Where do you stand ?

[oneness]

Do you really think this is fair to all that serve ? I only know of 1 person from these boards that watched as his son was sent to IRAQ. Reedster knows who I am talking about. Thank God, his son returned unharmed. Would any of you feel different in you opinions if your son/daughter was sent ? The bottom line is that there are now over 960 brothers, sisters, mothers, daughters, fathers, uncles, aunts that are not coming home. They are now gone, never to be seen again. AND FOR WHAT ? OIL ? FREEDOM ? From a non threat country ? We have destroyed these peoples homes, we have destroyed their factories, we have destroyed their economy, we have destroyed their spirit. They hate us and will not forget soon.

What do you mean 'fair to all that serve'??? When they signed up, we they guaranteed they'd never have to go somewhere or do something they disagreed with politically? Were they told that they wouldn't have to fight or die? Hell no. They knew the risks. They agreed to go where they were told and to do what they were told. You say we're there for OIL??? You do realize that old bit of leftist rhetoric is really getting old and tired. Oh yeah, we're getting TONS of free oil...that's why prices are higher than they have ever been! Wow!!!! LOOKIT all the oil we got, and it only cost us 960 soldiers!!! And who says they were a non-threat? So far, no one but whacked lefties and the media have been pounding that drum...Even the UN, who was against going in at the time we did, admitted they were a threat, recognized that they had biological and chemical weapons, and that they were working diligently towards nuclear capability. Even the 9/11 commission report says the administration acted in good faith on the information available at the time.

Maybe a few of them hate us, but the word from those who have been there is that most are glad we're there and glad we did what we did.

Our government blew their house down and now the big bad wolf has even more enemies. Why ?

How many more? No, they hated us before, and they still hate us. Nothing has changed, except that there a few less of them, and they have one less ally now that Saddam is gone.

What did we get out of it ? Are we safer ? You are a nut job if you believe this to be true. How many of us believe we should have sent 135,000 troops into Afganistan to search and find OSAMA BIN LADEN ? I bet if our priorities were correct, we would have caught him by now...

And had we done this, and had it worked, would we be safer then? One man hiding in a cave in the desert is more a threat than a madman with billions of dollars available to him and the industrly of an entire country? A man who was working to develop nuclear capability, and who had much more reason to hate us than OBL??? How would catching OBL and ignoring Iraq make us safer? Just more nonsensical rhetoric designed to do nothing but erode confidence in the current administration.

 

[mtnframer]

mike w.

CORRIDORS OF POWER IN WASHINGTON FILLED WITH BIBLE CARRYING TRUE BELIEVERS WHO SUBSCRIBE TO BUSH'S EVANGELICAL VEIW OF THE WORLD "Nobody spends more time on his knees...than George W Bush. He is famously born again - at the age of 40 it was goodbye Jack Daniels and hello Jesus. He has never looked back. So while there are plenty of rational people giving rational advice about policy matters in the Bush White House there is also a channel, an input, from on high. The Bush administration hums to the sound of prayer. Prayer meetings take place day and night. It's not uncommon to see White House functionaries hurrying down corridors carrying bibles. A friend who works in the press office of 10 Downing Street tells me that - even in these difficult times - such a sight would be highly unusual. Doubtless the president and his people have been praying earnestly that Saddam Hussein might fall under a bus. But if no bus comes they feel justified in what they have decided to do. Having made the decision to fight the good fight - and have no doubt about it President Bush has made that decision - the nagging doubts, the rational fears, the worldly misgivings - all those things felt so strongly by post-religious Europeans - can be set aside. President Bush looks as tired as Prime Minister Blair sometimes, but never as worried. Both are religious men but the simple American faith - with heaven and hell, good and evil and right and wrong - appears rather better suited to wartime conditions. " 3.17.03 www.bushwatch.com
webb |related stories
JACK DANIELS TO JESUS can you say hypocrite. cmon mike your bubba bushs
#1 shill, what propaganda b.s. are you gonna pull out this time.
steve

 

[oneness]

Hypocrite??? You have the balls to call anyone a hypocrite, you who claim to be a christian (at least I assume you think you're a Christian because you're a catholic) and yet act the least christain of anyone in this thread??? Heh, that's funny.

Going from JD to Jesus makes one a hypocrite? Then again, I can understand your hugely lacking understanding of scripture and what Christianity is all about, you being a catholic and all.

When you come up with a real arguement instead of personal attacks and party rhetoric, let me know so I can respond. There's really not much else to say in response to something this silly. All you can do is cut/paste something someone else wrote, something completely anti-Christian (and yet, again, you claim to be a catholic??) as if it is a valid arguement against Bush...LOOK! Bush is praying, and carrying a bible. What a hypocrite! We're so much smarter than he is...we're "POST-RELIGIOUS"

What utter nonsense.

 

[mtnframer]

mike
gw is a hypocrite because after being a drunk turned holy roller he passed some of the toughest dui laws in the us.after being a coke head he passed
a law that sends people to prison, if they are caught with a line of coke.he
is a hypocrite because,instead of serving his country,like his father did,during wartime he partied in alabama.jack daniels to jesus is fine for some
bum off the street,but this is leader of the free world.mike my anger is not
directed at you,it is at bush.
steve

 

[Flue Steam]

religion and politics two topics that can be argued forever and no one will ever win. THEY ARE ALL OPINIONS!

 

[Scott Stone]

MtnFramer,
So you are saying that someone cannot change his or her mind or actions? He may have doen coke, I have never seen those allegations. I have heard about the well timed DUI conviction announcement. In reality, what people did in the past does not concern me, especially if it does not have what I consider a negative effect on their personality. If they are able to totally change their point of view on something, and get religion, and are making a solid effort to live their religion, what ever it may be, I will support that person.
It is apparent that you have issues with the drug policies that Bush has implemented in Texas and the U.S. I would think that you could allow someone a little more latitude in changing their life. It is obvious that GWB had the intestinal fortitude to change his life, and to walk the walk. What is even more obvious, is that he knew what he was doing to himself, when he signed those laws, if he continued his previous errant ways. Maybe since you have some much anger and hatred towards GWB you should hope that he gets caught breaking the laws he put in place.


Scott Stone

 

[oneness]

mike
gw is a hypocrite because after being a drunk turned holy roller he passed some of the toughest dui laws in the us.after being a coke head he passed
a law that sends people to prison, if they are caught with a line of coke.he
is a hypocrite because,instead of serving his country,like his father did,during wartime he partied in alabama.jack daniels to jesus is fine for some
bum off the street,but this is leader of the free world.mike my anger is not
directed at you,it is at bush.
steve

What dui laws did he pass? Which drug laws has he passed? As far as I know, possession of coke sends you to prison just about anywhere, even before GW was around. dui laws being tougher is a good thing, whether GW had anything to do with them or not. Personally, I think you should lose your license permanently (like, FOREVER) if you're caught driving drunk. The first time. No 2nd chances. If you're caught driving drunk again, (of course, without a license) you should get sent away for a long time.

What it sounds like you're saying is that GW, since he's been a drunk and a cokehead (depending on who you listen to...he's never admitted that as far as I know) then he has no right to pass laws about those things, even though that's his job. I'd be more upset if he DIDN'T perform his job because of his past.

I'd much rather have a leader who has been there and done that, not one who acts as if he's never done anything wrong. You can say what you want about his priviledged upbringing, I see much more a connection between the people and GW than I saw with Clinton, or with Kerry. Is GW a GREAT president...no. That was Reagan's job. Has he done everything right? Of course not, no one does. Do I believe he has the best interests of the nation of the people at heart? Absolutely. I don't believe he would knowingly do anything detrimental to this country or her people. I couldn't say that about Clinton, and I can't say that about Kerry. I really don't CARE whether Bush served, or where he served. The lefties make a big deal about him being in the National Guard, but that's more than you can say for Clinton, and the lefties LOVED him. Hell, he was even more outspoken against the war than Kerry was. THERE'S your hypocrisy. It was great having a commander in chief who ran from military service when it was THEIR guy.

When you mock his service in the Guard you insult every person who's ever served in the Guard. Did GW get preferential treatment during his service? Maybe. If so, was that his fault, or his fathers and those who were responsible for GW's assignments? If that IS the case, it certainly wouldn't be the first time an influential father used his influence to protect his son. Do I agree with it? Of course not. Do I think it affects GW's ability to lead this nation? Of course not. What a man did in his early 20s really has no bearing on who and what he is in his 50s and 60s. I don't CARE whether he served, I don't CARE whether he was a drunk (if anything, I respect him for beating it), I don't CARE whether he was a coke-head, I don't CARE if he was priviledged, and I don't CARE if his father protected him in his early years. Not where it related to his ability to lead this nation.

"p.s. mike g.f.y." sure sounds like your anger was directed at me, and not Bush.

 

[oneness]

religion and politics two topics that can be argued forever and no one will ever win. THEY ARE ALL OPINIONS!

Actually, when it comes to religion, there are opinions, and there is what's right and true. Sometimes the two agree, more often not. There is an absolute truth, and we're all stumbling around in the dark trying to make our way in figuring out what that is. Some are closer than others.

Some say that you can't discuss religion and politics, but I disagree. Rational, adult people should be able to discuss things like this without anger and name calling. Disagreements are good, and sharing ideas is good, even if we don't agree with eachother...that's how change takes place. I may not change your mind, and you may not change mine, but each of us may go away with a new perspective on things.

 

[onecallpowerw]

Scott Stone

Here ya go. It's ok for Bush to change his mind and in yours, he is still top of the world.

Here the republican party is bashing kerry on his change about going to war. Is there a difference ? Look kerry backed your President when he needed him, when kerry figured out with the rest of the world that Bush was a LIAR, he changed his mind. But since reading your post, I am proud of you....This means that even you (DIEHARD REPUBLICAN) can forgive Kerry's mis deeds......

More power to ya brother.....

 

[Dale Walkowsk]

I think Flue Steam hit it pretty close religion and politics are 2 topics that are argued back and forth endlessly because the premises are never defined. Its called circular logic......something is stated in a way that implies its fact and then arguements are made around it even though the premise is never defined or proven to be true so it can go back and forth between people of opposing views forever.....Life begins at birth.....Life begins at conception...yet there is no agreement on what life is. You're unpatriotic if you do this...you're patriotic if you do that.. but no definition of WHAT patriotisim is.
"there is an absolute truth.....some are closer than others"....but no definition of constitutes "absolute truth" so how can a conclusion be made one way or the other?? I think we blind ourselves with this type of approach..we seem to become blind to obvious hypocrisy when under the spell of our own bias...Bush is a "flip-flopper"...Kerry is a "flip-flopper"...no definition of what is flip-flop?...its a sound bite that plays on our own gullibility and turns one against another. Bush is a "uniter not a divider" yet the country seems to be more divided because of these type of sound bites. Bush ran on a States Rights ..less Fed. Gov control of our lives platform...yet if a State and its people vote something in that goes against conservative right values...the Fed steps in and tries to overide the will of the people. Bush used the clout of the family connections to get into the National Guard ahead of dozens of others vieing for a limited number of available positions and then kinda dissappeared along with his military records. (Texas law requires copies of these records which now the White House is trying to block the release of)....he's patriotic..Kerry went to Viet Nam...He also came from a rich family and could have used family connection to avoid the draft...but he didn't...he enlisted..yet he is painted as unpatrioic...never underestimate the power of psychological manipulation.

 

[onecallpowerw]

Way to go Dale....Good Post

I did just notice some flip flopping on oneness part. How in the world you could vote on three areas of this post is beyond me. But the bottom line, you are a flip flopper. Where do you really stand ?

If anybody else would like to see this, just click on the number next to the vote and it will show you who voted where.

 

[Dale Walkowsk]

LOLOLOL...thats a hoot...I had no idea you could click and see who voted where....

 

[oneness]

Here ya go. It's ok for Bush to change his mind and in yours, he is still top of the world.

I don't believe I ever said he was "top of the world".

Ooops, sorry...I didn't see you had addressed this to Scott. I don't see where he said Bush was "top of the world" either.

Here the republican party is bashing kerry on his change about going to war. Is there a difference ?

Of course there's a difference. Bush realized he was destroying himself, and took steps to change that. Years before he ran for major public office. He changed his life because it was what needed to be done, and because it was the right thing to do. He overcame a huge obstacle in his life (yes, a self-imposed obstace, but most really are). His reasons for doing so aren't in question.

Kerry was vehemently anti-war. He was outspoken against the war, and very likely untruthful in the things he said about what went on there. It wasn't until it was time to run for President that he had a "change of heart" about his opinion of the war. His service there was something to be ashamed of until it came time to be proud of it. It is just one of many things that Kerry has flip-flopped on. He's Al Gore all over again...Whatever suits the need at the time...a man of little conviction, and those he has he's willing to lay down for the sake of winning the election.

Say what you want about GW's actions, at least he's stuck to his convictions. He hasn't changed course...He determined what he felt was the best course of action, and he followed through.

Look kerry backed your President when he needed him, when kerry figured out with the rest of the world that Bush was a LIAR, he changed his mind. But since reading your post, I am proud of you....This means that even you (DIEHARD REPUBLICAN) can forgive Kerry's mis deeds......

He figured out Bush was a liar? See, this is just more of the same left wing rhetoric. You say you're not a leftist, but you sure are good at spouting the party line. Please cite ONE example where Bush lied. Just one. No, I don't mean tell me what you've heard, or what you THINK...Please cite ONE case where it was proven Bush lied. Even the 9/11 commission let the lefties down, reporting that it was clear Bush DIDN'T lie.

AM I a die-hard republican? Nope. I'm registered Libertarian, but my views are more Republitarian. If the Republican party and the Libertarian party could merge and combine the best of each of their platforms, THEN we'd really be on our way to changing things for the better. Will it ever happen? I don't think so. I really believe society is sliding further and further towards socialism, and is being hurried on its way by the left wingers.

So why do I defend Bush? Because he's the best choice for the job right now, and because I get so sick of the left wing crap they've been spouting since 2000...He's stupid, he's a liar, he's priviledged, blah blah blah. Anything they can say to cast doubt in the minds of the uninformed and uneducated so they can get their guy in office. Do I agree with everything he has done? Of course not. But we basically have two realistic choices for President in November. I can either vote for the guy with which I have a few disagreements on policy and actions, or I can vote for the guy who is diametrically opposed to just about everything I believe is important. For me, the choice is clear.

 

[oneness]

LOLOLOL...thats a hoot...I had no idea you could click and see who voted where....

Looks like someone has been playing games with the poll. I only voted once, and that was for middle of the road. Gee, I wonder who has access to do something like that?......

 

[oneness]

I think Flue Steam hit it pretty close religion and politics are 2 topics that are argued back and forth endlessly because the premises are never defined. Its called circular logic......something is stated in a way that implies its fact and then arguements are made around it even though the premise is never defined or proven to be true so it can go back and forth between people of opposing views forever.....Life begins at birth.....Life begins at conception...yet there is no agreement on what life is. You're unpatriotic if you do this...you're patriotic if you do that.. but no definition of WHAT patriotisim is.
"there is an absolute truth.....some are closer than others"....but no definition of constitutes "absolute truth" so how can a conclusion be made one way or the other?? I think we blind ourselves with this type of approach..we seem to become blind to obvious hypocrisy when under the spell of our own bias...Bush is a "flip-flopper"...Kerry is a "flip-flopper"...no definition of what is flip-flop?...its a sound bite that plays on our own gullibility and turns one against another. Bush is a "uniter not a divider" yet the country seems to be more divided because of these type of sound bites. Bush ran on a States Rights ..less Fed. Gov control of our lives platform...yet if a State and its people vote something in that goes against conservative right values...the Fed steps in and tries to overide the will of the people. Bush used the clout of the family connections to get into the National Guard ahead of dozens of others vieing for a limited number of available positions and then kinda dissappeared along with his military records. (Texas law requires copies of these records which now the White House is trying to block the release of)....he's patriotic..Kerry went to Viet Nam...He also came from a rich family and could have used family connection to avoid the draft...but he didn't...he enlisted..yet he is painted as unpatrioic...never underestimate the power of psychological manipulation.

You're not related to Bill Clinton, are you? This is hauntingly familliar...something about definging what "Is" is....

We don't have a definition for "flip-flop" or "absolute truth"??? I was unaware that in discussion we needed to define simple and common terms. Buy a dictionary, that might help in your confusion.

I may be mistaken here, but I don't believe Kerry came from a rich family. I know he was born to a military family, but I was unable to find any other information in a quick web search.

 

[Dale Walkowsk]

Oneness don't you think in a disscussion of any kind definitions of the subject being discussed are important just so people are on the same page?
No need to define "absolute truth" or flip-flop because they're "simple" and "common" terms?.....you're proving my premise...you are stating them to be simple and common with no evidence that your definition is the "standard"
If they are in fact simple and common it should be easy for you to explain what you mean and what you assume most people would agree with in defining "absolute truth" or flip-flop..or patriotism..or good or bad etc. give it a shot ..you may be surprised at your own understanding of these things.

 

[oneness]

Of course definitions are important...but as I said, many terms have a clear meaning. What is absolute truth? Truth that is absolute. Completely unwaveringly and absolutely true. Whether you are I can determine what is absolute truth and what is not is another question.

You want to define Patriotism? That's easy. Defining what ACTS or POSITIONS or VALUES are patriotic is an entirely different issue.

What does flip-flop mean? Do I REALLY need to define this for you? C'mon. We're speaking english...THAT is the standard. Maybe flip-flop means something different in Chinese, I have no idea. You and I both know what it means in english (and we both know I wasn't referring to footwear). You want to play semantics, have fun. I'm not interested. You want to discuss issues and values and positions, I'm game. You want to play games, find another playmate.

Oneness don't you think in a disscussion of any kind definitions of the subject being discussed are important just so people are on the same page?
No need to define "absolute truth" or flip-flop because they're "simple" and "common" terms?.....you're proving my premise...you are stating them to be simple and common with no evidence that your definition is the "standard"
If they are in fact simple and common it should be easy for you to explain what you mean and what you assume most people would agree with in defining "absolute truth" or flip-flop..or patriotism..or good or bad etc. give it a shot ..you may be surprised at your own understanding of these things.

 

[Dale Walkowsk]

I may not be making myself clear but you seem to be begging the question.
A single word has a meaning but communication starts when words are put together to convey ideas. You defined "absolute"...not absolute truth and what that constitutes to you. Like defining "truth" or "patriotism" in a sterile way is easy..the dictionary suggestion would work for that..but defining the ACTS or POSTIONS or VALUES is where the "meat" is. Give me an example of what absolute truth is for you. or flip-flopping..or patriotism.
My point was simply to point out the seeming inconsistancy in applying the terms to positions and actions by people of opposing views..Bush flip flops and he's changing with the circumstances if the times ...Kerrys ideas change with the circumstances and he's flip-flopping...I think the best shot at understanding whats really going on is when you define the premises consistantly and apply them consistantly to both or all sides whether the results fit into ones neat little box or not.
This is whats odd to me..I'm saying lets NOT play semantics and define the postions and values and issues...yet it seems you're more concerned with dictionary definitions?? you even suggested I look there for answers..hmmm.
On the issue of absolute truth...give me an example. Whats YOUR definition of flip-flopping.. whats YOUR definition of patriotism and an example?...just so we're on the same page

 

[Mark]

Bush v.s. Kerry Debate Facts

<SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="http://www.georgewbush.com/DebateFacts/DebateFeed-wide.aspx"></SCRIPT>

 

[Dale Walkowsk]

Mark..Joke right?? ..The Bush/Chainy '04 Homepage? This is a source for unbiased reporting ? Isn't that like a Kerry supporter suggesting someone go to the Kerry/Edwards website for unbiased facts? Wouldn't you think that would be a joke.