Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: _Schadenfreude_ on April 29, 2004, 12:04:35 PM
-
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks
So are you one?
-
Liberal BS is all it is...
-
"I say I say, that boy's two sandwiches shy of a picnic"
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Liberal BS is all it is...
we'll take that as a yes then?
-
A true chickenhawk is a guy who votes to send our soldiers into battle and then votes against the funding neccesary to keep them paid and protected on the battlefield because it's politically inconvenient for him at the time....
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
A true chickenhawk is a guy who votes to send our soldiers into battle and then votes against the funding neccesary to keep them paid and protected on the battlefield because it's politically inconvenient for him at the time....
"Ok, here's the proposal"
"Ok, i'll vote for it"
"alright, here's the final proposal"
"but this is different, it's not the same, I can't vote for this"
"you're a flip flopper!"
-
He put his personal political prorities ahead of the lives and safety of soldiers he voted to send into battle....
No matter how you spin it, Kerry is the true chickenhawk....
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
He put his personal political prorities ahead of the lives and safety of soldiers he voted to send into battle....
No matter how you spin it, Kerry is the true chickenhawk....
Yes, but had he went ahead and voted for something he didn't feel right voting about he would be a sell out.
-
Originally posted by Munkii
Yes, but had he went ahead and voted for something he didn't feel right voting about he would be a sell out.
That's right, he didnt feel right about voting for the troops...
My understanding of his excuse is that he voted against the 87 billion funding because some Bush tax cuts were not repealed as he wanted them to be.
So plainly he preferes his high taxation liberal dogma more than he values the lives and wellbeing of our soldiers - the same soldiers he is responsible for sending into battle by an earlier vote...
Thats what's more important to him, pleasing left wing domestic constituancies rather than protecting the very same soldiers he helped send to war! It's clear, he mad the choice.
Chickenhawk... Thats what Kerry is... Happy to send men into battle but unwilling to support them when there..
But you are right, he is very consistent to his values here. If it were up to him he would have sent those troops into Iraq without M1 Ambrams, Bradley, AH64, F15, and the host of other weapon's systems he he has consistently voted against funding in his 4 terms in the Senate...
Yep thats Kerry for ya, the true Chickenhawk!
-
So if the pres brings you some spending on the military you agree with, but then turns around and appropriates more of the money for haliburton, blackwater, and others who are going to inflate prices on us, you agree with it? Now wonder we are getting deeper in debt.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
A true chickenhawk is a guy who votes to send our soldiers into battle and then votes against the funding neccesary to keep them paid and protected on the battlefield because it's politically inconvenient for him at the time....
But, isn't this saying glorious leader Bush is a chicken hawk??
dude
-
Chickenhawk, as opposed to Vulturedove.
Of course, defined as: One who promotes violence and civil unrest in order to achieve peaceful aims at the moment when the opposition is in its most vulnerable position.
(Kinda like the big inmate in the movies who listens for the 'thud' of soap against the hard, cold, wet tile floor.)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Chickenhawk... Thats what Kerry is... Happy to send men into battle but unwilling to support them when there..
Yaknow, if I were to find myself in another foxhole fighting for my life there's only one of these two who I'd rather have in that hole with me. One has experienced the heat of battle and he showed his metel, the other I wouldn't expect anything but for him to have some realy smelly underware if he were to survive.
As far as your assertion that Mr. Kerry doesn't support the troops, you're full of bovine fecal matter. He voted against the pork that was put into the bill you cited and furthermore, his record of cutting the waste in the miltary was during the post cold war era and is parallel to the current VP's suggested cuts in so many of the same programs plus a few more at the same time.
For the Right to call out Mr. Kerry on these issues shows, to me, that their hypocrisy has no bounds and that if they believe their own rhetoric then the only conclusion one can come to is that Mr. Cheny doesn't support the troops either.
-
Wow schaden, that was almost funny... Almost...
Maybe next time they could think of something funny and original.
-
Just wondering...
As he had no military experience, was born to wealth and led a nation into battle, was FDR a chickenhawk?
He seems to fit the NH Gazette's definition.
-
Not to mention the 87 billion was for Iraq reconstruction... The troops were already funded.
Grun two can play at this game.. What kind of people would insist on a rich boy tax cut when our troops don’t have proper equipment?.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
A true chickenhawk is a guy who votes to send our soldiers into battle and then votes against the funding neccesary to keep them paid and protected on the battlefield because it's politically inconvenient for him at the time....
ah the unmistakable smell of bull****!
I can see that you watch the Bush* ads - but dont you realize that Bush* sent them there without the armor plate and the flak jackets? And now he is trying to blame it on Kerry.
I wonder why Bush* would do this rather than talk about his record? I mean he has had 4 years as president with republican controlled congress.
I guess it gives Grun something to spout about.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Just wondering...
As he had no military experience, was born to wealth and led a nation into battle, was FDR a chickenhawk?
He seems to fit the NH Gazette's definition.
FDR had war thrust upon him, he did not go looking for it a la VIetnam and Iraq. - unless you believe the TFH theories about Pearl.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
we'll take that as a yes then?
I served... how about you?
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Not to mention the 87 billion was for Iraq reconstruction... The troops were already funded.
Grun two can play at this game.. What kind of people would insist on a rich boy tax cut when our troops don’t have proper equipment?.
Rich boy tax cut????????
Hell, I saved many thousands of dollars this year, and I am far from being rich.
Stop parroting the DNC line and come up with something more original...
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Not to mention the 87 billion was for Iraq reconstruction... The troops were already funded.
Bullchit. Most of the money, some 60 billion, was for the military deployment...
Keep your Kerry lies in check, ok?
-
I'm just baffled at all the sabre-rattling at the same time the government is doing this (http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/).
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Rich boy tax cut????????
Hell, I saved many thousands of dollars this year, and I am far from being rich.
Stop parroting the DNC line and come up with something more original...
Are you on welfare? Did you vote Democratic last election?
If you answered NO to either of those questions then you are a wealthly leech on American society and you need to give back your tax cut money...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Are you on welfare? Did you vote Democratic last election?
If you answered NO to either of those questions then you are a wealthly leech on American society and you need to give back your tax cut money...
The rich got rich in the US because this is the greatest country in the world. The rich are rich because there was opportunity in the US for them to do so. It is their patriotic duty to give back to the country that has given so much to them.
I do not mind paying taxes. I do not want to pay more than I owe but when I figure out what I owe I pay it and I don't cheat. Whenever I see F-18s overhead I see my tax dollars at work.
If the rich arent going to carry the tax burden who is? THe poor? Everyone pays their share and that increases as your income increases because the people at the bottom need a higher percentage of their income to survive.
Its amazing to me how simple progressive ideas that have been around for ages seem so radical to some who would gladly adopt the agenda of the rich and powerful. I have said it before but I didnt make it up - if you arent rich then voting for republicans is like chickens voting for colonel sanders. They arent going to do anything but pluck your bellybutton and fry you up for dinner.
-
Originally posted by strk
I can see that you watch the Bush* ads - but dont you realize that Bush* sent them there without the armor plate and the flak jackets? And now he is trying to blame it on Kerry.
I wonder why Bush* would do this rather than talk about his record? I mean he has had 4 years as president with republican controlled congress.
.
Actually it was Kerry who brought up that Bush was not funding the troops, yet he is the one who voted not to do it. Kerry had years and years to help fund the military, but he didn't. He is a hypocrite and was called on it after HE brought it up.
As a matter of fact, I don't recall Bush ever saying a negative thing about Kerry or any democrat, yet all we hear from Kerry is insults and rhetoric against Bush..... as if that's all Kerry is running on.
I wonder why Kerry from day one has mentioned the "republican attack machine" and yet I never have seen it.
When ABC grilled Kerry about throwing his medals away, he lashed out at Bush! He said he was being attacked by the republicans.....even though actually it was the media asking him the question.
Kerry has more than a few screws lose and is a HUGE hypocrite with little sense of morality. The guy is the kind of person I would never in a million years believe could be sincere even if he was being sincere....he's so all over the place.
He tells us "being responisible about the environment is a lifestyle, not something you practice once a year on earty day" yet maintains 5 mansions, a private jet, yatch, and god knows what else. He consumes more resources than probably 1000 typical Americans combined, yet has the balls to tell people to be responsible about the evironment.
Bush in a landslide.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Actually it was Kerry who brought up that Bush was not funding the troops, yet he is the one who voted not to do it. Kerry had years and years to help fund the military, but he didn't. He is a hypocrite and was called on it after HE brought it up.
As a matter of fact, I don't recall Bush ever saying a negative thing about Kerry or any democrat, yet all we hear from Kerry is insults and rhetoric against Bush..... as if that's all Kerry is running on.
I wonder why Kerry from day one has mentioned the "republican attack machine" and yet I never have seen it.
When ABC grilled Kerry about throwing his medals away, he lashed out at Bush! He said he was being attacked by the republicans.....even though actually it was the media asking him the question.
Kerry has more than a few screws lose and is a HUGE hypocrite with little sense of morality. The guy is the kind of person I would never in a million years believe could be sincere even if he was being sincere....he's so all over the place.
He tells us "being responisible about the environment is a lifestyle, not something you practice once a year on earty day" yet maintains 5 mansions, a private jet, yatch, and god knows what else. He consumes more resources than probably 1000 typical Americans combined, yet has the balls to tell people to be responsible about the evironment.
Bush in a landslide.
You've never seen the Republican Attack Machine? You ARE the Repug attack machine!!
Im suprised that you have read up on Kerry's environmental positions. Tell us more about Kerry's positions on the environment - Id love to hear your thoughts on this.
I think what you have been reading is the latest RW talking points which, in reflection of the freaking terrible record of Bush* seek to tear down Kerry as it is their only hope of winning the election.
-
As long as we're reducing Kerry's voting decisions down to absurd simplicities...
If you were given the choice to keep your tax rebate or donate it to pay for the body armour, which would you choose?
If you choose the body armour, why wouldn't Bush?
-
I don't understand what you're saying Nash. What do you mean by saying "reducing Kerry's voting record" ?
Kerry said Bush sent the troops to war without proper equipment, yet it was Kerry that voted to not fund the 87 billion for the troops equipment.
-
Originally posted by strk
You've never seen the Republican Attack Machine? You ARE the Repug attack machine!!
Im suprised that you have read up on Kerry's environmental positions. Tell us more about Kerry's positions on the environment - Id love to hear your thoughts on this.
I think what you have been reading is the latest RW talking points which, in reflection of the freaking terrible record of Bush* seek to tear down Kerry as it is their only hope of winning the election.
I have been reading and listening to Kerry as a matter of fact. The quote I listed is from Kerry. The ABC interview I saw myself......they grilled Kerry and he responded by attacking Bush.
I don't attack anyone by the way.
Tell me when Bush has said anything negative about any democrat.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I don't understand what you're saying Nash. What do you mean by saying "reducing Kerry's voting record" ?
If it helps any, just focus on the actual question. ;)
-
Originally posted by Nash
If it helps any, just focus on the actual question. ;)
but the question doesn't make sense and has no bearing on funding the military.
Bush pays taxes the same as Kerry does, only Kerry makes much more money..... why not ask that of Kerry? It just doesnt make sense.
-
hmm... I'm not talking about those two particular people and what they pay in taxes. I'm talking about the tax cuts in general, and what it had to do with the body armour and the whole flip flop thing wrt Kerry's vote on it.
Yikes...
Damn hard to think with playoff hockey on.
Someone help me out here... or I'll get back to ya tween periods.
-
er, for the time being... bear with me on the question despite it "not making sense" and despite it having "no bearing on funding the military".
If you could give your tax rebate up to pay for the troop's body armour, would you?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I have been reading and listening to Kerry as a matter of fact. The quote I listed is from Kerry. The ABC interview I saw myself......they grilled Kerry and he responded by attacking Bush.
I don't attack anyone by the way.
Tell me when Bush has said anything negative about any democrat.
You don't attack anyone? You just attacked Kerry. The way you spin you should work for the Repugs.
Are you really Karl Rove? I will be keeping my eye on you - Karl!
-
nah, Im not gonna argue with you Nash...I have a soft spot for yah, and Im busy building a model :)
I think you have shown you have an open mind and are a creative thinker. You are the kind of person that eventually finds his own answers after questioning everything. You remind me in some ways of my best friend in highschool......
-
Originally posted by NUKE
but the question doesn't make sense and has no bearing on funding the military.
Bush pays taxes the same as Kerry does, only Kerry makes much more money..... why not ask that of Kerry? It just doesnt make sense.
and Bush* got himself a 30k tax cut this year. MAYBE that big bellybutton tax cut could have kept us from runninig deficits. MAYBE we could have used some of that to pay off the national debt.
This country is 7 trillion in the hole. We need to pay that off before we think about giving millionaires an extra porsche this year.
Also you have hit on a fundamental of our tax system that not all people agree with - except the rich. The tax system taxes income, not WEALTH. Kerry makes less than Bush* as a US Senator I believe, but he is worth far more because he marries rich chicks.
-
In that case....
I demand that you put an easter egg in your plane a la Superfly/Nate and post the pic here.
Why?
no idea, really.... but it'd be cool, no? :)
-
Originally posted by strk
It is their patriotic duty to give back to the country that has given so much to them.
If the rich arent going to carry the tax burden who is? THe poor?
A question... Why do people always use the phrase 'give back' when referring to wealthy people's fiscal obligations to the government. The fact of the matter is, the majority of those in the upper tax bracket are A.) hardly wealthy and B.) Gave up plenty earning what they earned as it is. They worked hard, improving the country in the process of improving their own lives. Successful family businesses create jobs, create wealth and in turn, create even more ways for the government to skim off the top. There was no taking involved.
'Giving Back' is a silly notion that implies that the nation did them a favor, that they took more than their share. The only favor that was done was by them, towards themselves and their families, and as said before, there was no TAKING involved, only CREATION. Whatever debt they owe society can be payable with a tax that applies equally to everyone. They make more, they pay more, but it stays in proportion. Without the proportion, you are effectively discriminating against this group of people. If anything, have a lower tax braket for those who need a break, but not a bigger one, for those you perceive as 'too successful'.
Just because there are nations where financial mobility is impossible is no reason to hold an axe over the necks of successful, hard-working Americans monotonously uttering: 'if it were anywhere else, you'd be raped even worse, so pay up and be happy with what you have'. Yes, there are theives in this class, but they are not representative.
The burden of taxes belongs with everyone. To assume that the top 2% will pay the lion's share is sheer idiocy. First of all, as mentioned above, about 90% of that top 2% are not mega wealthy. Earning 2-300k a year sounds like a lot but it's not gonna get anyone into a mansion or into a Ferrari(at least not without gross mismanagement of funds). Those making over 5 million a year, or more, will always find ways around tax laws. It's one reason why Tax attorneys make a good living. The mega rich can afford to spend in order to spend less, and always will. So, in the end, you're only screwing over the guys that, while in the upper bracket, are still working like dogs to be there... And for what?-- to give half their earnings away in a purely symbolic gesture so that the idiot in office can be seen as a Robin Hood by the masses.
F the high tax brackets.
-
Well said.
-
Er, a question...
Can you put it into the context of the tax rebate, body armour, and Kerry's vote?
-
Originally posted by Nash
As long as we're reducing Kerry's voting decisions down to absurd simplicities...
If you were given the choice to keep your tax rebate or donate it to pay for the body armour, which would you choose?
If you choose the body armour, why wouldn't Bush?
Kerry had a choice between body armor for the troops and pleasing his high tax liberal sensibilities. We know which he chose dont we? He voted against the 87 billion, 60 billon of which was to support the troops in Iraq.
You know it really is as simple as as that. And its not even a matter of black and white thinking, kerry simply chose between the range of possible voting options and ultimately decided against voting in favor of money to support the troops he agreed would go into battle by his earlier vote in the senate.
Send troops into battle and then dont support them...
Thats the definition of a chickenhawk.
-
Ahem... Kerry didn't send them into battle.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... Kerry didn't send them into battle.
No Im sure he would still be sitting there thinking about it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... Kerry didn't send them into battle.
he just voted to let Bush decide if they needed to be sent to battle, then claimed he didn't.
See a patern here with Kerry?
-
Originally posted by stratman
No Im sure he would still be sitting there thinking about it.
With Iraq, that might have been the smarter move. :aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
With Iraq, that might have been the smarter move. :aok
Well I tend to agree with ya there.
I still want that Osama guy!
-
Er Grun, maybe just maybe Kerry can situate two different concepts in his mind at the very same time. Imagine that.
Money to give the troops the things they need, whilst not wreaking havoc on the economy at the same time.
The only way I give you kudos for your stance is if you used your tax rebate to buy a fishing rod. I'm totally into that now and would understand.
-
Kerry authorized for the troops to go to war. Then when they were at war he voted against supportting them.
Nash:
He obviously chose in favor of his high tax policies and against the troops.
He voted for authorization to send trooops into battle then voted against supporting them.
Kerry is the Chickenhawk.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wow schaden, that was almost funny... Almost...
Maybe next time they could think of something funny and original.
I don't know - pretty damn good catch from one post if you ask me...
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I served... how about you?
Yep - 61 Mech, infantry, 1980 to 1984, wounded once fell off a helicopter once, have a knee that can tell when it's going to rain.
Google 61 Mech if you're interested.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Er Grun, maybe just maybe Kerry can situate two different concepts in his mind at the very same time. Imagine that.
Money to give the troops the things they need, whilst not wreaking havoc on the economy at the same time.
The only way I give you kudos for your stance is if you used your tax rebate to buy a fishing rod. I'm totally into that now and would understand.
Nash , the money for the military has nothing to do with tax cuts....
Kerry blamed Bush for not funding the troops, yet he is the one that voted to not fund them.
The Money was availible to the troops, Kerry voted against using it for them, then Blamed Bush for not funding it. The tax cuts are not related to the 87 billion for the troops. The tax cuts actually have re-booted our economy.
-
Okay - lets get this out of the way right now. You - Grun - calling Kerry a "Chicken Hawk" is one of the most incredibly bewildering things I've ever seen in my whole entire life ever.
That's not even comparing him to you.
Good luck with that.
He didn't vote against supporting them.
He voted on the *way* to support them.
Obviously you didn't want to give up your new Nordick Track or excercise bike, Bush felt your pain, and now we have troops in Iraq without body armour (btw I'm just taking your word for that).
"Kerry is the ChickenHawk". If it weren't inhuman and impossible, I'd advocate stapling you to the back of Kerry while he was defending your preciouis freedoms. You don't even have the right to spit that BS on the ground he walks....
-
The troops have body armor as good as or better than probably any in the world... they don't have the latest and most modern American armor perhapse....but that has nothing to do with Bush.
-
Eh? Well what is it that they lack?
-
My problem with Kerry: He voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq, then tried to say he didn't.
He voted against 87 billion to fund equipment for the troops, then said Bush refused to fund them.
He said Bush mis-led us on Iraq's wmd, yet he stated that Iraq had wmd and was a threat.
He says he's an evironmentalist, yet maintains 5 mansions, private jet, man-servant, power yatch and god knows what else
He says he threw "8-9, more " medals away then shows a reporter those medals in his home.
I would rather die than be such a hypocrite....
-
Originally posted by Nash
Eh? Well what is it that they lack?
The latest American body armor?
-
Maybe I dunno... Lets get this 1st thing out of the way 1st.
What do the troops in Iraq not have right now due to Kerry's voting?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Maybe I dunno... Lets get this 1st thing out of the way 1st.
What do the troops in Iraq not have right now due to Kerry's voting?
nothing.
yet Kerry blames Bush for it.
acually , Kerry was in the senate far more years than Bush has been Pez.......Kerry has voted against almost all military funding.
-
Oh stupid me I thought it was the other way around.
So you're saying that Kerry blames Bush for the troops having everything they need.
Man, I should stay out of political threads... they are way too complex.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh stupid me I thought it was the other way around.
So you're saying that Kerry blames Bush for the troops having everything they need.
Man, I should stay out of political threads... they are way too complex.
Nash, you asked me "What do the troops in Iraq not have right now due to Kerry's voting"
And I answered "nothing"
When did I say Kerry blamed Bush for having everything they need?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
When did I say Kerry blamed Bush for having everything they need?
Hmm.... right. It was a bit rash of me to say that Kerry blamed Bush for the troops having everything they need. (did I say that?)If Kerry DID indeed blame Bush for the troops having everything they need, he'd surely be off base.
I mean, the troops have everything they need, and this being such a pivotal historical moment, we difinitely don't want want to show a lack of unity and point fingers regarding who is responsible for the troop's dramatic lack of need.
-
Originally posted by Nash
So you're saying that Kerry blames Bush for the troops having everything they need.
.
You made this statement, I ran with it :)
-
Your bad :)
-
not to brag, but I am a genius afterall..... ta dee da dee dah dumb
-
Heh, good night ;)
-
good night Nash
-
Originally posted by Nash
He didn't vote against supporting them.
He voted on the *way* to support them.
Yes Kerry voted on the *way* to support the troops, in fact it's his usual way of supporting the troops - by voting against funding for them and the equipment they need...
But really whats the big deal this is the same guy who voted against M1 Abrams tank, Bradley IFV, AH64, F15 and so on and so on... Whats a few pices of body armor to Kerry? Nothing!
A man who votes to send troops into combat and then votes against funding and supporting them is chickenhawk...
John Kerry is the Chikenhawk.
-
And you are a complete loser. No disrespect intended okay?
Yeah....
like a sponge...
Now don't get all teary eyed on me. If you wanna have a serious debate on... whatever... quit with the regurgitating of sound bites, half-truths and utter nonsense. It aint that interesting and you can do better. There are plenty of real facts floating around with which to base an argument from.
-
The truth, OK...
Kerry has 19 year long history of voting against most major US weapons sytems..
True!
Kerry voted to autorize troops into Iraq..
True!
Kerry voted against the 87 Billion to fund and support the troops. Despite all your excuses, in the end he voted NO!
True!
Sound bites? "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it"
Yes thats Kerry...
True!
-
Are you for real or like, the parrot that got returned back to the store it was bought from? Listen to you~!
-
Originally posted by Nash
Are you for real or like, the parrot that got returned back to the store it was bought from? Listen to you~!
You asked for facts.... Just because you dont like them doesnt make them untrue... Would you prefer I lie to make you feel better?
I'm not going to stop bringing up Kerry's disgraceful votes in the Senate just because they make you feel bad and yiu dont want to deal with it. The guy is scumbag and his awful record shows that..
-
lol...
Grunherz wants a cracker.
Would it make me feel better if you lied to me? Uhm, probably if they were interesting. Fer sure.
Has nothing to do with this, however.
You are regurgitating.... sorta like acid reflux.
Your little talking points aren't worth talking about unless you sorta expand on them.
-
Hey Grun and Nash..I like you both.......is it to ghey of me to ask you guys to try to get along a little?
I have never once in my life have worked with or have known a person I not been able to get along with in some way......though I have not been subjected to insane people, to my knowledge. :)
-
These threads are like people...
Although they may start out in vastly contrasting ways, with varying backgrounds, once they reach a certain point and get alzhiemers, they all pretty much sound and act the same.
Amazing.
I think I'll contribute my usual two-cents(maybe more like a half-cent at this point):
Kerry is too ugly to be president
-
Which part of voting no on the 87 billion in support for troops in combat needs expanding?
I'm sure Kerry's side needs to craft a fine excuse, but from my point of view little else has to be said...
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Kerry is too ugly to be president
Hehe... Okay Nuke and whoever.. With that, I'm out for the night.
I appreciate a healthy level of retardedness, but I can't seem to relate to the sincere variety.... know what I mean? Prolly not. :)
Cheers.
-
"All you need is love, love...love is all you need"
-
Grun, for someone who poses as a non-partisan, non-voter, you've got an awfully big pair of GOP pom-poms. :lol
-
Originally posted by NUKE
"All you need is love, love...love is all you need"
Okay Nuke,
I'm beginning to understand why there are no new FW pics of Diablo's kit....Quit yakking here on this BBS!!! Get to work!
Hehe Just kidding. :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The truth, OK...
Kerry has 19 year long history of voting against most major US weapons sytems..
True!
Kerry voted to autorize troops into Iraq..
True!
Kerry voted against the 87 Billion to fund and support the troops. Despite all your excuses, in the end he voted NO!
True!
Sound bites? "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it"
Yes thats Kerry...
True!
The TRUTH is all you are doing is stating what you saw in a Bush* campaign ad.
-
Originally posted by strk
FDR had war thrust upon him, he did not go looking for it a la VIetnam and Iraq. - unless you believe the TFH theories about Pearl.
The Gazette's definition just says "A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war;" It does not mention the cause of the war. That is why I ask the rhetorical question.
You mentioned Vietnam in your argument but Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all served with distinction in WW2 so they followed a policy of war even though they do not fit the definition of Chickenhawk.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Grun, for someone who poses as a non-partisan, non-voter, you've got an awfully big pair of GOP pom-poms. :lol
Well I dont vote.
As for partisan?
There are issues I agree with and issuers I disagree with.
Right now:
I support the war in Iraq.
I want lower taxes and pro-business enviornment because hitorically they help recover the economy in slower time.
If the democrats came up with a candidate who was an significant improvment on Bush (kerry isnt) and suported those issues then I would be more welcoming.
Finally, if I were the voting type, in 2000 I would have voted for Clinton if he could have run. I rather liked Clinton on the balance of things.
So yea I would say I'm not so much partisan, but issue and personality driven, and right now if the chioce is between bush and kerry - I'm going to have to chose bush. Kerry simply doesnt seem to know who he is or wants to be, and if thats the case there is no way I can trust him or be happy to see him leading the country.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Which part of voting no on the 87 billion in support for troops in combat needs expanding?
When was the vote? What's the bill number? What else was in the bill? What was Kerry's stated reason for opposing it at the time? What other Senators opposed the bill?
The federal legislative process sucks, and is not at all transparent. A bill's title and stated purpose often has nothing to do with what is actually in it.
Raised in a Communist country, I can see how your mind tries to reduce everything to a simple dialectic, but real life is more complicated than your endless polemics suggest.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash , the money for the military has nothing to do with tax cuts....
Kerry blamed Bush for not funding the troops, yet he is the one that voted to not fund them.
The Money was availible to the troops, Kerry voted against using it for them, then Blamed Bush for not funding it. The tax cuts are not related to the 87 billion for the troops. The tax cuts actually have re-booted our economy.
Kerry didnt vote for the final bill because the bill would not allocat a specific dollar amount to go to the troops. That is all the dems were asking for in that. The Bill apropriated the money for all these uses but didnt not say what dollar amounts would go to each or how much the troops were going to get in supplies and pay and did not say how much Halliburton was going to get for its services iirc
-
Originally posted by strk
Kerry didnt vote for the final bill because the bill would not allocat a specific dollar amount to go to the troops. That is all the dems were asking for in that.
Who are these mythical democrats wanting something specific that you speak of? The vast majority of democrats voted for the bill...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00400
The only democrats to vote ney:
Only 11....
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Edwards (D-NC)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
So whats your next excuse?
-
And the autorization of force vote.....
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237#position
The ambulance chaser Edwards is a chickenhawk too....
-
Educate yourselves on the facts regarding JK's vote on the 87B...
It is HYPOCRITICAL for the Bush Administration to call this a vote against the troops when they threatened to VETO it themselves if the final version included a Senate approved provision to make $10 Billion of these funds into a loan to be paid back to the U.S. taxpayers. If there was time for the Administration to veto this bill and still get money to the troops, they cannot turn around and claim that Kerry’s vote would have cut off funding for the troops – they cannot have it both ways. The simple reality is that the troops were always going to get their funding – the only real question was whether the President was going to change his failed Iraq policy.
“The White House threatened Tuesday to veto its own spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress made reconstruction aid a loan, taking its most forceful stand on the issue even as more lawmakers supported a reimbursement by Iraq. After declining to threaten a veto last week before the Senate voted to lend up to $10 billion to Iraq, the White House surprised many people on Capitol Hill with its warning…Last week, without using the word "veto," Mr. Bush called on a series of wavering lawmakers and made it clear that he would not appreciate a vote for a loan. The statement on Tuesday, after eight Republican senators defied him last week and helped form a majority in favor of a $10 billion loan, was the strongest threat to date. "If this provision is not removed, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," Joshua B. Bolten, the White House budget director, wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders.”
[Firestone, New York Times, 10/22/03]
more later...
-
Blah blah blah...
All that counts iswhat actually happened. The bill passed and the troops got their support....
The following 11 democrats did not want to give the troops this suport and made that clear in their actual final votes:
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Edwards (D-NC)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Shame on them...
So we see that extreme california feminist leftists, murderers, kkk members, self admitted war criminals, tainted old senators and sleazy ambulance chasing lawyers voted against supporting our troops when they needed it most....
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Blah blah blah...
All that counts iswhat actually happened...
Jesus dude, take you fingers out of your ears for a minute.
-
Actually it's not the ears ...
oopss :D