Do You Want To Re- Elect Bush For Presendent!

[speedlever]

>>Why are so many Americans so stupid that they want to re-elect this dope?<<

Fly, I'd take offense to that comment if I didn't wonder the same thing about Kerry voters.

 

[KCFlyer]

>>Why are so many Americans so stupid that they want to re-elect this dope?<<

Fly, I'd take offense to that comment if I didn't wonder the same thing about Kerry voters.

As some folks vote for "anybody but" candidates, I can understand Kerry voters. That's one reason I'm voting for him. The ones I wonder about are the folks who vote for Nader

 

[Fly]

When it comes down to it, who would want a decorated war hero...when you can have a C student cheerleader? :blink:

 

[speedlever]

Fly, I'm glad to know you're not a single issue voter. Ther are those who wouldn't vote for Kerry just for this reason. (see the link below). I hope you vote your conscience and not your emotions. I know I will.

/index.php...=0&#entry100522

IMO, one of the pitfalls of an elective government is that uneducated voters voting purely with emotions (perhaps based on sound bites) and no real convictions one way or another can make a difference in the leadership of our government.

Get educated (not referring specifically to you) and vote. If Kerry is elected by an educated public (rather than a media driven election), so be it. I'll live and hope for the best. If Bush is elected by an educated public, I'll also live and hope for the best.

Bush remains my choice of the available candidates. I cannot conceive of any circumstance where I'd move my conservative vote to a liberal like Kerry. Now if the Democrats put another option up there like conservative Zell Miller, that would really make things interesting.

My reason for posting is simply to answer the OPs question if I want to re-elect Bush for Presedent (sic). Neither you nor I are likely to change our preference for president based on any musings here. As always, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

 

[A10Pilot]

Every criticism and distortion you have brought to this forum has been thoroughly debunked.
I bring facts where you bring rhetoric and myth.

That's funny... I was going to say the same thing about all of the distortions, myths, half-truths, etc. that have been presented on the left here that I have thoroughly debunked with facts.

Here are just a handful:


- We are purposely bombing civilians just like Al Qaeda has attacked innocent Americans (and hope to kill us in the 10s of thousands or 100s of thousands).

- We deserved to be shot at while enforcing the no-fly zone because we were flying in a 'threatening manner'.

- We are engaged in a 'racist' war.

- President Bush lied (along with Clinton, Kerry, Prime Minister Blair, the UN, etc) about the WMD and WMD programs of Iraq.
This despite the presence of nerve agent in Iraqi munitions used, albeit likely unknowingly, by terrorists. This was supposed to have been destroyed by Hussein. Just like the illegal (by UN Sanctions) Silkworm missiles acquired by Hussein after UN Resolution 1441 that were modified making them useless for conventional use - ONLY for Chem/Bio/Nerve agent use. Funny how he would acquire such missiles when he didn't have said WMD.


- There is no link between Al Qaeda and Hussein's regime. (see 100 million+ judgement by NY Judge in favor of plaintiffs showing 'Material Support' for Al Qaeda by Hussein's regime, amongs others).

- President Bush (along with Clinton, FDR, Lincoln, Washington, and a littany of others who invoked God's name during conflicts) is engaged in a "Holy War" that is the moral equivalent of Jihad. That followed by comments that I don't know what Jihad is... funny statement considering I have studied said term in Air Command and Staff College, Squadron Officer School, and during seven tours of duty (including combat flight) in the Middle East including Operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. I find it interesting that someone who hasn't even come close to this experience would lecture me about Jihad.

So what will you do if Kerry wins A10? Move?

LOL


A10 Pilot

**** Never have so many whined so much while having their lives altered so little facing so great a threat ****

 

[AgMedallion]

**** Never have so many whined so much while having their lives altered so little facing so great a threat ****

A10 pilot, in case nobody ever bothered, I just want to say that I agree 100% with everything you've posted and, more importantly, want to thank you for your military contributions to the defense of our liberty. The service of patriots like you enable Americans like Michael Moore, the modern day counterpart to Leni Riefenstahl, or some of the liberal bigots on this Forum (who refuse to listen to facts from the A10 Pilots of the world who have actually "been there, done that" and have first hand knowledge of what they write about) to spout off their nonsensical rantings, powered by unrelenting hatred for George Bush. I too was extremely disturbed at the attempts by the Democrats to deprive military folks serving in harm's way of their right to vote in Florida in the 2000 election. I say this as a veteran and the father of a Naval Officer. Somehow it's okay to devine votes using Carnac the Magnificant methodology, but illegal to allow soldiers, sailors and Marines to vote because they might prefer Bush. Go figure. Illegitimi Non Carborundum as they say.

It's also disturbing that many forget the 3,000 who died on 9/11 and the fact that the same cast of characters (minus those who George Bush, through the U.S. military, has brought to justice or, better yet, brought justice to them) wants to do it again, multiplied several fold. These hand-wringing liberals just don't get it. They have a view of the world where America is always to blame, and the evil doers aren't guilty unless you have them on videotape, they have been given their rights, have a dream team of ACLU types defending them, and, most importantly, nothing this country ever did directly or indirectly, purposely or unintentionally, could have remotely been a cause of their dastardly deeds.


Hopefully, we will prevail again this November.

 

[KCFlyer]

Hopefully, we will prevail again this November.

Yeah, then we can invade Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordon, Lebanon and just for the heck of it, Libya. All in the name of "fighting terrorism".

Looking forward to the orange alert this July 4th.

 

[local 12 proud]

in all fairness kcflyer, exactly which country was it we were invading when the fanatics decided to "ATTACK" us?

 

[KCFlyer]

in all fairness kcflyer, exactly which country was it we were invading when the fanatics decided to "ATTACK" us?

A wacko sect funded for the most part by Saudi Arabia "attacked us". We retaliate by attacking Iraq, because the Saudi's are our "friends". Still trying to figure out why. With friends like that, who really needs enemies. Because our actions in Iraq have served the terrorist community well. Much easier for them to recruit new members. If I recall correctly (although the attention span of the American people for anything other that American Idol, is about 3 months), in the days following 9/11, we DID attack the country harboring the folks who attacked us. No problem there...glad Bush did it. But Iraq....sorry, that's junior finishing dad's businsess. I suppose with a "six degrees of separation" you could claim that Saddam Hussien had a role in the 9/11 attacks, but you really gotta stretch things to believe that. Meanwhile while we were (in Toby Kieth, a great American's words) putting a boot up Saddams ass, Osama was no where to be found. And recruiting. And getting recruits. The Spanish, in the Bushits view, are no better than the French because they thought they were fighting a war to end terrorism. Then they see terrorism in THEIR home. Guess they sat back a reevaluated what kind of a job they were doing in getting rid of terrorism. Oddly enough, I didn't vote for Bush last time because I was afraid he'd be in Iraq...just like Daddy. Damned if I wasn't right. Settle in for a nice long war folks. We've only seen the first act.

 

[local 12 proud]

regardless of the terrorist's nationality, they were indeed trained by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. true the saudis have been known to harbor terrorist groups as well as Iraq and probably every country in that region of the world. i believe Saddam would have eventually hung himself if given enough rope, did we invade prematurely? perhaps, but after 9/11 the gloves came off and bush vowed to go after the terrorist and those who harbor such groups who wish us harm. so yes in a sense, in order to eradicate these vermon from society its not to far fetched to say syria, saudi arabia, jordon, lebanon, iran and yes libya all harbor terrorist and promote terrorism. should we invade? well i guess time will only tell want it! should we just set back and wait for the next homeland attack? because if you think it's not comming you are one of those americans who thinks "american idol" is the most important news event of the day. this is a new and different kind of war for us, though it has prevailed in that region for centurys! HOLY WAR (JIHAD) their words, not ours. they wish to destroy all non muslims, their words not ours. so yes KCFLYER your exactly right sir, "settle in for a nice long war"

 

[KCFlyer]

should we just set back and wait for the next homeland attack? because if you think it's not comming you are one of those americans who thinks "american idol" is the most important news event of the day.

Oh, I don't doubt that there will be another attack. It's just sad to see that instead of pouring billions of dollars into a questionable war, we could have done a bit more on the homeland security front. Pretty much the only improvements on that front are that we are strip searching granny's at airports, taking our shoes off, and looking for bombs. Oh yeah...and the nifty color coded alert system.

We've got about 5 suspects who they believe are planning an attack on America. And we haven't a clue about where they are. But....gotta get Iraq democratized (even though they don't really want that...they just want the "occupiers", which they believe we are, out of there). Gotta build those bridges, build those schools, feed those kids, build those roads. Nevermind that over HERE we've got a lot of bridges and roads that are in dire need of repair, and Lord knows we've got a ton of hungry kids. But...the Federal government says "Sorry, no spare cash" to the states, and funnels every last nickle to Iraq. They threw money at homeland defense initially, but they've cut way back since then. We're quite vulnerable to another attack, and when it happens, you gotta wonder how many Americans will feel "safer" from the threat of terrorism. Nope...I believe there's going to be an attack...that's why I ended one of my posts with "Can't wait til the Orange alert on July 4".

this is a new and different kind of war for us, though it has prevailed in that region for centurys! HOLY WAR (JIHAD) their words, not ours. they wish to destroy all non muslims, their words not ours. so yes KCFLYER your exactly right sir, "settle in for a nice long war"

Yep..and Bush helped fan the flames of a Holy War by invoking the name of God (which, by the way is the same name invoked by terrorists) regarding our actions in Iraq. That's why I say it's pretty easy for them to recruit new members to the terrorist groups. I'll betcha that there are more Muslim kids enlisting in terrorist organizations than there are high school/college graduate American kids enlisting for our war on terror.

 

[NWA/AMT]

...or some of the liberal bigots on this Forum...

As opposed to the conservative bigots who make statements like this? It's interesting that the same Republican party that has spent the last 20 years attempting to reduce the American political system to an "Us or Them" proposition now laments the 'polarization' of the American electorate. As has been noted elsewhere, once upon a time there were two political parties in this country, the Republicans who believed in smaller federal government and the Democrats that believed in a larger federal government. Separate and distinct from that in each party were three schools of political thought on how to best achieve those goals; liberal, moderate and conservative.

Twenty-five years of seeing the 'liberal' label applied to anyone who doesn't agree with the conservative wing of the Republican party has put me in an interesting position. I am what used to be called a liberal Republican in that I support the right to own guns and right of the states to impose the death penalty, smaller government and fiscal responsibility yet also do not oppose abortion or those government programs that help those who have the least among us. Now however, thanks to the great simplification provided by the conservative wing of the Republican party and its 'neocon' acolytes, I find myself labeled a 'liberal', a label I'm proud to wear if it differentiates me from those who apply it.

Just remember, calling people names is not the same as refuting what they have to say. but is more often an attempt to cover up the fact that you cannot refute them. Real world problems are not solved by sound bites or slogans and 'we rule, you suck' is not a debate.

who refuse to listen to facts from the A10 Pilots of the world who have actually "been there, done that" and have first hand knowledge of what they write about)

Interesting you should mention that. After he was kind enough to list all the operations he has been involved in providing air support for, it got me thinking. In my years in the Marines most of the 'operations' I was involved in didn't have names or they didn't bother to tell me about them. My first operation was Operation Hastings in South Vietnam in 1966 and my last was Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992/1993. During that time I also served in Beirut and in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Yeah, I've 'been there, done that' and from the same altitude as the other guys at that.

I also have two sons who followed their father into the Marines and have served/ are serving in Iraq. They and their friends who have served there tell a far different story than A10Pilot. I watched our country make the same mistake the same way three times - Vietnam, Lebannon and Somalia - and I know enough to tell we're doing it again in Iraq.

powered by unrelenting hatred for George Bush

Not a hatred for George Bush but for what he is doing to our country. Tax breaks for the rich and record budget deficits, collapsing schools and no-bid contracts for Halliburton, refusal to enforce anti-trust laws on his buddies at the oil companies and his attempts to return the U.S. labor laws to the 1890s.

All this and John Ashcroft using Section 215 of the so-called Patriot Act to gut the First Amendment and delete the Fourth Amendment too? Yeah, we're against that.

It's also disturbing that many forget the 3,000 who died on 9/11

Along with claiming that failure to support the war in Iraq equates to failure to support the troops, this absurd statement is one of my favorites. The implication is that if you don't support the Bush administration then you support the terrorists, another attempt to reduce the American political system to an 'either for us or against us' proposition.

Nobody has forgotten 9/11 and I have seen no posting on this board opposing our REAL war on terrorism in Afghanistan. The Bush administration war in Iraq has done nothing to further our war on terrorism and has done great damage to it by forcing those Muslims who do not support terrorism to choose, yet again, between 'us and them'. Yet the real sources of the terrorists, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, remain unaddressed.

These hand-wringing liberals just don't get it.

As Ronnie used to say: "There you go again."

They have a view of the world where America is always to blame

No, we have a view of the world where America is held to a higher standard than its enemies. A world where the consequences of our actions, either intended or unintended, are viewed honestly and openly rather than pretending that only the good ones are our responsibility. We are willing to listen to both sides of an argument rather than merely assuming that anyone who doesn't automatically agree with us is our enemy.

 

[KCFlyer]

NWA/AMT - an EXCELLENT post

 

[AgMedallion]

Just remember, calling people names is not the same as refuting what they have to say. but is more often an attempt to cover up the fact that you cannot refute them

Hearing the derogatory rantings directed at George Bush (who, just for the record, was my second choice in '00; I was/am a McCain supporter as I've stated elsewhere) by some of the liberals who can only be accurately described as not only bigots, but idiot bigots at that. They're always describing Bush, a Yale/Harvard grad, as an uneducated boob. Some of these geniuses, like Barbra Streisand, who claimed that the timber/logging industry, among others, was supporting the war with Iraq, are just too stupid for words. I'll bet Weyerhauser's mouth was watering at the thought of getting at those vast stands of Douglas Fir found throughout Iraq! A high school education and a decent set of vocal cords make her an intellectual and savant. Yeah, right. Yet there she is, composing policy statements and faxing them to Democratic politicians for their use in developing legislation. I can only hope that they don't use her material, although since she is a big contributor to the Democrats, it's entirely possible. As they say, money talks and BS walks. Or then there are the true patriots, like Sean Penn, (former) Rep David Bonior (D-Mich) and Rep Jim McDermott (D-Wash) who appear in Bagdagh before the war, leading, in effect, a rooting section for Saddam Hussein. Did their tour include the rape rooms or mass graves of gassing victims? I suppose those kinds of "patriots" have always existed, e.g. Charles Lindbergh. I wonder if Penn, Bonior and McDermott, if they were around in the late 30s, early 40s, would have gone to Berlin to tell the world Hitler wasn't doing anything wrong.

As opposed to the conservative bigots who make statements like this?

How about folks like Hillary who demand to know, re 9/11, what Bush knew and when he knew it? Like Bush knew exactly what was coming and when and intentionally did nothing so 3,000 Americans could be murdered. You wouldn't call her a liberal bigot? Maybe her vast right-wing conspiracy, the same one which planted her loving hubby's pecker in Monica's mouth, put something in her food which corroded her brain so that it would produce totally asinine statements like that.

and my last was Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992/1993.

I'll bet you appreciated BJ Bill's efforts to not antagonize the Muslim extremists there by being too heavily armed....which led to the Blackhawk down tragedy (and Les Aspin's resignation). At least we didn't make that warlord mad, just like the libs today don't want to do anything to make Muslim extremists mad. Btw, what was it that GWB did to make the nineteen 9/11 terrorists so mad that they crashed planes into buildings? I guess the same kind of behavior which must have been exhibited by FDR, which got the Japanese pissed off enough to attack Pearl Harbor.

Tax breaks for the rich

I guess I must be rich then since GWB's tax cuts (tax free dividends, etc) saved me a lot of money. If I'm rich, please tell my bank, because they haven't been advised of this "fact". Neither has my wife. It'll be news to both of us!

Yet the real sources of the terrorists, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, remain unaddressed.

I suppose the Jordanian monster who beheaded Nick Berg will now feel slighted because he doesn't qualify as a "real" terrorist in your book. Or UBL's right hand man, an Egyptian doctor. Or any of the Hamas/Hezbollah terrorists (mostly Palestinian), or the Muslim monsters from Chechnya, also non-Saudi, non-Pakistani. They're also not "real" terrorists.

We are willing to listen to both sides of an argument rather than merely assuming that anyone who doesn't automatically agree with us is our enemy.

No, unfortunately too many hand-wringing liberals almost always assume (esp if there's a Republican in the White House) that the U.S. is in the wrong. They equate the beheading of Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl with putting panties on an Iraqi's head. I'm definitely not condoning or excusing what went on in that prison, but isn't it interesting that not one Arab leader said a word about Berg's beheading. There was very little, if any, reporting of the event in state-controlled Arab newspapers. Many libs keep asking what we did to bring about 9/11. That would be as ridiculous as Jews asking what they did to bring about the Holocaust. The answer in both cases is absolutely nothing . There are evil monsters in the world, then and now, and we needn't worry about what we did to cause them to do the things they did/do. Our existence is cause enough. We just have to know how to kill or imprison as many as we can find.

 

[local 12 proud]

AqMedallion that was a very good and thought out post.