Author Topic: 8 billion well spent! (Read 858 times)

rpm · « **Reply #15 on:** February 24, 2004, 09:48:12 PM »

Quote

Its a consistent pattern of voting againast the very weapons systems that protect our troops and assure they get home if they have to go to battle - yet the war hero kerry voted against all of these.

Grun, taking his votes out of context (like the Bush Campaign is) does make Kerry look bad. Why not look deeper into which votes he cast the nay and when. Did he vote against the "old" Patriot missile program that didn't work, or the "old' Bradley with faulty armour that was vulnerable to small arms fire. Voting against a project laden with pork does not mean he did not later approve spending on the very same project after said pork was trimmed from the budget and defects corrected. Nobody wants our troops charging into battle with WWII surplus, including Sen. Kerry.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #16 on:** February 24, 2004, 09:55:39 PM »

Yes Kerry heroically voted against every major weaposn sytem used by the mitary because they all didnt work...

Its like racist Racist saying he voted aginst all integration attempts because none was perfect just yet, would you buy that load of BS? And now some apologist syas it was taken out of context...

I didnt think so....

BTW wahat was wrong with the F15? By the time he ame into office it was a good program - he voted to cut it... Useless and vulnerable to slingshots right?

rpm · « **Reply #17 on:** February 24, 2004, 10:54:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ

And now some apologist syas it was taken out of context...

I didnt think so....

BTW wahat was wrong with the F15? By the time he ame into office it was a good program - he voted to cut it... Useless and vulnerable to slingshots right?

All I'm saying is look at each vote individually. He may have voted against the F-15 in favor of the newer, better, stealthier F-22? How would you spin that vote?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #18 on:** February 24, 2004, 10:56:47 PM »

That makes no sense. We need the f15 today, the F22 is years away espcially in the 80s and 90s when its most likely he made the vote.

Just be proud of your candidate and his voting record, no reason to make excuses.

rpm · « **Reply #19 on:** February 24, 2004, 11:13:39 PM »

It is all guess work. You say he may have done it in the 80's. I say he may have done it in the 90's. Without any FACTS there is absolutely no way to make a valid arguement or intelligent debate. That is why you must look deeper into an issue and not form opinions solely based on fw:fw:fw:fw: emails or 15 second sound bites.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #20 on:** February 24, 2004, 11:17:22 PM »

I say its likely 80s or 90s. Either way the F22 is at least 10+ years away and he votes to cut funding for f15 and F16. Lemme guess he voted cut f16 because the JSF F-35 is what, 20 years away?

Laughable.

Like I said, stand proudly by your candidate and his voting record on defense.

BTW Why did he vote to cut CIA funding? That should be a good one.

rpm · « **Reply #21 on:** February 24, 2004, 11:24:25 PM »

I don't know why he voted the way he did on CIA funding. Why did Bush take more vacation than any Presdient in history before the 9/11 attacks? He didn't give a damn about national security?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #22 on:** February 25, 2004, 02:02:52 AM »

America got blindsided by an intelligence failiure on 911, just like December 7 1941. Bush bears no more responsibilty for 911 as did Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor. Intrestingly both guys are blamed by conspiracy nuts for orchestrating or allowing the attacks to occur to suit their political goals... It was a screwup by everyone. BTW how did people react to the correction to these intelligence problems in the patriot act? Everyone wants ideal perfect security but some of that does and must logiacally come at the expese of privacy, but nobody wants that.... I think people just want to biotch and moan.

Kerry's behavior bothers me because he was agaibns so much funding for so many weapons, I'm really dunbfounded as to what - if anything - he sees as equipment the army needs. Nowe I'm sure he will sing his war hero tune now and be all National; Security like but he will have to be taken to task for his consitent 20 year anti defense, anti security and anti intelligence voting record.

Let me ask you an honest question, do you not cringe or roll your eyes when Kerry mentions that he is an expert on National Security in his speeches?

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #23 on:** February 25, 2004, 02:05:08 AM »

Grun, you been drinking? You got a whole load of spelling errors in that last post.
-SW

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #24 on:** February 25, 2004, 02:06:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Grun, you been drinking? You got a whole load of spelling errors in that last post.
-SW

LOL

No drinking, I just dont much care to spell things correctly on the bbs - force of habit I'm more careless here which i cant afford to be in wring school stuff.

rpm · « **Reply #25 on:** February 25, 2004, 02:11:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
<1>America got blindsided by an intelligence failiure on 911, just like December 7 1941. Bush bears no more responsibilty for 911 as did Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor. Intrestingly both guys are blamed by conspiracy nuts for orchestrating or allowing the attacks to occur to suit their political goals...

<2>Kerry's behavior bothers me because he was agaibns so much funding for so many weapons, I'm really dunbfounded as to what - if anything - he sees as equipment the army needs. Nowe I'm sure he will sing his war hero tune now and be all National; Security like but he will have to be taken to task for his consitent 20 year anti defense, anti security and anti intelligence voting record.

<3>Let me ask you an honest question, do you not cringe or roll your eyes when Kerry mentions that he is an expert on National Security in his speeches?

1. OK, I think you understand my point. Rash accusations without facts to back them up are pointless.

2. How many votes did he cast in favor of weapons and intellegence spending?

3. No. In fact I believe he is much more of an expert than Bush was before he took office.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #26 on:** February 25, 2004, 02:40:21 AM »

How is he an expert?

What sort of expert on defense cuts intelligence spending and doesnt belive in weapons systems?

How many vote did he cast in favor of weapons? Well there arent many left for him to cast a positive vote on... So it should be easy to find, no?

Thud · « **Reply #27 on:** February 25, 2004, 04:09:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Its like racist Racist saying he voted aginst all integration attempts because none was perfect just yet, would you buy that load of BS? And now some apologist syas it was taken out of context...

"racist Racist"? New defence stategy, applying adjectives that you hear a lot about yourself on your opponents, interesting.....

Nevertheless, in your lively rants above you cried about the poor serviceman and -women who would only have had muskets and frontloaders if it was up to Kerry. Obviously they are entitled to the best money can buy TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, but as always you made a fundamental error of reasoning in your posts.
If a representative opposes for example the B-1 which is put into service anway, and votes against the B-2 because it is too expensive and the USAF already has the B-1, than that does not mean that he/she does not want the AF to have either one of them. It very likely implies that he/she thinks that having two strat bombers is a bit overredundant and the money could be used elsewhere. Same goes for the 'no' on the other weapons programs.

Ok, now go and read some more Drudge or something...

Dowding · « **Reply #28 on:** February 25, 2004, 04:11:39 AM »

It's a good job they still are continuing with the Super Sub-Sonic Offensive Defensive 2nd Strike Bomber!

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #29 on:** February 25, 2004, 05:06:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thud
"racist Racist"? New defence stategy, applying adjectives that you hear a lot about yourself on your opponents, interesting.....

Nevertheless, in your lively rants above you cried about the poor serviceman and -women who would only have had muskets and frontloaders if it was up to Kerry. Obviously they are entitled to the best money can buy TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, but as always you made a fundamental error of reasoning in your posts.
If a representative opposes for example the B-1 which is put into service anway, and votes against the B-2 because it is too expensive and the USAF already has the B-1, than that does not mean that he/she does not want the AF to have either one of them. It very likely implies that he/she thinks that having two strat bombers is a bit overredundant and the money could be used elsewhere. Same goes for the 'no' on the other weapons programs.

Ok, now go and read some more Drudge or something...

Talk about a rant.... Wow!

But anyway your argument doesnt work because he effectively voted against all those programs...

He voted against B1 and ahainst B2. He voted aginst F15 and F16... He voted against M! and against the lighter M2/M3...

Kerry apologists need to look elsewhere....

Why not just be proud of his stong voting record on national defense, no need to make excuses. Stand by your man!