Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on May 07, 2003, 08:41:14 PM
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26902-2003May7.html
What a bunch of whiney losers the dems in Washington are.
-
most intellegint thing sezd on ze bord ever
-
Originally posted by Udie
What a bunch of whiney losers the dems in Washington are.
I think they have a legitimate complaint since the Republicans admitted that they planned on using footage of Bush's landing and speech on the carrier during the presidential campaign.
Since I'm guessing that taxpayers paid for the whole event, both Republicans and Democrats, Republicans should come clean about the costs of what amounts to a de facto campaign stunt.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
hillarys senate campaign:
in her run for the senate , hillary used the govt's 747 (air force one) many times to fly her contributers from New York to DC for over night stays at the white house, when asked about it she said it was her right as the "first lady" to use air force one as she wanted.
sen byrd, D,WV, has no room to complan about govt waste, he is the king of pork barrel spending.
-
Whining born of desperation. They see their 2004 hopes going up in jet engine smoke.
-
We had a governor that used a state helicopter to get her to work cause she didn't want to drive the mass pike. I think every politician that ever lived did stuff like this. I think they consider it a right of passage. *shrugs*
BTW, it's the 3k hammers & toilets that bother me.
-
Originally posted by john9001
hillarys senate campaign:
in her run for the senate , hillary used the govt's 747
sen byrd, D,WV, has no room to complan about govt waste, he is the king of pork barrel spending.
You aren't seriously tossing about the "they did it, so it's okay" argument, are you? Surely you must see that inappropriate use of government funds for campaign purposes deserves disdain.
That said, you seem to have missed the point by including Senator Byrd in the mix. As I see it, the problem isn't wasteful spending (of which there's plenty from both parties), but rather using taxpayer money to fund a de facto campaign stunt.
Honestly, how hard would it have been for Bush to land on the USS Lincoln in Marine 1? Or for that matter, why not simply wait for the carrier to dock first?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Whining born of desperation. They see their 2004 hopes going up in jet engine smoke.
Outside partisan affiliation, the state of the economy predicts vote choice best. One ponders why the Republicans have developed a campaign strategy centered around national defense and set to begin as close to September 11th as possible.
The answer, of course, is that Republican strategists have already realized that the economy is a losing issue for them in 2004, at least at this point. They're attempting to focus the campaign around foreign affairs and national security matters to divert attention from the economy as an issue. That's smart of them, though I'm not sure how successfully they'll manage to do that. And of course, the economy could well improve between now and the election, boosting Bush's prospects.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
"You aren't seriously tossing about the "they did it, so it's okay" argument, are you? Surely you must see that inappropriate use of government funds for campaign purposes deserves disdain."
Not taking sides here, DMF, but what I got out of his comment was something like the Biblical parable of one person worrying about the mote in his brother's eye when he himself had a beam in his own eye.
Kinda one of those deals where the ones who ain't guilty can cast the first stone, otherwise they need to be quiet and go home.
Like that Senator he was talking about. If it was alright when he did it for President Hillary and the First Husband Billy, it is okay now.
Politicians have a VERY selective memory.......................
-
Originally posted by eddiek
Kinda one of those deals where the ones who ain't guilty can cast the first stone, otherwise they need to be quiet and go home.
[/B]
Plenty of politicians, Republican and Democrat, haven't abused taxpayers' trust by inappropriately spending money for campaign purposes or convenient photo opportunities. So while Clinton perhaps should perhaps stand aside and reconsider criticisms based on past actions, there are still plenty of rank and file Democratic politicians with the right and moral authority to demand explanations.
Like that Senator he was talking about. If it was alright when he did it for President Hillary and the First Husband Billy, it is okay now.
[/B]
Well, he was bringing up Senator Byrd not because he supported or abetted Clinton, but rather because he is a huge pork barrel spender. From that perspective, Byrd has no right to demand that Bush justify his wasteful spending, but he certainly may demand that Bush justify his inappropriate actions. It's pretty hard to justify a spectacular landing on an aircraft carrier (which endangered the president's life more than other possible alternatives; the Secret Service must have had a heart attack). Doubly so when Rove basically admitted that the only reason they did it was for use in the campaign -- a taxpayer paid campaign stunt, in essence.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
All the Dems can do with this is put "their" spin on it. Bush is the Commander in Chief. And the Navy likes him. Official Govt Travel.. or a Training Flight... or just about whatever excuse the White House OR Navy want, they can use legally.
...and by the way, the TROOPS deserved it.
I truly hope the Democrats continue to squeak about it, just makes them look ridiculous.
-
As compensation, maybe we should let some democrats hold up the decommisioning of a carrier so they could have their photo taken with it as its being torn apart. Then they could use that in their campaign.
MiniD
-
If I were president I'd try out every peice of Hardware I could. Hell you gotta know it's capabilities if you're CinC ya know :)
I see the trip made by the president as a blatant move to let the military know he's capable. All the folks I talk to in the service, even folks who don't really like Bush, have respect for him. Grandstanding is a glorious military tradition and they like a CinC who is capable of doing it.
-
Originally posted by Gryf
If I were president I'd try out every peice of Hardware I could. Hell you gotta know it's capabilities if you're CinC ya know :)
I see the trip made by the president as a blatant move to let the military know he's capable. All the folks I talk to in the service, even folks who don't really like Bush, have respect for him. Grandstanding is a glorious military tradition and they like a CinC who is capable of doing it.
You are a politician huh?
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Outside partisan affiliation, the state of the economy predicts vote choice best. One ponders why the Republicans have developed a campaign strategy centered around national defense and set to begin as close to September 11th as possible.
The answer, of course, is that Republican strategists have already realized that the economy is a losing issue for them in 2004, at least at this point. They're attempting to focus the campaign around foreign affairs and national security matters to divert attention from the economy as an issue. That's smart of them, though I'm not sure how successfully they'll manage to do that. And of course, the economy could well improve between now and the election, boosting Bush's prospects.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Kinda hard to fix the economy when the congress wont help ya get it done.
He should be allowed to inact his policies....if he fails vote him out. Should be allowed to do his job...if he can't do it well enough, then fire him.
The dems worst fear is a recovering economy and victories in the war against terrorism. Talk about partisan politics.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
...and by the way, the TROOPS deserved it.
LOL, the troops deserve to be campaign props in a wasteful, grandstanding stunt?
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
LOL, the troops deserve to be campaign props in a wasteful, grandstanding stunt?
The unspoken notion of the "ornamental enlisted" was one in the list of many reasons why I got out of the USN.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Kinda hard to fix the economy when the congress wont help ya get it done.
He should be allowed to inact his policies....if he fails vote him out. Should be allowed to do his job...if he can't do it well enough, then fire him.
The dems worst fear is a recovering economy and victories in the war against terrorism. Talk about partisan politics.
Some republicans are preventing it too. I say bring on the tax cuts! But I don't think that will prevent the economic slide. There is alot more to it than that.
Fear of an economic recovery and an end to terrorism? You've got the wrong dem my friend.
BTW, It does seem hypocritical to push for less spending and do things like the landing. We pay for that helicopter, damnit, use it!
-
Originally posted by Tumor
...and by the way, the TROOPS deserved it.
They certainly deserved the attention and the praise they've received. They earned a visit from the Command in Chief. They did not ask for, nor do they deserve, to serve as campaign props for Bush's or any politician's reelection campaign.
Therein lay the rub.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I'm sure the troops were really mad that they will help Dubya get his second term. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Rude
Kinda hard to fix the economy when the congress wont help ya get it done.
[/B]
Republicans control both Houses in Congress, so it's going to be difficult for Bush to sell that story. I haven't yet heard Democrats threatening to filibuster a tax cut, and indeed there's no need for them to do so at this point with moderate Republicans supporting their position.
If Bush fails to fix the economy because Congress won't pass his tax cut package, responsibility will probably fall on the Republicans and especially Republican leadership in the Senate for failing to bring moderates to support the party line. That was always a problem for Democrats when they controlled Congress, so it's interesting and unsurprising that Republicans now must also deal with it.
He should be allowed to inact his policies....if he fails vote him out. Should be allowed to do his job...if he can't do it well enough, then fire him.
[/B]
Time to whip out that Constitution and look up the part about separation of powers and presidential vs. congressional responsibilities. :) If Congress is supposed to serve as a rubber stamp for presidential agendas, why even bother with a legislature at all? Just let presidents enact their policies and then rise or fall based on their success or failure.
Thankfully it doesn't function this way, and that's exactly how Madison envisioned it when discussing government in the Federalist Papers. Members of Congress serve different constituencies and often oppose legislation that they deem harmful to those constituents. They're also allowed to form their own opinions about what's best for the economy without being spoonfed ideas by the presidential administration. In short, Congress was designed as ponderous, slow, divided, and independent in order to squash poor policies meant to appeal to the cause du jour. It's a pragmatic institution; let them do their work.
The dems worst fear is a recovering economy and victories in the war against terrorism. Talk about partisan politics.
Tell that to the Republican senators that Karl Rove chewed out for opposing the tax cut package -- including Majority Leader Frist. I wonder if Mr. Rove understands his place in the constitutional place of things. Hint: Don't piss off the Majority Leader.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I'm sure the troops were really mad that they will help Dubya get his second term. :rolleyes:
You must have missed this part:
"They did not ask for, nor do they deserve, to serve as campaign props for Bush's or any politician's reelection campaign."
It's not a Bush thing. It's a general thing.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
They certainly deserved the attention and the praise they've received. They earned a visit from the Command in Chief. They did not ask for, nor do they deserve, to serve as campaign props for Bush's or any politician's reelection campaign.
Therein lay the rub.
Deserve? That is completely irrelevant.
I'm trying to think of anyone that has been either a Governer or President that has not taken the same liberty with the forces they commanded. I'd venture to say none of them.
Every visit by a President (or Governer) to the troops is to either garnish a photo op or raise the moral of the troops. In this case I believe both were done. Its more than I can say for most presidential visits to troops.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
You must have missed this part:
"They did not ask for, nor do they deserve, to serve as campaign props for Bush's or any politician's reelection campaign."
It's not a Bush thing. It's a general thing.
-- Todd/Leviathn
You'd get laughed off the boat if you went on the Lincoln and told them that.
-
when clinton was president guys had to be ordered to attend his speeches when he was visiting a base. never saw or heard that happen with Reagan or either Bush.
-
Believe it or not Funked, all service men/women are not republicans.
-
Orders or not, all I know is that anytime anyone ranked higher than a commodor visited the boat it pretty much sucked.
You know how many pieces of exposed brass there are on a destroyer, let alone a carrier? All the damn buffing and painting and buttwork brass polishing would have made me resent Bush's visit regardless of what party he or I belonged to.
Hey, but maybe that's just me. And everyone else I knew onboard.
F.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
when clinton was president guys had to be ordered to attend his speeches when he was visiting a base. never saw or heard that happen with Reagan or either Bush.
You obviously have never been in any branch of the Military. When Brass is scheduled to arrive it is a highly orchestrated event. The POD details who will be present and what you wear.
Get off that Holy Republican Soap Box and state facts, not some twisted viewpoint.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
You obviously have never been in any branch of the Military. When Brass is scheduled to arrive it is a highly orchestrated event. The POD details who will be present and what you wear.
Get off that Holy Republican Soap Box and state facts, not some twisted viewpoint.
hey who said i was republican dude? goin on seventeen years as far as military goes.
-
Originally posted by Furious
Orders or not, all I know is that anytime anyone ranked higher than a commodor visited the boat it pretty much sucked.
You know how many pieces of exposed brass there are on a destroyer, let alone a carrier? All the damn buffing and painting and buttwork brass polishing would have made me resent Bush's visit regardless of what party he or I belonged to.
Hey, but maybe that's just me. And everyone else I knew onboard.
F.
different worlds for you and me. never spent time as a fleet Sailor. always had respect for the brutal hours and tedious work you guys had to deal with.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
You obviously have never been in any branch of the Military. When Brass is scheduled to arrive it is a highly orchestrated event. The POD details who will be present and what you wear.
Get off that Holy Republican Soap Box and state facts, not some twisted viewpoint.
whoops forgot to finish answer there sorry about that. my understanding was that additional persons ordered to attend speech by clinton more than once as they couldnt count on everyone showing up. from personal experience i was always interested in hearing what the top guy had to say even clinton. but you gotta admit that certain presidents have been more popular with the guys than others. my viewpoint isnt twisted by the way, unless somehow you are my ex wife. :)
-
Just so we can compare..
Do you guys who "think " our President was wrong for this CV landing(which i loved)...
Do u think 1) Abraham Lincoln should no thave given an Adress from the Battlefiled?
Do u think 2) The Japanese surrender on the Missori i swrong also?
If you do..then I will tell how idiotic and whaa..you are.
Love
BiGB
-
Tempest in a teapot here. The Dems are desperate.
Realistically, no president ever has to leave the White House to do his job. Even the State of the Union can be delivered to Congress by someone else, as it used to be. So any time a President flys on AF1, or in a helicopter to Camp David, he is 'wasting' taxpayer's money.
But the reality is that presidents like to travel around the country and the world. After Clinton's pollsters found out that his approval rating went way up every time he left the country, he practically wore out AF1 visiting every country in the world with a runway long enough to land on. And the per hour cost of operating AF1 is probably 10 times what it costs to operate a Viking. Not to mention that Navy pilots need a certain number of flight hours and carrier landings per month to stay current, so the flight had some merit for the taxpayer. This trip was a photo op for sure, but a comparatively cheap one.
You can tell when Waxman is blowing smoke up your butt, his nostrils get really big.
ra
-
dems squirmin again .. LOL
gotta love it when an old gezzer like byrd is allowed to be their mouth piece :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
dems squirmin again .. LOL
gotta love it when an old gezzer like byrd is allowed to be their mouth piece :)
Hehe, yep, like the racist Dems of old, he carry's on the Souths past with every opening of his mouth. :)
-
I saw nothing wrong with what Bush did.
He came to see the troops after the war was over which is nothing new for a President.
How he got there showed the type of President he is. He didn't take the safe way he took the way that was more impressive to the people he was there to visit.
Did he do it for his re-election? Sure!
But he also did it for the troops AND because I bet it was fun as hell!
In the long run who really gives a rat's bellybutton HOW he got on the ship? He was there to support the troops and THAT is all that should matter.
-
Democrats are morons. Unfortunately, theres alot of em.
-
As a veteran I would have been honored to have my Commander In Chief visit my duty station- the boost to morale by having the President thanking the military personally for a job well done is money well spent. Far worse was Clinton stopping air traffic at LAX while he was getting a haircut aboard Air Force One.
That's what I hate about politics. I'm close on many issues with the Dems' philosophy but their "leadership" is starting to look nitpicky and shrill. It's unfortunate that in a country that has so many exceptional people we end up with the leadership we have- on both sides of the aisle.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
LOL, the troops deserve to be campaign props in a wasteful, grandstanding stunt?
It's only wasteful and grandstanding when your scared ****less it will work as intended. The man has the support of his troops.. deal with it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The unspoken notion of the "ornamental enlisted" was one in the list of many reasons why I got out of the USN.
Your truly missed... no really.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
They certainly deserved the attention and the praise they've received. They earned a visit from the Command in Chief. They did not ask for, nor do they deserve, to serve as campaign props for Bush's or any politician's reelection campaign.
Therein lay the rub.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Opinions are like *******s wouldn't you say? Problem is, why should the President, OUR as in MY Commander in Chief, not do what he did considering the sacrifices these people contribute daily, let alone in the last 10 months? Because some whiny Democrats KNOW it's a positive step in promoting his re-election?... whether intended as such or not? Again.. I hope the Dem's continue to whine about it, I really do... just show's they how petty they are and illustrates the fact that they don't give two hoots about the military when their own political future is at stake.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
You obviously have never been in any branch of the Military. When Brass is scheduled to arrive it is a highly orchestrated event. The POD details who will be present and what you wear.
Get off that Holy Republican Soap Box and state facts, not some twisted viewpoint.
Been in the military since Reagan and the guys right. I've never seen anyone be told they HAD to attend when Reagan or either Bush came around. Clinton? ROFL!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Problem is, why should the President, OUR as in MY Commander in Chief, not do what he did considering the sacrifices these people contribute daily, let alone in the last 10 months?
[/B]
You missed the part where I said that the troops deserved a visit and speech from the Commander in Chief. I have absolutely no qualms with him talking to the troops, and I'm sure it was an event the crew will remember for the rest of their lives. That's awesome.
Because some whiny Democrats KNOW it's a positive step in promoting his re-election?... whether intended as such or not? Again.. I hope the Dem's continue to whine about it, I really do... just show's they how petty they are and illustrates the fact that they don't give two hoots about the military when their own political future is at stake.
The issue, at least for me, isn't the president's speaking to the crew. That's part of his job. The problem was making an appearance and designing the entire event around a campaign point, right down to the banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" hanging up behind him to serve as a de facto headline to any picture. Kudos to his appropriate recognition of the troops, but thumbs down on such a cynical way of going about it.
In addition, it's not clear that the event will benefit him at all for reasons mentioned earlier. Democrats certainly have a right to complain about it, though I think Democrats would benefit overall if they could just get Senator Byrd to shut up on every possible issue. The guy carries so much baggage that I doubt many Americans take him seriously. That he considers himself a mouthpiece for the party tells quite a bit about the strength of the Democratic leadership at this point.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
........cynical way of going about it.
-- Todd/Leviathn [/B]
I'm sure it's just me but, I think every detail of what the President did and accomplished in his visit aboard ship was appropriate. Seriously just wondering,...who other than the media proclaimed this to be an election campaign event? Otherwise, the criticism IMHO is nothing more than a misguided attempt to discredit the president. To much attention to reading between the lines when the purpose was to thank the Troops and show that to the our nation in a grand manner. If it serves to bring up his approval rating, all the better and why not? Would you suggest the President had flown to the ship and quietly thanked the Troops down in a cargo-hold without being televised?
I am absolutely overjoyed that our troops were not shoved into the corner by political correctness in the literal sense. Seeing the Dem's cry about it just makes it better.
-
Pot, kettle, black.
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/000328.html
-
Ya know, it's good for our country, economy and overall morale, when folks have confidence in our president. Part of his job is to instill that confidence. It's not just about getting reelected.
-
My favorite comment was made by the pilot of the Viking. He said "The President is a stud".
Gotta love it :-)
-
P.S.
I think the Democrats are hearing the footsteps in 2004.
-
Pepsi or Coke anyone?
-
The Democrats have become a party in search of a reason for existing. I hope the leadership gets its head out of its bellybutton before too long.
God I hated typing that!
-
The flying in part didn't bother me near as much as seeing him wear a uniform. I can't remember the last time a president did that. The military should never forget that the commander in chief is a civilian.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The Democrats have become a party in search of a reason for existing. I hope the leadership gets its head out of its bellybutton before too long.
God I hated typing that!
Sorry MT... just had to catch it before you changed your mind. ;)
BTW... its not limited to dems these days.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The flying in part didn't bother me near as much as seeing him wear a uniform. I can't remember the last time a president did that. The military should never forget that the commander in chief is a civilian.
Uniform or flight suit? Was there rank on the uniform? There is a big difference... you know this right? I mean, your view isn't being biased here now is it?
Let me refer you to:The next morning, out on the tarmac, I had on my flight suit with my name sewn over the left breast. (No call sign -- like Crash or Sticky or Lead foot - but, still, very cool.) I carried my helmet in the crook of my arm, as Biff had instructed. If ever in my life I had a chance to nail Nicole Kidman, that was it.
That's from a civilian receiving an incentive ride on an F-14 (something I don't recall anyone really getting upset about).
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The flying in part didn't bother me near as much as seeing him wear a uniform. I can't remember the last time a president did that. The military should never forget that the commander in chief is a civilian.
Unless it's a pax aircraft, everyone wears a flight suit with appropriate gear, not a uniform so-to-speak.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The flying in part didn't bother me near as much as seeing him wear a uniform. I can't remember the last time a president did that. The military should never forget that the commander in chief is a civilian.
As others have pointed out, it wasn't a uniform, it was a flight suit. God forbid something happened and the President had to eject with the pilot. Now I could be wrong, but I'm assuming a suit and tie wouldn't afford the same protection as a flight suit in an ejection scenario.
Looks like another attempt at Bush bashing to me sir.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Looks like another attempt at Bush bashing to me sir.
Nah Grim, it's just politics as usual. I'll tell ya, I'm learning something about these bbs tho- no matter what the issue the same right wing posters line up behind the "official" viewpoint of the right and the same left wing posters line up behind the "official" viewpoint of the left. As a result nobody really thinks in here.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Now I could be wrong, but I'm assuming a suit and tie wouldn't afford the same protection as a flight suit in an ejection scenario.
Hey, james bond comes out of it smelling like roses.
-
I'll tell ya, I'm learning something about these bbs tho- no matter what the issue the same right wing posters line up behind the "official" viewpoint of the right and the same left wing posters line up behind the "official" viewpoint of the left. As a result nobody really thinks in here.
Except for you. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Nah Grim, it's just politics as usual. I'll tell ya, I'm learning something about these bbs tho- no matter what the issue the same right wing posters line up behind the "official" viewpoint of the right and the same left wing posters line up behind the "official" viewpoint of the left. As a result nobody really thinks in here.
And the same posters just comment on everyone else's posts, without taking a viewpoint at all.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
I'll tell ya, I'm learning something about these bbs tho- no matter what the issue the same right wing posters line up behind the "official" viewpoint of the right and the same left wing posters line up behind the "official" viewpoint of the left. As a result nobody really thinks in here.
That you could come to that conclusion based on my posting history shows an enormous amount of ignorance or selective memory. I eschew a unidimensional classification.
That said, you're probably just trolling anyway. It's not often you can piss off both ends of the political spectrum in one fell swoop!
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
LOL Sheeesh, Todd, you, Toad, Dune, Curval, MT, Dowding, Mini D, Hortlund and many others offer well articulated arguments. Let me rephrase- MANY of the posters in here offer up a knee jerk reaction to almost any subject based upon which side of the political spectrum they're on. With most posters here I can look at the subject and know what their opinion is on it and, almost always, I'm right. Ironically enough, the one poster who it's hard to predict their viewpoint on a perticular issue is- is you.
;)
-
Some things are just pretty simple and don't really require much thought or some deep drawn out explanation. This topic happens to fall into that category, imnsho.
-
pretty black and white to me
not much falls in the middle when you really look at it - cept the fence sitters
-
Originally posted by Airhead
LOL Sheeesh, Todd, you, Toad, Dune, Curval, MT, Dowding, Mini D, Hortlund and many others offer well articulated arguments. Let me rephrase- MANY of the posters in here offer up a knee jerk reaction to almost any subject based upon which side of the political spectrum they're on. With most posters here I can look at the subject and know what their opinion is on it and, almost always, I'm right. Ironically enough, the one poster who it's hard to predict their viewpoint on a perticular issue is- is you.
;)
Mini-D surprises me sometimes... I think he's a closet lefty.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Nah Grim, it's just politics as usual. I'll tell ya, I'm learning something about these bbs tho- no matter what the issue the same right wing posters line up behind the "official" viewpoint of the right and the same left wing posters line up behind the "official" viewpoint of the left. As a result nobody really thinks in here.
Well Airhead, I'll have to concur for the most part. There are a few on here who do surprise me on occasion though. Although my voter's registration card says Republican, I don't really consider myself affiliated with either party. When I vote these days, I just try to vote for whoever seems like less of a moron. A difficult choice at times, I must admit. It's just human nature for people who don't like the particular President in power at the time to try to find any little thing they can to present a negative viewpoint.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Since I'm guessing that taxpayers paid for the whole event, both Republicans and Democrats, Republicans should come clean about the costs of what amounts to a de facto campaign stunt.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Aww comon its something every man in the world does not get to do. If you had the chance in life to snag the wire would you take avantage of it??
I would and GW had enuff balls to do it too. They routinely fly sorties off and on those carriers so what if the boss of the US caught a ride?
I bet its one of the things he says later he thought about and said, they can bite me arse im going for it ;->
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The flying in part didn't bother me near as much as seeing him wear a uniform. I can't remember the last time a president did that. The military should never forget that the commander in chief is a civilian.
are you some kind of oxmoronic idjit?
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
are you some kind of oxmoronic idjit?
OK, who wants this for a sig line?
-
I dunno... it's rather tasty though. :)
-
hahahah "dont click this"
:D :D :D
DOH! :cool:
-
(http://www.ilhawaii.net/~bear1/art/fc2fb66b.jpg)
And Shameless it is too boy.. and look at him.. George “Maverick” Bush.. ah-ha-ha-ha. He’s even got a red lens flashlight for in case he get shot down behind enemy lines and has to read a map. Too funny..
I’m a tough guy!
Smart cookie Karl Rove thought this 2.1 million taxpayer photo op would be great for Junior’s reelection bid. That is would highlight the President’s foreign policy accomplishments
Interesting choice of words “accomplishments”
Well lets see: We start off telling China “oh we so very sorry” TWICE for our spy plane getting a little too close to the mainland. We tell the two Koreas that the administrations predecessors policy would be placed under review.. (shelved) That policy being to nudge North Korea back into the family of nations by using incentives, i.e. teaching them the best way to farm, helping them develop an industry a little more helpful then say... nuclear arms. By urging them to accept capitalism --hey, it’s working in China it would here too. By signing the damn non-aggression pack... That should be a no brainer, every country on earth knows what happens to them if they launch a nuclear attack. Non-aggression treaty or not. We disregarded the advice from the previous administration regarding terrorism. The Hart-Rudman report went up for further review (shelved). A month before the attacks we Poo-Pawed reports from no less than five different international intelligence agencies regarding an immediate attack. We cut funding for the anti-terrorism task force.
And that’s just the first year..
You can change around a few words to make them sound nicer so the people would accept them. The nazi like “preemptive strike” or “preemptive war” is a good example. It sounds acceptable unless you sit back for a moment and think about what it means.. The number one war crime of all is aggressive war. It’s also the number one reason the U.N. charter was set up -- to prevent aggressive war. This would explain why some folks want America out of the U.N. “Liberation” Another happy sounding word that is much better than say.. overthrow and occupation. As someone mentioned above, the banner behind the President read “Mission Accomplished” well, if you consider securing the oil ministry and oil fields as mission accomplished, then yes. On the other hand, we were told the 140 men who gave their lives and the 700 wounded was not about stealing a sovereign nation’s natural resources.
-
Yes, let's ignore the facts. Here's a comment my best friend from college, an Navy pilot, made on that very topic on another board:
Comments:
I'm neither a republican or a democrat and I largely share views from both sides. But moments like this remind me why I WILL NEVER declare myseld a democrat. Is there any low they will not stoop? I am a Naval Aviatior that recently returned from my second tour onboard the USS George Washington/ Carrier Air Wing 17 in which we enforced UN sanctions. I can assure you that I, as well as any other crew member of the GW or Air Wing 17 would have been deeply honored by the presence of our Commander in Chief. The allegations that Bush used this is a campaign pitching ground are not only ludicrous, but appaling. What Commander in Chief doesn't welcome his victorious troops home with a speech honoring thir hard work, sacrifice, and dedication? The allegations that he wasted money to divert the carrier for a day are also false. There were no more additonal costs for his visit with exception to his meal onboard wich the Officers Mess pays for. The fuel for the S-3b squadron is part of their yearly budget for training - it would have been used regardless. The carrier WAS NOT diverted for a day - it had to pull into San Diego to let two squadrons disembark on North Island NAS. George Bush is the finest Commander in Chief since Reagen. He has my vote!
I guess he's a little more in touch with the feelings of todays sailors than most of us.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
(http://www.ilhawaii.net/~bear1/art/fc2fb66b.jpg)
And Shameless it is too boy.. and look at him.. George “Maverick” Bush.. ah-ha-ha-ha. He’s even got a red lens flashlight for in case he get shot down behind enemy lines and has to read a map. Too funny..
I’m a tough guy!
Smart cookie Karl Rove thought this 2.1 million taxpayer photo op would be great for Junior’s reelection bid. That is would highlight the President’s foreign policy accomplishments
Interesting choice of words “accomplishments”
Well lets see: We start off telling China “oh we so very sorry” TWICE for our spy plane getting a little too close to the mainland. We tell the two Koreas that the administrations predecessors policy would be placed under review.. (shelved) That policy being to nudge North Korea back into the family of nations by using incentives, i.e. teaching them the best way to farm, helping them develop an industry a little more helpful then say... nuclear arms. By urging them to accept capitalism --hey, it’s working in China it would here too. By signing the damn non-aggression pack... That should be a no brainer, every country on earth knows what happens to them if they launch a nuclear attack. Non-aggression treaty or not. We disregarded the advice from the previous administration regarding terrorism. The Hart-Rudman report went up for further review (shelved). A month before the attacks we Poo-Pawed reports from no less than five different international intelligence agencies regarding an immediate attack. We cut funding for the anti-terrorism task force.
And that’s just the first year..
You can change around a few words to make them sound nicer so the people would accept them. The nazi like “preemptive strike” or “preemptive war” is a good example. It sounds acceptable unless you sit back for a moment and think about what it means.. The number one war crime of all is aggressive war. It’s also the number one reason the U.N. charter was set up -- to prevent aggressive war. This would explain why some folks want America out of the U.N. “Liberation” Another happy sounding word that is much better than say.. overthrow and occupation. As someone mentioned above, the banner behind the President read “Mission Accomplished” well, if you consider securing the oil ministry and oil fields as mission accomplished, then yes. On the other hand, we were told the 140 men who gave their lives and the 700 wounded was not about stealing a sovereign nation’s natural resources.
Try real hard to get over this ok....you're making yourself look foolish again.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Well lets see: We start off telling China “oh we so very sorry” TWICE for our spy plane getting a little too close to the mainland. We tell the two Koreas that the administrations predecessors policy would be placed under review.. (shelved) That policy being to nudge North Korea back into the family of nations by using incentives, i.e. teaching them the best way to farm, helping them develop an industry a little more helpful then say... nuclear arms. By urging them to accept capitalism --hey, it’s working in China it would here too. By signing the damn non-aggression pack... That should be a no brainer, every country on earth knows what happens to them if they launch a nuclear attack. Non-aggression treaty or not. We disregarded the advice from the previous administration regarding terrorism. The Hart-Rudman report went up for further review (shelved). A month before the attacks we Poo-Pawed reports from no less than five different international intelligence agencies regarding an immediate attack. We cut funding for the anti-terrorism task force.
And that’s just the first year..
You can change around a few words to make them sound nicer so the people would accept them. The nazi like “preemptive strike” or “preemptive war” is a good example. It sounds acceptable unless you sit back for a moment and think about what it means.. The number one war crime of all is aggressive war. It’s also the number one reason the U.N. charter was set up -- to prevent aggressive war. This would explain why some folks want America out of the U.N. “Liberation” Another happy sounding word that is much better than say.. overthrow and occupation. As someone mentioned above, the banner behind the President read “Mission Accomplished” well, if you consider securing the oil ministry and oil fields as mission accomplished, then yes. On the other hand, we were told the 140 men who gave their lives and the 700 wounded was not about stealing a sovereign nation’s natural resources. [/B]
I just have one thing to say about this one...
(http://www.cinni.org/challenge/ctc/gallery/outdoorpsts/images/Treehug.jpg)
-
Originally posted by eddiek
"You aren't seriously tossing about the "they did it, so it's okay" argument, are you?
That all depends on what your definition of the word they is....
-
Way to go airhead... you offer up a challenge for a bigger and better kneejerk reaction based solely on rhetoric and you're just begging 10bears to come in and trump everyone.
-
10 Weasel, your not even amusing, and your efforts are pitiful.
-
Ok..2 things...
Demo-Repub..they both have good ideas...BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE DEMOS IDEAS ARE FUKING IDIOTic AND IF YOU VOTE FOr THERE PARTY LINE....YOU TO ARE A COMPLETE MORON...Burn in hell..
Repub's dotn always have great ideas,,but are are much more correct then the fukhead Daschles-Kennedys/Clintons of this world
...
2nd this is for you dirtbags towing you socialists anti-bush agenda..get alife..losers..
BIll Clinton Toured the Oklahoma Boming site after ..HE USED PHOTOS from that visit for his CAmpaign..so STFU!!!!
and if i hear sht about caps lok and spellings ...save it you corksmokin fruit loops...
Love
BiGB
xoxo
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Ok..2 things...
Demo-Repub..they both have good ideas...BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE DEMOS IDEAS ARE FUKING IDIOTic AND IF YOU VOTE FOr THERE PARTY LINE....YOU TO ARE A COMPLETE MORON...Burn in hell..
Repub's dotn always have great ideas,,but are are much more correct then the fukhead Daschles-Kennedys/Clintons of this world
...
2nd this is for you dirtbags towing you socialists anti-bush agenda..get alife..losers..
BIll Clinton Toured the Oklahoma Boming site after ..HE USED PHOTOS from that visit for his CAmpaign..so STFU!!!!
and if i hear sht about caps lok and spellings ...save it you corksmokin fruit loops...
Love
BiGB
xoxo
YEAH!! so there.