God help us if she wins

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

October 24th, 2007, 06:56 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Beachcomber:
Hey BS:
Actually, the death toll in Iraq went up considerably after YOUR leftist press made the Abu-Gharaib prison abuse "scandal" their top priority. Before that, there was a relative calm in Iraq, the majority of Iraquis being relieved to have been rid of Saddam. But in their never ending quest to demonize and thwart anything and everything the current administration has tried to do, they don't care who dies in the process. You say BS how stupid Bush is. How fucking stupid is Nancy Pelosi? The House measure condemning Turkey for what the House considers genocide almost 100 years ago. At a time when we need Turkey's cooperation. There is nothing in that motion short of trying to undermine the POTUS. Maybe your Dummycratic controlled Congress should look at our own history and condemn Federal treatment of Blacks and Native Americans. You and your whining, leftist tribe love to refer to Bush as "your president" Trav summed it up, he IS your POTUS too whether you like him or not. You should show a little respect. I don't think he is our best POTUS, I think being in Iraq is a mistake. But look a little further than your own myopic political views before laying all the blame on him.

[ October 24, 2007 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Beachcomber ]

If the Democrats didn't take over the House, we'd still have a president pretending everything is fine in Iraq. It was only after the Democrats won was the president forced to do something different.

So score one for the Democrats - who by the way wouldn't leave Iraq even if they controlled everything. But it does make for good pressure for a president who does things because he believes things to be true, not because he knows them to be true.

[ November 01, 2007 02:47 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]
October 24th, 2007, 06:59 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by travelinman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by The Big Sexy:
She's killed far fewer soldiers than your president has. As a matter of fact, I don't think she has killed any. Your president, on the other hand...

How many are dead now?

[ October 24, 2007 09:41 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]

So when did you renounce your US citizenship?

Whether you like him or not Bush is the President of this county and if you?re a citizen then he is your President too. Did you fail high school civics?

By the way Lincoln ?killed? more Americans in one day then Bush has in 6 years.<hr /></blockquote>Did you learn civics in "collage"? I'm guessing you did. "Collage" is where opinions like yours are formed.

As far as Bush being my President, nah. I suppose he can force me to do things, but I can assure you he doesn't represent me nor The Constitution.
October 24th, 2007, 07:55 PM
Beachcomber

I'm not even that big a fan of President Bush, I do not rank him as one of our "great" presidents. But with that having been said, there hasn't been another attack on US soil since 9/11. Mark my word, no matter who is elected in 2008 there will be another attack on US soil sometime in 2009. The first WTC bombing was in 1993, shortly after President Clinton took office. Then 9/11 only 8 months after Bush took office. They will test us again. The next POTUS better be ready....
October 25th, 2007, 10:25 AM
travelinman

Whether Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is a military leader is for the people of New York and the military to decide, according to a spokeswoman for President Bush.

The issue came up because of Clinton's choice to be in California on a campaign trip instead of in a ceremony this week at which President Bush posthumously awarded the nation's highest military honor to Navy Seal Lt. Michael Murphy of New York.

The question came from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House. He asked: "When the president posthumously awarded our nation's highest military honor to Navy SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy of New York, Sen. [Charles] Schumer of New York was present. But New York's other U.S. senator was absent, 'campaigning in California,' her office explained. And my question: Does the White House believe that any political campaigning justified this New York candidate for ? commander-in-chief of our armed forces being absent from this ceremony for a killed-in-action U.S. Navy hero?"

"I don't know ? look, I don't know the details surrounding that senator's schedule, and I'll let the people of New York and the people of the military decide that," said Dana Perino, Bush's spokeswoman.

The award for Murphy, presented to his parents, is the third Medal of Honor bestowed on the war on terror, all posthumously.

Murphy, of Patchogue on Long Island, was the 29-year-old officer who commanded a four-man SEAL team doing reconnaissance. He was given the assignment of capturing or killing a high-ranking Taliban leader in the Hindu Kush mountains behind enemy lines.

However, the team came under fire from as many as 100 insurgents.

Murphy, already wounded, moved out from behind cover in search of open air for a radio signal to seek help for his comrades. He was shot in the back, dropped the transmitter, but picked it up and completed the call.
October 25th, 2007, 10:27 AM
travelinman

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/ra...0/10232007.jpg
October 25th, 2007, 10:29 AM
travelinman

http://aycu35.webshots.com/image/308...0473785_rs.jpg
October 25th, 2007, 10:34 AM
travelinman

Quote:

Originally posted by The Big Sexy:
Did you learn civics in "collage"? I'm guessing you did. "Collage" is where opinions like yours are formed.

No what I learned in collage was how to cut out little pieces of paper from magazines, glue them to cardboard and hang the in my dorm room.

Typical ?Liberal? Arts education.
November 1st, 2007, 05:20 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by travelinman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by The Big Sexy:
Did you learn civics in "collage"? I'm guessing you did. "Collage" is where opinions like yours are formed.

No what I learned in collage was how to cut out little pieces of paper from magazines, glue them to cardboard and hang the in my dorm room.

Typical ?Liberal? Arts education.<hr /></blockquote>...and mindlessly post them on chat boards.
November 1st, 2007, 05:29 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by travelinman:
Whether Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is a military leader is for the people of New York and the military to decide, according to a spokeswoman for President Bush.

The issue came up because of Clinton's choice to be in California on a campaign trip instead of in a ceremony this week at which President Bush posthumously awarded the nation's highest military honor to Navy Seal Lt. Michael Murphy of New York.

The question came from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House. He asked: "When the president posthumously awarded our nation's highest military honor to Navy SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy of New York, Sen. [Charles] Schumer of New York was present. But New York's other U.S. senator was absent, 'campaigning in California,' her office explained. And my question: Does the White House believe that any political campaigning justified this New York candidate for ? commander-in-chief of our armed forces being absent from this ceremony for a killed-in-action U.S. Navy hero?"

"I don't know ? look, I don't know the details surrounding that senator's schedule, and I'll let the people of New York and the people of the military decide that," said Dana Perino, Bush's spokeswoman.

The award for Murphy, presented to his parents, is the third Medal of Honor bestowed on the war on terror, all posthumously.

Murphy, of Patchogue on Long Island, was the 29-year-old officer who commanded a four-man SEAL team doing reconnaissance. He was given the assignment of capturing or killing a high-ranking Taliban leader in the Hindu Kush mountains behind enemy lines.

However, the team came under fire from as many as 100 insurgents.

Murphy, already wounded, moved out from behind cover in search of open air for a radio signal to seek help for his comrades. He was shot in the back, dropped the transmitter, but picked it up and completed the call.

I don't think that's nearly as bad as undermining democracy by ripping up The Constitution and sending off brave soldiers into a war without a viable plan.

Who respects our soldiers less? Easily, the answer is Bush/Cheney.

All one needs to do is go back to Iran/Contra to see what this current administration is about. Cheney flat out said that it's ok for the President to have "monarchial powers" (trav, you'll have to look "monarchial" up, then check to see where those powers are included in The Constitution.) Cheney also said it was "ok" for Oliver North to lie to Congress.

Well, neither monarchial powers nor lying to Congress is condoned by The Constitution.

But when asked more recently about the President's powers, Cheney said to refer to his comments about Iran/Contra.

For a democracy to appropriately function, the populace needs to be informed. Because the Bush Adminstration blantantly misinforms, we end up with sheep like trav, who like to talk about guns instead of doing anything close to thinking with their heads.

We aren't just treading water with this endless war in Iraq. We are being bled financially to death, with no end in sight. We've lost moral authority. We have a leader who can't be believed, where material lies are ok if the ends justify *his* means. We've lost leadership authority. We are losing this battle in many important ways.

As the dollar declines to near record lows, the government continues to spend and spend, the gap between the uber wealthy and regular joes widens, remember that we have a President who think he has to answer to no one here. To him The Constitution means nothing.

Isn't The Constitution the reason our soldiers are fighting?

[ November 01, 2007 04:09 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]
November 1st, 2007, 05:43 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Beachcomber:
I'm not even that big a fan of President Bush, I do not rank him as one of our "great" presidents. But with that having been said, there hasn't been another attack on US soil since 9/11. Mark my word, no matter who is elected in 2008 there will be another attack on US soil sometime in 2009. The first WTC bombing was in 1993, shortly after President Clinton took office. Then 9/11 only 8 months after Bush took office. They will test us again. The next POTUS better be ready....

You don't seriously believe we are any safer than we were before 9-11, do you? While security is certainly beefed up, we're still grossly unprepared for a major catastrophy, and the threat is proportionally bigger, also.

Just about anyone in the know will tell you that a catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil is not an "if" but "when".

Someone check into where all those billions of dollars for Homeland Security went. See if they were directed at making us safer. What you'll find will make you sick.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page