moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Jun 12 2004, 02:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 12 2004, 02:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Still waiting Talesin. I'm not letting this on go. You made several claims in a very forceful and emotional manner - I claimed that rabbid anti-bush sentiment was propaganda, and now the facts relating to his military service have been brought to light things are getting veeeerrry quiet in the anti-Bush camp.......
So - concede that you got carried away originally with anti-bush propaganda sites, or continue the arguement. Up to you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, the point that he's incompetent was successfully made, so what more do we have to do? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Personally I think the obsession with military service in our presidents is rediculous. How are we going to ever achieve world peace if we are only willing to elect presidents who have proven through their actions that they find war acceptable? (but that's another topic)
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 13 2004, 01:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 13 2004, 01:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, the point that he's incompetent was successfully made, so what more do we have to do? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Personally I think the obsession with military service in our presidents is rediculous. How are we going to ever achieve world peace if we are only willing to elect presidents who have proven through their actions that they find war acceptable? (but that's another topic) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I dont believe the point he is incompetent has been made. There is a big difference between making a massive mistake and being incompetent. The latter just makes the former more possible, it doesnt prove the former <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I think the military service fixation is weird too - but I am growing really weary of Bush bashing. That sort of rot once had me convinced the man was a dangerous idiot, and then I heard what a lot of Americans thought of our PM John Howard - and realised just how distorted information comes when foaming at the mouth liberals get their hands on it.
I'm sure he has a lot of faults. I'm sure you can find them and lay them out. But when I have to sift through reams of rants about how he's stupid, dangerous and incompetent, only to discover half of them have no factual basis - it gets irritating. Thats what I feel happened here.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 12 2004, 08:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 12 2004, 08:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Jun 12 2004, 02:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 12 2004, 02:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Still waiting Talesin. I'm not letting this on go. You made several claims in a very forceful and emotional manner - I claimed that rabbid anti-bush sentiment was propaganda, and now the facts relating to his military service have been brought to light things are getting veeeerrry quiet in the anti-Bush camp.......
So - concede that you got carried away originally with anti-bush propaganda sites, or continue the arguement. Up to you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, the point that he's incompetent was successfully made, so what more do we have to do? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Personally I think the obsession with military service in our presidents is rediculous. How are we going to ever achieve world peace if we are only willing to elect presidents who have proven through their actions that they find war acceptable? (but that's another topic) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is a reason I like John Kerry - Not only did he serve in the bloodiest, most gruesome war in our nation's recent history, but he had the balls to stand up in front of the Senate and tell them about all the atrocities he'd seen GIs perform on the Vietnamese, and later on protest the war by throwing his ribbons at the White House (And then the Republicans come in "OMG HE SAID MEDALS IMPEACH ASSASINATE KKK NAZI HIPPY OMG". It was the symolism of it that mattered. No way in hell I'd throw away my Purple Heart or Silver Star, and you probably wouldn't either)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->only to discover half of them have no factual basis - it gets irritating. Thats what I feel happened here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you prove with facts that someone is utterly incapable of leading a nation, has no understanding of politics, and absolutely no tact at all?
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Jun 13 2004, 09:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Jun 13 2004, 09:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How do you prove with facts that someone is utterly incapable of leading a nation, has no understanding of politics, and absolutely no tact at all? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How very astute of you EEK - you dont. You go and grab whatever dirt you can find on said person, then hurl it at them at any given opportunity. You then take the arguement to an online forum, and continue your hysterical bashing until someone trots along, brings out a few "not so convenient facts", then you merely fade from the discussion.
Thats the idea behind propaganda. Thats how you slur people and thats whats happening here. These are the guidelines outlined by the Nazi party propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels:
"The fundamental principle of all propaganda is the repetition of effective arguments, but theses arguments must not be too refined. Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible and appeal to the emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth is unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology, but convenient lies must always be made credible. Hatred and contempt must be directed at particular individuals."
The parallel is too stark to be ignored. In this thread we have seen claims that GWB commited an act of treason by declaring war on Afghanistan without Senate approval - WRONG. GWB was a wartime deserter from the armed forces - WRONG. Personal attacks that are crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect.
And yes, I did take some of the attacks in this thread a little personally, which is why I'm continuing to harp on the lack of a response to my arguement.
If you guys are wondering why Bush is still such a bad person to elect this coming election, please play this game. It is crude at some points in the game but a lot of it is based on what Bush has done in office over the past 4 years and why it is so horrible.
To spite being wrong on so many things, I wish I had the time to correct it, but I wasted allot of it playing the game. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> It was fun, but honestly someone who has such a...urge to express his political opinion should not be wasting his time with stupid things like this.
Anyway it?s a fun game but chalk full of pro-democrat left wing garbage.
?.not to mention Voltron having anal sex with the statue of liberty?.really how can anyone be expected to be taken seriously?.
Yeah, that was crude but all his information was researched, its not like he made these numbers up. It also shows tons of other reasons why Bush shouldn't be re-elected this coming November besides the Iraq point that has been brought up so much.
Of course you aren't going to even think that what he said was true or not Reasa its called a closed-mind. However I prefer to look at facts and how they affect the lives of us, the Americans. So far the numbers don't look too good.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 16 2004, 07:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 16 2004, 07:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Of course you aren't going to even think that what he said was true or not Reasa its called a closed-mind. However I prefer to look at facts and how they affect the lives of us, the Americans. So far the numbers don't look too good. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Umm if I had a "closed mind" I would have stopped playing that...thing after I saw Voltron having anal sex with the statue of liberty and Bush shooting up the UN with a chicken walker.
Pardon me for not taking this seriously, but when John Kerry rides in on a helicopter to save the day from the 3 headed pig/Bush/hawk monster I start to get a little skeptical.
Of course when you beat the game it takes you promptly to Kerry's web sites, so you can do the right thing for America and not vote for the <i>evil mutant piggish Republicans who will steal your money and eat your flesh</i>, because everyone who votes Republican must be a FOX watching, church going, closed minded son of satin...right?
This....thing presented only one side of the issue and its "researched facts" were stretched and manipulated to get the creators ideals across better.
Edit: "It is crude at some points in the game but a lot of it is based on what Bush has done in office over the past 4 years and why it is so horrible."
Even you yourself say a lot of it is <b>based</b> on what Bush has done, well I can make a story based off of anything and twist around the facts of what really happened to suit my purposes. Ever see the movie Pearl Harbor, that was based on a true story....I think Snow White was too. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyway play the game, I found it fun, but take what it says with a grain of salt.
One: The game is complete and total trash, I would not trust any of the facts presented in it more than the text that it is printed with
Two:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a reason I like John Kerry - Not only did he serve in the bloodiest, most gruesome war in our nation's recent history, but he had the balls to stand up in front of the Senate and tell them about all the atrocities he'd seen GIs perform on the Vietnamese, and later on protest the war by throwing his ribbons at the White House (And then the Republicans come in "OMG HE SAID MEDALS IMPEACH ASSASINATE KKK NAZI HIPPY OMG". It was the symolism of it that mattered. No way in hell I'd throw away my Purple Heart or Silver Star, and you probably wouldn't either)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The medals and ribbons that Kerry threw over the fence were not his mdeals, but another veterans. His medals are down in showcase in one of his many mansions.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jun 16 2004, 08:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jun 16 2004, 08:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The medals and ribbons that Kerry threw over the fence were not his mdeals, but another veterans. His medals are down in showcase in one of his many mansions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Its widely known that Kerry threw his own ribbons, but the medals he threw belonged to another veteran who asked Kerry to throw them. And his medals are actually in a showcase in his Senate office I believe.
/The more you know
As for the Republicans trying to paint Kerry as a super-rich elitist, just look at President Bush and who he caters too.
<!--QuoteBegin-antfarm007+Jun 16 2004, 09:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (antfarm007 @ Jun 16 2004, 09:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jun 16 2004, 08:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jun 16 2004, 08:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The medals and ribbons that Kerry threw over the fence were not his mdeals, but another veterans. His medals are down in showcase in one of his many mansions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its widely known that Kerry threw his own ribbons, but the medals he threw belonged to another veteran who asked Kerry to throw them. And his medals are actually in a showcase in his Senate office I believe.
/The more you know
As for the Republicans trying to paint Kerry as a super-rich elitist, just look at President Bush and who he caters too. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Investigation/kerry_vietnam_medals_040425.html' target='_blank'>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/In...als_040425.html</a>
Yes it seems he threw away ribbons not medals, and these ribbons may have been his, but it is clear in all accounts that he did not throw away his medals. Now if I earned medals in a war, I would keep them as a testament to myself and what I did, but if he is going to take a stand, then back down or not go it all the way, and use someone else’s medals, what does that say about his character?
Also the ribbons are virtually worthless in military circles, it's the medal that counts.
Also, for the record Kerry is super rich and in our social structure he would be considered by some as rather elite.<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Don't forget that Kerry actually served in the Vietnam war, whereas our current president didn't. I don't even know why some of you guys are actually looking at Kerry like he didn't have the right to protest or throw his ribbons. Just look at bush, he didn't even serve in any wars!
Also reasa, so far I have seen a lot of defending, I would love to see some facts on what Bush has done, maybe you can show me some good things he has done for this country, I might have a better opinion of my president then.
BTW, I am sorry if you took offense to me calling you a closed-mind, I just did that to tick you off.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 17 2004, 03:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 17 2004, 03:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes it seems he threw away ribbons not medals, and these ribbons may have been his, but it is clear in all accounts that he did not throw away his medals. Now if I earned medals in a war, I would keep them as a testament to myself and what I did, but if he is going to take a stand, then back down or not go it all the way, and use someone else’s medals, what does that say about his character? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This whole 'ribbon or medal' flap absolutely amazes me. I simply <i>love</i> how the same people who scrutinize every single tiny aspect of Kerry's medals and his actions after the war most often will give Bush's service a quick pass. [edit: this isn't meant as a personal swipe at anyone; it is mostly in reference to the people who have driven this story into the ground in the media.]
"Er, he failed to make an appearance at--" "HE WAS THERE! THEY HAVE AN EYEWITNESS" "Well, yeah, but it's only <i>one</i> eye witness, and you have to figure, in a big military base, a celebrity's son like George W. Bush would be pretty hard to mis--" "THEY HAVE PAPERS SHOWING HE SERVED!" "Yeah, but interestingly enough, the papers contradict parts of their official story and--" "HE HAD TO TRANSFER AND THAT'S WHY IT'S SO DIFFICULT TO TRACK!" "Riiiight. At any rate, he was grounded--" "WAS NOT!" "Was <b>too</b>, and interestingly enough, it was because he missed his required physical, and that was actually right around when they incorporated mandatory drug testing, and the word on the street had it tha--" "HE DID NOT DO DRUGS! THAT'S JUST A CRAZY RUMOR! BY THE WAY, I HEARD ON HANNITY THAT KERRY WENT TO VIET NAM WITH JANE FONDA AND SHOT AT AMERICAN TROOPS!" "Sure he did. At any rate, how did George W. Bush get into the Air Guard in the first place-- I mean, he bypassed a number of--" "HE GOT IN ON HIS OWN MERIT. AND HE DID IT TO SERVE HIS COUNTR--" "Yes, of course, to protect us from the treacherous advances of the Mexican Air Force, <i>long</i> considered to be a <b>significant</b> threat." "DOESN'T MATTER. KERRY THREW A BUNCH OF MEDALS BACK (AND TRUST ME, WE'VE GONE OVER THE SEMANTIC NUANCES HERE WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB TO OUT THIS COMMIE) AND HAS NO CHARACTER. <b>BUSH</b> HAS CHARACTER." "Doesn't he have, like, at least one DUI for driving into a hedge, and a history of heavy, heavy drinking and rumored drug abuse, and a bunch of failed companies that people had to bail him out of, and a shady history of insider trading and then covering it up, and--" "KERRY IS A RICH ELITIST." "Ya know, Bush wasn't exactly brought up on skid row . . . " "KERRY HATES AMERICA." "Uh . . . sure."
Yeah, so this is a bit over the top, but honestly, it <i>does</i> crack me up when the people who are ready to give Bush a quick stamp of approval over his service, no matter how comically spotty the evidence is, suddenly whip out the bifocals and the little green accountant visor to analyze every second of Kerry's Viet Nam/Post Viet Nam activity like it's the frigging Zapruder film, even going so far as to question the <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&e=4&u=/usatoday/20040616/cm_usatoday/themeaningofapurpleheart' target='_blank'>extent of his injuries</a> which caused <i>other</i> people to award him medals.
Personally, I think the country could do a lot better that Kerry, but <i>nothing</i> in Bush's biography, or in his recent presidency makes me think for a second that he displays 'character' (except when it is apparently mistakenly used to describe someone who wears cowboy boots, and isn't capable of reading a book or changing their mind). 'Character' would be him realizing the mess that he's gotten this country into, and then pulling an LBJ so we could get McCain in there as the GOP candidate and actually have a guy <i>worth</i> voting for.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 17 2004, 12:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 17 2004, 12:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also reasa, so far I have seen a lot of defending, I would love to see some facts on what Bush has done, maybe you can show me some good things he has done for this country, I might have a better opinion of my president then.
BTW, I am sorry if you took offense to me calling you a closed-mind, I just did that to tick you off.
Whether you want to believe it or not the economy is making a comeback, and there are plenty of jobs to go around. If people want to blame Bush for when the economy is doing poorly he should get credit when it starts to do well.
Also he has started to bring democracy to the Middle East, a move I agree with, but I'm sure you don't. I know Bush is not the best president we could have, but as far as I'm concerned he's better then Kerry and at least he can make up his mind.
BTW, after posting that game, and then expecting us to take anything in it seriously, I'm not quite sure how I got on the defensive.
Give me a good reason to belive one word of text in that mess.
He has created the office of Homeland security, and helped make the country an overall safer place then it was before 9/11. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I wouldn't exactly <a href='http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/special_packages/focus/6926499.htm?1c' target='_blank'>brag about that</a> if I were him.
My favorite part, which people seem to have forgotten:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House opposed creation of a homeland security department, but in June 2002, with Congress on the verge of establishing the department anyway, President Bush reversed himself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hated the idea, opposed the idea, and then when Congress was going to go ahead and do it without his approval, it was suddenly <i>his</i> idea.
I mean, it's the classic 'Glad I thought of that!' gag, writ LARGE.
Or, in today's political landscape, we call that a 'flip-flop'.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jun 17 2004, 12:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jun 17 2004, 12:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah, so this is a bit over the top, but honestly, it <i>does</i> crack me up when the people who are ready to give Bush a quick stamp of approval over his service, no matter how comically spotty the evidence is, suddenly whip out the bifocals and the little green accountant visor to analyze every second of Kerry's Viet Nam/Post Viet Nam activity like it's the frigging Zapruder film, even going so far as to question the <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&e=4&u=/usatoday/20040616/cm_usatoday/themeaningofapurpleheart' target='_blank'>extent of his injuries</a> which caused <i>other</i> people to award him medals.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You know I think the major difference is Bush didn't have his military service broadcasted on major media outlets prior to receiving the Republican nomination.
If you looked at the media before the medal thing was brought up, Kerry was being portrayed as this big war hero, which IMO he is to an extent, he did his service and deserves respect for that. But he must have been kicking himself when they found out about his little protest.
If Kerry would have just come out right away and said this is what I did and this is why I did it, this thing wouldn't have really been a big deal. What caused it to become so dragged out were the many conflicting stories coming from his camp. This just gives further evidence that the man is hypocrite and well change his opinion based on the whims of the newest poll results.
Like I have said, military service does not make a good president, just look at Grant. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jun 17 2004, 01:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jun 17 2004, 01:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hated the idea, opposed the idea, and then when Congress was going to go ahead and do it without his approval, it was suddenly <i>his</i> idea.
I mean, it's the classic 'Glad I thought of that!' gag, writ LARGE.
Or, in today's political landscape, we call that a 'flip-flop'. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58748,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58748,00.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->President Bush said Friday that he would have no choice but to veto the homeland security bill if it did not grant him executive power to hire, fire and transfer employees<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"We need this department for one main reason," Bush said in the Friday-morning address at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. "America needs a group of dedicated professionals to wake up each morning with the overriding duty of protecting the American people."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know I don't think Bush hated the idea of a Homeland Security Department, he simply disagreed with the way things were set with it. Bush knows what he wants, and he wasn't going to support this until, in his eyes, it was done right.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 17 2004, 06:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 17 2004, 06:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You know I don't think Bush hated the idea of a Homeland Security Department, he simply disagreed with the way things were set with it. Bush knows what he wants, and he wasn't going to support this until, in his eyes, it was done right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't believe you're correct. Bush wanted a Homeland Security <i>office</i>, not a cabinet-level Homeland Security <i>Department</i>. The two set-ups are significantly different.
He didn't support the <i>configuration which exists today</i> until it was going to be created without his blessing or approval. <i>Then</i> he supported it. <b>That's</b> the issue here, not whether or not he liked the abstract concept.
I'll try to find more info on its creation to clarify this.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jun 17 2004, 10:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jun 17 2004, 10:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't believe you're correct. Bush wanted a Homeland Security <i>office</i>, not a cabinet-level Homeland Security <i>Department</i>. The two set-ups are significantly different.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"We need this <b>department</b> for one main reason," Bush said in the Friday-morning address at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. "America needs a group of dedicated professionals to wake up each morning with the overriding duty of protecting the American people." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He very clearly says department, as far as I can tell, it seems he was most certainly for some sort of Homeland security department, just not the one that Congress had adopted. You know the word games they play with these bills, it's nothing new. Many bills are edited hundreds of times until all sides can agree on it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He didn't support the configuration which exists today until it was going to be created without his blessing or approval. Then he supported it. That's the issue here, not whether or not he liked the abstract concept.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I belive the changes he wanted were made, <i>then</i> he supported it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The president is very concerned that the substance of the Senate's proposal so far on homeland security is a step backward, not forward, in protecting the country," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters traveling with the president. "The president remains hopeful and optimistic that these provisions can be fixed without a veto. But he does feel strongly about it."
"He will receive a recommendation from his advisers to veto this if the president's concerns are not addressed," Fleischer added.
The president also opposes requiring Senate confirmation for his assistant on homeland security issues, currently former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is plain to see that he was not against the actual creation of a Homeland Security department, he just had certain things which he did not like, and when corrected, he accepted the bill. A President disagreeing with certain things on a bill, and threatening to veto is nothing new, it's only a big deal because this particular bill provides sweeping changes within the government.
well it doesnt really matter WHO wins, kerry and bush are on the same dialogue about being in iraq and taking over, HOWEVER, kerry has different plans for the us. bush is ruining us!
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
If we're talking about the original concept presented shortly after the attacks then I would agree that many, possibly including Bush, were skeptical that an entire department was necessary. Considering the size of the FBI and CIA and Defense Department and the Armed Forces, smaller government Conservatives everywhere were crinkling their collective noses. After the outlines were published, however, most everyone was on board.
And then the Dems wanted to placate the Federal workers unions. Denied!
As I said, I'm going to double check on the timeframes and language and what not, and as you said Reasa, parsing the various terms can get <i>very</i> confusing <i>very</i> fast.
If I'm incorrect, I will gladly . . . uh . . . stand corrected.
However, I <i>am</i> a bit suspicious of him, if only because this seems to follow the precedent set with his Texas Patients' Bill of Rights claim, which Molly Ivans summarizes nicely here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->During his presidential campaign, Bush, who likes to have things both ways, claimed he personally had gotten "Republicans and Democrats together" in Texas to pass this strong bill of rights. Actually, he vetoed it the first time and then refused to sign the right-to-sue provision the second time, after it was passed by a veto-proof majority. Because he did sign other, less important parts of the package of bills, however, for campaign purposes he proudly claimed authorship of the very bills he had fought. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 16 2004, 10:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 16 2004, 10:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 17 2004, 12:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 17 2004, 12:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also reasa, so far I have seen a lot of defending, I would love to see some facts on what Bush has done, maybe you can show me some good things he has done for this country, I might have a better opinion of my president then.
BTW, I am sorry if you took offense to me calling you a closed-mind, I just did that to tick you off.
Whether you want to believe it or not the economy is making a comeback, and there are plenty of jobs to go around. If people want to blame Bush for when the economy is doing poorly he should get credit when it starts to do well.
Also he has started to bring democracy to the Middle East, a move I agree with, but I'm sure you don't. I know Bush is not the best president we could have, but as far as I'm concerned he's better then Kerry and at least he can make up his mind.
BTW, after posting that game, and then expecting us to take anything in it seriously, I'm not quite sure how I got on the defensive.
Give me a good reason to belive one word of text in that mess. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah your right I don't believe we should impose our beliefs upon another sovereign nation. Who deems it right to invade a country and force your way of life on them?
How would you feel if they were the most powerful nation and invaded America and forced us to change to a totally despotic regime? If the people want to change, over time the government will change on its own and thats really how it should be.
As for the Homeland security, do you really think thats going to protect us? I think the easiest way to protect us is to get the hell out of the Middle East and leave them alone, maybe if we stop giving Israel billions of dollars a month aswell.
The thing about our Homeland security is that it creates a false sense of security. It really couldn't stop terrorists from doing something really bad like 9/11. There are a lot of weaknesses in our government and just looking at 9/11 you can see how much damage they can do with minimal amounts of cash put into the destruction.
Yes, I do believe the economy is making a comeback but I think that it really could have made a comeback years ago. As a president you can't do that much to MAJORLY change the balance of the economy but what Bush did with tax-cuts and military spending, etc, was crazy. What he did to our economy will be in our future for a long time.
lol- its great how everyone ran off after monkeys last post on kerry and his vietnam service.
It's funny because- Bush rides on this huge idea of "character strength" and "integrity" versus intelligence or other political skills. The funny thing is, what says more about a persons character when a war comes about? Kerry went, Bush stayed. Kerry was also from a wealthy family, so its debatable whether he'd be able to skirt the war as well. Bush however, was just unacceptable.
Most people here will now admit that the war, at least executed like it was, was a big mistake. Yet, instead of talking about accountability, we find ways to move past that and argue more trivial things. This was too large of a mistake to go unpunished. Iraq was a crapshoot, a gamble with someone else's money without knowing the odds.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Senators Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Thursday proposed the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security with the authority and resources to carry out its mission effectively, while still being accountable to the public.
Sen. Committee on Governmental Affairs Press Release October 11th, 2001
Q But if we're talking about consolidating all of these agencies, why not create a department of homeland security, as may lawmakers have suggested? And rather than take Customs, Border, whatever, and put it all under DOJ, why not bring it all under the auspices, under one umbrella of homeland security?
MR. FLEISCHER: The reason for that, John, is if you take a look at how the federal government is set up across the myriad of agencies or more than a dozen agencies, many of which have components that deal with homeland security in one form or another, I'm not aware of a single proposal on Capitol Hill that would take every single one of those agencies out from their current missions and put them under homeland security. So even if you took half of them out and put them under a Cabinet-level office of homeland security, the White House would still need, in the president's estimation, an adviser on how to coordinate all the myriad of activities the federal government's involved in. So, creating a cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything. The White House needs a coordinator to work with the agencies wherever they are.
Q So why, then, is the Lieberman bill a bad idea, in your estimation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Lieberman bill. I don't -- (inaudible) -- specifics. Do you want to define the Lieberman bill?
Ari Fleischer White House Briefing March 19th, 2002
Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa, and Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., Thursday called for a new structure within the executive branch to help fight the war against terrorism within United States borders. The proposal, building upon a bill introduced by Lieberman and Specter last year, would create a National Department for Homeland Defense to focus federal attention and resources on securing our borders and protecting the critical infrastructure.
Sen. Committee on Governmental Affairs Press Release April 11th, 2002
The Cabinet post idea has political appeal. For instance, a major sponsor is freshman Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who sees it as enhancing his credentials on terrorism-related issues in a tough re-election fight with the expected GOP primary winner, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, chairman of the House subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Yet creating the 16th Cabinet department would represent an expansion of big government, a concept that the president makes a point of opposing.
Marianne Means Seattle Post-Intelligencer May 14, 2002
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said today he would advise President Bush to veto any legislation creating a congressionally authorized Office of Homeland Security if Congress approves a bill this year. "I'd probably recommend he veto it," Ridge told a National Journal Group editorial board meeting.
CongressDaily May 30, 2002
So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people.
George W. Bush Address to the Nation June 6th, 2002
Hundreds of lawmakers attending the White House barbecue Wednesday night had no idea what was unfolding. The only two believed to have been briefed, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), were told during the picnic. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), author of legislation much like the White House's proposal, got a call from Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge Wednesday night asking about details of his bill -- but Ridge didn't give a hint of what was coming in the morning.
Washington Post June 7th, 2002
I asked the Congress to work with me to come up with a new Department of Homeland Security to make sure that not only can this administration function better but future administrations will be able to deal with the true threats we face as we get into the 21st century, a Homeland Security Department which takes over the 100 different agencies and brings them under one umbrella so that there's a single priority and a new culture, all aimed at dealing with the threats ... The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this President and future Presidents to better keep the American people secure.
George W. Bush Trenton, New Jersey September 23rd, 2002<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, that's what I don't like-- look how smug and self righteous he gets at the end, there.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 17 2004, 12:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 17 2004, 12:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How would you feel if they were the most powerful nation and invaded America and forced us to change to a totally despotic regime? If the people want to change, over time the government will change on its own and thats really how it should be.
As for the Homeland security, do you really think thats going to protect us? I think the easiest way to protect us is to get the hell out of the Middle East and leave them alone, maybe if we stop giving Israel billions of dollars a month aswell.
The thing about our Homeland security is that it creates a false sense of security. It really couldn't stop terrorists from doing something really bad like 9/11. There are a lot of weaknesses in our government and just looking at 9/11 you can see how much damage they can do with minimal amounts of cash put into the destruction.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> First off the gorvement in Iraq is not a "despotic regime"
I personally think they are better off with this then Saddam and his brutal dictatorship run on fear, but that's my opinion.
As for Homeland Security, they are doing a much better job of protecting us then was previously done before 9/11. I have seen that they are working first hand, in a story I find very interesting, because they may have saved my life. I live very close to the Berwick nuclear power plant, some time after 9/11 a man was reportedly tracked down by authorities and arrested. It turns out he had very detailed drawings of the aforementioned nuclear plant, and he was reportedly from Afghanistan. I heard this on the local news one night, and a small blurb about it on CNN, after that nothing.
Just because you don't hear about it does not mean they aren't working everyday preventing things like this. Whether or not anything would have happened I don't know, but it brought the matter much closer to home and I am grateful for their efforts.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jun 17 2004, 12:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jun 17 2004, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this President and future Presidents to better keep the American people secure.
George W. Bush Trenton, New Jersey September 23rd, 2002<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, that's what I don't like-- look how smug and self righteous he gets at the end, there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He didn't want "complete wastes of space" to keep their jobs at the expense of national security simply because the slackers belong to a union.
Comments
So - concede that you got carried away originally with anti-bush propaganda sites, or continue the arguement. Up to you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, the point that he's incompetent was successfully made, so what more do we have to do? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Personally I think the obsession with military service in our presidents is rediculous. How are we going to ever achieve world peace if we are only willing to elect presidents who have proven through their actions that they find war acceptable? (but that's another topic)
Personally I think the obsession with military service in our presidents is rediculous. How are we going to ever achieve world peace if we are only willing to elect presidents who have proven through their actions that they find war acceptable? (but that's another topic) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont believe the point he is incompetent has been made. There is a big difference between making a massive mistake and being incompetent. The latter just makes the former more possible, it doesnt prove the former <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I think the military service fixation is weird too - but I am growing really weary of Bush bashing. That sort of rot once had me convinced the man was a dangerous idiot, and then I heard what a lot of Americans thought of our PM John Howard - and realised just how distorted information comes when foaming at the mouth liberals get their hands on it.
I'm sure he has a lot of faults. I'm sure you can find them and lay them out. But when I have to sift through reams of rants about how he's stupid, dangerous and incompetent, only to discover half of them have no factual basis - it gets irritating. Thats what I feel happened here.
So - concede that you got carried away originally with anti-bush propaganda sites, or continue the arguement. Up to you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, the point that he's incompetent was successfully made, so what more do we have to do? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Personally I think the obsession with military service in our presidents is rediculous. How are we going to ever achieve world peace if we are only willing to elect presidents who have proven through their actions that they find war acceptable? (but that's another topic) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a reason I like John Kerry - Not only did he serve in the bloodiest, most gruesome war in our nation's recent history, but he had the balls to stand up in front of the Senate and tell them about all the atrocities he'd seen GIs perform on the Vietnamese, and later on protest the war by throwing his ribbons at the White House (And then the Republicans come in "OMG HE SAID MEDALS IMPEACH ASSASINATE KKK NAZI HIPPY OMG". It was the symolism of it that mattered. No way in hell I'd throw away my Purple Heart or Silver Star, and you probably wouldn't either)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->only to discover half of them have no factual basis - it gets irritating. Thats what I feel happened here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you prove with facts that someone is utterly incapable of leading a nation, has no understanding of politics, and absolutely no tact at all?
How very astute of you EEK - you dont. You go and grab whatever dirt you can find on said person, then hurl it at them at any given opportunity. You then take the arguement to an online forum, and continue your hysterical bashing until someone trots along, brings out a few "not so convenient facts", then you merely fade from the discussion.
Thats the idea behind propaganda. Thats how you slur people and thats whats happening here. These are the guidelines outlined by the Nazi party propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels:
"The fundamental principle of all propaganda is the repetition of effective arguments, but theses arguments must not be too refined. Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible and appeal to the emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth is unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology, but convenient lies must always be made credible. Hatred and contempt must be directed at particular individuals."
The parallel is too stark to be ignored. In this thread we have seen claims that GWB commited an act of treason by declaring war on Afghanistan without Senate approval - WRONG. GWB was a wartime deserter from the armed forces - WRONG. Personal attacks that are crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect.
And yes, I did take some of the attacks in this thread a little personally, which is why I'm continuing to harp on the lack of a response to my arguement.
<a href='http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html' target='_blank'>http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html</a>
It was fun, but honestly someone who has such a...urge to express his political opinion should not be wasting his time with stupid things like this.
Anyway it?s a fun game but chalk full of pro-democrat left wing garbage.
?.not to mention Voltron having anal sex with the statue of liberty?.really how can anyone be expected to be taken seriously?.
Of course you aren't going to even think that what he said was true or not Reasa its called a closed-mind. However I prefer to look at facts and how they affect the lives of us, the Americans. So far the numbers don't look too good.
Umm if I had a "closed mind" I would have stopped playing that...thing after I saw Voltron having anal sex with the statue of liberty and Bush shooting up the UN with a chicken walker.
Pardon me for not taking this seriously, but when John Kerry rides in on a helicopter to save the day from the 3 headed pig/Bush/hawk monster I start to get a little skeptical.
Of course when you beat the game it takes you promptly to Kerry's web sites, so you can do the right thing for America and not vote for the <i>evil mutant piggish Republicans who will steal your money and eat your flesh</i>, because everyone who votes Republican must be a FOX watching, church going, closed minded son of satin...right?
This....thing presented only one side of the issue and its "researched facts" were stretched and manipulated to get the creators ideals across better.
Edit: "It is crude at some points in the game but a lot of it is based on what Bush has done in office over the past 4 years and why it is so horrible."
Even you yourself say a lot of it is <b>based</b> on what Bush has done, well I can make a story based off of anything and twist around the facts of what really happened to suit my purposes. Ever see the movie Pearl Harbor, that was based on a true story....I think Snow White was too. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyway play the game, I found it fun, but take what it says with a grain of salt.
Two:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a reason I like John Kerry - Not only did he serve in the bloodiest, most gruesome war in our nation's recent history, but he had the balls to stand up in front of the Senate and tell them about all the atrocities he'd seen GIs perform on the Vietnamese, and later on protest the war by throwing his ribbons at the White House (And then the Republicans come in "OMG HE SAID MEDALS IMPEACH ASSASINATE KKK NAZI HIPPY OMG". It was the symolism of it that mattered. No way in hell I'd throw away my Purple Heart or Silver Star, and you probably wouldn't either)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The medals and ribbons that Kerry threw over the fence were not his mdeals, but another veterans. His medals are down in showcase in one of his many mansions.
Its widely known that Kerry threw his own ribbons, but the medals he threw belonged to another veteran who asked Kerry to throw them. And his medals are actually in a showcase in his Senate office I believe.
/The more you know
As for the Republicans trying to paint Kerry as a super-rich elitist, just look at President Bush and who he caters too.
Its widely known that Kerry threw his own ribbons, but the medals he threw belonged to another veteran who asked Kerry to throw them. And his medals are actually in a showcase in his Senate office I believe.
/The more you know
As for the Republicans trying to paint Kerry as a super-rich elitist, just look at President Bush and who he caters too. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Investigation/kerry_vietnam_medals_040425.html' target='_blank'>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/In...als_040425.html</a>
Yes it seems he threw away ribbons not medals, and these ribbons may have been his, but it is clear in all accounts that he did not throw away his medals.
Now if I earned medals in a war, I would keep them as a testament to myself and what I did, but if he is going to take a stand, then back down or not go it all the way, and use someone else’s medals, what does that say about his character?
Also the ribbons are virtually worthless in military circles, it's the medal that counts.
<img src='http://www.surplusinc.com/medals/p24pheart.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Also, for the record Kerry is super rich and in our social structure he would be considered by some as rather elite.<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also reasa, so far I have seen a lot of defending, I would love to see some facts on what Bush has done, maybe you can show me some good things he has done for this country, I might have a better opinion of my president then.
BTW, I am sorry if you took offense to me calling you a closed-mind, I just did that to tick you off.
Now if I earned medals in a war, I would keep them as a testament to myself and what I did, but if he is going to take a stand, then back down or not go it all the way, and use someone else’s medals, what does that say about his character?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This whole 'ribbon or medal' flap absolutely amazes me. I simply <i>love</i> how the same people who scrutinize every single tiny aspect of Kerry's medals and his actions after the war most often will give Bush's service a quick pass. [edit: this isn't meant as a personal swipe at anyone; it is mostly in reference to the people who have driven this story into the ground in the media.]
"Er, he failed to make an appearance at--"
"HE WAS THERE! THEY HAVE AN EYEWITNESS"
"Well, yeah, but it's only <i>one</i> eye witness, and you have to figure, in a big military base, a celebrity's son like George W. Bush would be pretty hard to mis--"
"THEY HAVE PAPERS SHOWING HE SERVED!"
"Yeah, but interestingly enough, the papers contradict parts of their official story and--"
"HE HAD TO TRANSFER AND THAT'S WHY IT'S SO DIFFICULT TO TRACK!"
"Riiiight. At any rate, he was grounded--"
"WAS NOT!"
"Was <b>too</b>, and interestingly enough, it was because he missed his required physical, and that was actually right around when they incorporated mandatory drug testing, and the word on the street had it tha--"
"HE DID NOT DO DRUGS! THAT'S JUST A CRAZY RUMOR! BY THE WAY, I HEARD ON HANNITY THAT KERRY WENT TO VIET NAM WITH JANE FONDA AND SHOT AT AMERICAN TROOPS!"
"Sure he did. At any rate, how did George W. Bush get into the Air Guard in the first place-- I mean, he bypassed a number of--"
"HE GOT IN ON HIS OWN MERIT. AND HE DID IT TO SERVE HIS COUNTR--"
"Yes, of course, to protect us from the treacherous advances of the Mexican Air Force, <i>long</i> considered to be a <b>significant</b> threat."
"DOESN'T MATTER. KERRY THREW A BUNCH OF MEDALS BACK (AND TRUST ME, WE'VE GONE OVER THE SEMANTIC NUANCES HERE WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB TO OUT THIS COMMIE) AND HAS NO CHARACTER. <b>BUSH</b> HAS CHARACTER."
"Doesn't he have, like, at least one DUI for driving into a hedge, and a history of heavy, heavy drinking and rumored drug abuse, and a bunch of failed companies that people had to bail him out of, and a shady history of insider trading and then covering it up, and--"
"KERRY IS A RICH ELITIST."
"Ya know, Bush wasn't exactly brought up on skid row . . . "
"KERRY HATES AMERICA."
"Uh . . . sure."
Yeah, so this is a bit over the top, but honestly, it <i>does</i> crack me up when the people who are ready to give Bush a quick stamp of approval over his service, no matter how comically spotty the evidence is, suddenly whip out the bifocals and the little green accountant visor to analyze every second of Kerry's Viet Nam/Post Viet Nam activity like it's the frigging Zapruder film, even going so far as to question the <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&e=4&u=/usatoday/20040616/cm_usatoday/themeaningofapurpleheart' target='_blank'>extent of his injuries</a> which caused <i>other</i> people to award him medals.
Personally, I think the country could do a lot better that Kerry, but <i>nothing</i> in Bush's biography, or in his recent presidency makes me think for a second that he displays 'character' (except when it is apparently mistakenly used to describe someone who wears cowboy boots, and isn't capable of reading a book or changing their mind). 'Character' would be him realizing the mess that he's gotten this country into, and then pulling an LBJ so we could get McCain in there as the GOP candidate and actually have a guy <i>worth</i> voting for.
BTW, I am sorry if you took offense to me calling you a closed-mind, I just did that to tick you off.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/index.html</a>
He has created the office of Homeland security, and helped make the country an overall safer place then it was before 9/11.
<a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/index.html</a>
<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5136703/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5136703/</a>
Whether you want to believe it or not the economy is making a comeback, and there are plenty of jobs to go around. If people want to blame Bush for when the economy is doing poorly he should get credit when it starts to do well.
Also he has started to bring democracy to the Middle East, a move I agree with, but I'm sure you don't.
I know Bush is not the best president we could have, but as far as I'm concerned he's better then Kerry and at least he can make up his mind.
BTW, after posting that game, and then expecting us to take anything in it seriously, I'm not quite sure how I got on the defensive.
Give me a good reason to belive one word of text in that mess.
He has created the office of Homeland security, and helped make the country an overall safer place then it was before 9/11.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't exactly <a href='http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/special_packages/focus/6926499.htm?1c' target='_blank'>brag about that</a> if I were him.
My favorite part, which people seem to have forgotten:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House opposed creation of a homeland security department, but in June 2002, with Congress on the verge of establishing the department anyway, President Bush reversed himself.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hated the idea, opposed the idea, and then when Congress was going to go ahead and do it without his approval, it was suddenly <i>his</i> idea.
I mean, it's the classic 'Glad I thought of that!' gag, writ LARGE.
Or, in today's political landscape, we call that a 'flip-flop'.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know I think the major difference is Bush didn't have his military service broadcasted on major media outlets prior to receiving the Republican nomination.
If you looked at the media before the medal thing was brought up, Kerry was being portrayed as this big war hero, which IMO he is to an extent, he did his service and deserves respect for that. But he must have been kicking himself when they found out about his little protest.
If Kerry would have just come out right away and said this is what I did and this is why I did it, this thing wouldn't have really been a big deal. What caused it to become so dragged out were the many conflicting stories coming from his camp.
This just gives further evidence that the man is hypocrite and well change his opinion based on the whims of the newest poll results.
Like I have said, military service does not make a good president, just look at Grant. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I mean, it's the classic 'Glad I thought of that!' gag, writ LARGE.
Or, in today's political landscape, we call that a 'flip-flop'. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58748,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58748,00.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->President Bush said Friday that he would have no choice but to veto the homeland security bill if it did not grant him executive power to hire, fire and transfer employees<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"We need this department for one main reason," Bush said in the Friday-morning address at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. "America needs a group of dedicated professionals to wake up each morning with the overriding duty of protecting the American people."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know I don't think Bush hated the idea of a Homeland Security Department, he simply disagreed with the way things were set with it.
Bush knows what he wants, and he wasn't going to support this until, in his eyes, it was done right.
Bush knows what he wants, and he wasn't going to support this until, in his eyes, it was done right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe you're correct. Bush wanted a Homeland Security <i>office</i>, not a cabinet-level Homeland Security <i>Department</i>. The two set-ups are significantly different.
He didn't support the <i>configuration which exists today</i> until it was going to be created without his blessing or approval. <i>Then</i> he supported it. <b>That's</b> the issue here, not whether or not he liked the abstract concept.
I'll try to find more info on its creation to clarify this.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"We need this <b>department</b> for one main reason," Bush said in the Friday-morning address at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. "America needs a group of dedicated professionals to wake up each morning with the overriding duty of protecting the American people." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He very clearly says department, as far as I can tell, it seems he was most certainly for some sort of Homeland security department, just not the one that Congress had adopted. You know the word games they play with these bills, it's nothing new. Many bills are edited hundreds of times until all sides can agree on it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He didn't support the configuration which exists today until it was going to be created without his blessing or approval. Then he supported it. That's the issue here, not whether or not he liked the abstract concept.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I belive the changes he wanted were made, <i>then</i> he supported it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The president is very concerned that the substance of the Senate's proposal so far on homeland security is a step backward, not forward, in protecting the country," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters traveling with the president. "The president remains hopeful and optimistic that these provisions can be fixed without a veto. But he does feel strongly about it."
"He will receive a recommendation from his advisers to veto this if the president's concerns are not addressed," Fleischer added.
The president also opposes requiring Senate confirmation for his assistant on homeland security issues, currently former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is plain to see that he was not against the actual creation of a Homeland Security department, he just had certain things which he did not like, and when corrected, he accepted the bill. A President disagreeing with certain things on a bill, and threatening to veto is nothing new, it's only a big deal because this particular bill provides sweeping changes within the government.
And then the Dems wanted to placate the Federal workers unions. Denied!
If I'm incorrect, I will gladly . . . uh . . . stand corrected.
However, I <i>am</i> a bit suspicious of him, if only because this seems to follow the precedent set with his Texas Patients' Bill of Rights claim, which Molly Ivans summarizes nicely here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->During his presidential campaign, Bush, who likes to have things both ways, claimed he personally had gotten "Republicans and Democrats together" in Texas to pass this strong bill of rights. Actually, he vetoed it the first time and then refused to sign the right-to-sue provision the second time, after it was passed by a veto-proof majority. Because he did sign other, less important parts of the package of bills, however, for campaign purposes he proudly claimed authorship of the very bills he had fought. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BTW, I am sorry if you took offense to me calling you a closed-mind, I just did that to tick you off.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/index.html</a>
He has created the office of Homeland security, and helped make the country an overall safer place then it was before 9/11.
<a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/index.html</a>
<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5136703/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5136703/</a>
Whether you want to believe it or not the economy is making a comeback, and there are plenty of jobs to go around. If people want to blame Bush for when the economy is doing poorly he should get credit when it starts to do well.
Also he has started to bring democracy to the Middle East, a move I agree with, but I'm sure you don't.
I know Bush is not the best president we could have, but as far as I'm concerned he's better then Kerry and at least he can make up his mind.
BTW, after posting that game, and then expecting us to take anything in it seriously, I'm not quite sure how I got on the defensive.
Give me a good reason to belive one word of text in that mess. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah your right I don't believe we should impose our beliefs upon another sovereign nation. Who deems it right to invade a country and force your way of life on them?
How would you feel if they were the most powerful nation and invaded America and forced us to change to a totally despotic regime? If the people want to change, over time the government will change on its own and thats really how it should be.
As for the Homeland security, do you really think thats going to protect us? I think the easiest way to protect us is to get the hell out of the Middle East and leave them alone, maybe if we stop giving Israel billions of dollars a month aswell.
The thing about our Homeland security is that it creates a false sense of security. It really couldn't stop terrorists from doing something really bad like 9/11. There are a lot of weaknesses in our government and just looking at 9/11 you can see how much damage they can do with minimal amounts of cash put into the destruction.
Yes, I do believe the economy is making a comeback but I think that it really could have made a comeback years ago. As a president you can't do that much to MAJORLY change the balance of the economy but what Bush did with tax-cuts and military spending, etc, was crazy. What he did to our economy will be in our future for a long time.
It's funny because- Bush rides on this huge idea of "character strength" and "integrity" versus intelligence or other political skills. The funny thing is, what says more about a persons character when a war comes about? Kerry went, Bush stayed. Kerry was also from a wealthy family, so its debatable whether he'd be able to skirt the war as well. Bush however, was just unacceptable.
Most people here will now admit that the war, at least executed like it was, was a big mistake. Yet, instead of talking about accountability, we find ways to move past that and argue more trivial things. This was too large of a mistake to go unpunished. Iraq was a crapshoot, a gamble with someone else's money without knowing the odds.
on a lighthearted note:
<img src='http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW05-05-04.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Senators Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Thursday proposed the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security with the authority and resources to carry out its mission effectively, while still being accountable to the public.
Sen. Committee on Governmental Affairs
Press Release
October 11th, 2001
Q But if we're talking about consolidating all of these agencies, why not create a department of homeland security, as may lawmakers have suggested? And rather than take Customs, Border, whatever, and put it all under DOJ, why not bring it all under the auspices, under one umbrella of homeland security?
MR. FLEISCHER: The reason for that, John, is if you take a look at how the federal government is set up across the myriad of agencies or more than a dozen agencies, many of which have components that deal with homeland security in one form or another, I'm not aware of a single proposal on Capitol Hill that would take every single one of those agencies out from their current missions and put them under homeland security. So even if you took half of them out and put them under a Cabinet-level office of homeland security, the White House would still need, in the president's estimation, an adviser on how to coordinate all the myriad of activities the federal government's involved in. So, creating a cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything. The White House needs a coordinator to work with the agencies wherever they are.
Q So why, then, is the Lieberman bill a bad idea, in your estimation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Lieberman bill. I don't -- (inaudible) -- specifics. Do you want to define the Lieberman bill?
Ari Fleischer
White House Briefing
March 19th, 2002
Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa, and Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., Thursday called for a new structure within the executive branch to help fight the war against terrorism within United States borders. The proposal, building upon a bill introduced by Lieberman and Specter last year, would create a National Department for Homeland Defense to focus federal attention and resources on securing our borders and protecting the critical infrastructure.
Sen. Committee on Governmental Affairs
Press Release
April 11th, 2002
The Cabinet post idea has political appeal. For instance, a major sponsor is freshman Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who sees it as enhancing his credentials on terrorism-related issues in a tough re-election fight with the expected GOP primary winner, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, chairman of the House subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Yet creating the 16th Cabinet department would represent an expansion of big government, a concept that the president makes a point of opposing.
Marianne Means
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
May 14, 2002
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said today he would advise President Bush to veto any legislation creating a congressionally authorized Office of Homeland Security if Congress approves a bill this year. "I'd probably recommend he veto it," Ridge told a National Journal Group editorial board meeting.
CongressDaily
May 30, 2002
So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
June 6th, 2002
Hundreds of lawmakers attending the White House barbecue Wednesday night had no idea what was unfolding. The only two believed to have been briefed, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), were told during the picnic. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), author of legislation much like the White House's proposal, got a call from Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge Wednesday night asking about details of his bill -- but Ridge didn't give a hint of what was coming in the morning.
Washington Post
June 7th, 2002
I asked the Congress to work with me to come up with a new Department of Homeland Security to make sure that not only can this administration function better but future administrations will be able to deal with the true threats we face as we get into the 21st century, a Homeland Security Department which takes over the 100 different agencies and brings them under one umbrella so that there's a single priority and a new culture, all aimed at dealing with the threats ... The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this President and future Presidents to better keep the American people secure.
George W. Bush
Trenton, New Jersey
September 23rd, 2002<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, that's what I don't like-- look how smug and self righteous he gets at the end, there.
As for the Homeland security, do you really think thats going to protect us? I think the easiest way to protect us is to get the hell out of the Middle East and leave them alone, maybe if we stop giving Israel billions of dollars a month aswell.
The thing about our Homeland security is that it creates a false sense of security. It really couldn't stop terrorists from doing something really bad like 9/11. There are a lot of weaknesses in our government and just looking at 9/11 you can see how much damage they can do with minimal amounts of cash put into the destruction.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off the gorvement in Iraq is not a "despotic regime"
<a href='http://news.google.com/news?q=Iraqi+government&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nn' target='_blank'>http://news.google.com/news?q=Iraqi+govern...F-8&sa=N&tab=nn</a>
I suggest you read up on it.
I personally think they are better off with this then Saddam and his brutal dictatorship run on fear, but that's my opinion.
As for Homeland Security, they are doing a much better job of protecting us then was previously done before 9/11.
I have seen that they are working first hand, in a story I find very interesting, because they may have saved my life.
I live very close to the Berwick nuclear power plant, some time after 9/11 a man was reportedly tracked down by authorities and arrested. It turns out he had very detailed drawings of the aforementioned nuclear plant, and he was reportedly from Afghanistan. I heard this on the local news one night, and a small blurb about it on CNN, after that nothing.
Just because you don't hear about it does not mean they aren't working everyday preventing things like this. Whether or not anything would have happened I don't know, but it brought the matter much closer to home and I am grateful for their efforts.
George W. Bush
Trenton, New Jersey
September 23rd, 2002<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, that's what I don't like-- look how smug and self righteous he gets at the end, there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He didn't want "complete wastes of space" to keep their jobs at the expense of national security simply because the slackers belong to a union.
How is that smug and self-righteous?