Your a great man GWB!

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by greg
george bush is a tard

and you, sir, are an idiot. you have your right to express your opinion, but then again, so do I .

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Chojin Man
I can see how they (landmines)can saves lives of soldiers in a war(most are designed to mame not kill), but after the war is over you have all of these active mines, sometimes close to civilians; they can cause real problems.

The problem is most of the places where there's still a landmine problem are places that continue to be a hot zone, where even when the wars are over they're still being fought. We don't still have landmines along the major highways in France (although that gives me an idea). We picked them up when the war was over. We don't need to sign an anti-landmine treaty because we're already resposible with them.

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


That's not really what a liberal is anymore though. A liberal in the traditional sense in a lot of ways favors less freedom. The constant war against the Christian religion is an example of the favoring of less freedom in that regards. The restricting of the right to own firearms, although in many instances is the right thing to do, is not a blow for greater freedom. The capaign finance reform act was an exercise in restricting freedom. The various diversity requirements is an exercise in restricting freedoms. The refusal to allow personal control over social security (private invetment) is a restriction of freedom.

Now, some of these concepts can be argued to be good and worthwhile, but they are still restrictions on freedom.

newt, let's face it, these dern liberal ted kennedy followers (the ones who boo the president, basically) aren't going to listen to reason, they'll listen to sharp and to-the-point comebacks which alot of us conservatives are incapable of giving b/c we're just too darn blunt.

Where's FOL when we really need him .

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Chojin Man
The country is divided pretty evenly between Dem. and Rep. with the largest group being the Independants. Just look at the last election it was one of the closest elections ever. I'm not sure, but didn't Gore win the popular vote? You think that just because a Republican(Bush) wins one election that the majority of the country will be conservative from now on, forever? Dream on.

Yes, Gore did win the popular vote, by about 1/2 million.

But, since 9/11 the American population has shifted right. Not enough that every American has a shotgun and is sitting on the border looking to "bag an illegal". But enough that as the democrats push further to the left they alienate more and more people. I think they're placing themselves in a real sticky situation the way they are going with their opposistion to a popular war and they're absolute slander of a popular president. Tom Daschle's obstructionism in the Senate is really noticeable and the American public does not like it. The Senate Democrats are really going out of their way to look insane. Even when they HAVE a legitimate arguement they take it so far as to invalidate their point.

For instance, on the WMD. I see three possible responses the democrats could have made to that.

1) To accuse the Bush administration of not checking their facts closely enough before going in. TO not have confirmed the locations and existance of the weapons. In short, saying that the Bush administration relied on faulty intelligence and they should have known better.

2) The accuse the administration of incompetance in finding the WMD. To basically say "look, we know they had em', you showed us pictures, so how did YOU LOSE THEM?" I think this would have been the most effective way to do it. To basically say that the administration was right to go in, but too incompetant to do it right.

3) To concoct this wild fantasy that Bush somehow KNEW that there was no WMD and lied to the entire world to avenge his dad and score political points. This of course ignores the fact that EVERYONE has been saying he had WMD for more then a decade. And it ignores that it's completely moronic to go into a country to find WMD KNOWING that there were none. This just looks the accuser look like a shrill idiot.

They really had a lot of good room to move in to slam Bush on the war, but instead they went for a meltdown.

[Butterfingers]

Originally posted by bratch
In his speech after launching preemptive strikes on Iraq the President stated...

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons"...

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces"

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors"

He then asked his guest, mainly those stating the President has lied in his reasoning, for their responses. Anyone care to guess the outcome?

If your gonna blame the president you better blame everybody else. Like the majority of congress that brought us to war, based on information given by the CIA, FBI, and the various intelegence committees. Sorry the story wasent "concocted" by GWB. He based his actions on actionable inteligence as did the members of the bipartisan congress and bipartisan senate. Beleive it or not they have thier own minds too!!!

So basicly you whole entire governent lied to you...

No so quick to call it a "lie" anymore huh?

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by Butterfingers


If your gonna blame the president you better blame everybody else. Like the majority of congress that brought us to war, based on information given by the CIA, FBI, and the various intelegence committees. Sorry the story wasent "concocted" by GWB. He based his actions on actionable inteligence as did the members of the bipartisan congress and bipartisan senate. Beleive it or not they have thier own minds too!!!

So basicly you whole entire governent lied to you...

No so quick to call it a "lie" anymore huh?

And thus even the nay-sayers like Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschal have NO room to be criticizing the President. Also, since they seem to distrust the president so much, then why didn't they oppose the war all the through even at 1441? After all 1441 gave us leeway to go to war. if saddam wasn't such a bad guy, shouldn't they have opposed it? Well, they didn't oppose it, they supported it. They were bipartisan like the rest till they realized elections were coming up in a year and a half, and that supporting the war would be basically saying "hey, vote for bush!"

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Butterfingers
So basicly you whole entire governent lied to you...

WRONG.

THE WHOLE PLANET WAS IN ON IT!!!!!!!!

Frankly, I blame France.

[bratch]

Actually if you read my post above I was trying to show an example. That speech is one from Clinton in December of 1998 nobody yelled about him lying when he made a much more direct statement than GWB.

Sean Hannity used this speech over the summer by reading it to many who were accusing the President of lying and then asked their reactions. After a few minutes of their rambling he inserted the date and speaker. It was quite comically watching/listening them back peddle.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Albinonewt

Frankly, I blame France.

Me too!

However Newt after your accusation, the French have unconditionally surrendered to the local American Embassy! They now want us to rebuild their infrastructure and employ their populace.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


Frankly, I blame France.

Something, that both liberals and conservatives, can finally agree on.

[Chojin Man]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


Yes, Gore did win the popular vote, by about 1/2 million.

But, since 9/11 the American population has shifted right. Not enough that every American has a shotgun and is sitting on the border looking to "bag an illegal". But enough that as the democrats push further to the left they alienate more and more people. I think they're placing themselves in a real sticky situation the way they are going with their opposistion to a popular war and they're absolute slander of a popular president. Tom Daschle's obstructionism in the Senate is really noticeable and the American public does not like it. The Senate Democrats are really going out of their way to look insane. Even when they HAVE a legitimate arguement they take it so far as to invalidate their point.

Ya I agree with that. Doesn't America usually shift right after it gets attacked(9/11 Pearl Harbor) or feels threatend?

Originally posted by Albinonewt


The problem is most of the places where there's still a landmine problem are places that continue to be a hot zone, where even when the wars are over they're still being fought. We don't still have landmines along the major highways in France (although that gives me an idea). We picked them up when the war was over. We don't need to sign an anti-landmine treaty because we're already resposible with them.

We might be resposeable with them, but other countries are probably not as much as we try to be. Have you seen those new mines that can be set to automaticly detonate after a certain period of time? Those are pretty neat.

Originally posted by Rooster

They obviously do not, or no one would take the time to respond. But you would have to use logic to reason that out. I have arguments that are miles long, and well reasoned, but I don't use them. Why? Because those are what fall on deaf ears. I am turning the liberal's tired old tactic on them.

I guess what I should of said is that they hear you but will never agree with you b/c you insult them. Either way(insults or logic) I guess you will never convince them of anything.

"And, as I've said before, if you don't want to hear from me, don't post liberal tripe on the boards."

Thats never going to happen

[Rooster]

You assume I want to convince people of something. I don't. I want to let them know that no matter how hard you work on their fool's errands, I will be working harder to make sure they never come to fruition. I don't desire to further my own agenda, I seek to destroy your agenda.

And its good to know liberals won't quit posting crap, as it gives me something to do after a long day at work.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Rooster
You assume I want to convince people of something. I don't. I want to let them know that no matter how hard you work on their fool's errands, I will be working harder to make sure they never come to fruition. I don't desire to further my own agenda, I seek to destroy your agenda.

And its good to know liberals won't quit posting crap, as it gives me something to do after a long day at work.

i can't wait til you post something reportable.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Trina
Right now my husband, Doobie, is in Iraq and could possibly face a similiar fate as this soldier...so please everyone, stop for a moment. Put yourself in that soldier's shoes for just a minute and imagine what it would be like to lose a hand...it may affect how you play paintball, or even just putting your clothes on in the morning.

Trina,

Both sides of an issue take this into account. You say "support the soldier." Let me ask you something. Is it right to send a soldier into harms way without analyzing if it is the proper course for the country? (Right now I'm not saying that it is or it isn't). Should the citizens of a country not question whether putting their soldiers into harms way was the proper thing to do once they have more information? Should soldiers themselves (who are, after all, voting citizens) not question whether or not they were deployed for reasons they believe in (and I'm talking about analyzing what the most probable reasons are and not what they are told)?

Of course EVERY citizen has this right. Almost everyone has relatives in the military and we need to think about what we consider the right reasons for deployment. For Iraq it is too late. We are there.

If we are going to unquestioningly follow the policy of a government (whether it is republican or democrat) just because it is perceived to be supporting our troops, then what is the purpose of having free speech at all? Why have elections? Why not just put our faith in the divine creator and move back to hereditary monarchy?

We all hope that Doobie and everyone else comes home safe. But a free and vigorous people must ALWAYS have internal debate or we are not truly free.

[hitech]

BTW, the original story is basically false.

Here is the real story from www.snopes.com:

Origins:
On 12 April 2003 the President and First Lady did pay a call upon injured servicemen being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center. Bush awarded ten Purple Hearts, the military's honor for those wounded in combat, and participated in ceremonies in which two injured soldiers — one from Mexico and the other from the Philippines — were naturalized as U.S. citizens. He also visited with a number of servicemen undergoing treatment in those two facilities, including Marine Sgt. Eric Alva of San Antonio and Navy Corpsman Brian Alaniz of Austin, both of whom lost their right legs in the conflict with Iraq. (Alva stepped out of a Humvee and onto a mine; Alaniz stepped on another mine while rushing to help Alva.)

Aides who accompanied the President on the tour of the two hospitals report that he distributed his thanks and pride — and a few jokes — in every room, but none of the press reports about the visit mentioned the President's praying with any of these wounded men (although that would not necessarily have been out of character for him).

According to MSG Richard Puckett of the Sergeant Major of the Army's (SMA) office, the gist of the story is true, but the detail about the President's praying with a wounded soldier is an embellishment:

For the past several months the Sergeant Major of the Army has been speaking to groups about his visits to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other military hospitals to see soldiers injured in Afghanistan and Iraq. The story involves the SMA and a visit by the President of the United States. The SMA and the President have never visited soldiers at the hospital together. The SMA's story of President Bush's visit to one particular soldier was relayed to him by one of the Special Forces soldiers in the hospital that day.

On one visit he spoke to a young special forces soldier who lost his hand in an accident involving a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. As he was leaving, the soldier stuck his limb to the SMA and SMA Tilley gingerly shook the bandages to not injure him further. He presented him a coin and said "God Bless You."

The same soldier was visited several days later by the President, who was awarding medals to many of the wounded soldiers. The soldier stuck his limb up to the President as he was leaving, and President Bush cupped his limb with both hands and said "God Bless You." He then knelt down and kissed him on the forehead.

The story that is spreading around the internet is a well-woven embellishment of the SMA's story.

MSG Richard Puckett
Public Affairs Advisor to the Sergeant Major of the Army
Office of the Sergeant Major of the Army