Author Topic: Chicken Hawks  (Read 1709 times)

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Chicken Hawks
« Reply #75 on: April 30, 2004, 01:30:39 AM »
Quote
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.

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
Chicken Hawks
« Reply #76 on: April 30, 2004, 01:31:22 AM »
"All you need is love, love...love is all you need"

Offline Momus--

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Chicken Hawks
« Reply #77 on: April 30, 2004, 02:54:04 AM »
Grun, for someone who poses as a non-partisan, non-voter, you've got an awfully big pair of GOP pom-poms. :lol

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
Chicken Hawks
« Reply #78 on: April 30, 2004, 03:11:18 AM »
Quote
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
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline strk

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 776
Chicken Hawks
« Reply #79 on: April 30, 2004, 07:59:07 AM »
Quote
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.

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Chicken Hawks
« Reply #80 on: April 30, 2004, 09:37:54 AM »
Quote
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.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Chicken Hawks
« Reply #81 on: April 30, 2004, 11:39:08 AM »
Quote
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.

Offline -MZ-

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Chicken Hawks
« Reply #82 on: April 30, 2004, 12:00:48 PM »
Quote
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.

Offline strk

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 776
Chicken Hawks
« Reply #83 on: April 30, 2004, 12:03:01 PM »
Quote
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

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Chicken Hawks
« Reply #84 on: April 30, 2004, 12:17:46 PM »
Quote
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?

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Chicken Hawks
« Reply #85 on: April 30, 2004, 12:30:21 PM »
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....

Offline MrLars

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1447
Only time for a cut-n-paste
« Reply #86 on: April 30, 2004, 12:34:24 PM »
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...

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Chicken Hawks
« Reply #87 on: April 30, 2004, 12:38:32 PM »
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....
« Last Edit: April 30, 2004, 12:41:41 PM by GRUNHERZ »

Offline Furious

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3243
Chicken Hawks
« Reply #88 on: April 30, 2004, 04:16:52 PM »
Quote
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.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Chicken Hawks
« Reply #89 on: April 30, 2004, 04:29:04 PM »
Actually it's not the ears ...


oopss :D