hoping and letting soldiers get killed. Nobody is decisive and no solution that will work is politically accaptable.
repeat-
No solution that will work is politically accaptable.
|
neroter12
|
posted on February 9, 2004 08:34:11 PM new
Gravid, I agree. What? Will our soldiers be there for like 10 years? Like Bosnia?
Bush's service record comes back up because he is billing himself as a 'war-time' president and all foreign/global policies and decisions are or will be based on that.
Bush is a very young president by history's standards.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 10, 2004 07:39:47 AM new
Late word from the White House is that they're releasing some pay stubs which will verify the president's attendance at Guard duty in Alabama.
We'll see what they say. But as Richard Cohen notes in his column today, it wasn't that hard at the time to play hooky and still get paid.
More to the point, this is still the White House selectively releasing records. As nearly as I can tell the president is still refusing to waive his Privacy Act rights and allow the government to release all his military service records to the press, without having them filtered through the White House.
We should have more information on this shortly. Check back soon.
-- Josh Marshall
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 10, 2004 10:47:04 AM new
After press conference, in which some pay receipts were released as "evidence" that Bush served, reporters were unconvinced. McClellan was unmercifully grilled and could not answer questions posed by reporters. Gaps in the pay records along with contradiction from Bush commanders leave the situation more serious than it was before the pay records were released. It was pointed out that there is nobody who can testify that Bush served while there are several commanders who have said that he did not.
|
Reamond
|
posted on February 10, 2004 10:57:07 AM new
At least Clinton was honest about his position regarding Vietnam.
And what Clinton lied about didn't kill anyone and was nobdy's business.
AND IT WAS THE REPUBLICAN'S WHO BROUGHT UP CLINTONS' UNWILLINGNESS TO SERVE IN VIETNAM.
NOW IT'S BUSH'S TURN. KERRY WILL BURY HIM UNDER A CLOUD OF DESERTION DURING TIME OF WAR.
|
Reamond
|
posted on February 10, 2004 11:19:20 AM new
During the Vietnam War, Guard units were rarely called up and, "the Reserves and the Guard acquired reputations as draft havens for relatively affluent young white men," the Air National Guard says in a history posted on its Internet site.
Those records, however, may not put an end to the controversy. A columnist writing in Tuesday's Washington Post recalled his own Vietnam-era Guard experience and said he was paid despite skipping service for two years.
It's time to vote this deserter out of office.
|
Reamond
|
posted on February 10, 2004 11:23:07 AM new
Pundit O'Reilly Now Skeptical About Bush
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040210/people_nm/campaign_bush_oreilly_dc_3
|
