O/T Can we talk II

[ScottyB]

Jack, You started an interesting thread...I hope this does you justice. I found this interesting and it summarizes some of my views...

It must be good...it quotes Lombardi...

quote:

---

A little perspective I hope this finds you all well. As a typical Republican, I deal only with facts. If someone asks a question, it is answered with facts. As opposed to the liberals who can not answer a question. They just respond with rhetoric. Have a wonderful day. Enjoy life and remember a quote from the late great Vince Lombardi; "If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score? "

Jeffrey E. Uhlig Command Sergeant Major766th Transportation Battalion*NCOs Lead The Way*> --- Begin Attached Message---

 

 

 

 

 

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... in the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq! Worst president in history ? The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in perspective: Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims. FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333per year. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was honoring that commitment. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation. We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick. It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

 

---

Nuff said...Let's vote!

 

ScottyB. trying to stay kind, curteous, and collected...Like Rek'd.

[P_Scott]

ScottyB,

 

Here Here!! Excellent quote. I wish more US citizens could read this forum and realize that Bush is far better than any Democrat could've handled (i.e. Gore) with the same circumstances. We've got to eliminate terrorists before they get a chance to kill more innocent people for political gain. IMO, Bush has exceeded expectations for any leader given the mess that was inherited from "Slick Willy".

The Democrats should look in their own closets for examples of the worst President in our history. They wouldn't have to look too far. I'm thinking about 4 or 5 years ago would suffice. Notice how the Bush campaign didn't take the low route then? Also notice what the Bush campaign is using for their political ads? The Democratic "hopeful's" own words against him. After all, if the donkey is talkin' out of his a$$, what more proof do you need that a mule shouldn't be elected President.

[Smit]

It sounds like a quote from Rush Limbaugh. Everything the republicans do is right, everything the democrats do is wrong.

 

I see no merit in this article.

[gcode]

quote:

---

Everything the republicans do is right, everything the democrats do is wrong.

---

Ahh, You finally understand

 

On a more serious note, I've decided that I'm not mature enough to participate in these political threads so.....

 

gcode signs off

[ScottyB]

No Merit????????

 

The only thing the democrats can cling to is that Bush should have done more before 9-11-01.

 

Like that would have helped.

"On September 10th, 2001...The Bush administration savagly killed Osama bin laden. Mr. bin laden was in his humble cave in the mountains of Afganistan. There was no indication that bin laden had dislike for the U.S. In fact, in a recent interview bin laden said he was mis-quoted and didn't mean "Death to America" what he really said was "I give my best to America!" The Bush administration really did it this time!!"

In a related story...Saddam Hussien has stated "We will find who did this and bring him to justice."

 

The democrats need to step out of the fantasy world. If Gore would have won the election I'd be sending this post from Canada or Mexico.

[Rekd™]

Smit,

 

you thinking these facts have no merit is irelevent. People see what they want to see, not what's really there. They are facts none the less, so just deal with it.

 

'Rekd teh BONK! Bonk on the head!

[Smit]

No problem dealing with it...they are indeed facts. But with tons of republican spin. If you read that article and see reality then good for you, I suppose. 39 deaths in Iraq is not so bad because there were 35 deaths in Detroit. Great logic. Lots more similar logic in that article.

 

You talked me into it, I'm going to be a republican now.

 

[iowajim62]

Smit,

Facts aren't dem or rep they're reality.

Why don't you try dealing with that instead of spinning everything ?

 

What do you mean "I suppose" ? Reality is Reality.

Is your head that far up in the clouds ?

You said great logic, wheres yours ?

[pimij]

I think if the facts compared the size of the military forces and the strengths of their weaponry it would be more realistic comparison. The relevance of past wars cannot be compared to today - there is no country with a military force like the US - in technology - in numbers maybe China but that's it. I think you have more helicopters than we do people in our army in Canada!

[Rekd™]

quote:

---

But with tons of republican spin.

---

 

How 'bout you show us what is republican about these facts. Or what's democratic about them for that matter.

 

The biggest fact here is the fact that you would rather sit there with your anal cranium inversion and deny the truth, or try to steer people away from it instead of accepting it and admitting that you might be wrong, made a mistake, or you might just be mis-informed yourself.

 

Wake up, man.

 

'Rekd teh "Smit teh Clueless in DeSoto"

[Smit]

About the spin. Clearly the article is trying to impress the virtues of republicans while exposing the flaws of the democrats. And as pimij says, you can't compare the relevance of the wars of today with the wars of yesterday. Everything has changed. To compare Germany in World War II to Iraq is useless. Unless you're using it for spin purposes.

 

As for being wrong, making a mistake or being mis-informed, I merely stated that the article was done in an entirely Rush Limbaugh manner. So I'm not sure what you're referring to.

 

Rekd, I know you're not one to respect the opinions of people who disagree with your perspective. That's a very admirable trait. I especially admire the personal attacks. As a matter of fact I hope to be just like you when I grow up....

[Rekd™]

I totally respect the reasonable opinions of others. It's the rock-headed ones that refuse to accept facts that get bonked.

 

'Rekd

[A-ron1286490684]

quote:

---

The relevance of past wars cannot be compared to today

---

Because...

 

 

I'm confused as to why it would be o.k. to bring it up when it comes to Bush and Kerry's military record or when stating that Iraq was a pre-emptive approach to defense.

 

It goes back to the double standard argument once more. When Bush's tax cut included reductions for large corporations as well as tax breaks for small businesses it was labled as "a tax cut for the wealthy". Kerry released his job creation plan which included a 5 percent break for large corporations yet no small business tax reductions. But wait I once again ask a question about a double standard based on an unfounded assumption...

[Jack Mitchell]

quote:

---

Jack, you started an interesting thread...I hope this does you justice. I found this interesting and it summarizes some of my views...

---

To coin the wisdom of words from famous golfer Tiger Woods… My views on the subject are irrelevant…

 

I think it best for me to apply my energies to other more pressing issues for the moment. I wish you well with the thread and hope that all are respected for their opinions.

 

 

Regards, Jack

[pimij]

A-ron -- I dont follow all of this well enough to comment anymore - I follow some of the war efforts but not the political race.

 

I like Jack bow out of this one.

[Smit]

Yes, the rock-headed ones, I'm with you on that one.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

Small businesses contribute a higher percentage per capita to the GDP. They deserve more brreaks and less regulation that larger corporations.

 

True, we pay less in taxes here in the US, than many other places in the world, but we still pay far too much IMHO. If my taxes were not going to pay farmers to NOT grow and sell food and things of that nature I would not be so upset.

 

See, the whole premise for liberalism is to get the people so dependant on the government for their everyday needs that they have to remain in power or else the perception will be that everybody but the evil "rich" people will be homeless and penniless, on the other hand conservatism lets people be in charge of their own destiny with as little governmentt interference and intervention as possible. I have yet to find a liberal that will define with a number, what is considered "rich". Dems love to engage in class warfare... "It's us, the little guy against the evil rich people and we must prevail or face mass starvation..." this type of mantality from somebody who is married to the heir or the Heinz fortune... yea, he's got street cred.... uh huh. At least GW is honest about his money. Freaking Dems....

 

quote:

---

...anal cranium inversion...

---

ROFL!!!!!!

 

 

James teh , where's my kleenex, I seem to have soda coming out of my nose at the moment...

[Rekd™]

quote:

---

James teh , where's my kleenex, I seem to have soda coming out of my nose at the moment...

---

I like the way the bubbles feel in my nasal cavity!