Do You Want To Re- Elect Bush For Presendent!
- Thread starter zonecontroller
- Start date
And many other people. People who look at the evidence before drawing conclusions, rather than accept what their political party tells them.A10Pilot said:You believe these left wing stories of a Bush "AWOL" from the Guard?
Give me a break. You and Michael Moore.
And, yes, many people who are willing to believe it simply because a Democrat said it. But I have yet to find any independent thinkers who don't find it quite plausible that Bush didn't show up. I don't believe he went AWOL, however; there is a specific definition in UCMJ for that term, and from what I understand of the allegations, even if they're true they do not fit the definition of AWOL.
MrMarky
Advanced
A10--
The statistics posted by TWAnr bear out just how full of crap you are.
But to get into an area that is less documentable, the vote in Palm Beach County included in excess of 20,000 "spoiled" ballots that were either never counted or given to Pat Buchanan, which were cast by predominantly Jewish retirees. They were confused into either voting for Buchanan or "double voting" (Buchanan-Gore) by the archaic butterfly ballot created by the county elections official, who was ironically, a Democrat. Even Buchanan himself has admitted that these were not people who were going to vote for him (or Bush).
In addition, there were thousands upon thousands of mostly black minorities in the northern (mostly Republican) Florida counties who were harrassed by police (compliments of W's brother?), intimidated by illegal private polling place "security guards" hired by local Republican officials, or outright prevented from voting by virtue of false claims regarding their eligibility and/or irrevelevant assertions about criminal records, and/or mysterious failures to locate their voting credentials, even though they were duly and legally registered to vote.
After the debacle, it subsequently became quite clear that the Gore campaign had made a serious strategic error in requesting a recount of only certain counties, rather than on a statewide basis.
One last thing -- you claim that Saddam had WMD's. Well how come your buddy Bush can't find them?
The statistics posted by TWAnr bear out just how full of crap you are.
But to get into an area that is less documentable, the vote in Palm Beach County included in excess of 20,000 "spoiled" ballots that were either never counted or given to Pat Buchanan, which were cast by predominantly Jewish retirees. They were confused into either voting for Buchanan or "double voting" (Buchanan-Gore) by the archaic butterfly ballot created by the county elections official, who was ironically, a Democrat. Even Buchanan himself has admitted that these were not people who were going to vote for him (or Bush).
In addition, there were thousands upon thousands of mostly black minorities in the northern (mostly Republican) Florida counties who were harrassed by police (compliments of W's brother?), intimidated by illegal private polling place "security guards" hired by local Republican officials, or outright prevented from voting by virtue of false claims regarding their eligibility and/or irrevelevant assertions about criminal records, and/or mysterious failures to locate their voting credentials, even though they were duly and legally registered to vote.
After the debacle, it subsequently became quite clear that the Gore campaign had made a serious strategic error in requesting a recount of only certain counties, rather than on a statewide basis.
One last thing -- you claim that Saddam had WMD's. Well how come your buddy Bush can't find them?
Nice one.
Let me restate it. There was a count. President Bush WON. There was a legal recount. President Bush WON. There was a second legal recount. President Bush WON. There was a third legal recount. President Bush WON. All this stuff about voter error and bad ballots is part of the process and experienced by EVERY STATE.
The bit about police intimidating black voters and denying them voting rights is a bunch of crap.
The DOCUMENTED denial of voters and their votes is the democrat memo detailing how to throw out votes from brave military men and women serving overseas, many in combat zones. This pathetic and reprehensible act was well documented, videotaped, recorded, et al... including their 'HIGH FIVES' as they tossed out said votes.
Please use your brain. Reread this thread and I have well documented this. Saddam HAD KNOWN WMD. He USED WMD on his own people. He did not destroy it. You should be more concerned as to where it is (and do terrorists have any of it).
I am a Reservist. I know all about the Guard/Reserve. You know NOTHING. You believe left wing reports from wackos like Michael Moore. You claim in an early post you were a conservative. Your posts show you to be nothing of the sort. I have missed months as a Reservist and was not AWOL. There is a process whereby you make up your days (rescheduled UTA). There are also guidelines that allow you to miss some time altogether. You can take this to the bank: you will not get an Honorable Discharge if you have AWOL status.
Argumentum Ad Hominem
Please detail for us all the countries who supplied troops when Clinton attacked in the Balkans without UN support or approval?
The point of the list of nations is to debunk the statement that the world is against us. It does not say they each sent troops. But many have sent troops, or special equipment, or have supplied us with intelligence, or have given us basing or overfly rights. Much of which would be wasted on your lack of knowledge about military ops.
The bottom line is - it doesn't matter how many countries will aid us in protecting American security. If we have to do it with a few allies - fine. If we have to do it alone - SO BE IT. You can sit back and wait for your country, your community, your familiy, and your life to be destroyed. I and others like me will stand up and fight - even for you.
A10 Pilot
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,585
- Reaction score
- 1,455
A simple "Yes or No" would have sufficed. Only reason I ask is because Hannity is the "Michael Moore of the right". And I don't see any ad hominem attack in that question. If I am "Michael Moored" because I happen to believe Bush dodged the draft in a more clever way than Clinton did, then I think it's only fair to see if you've been "Hannitized".
sentrido
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 0
HAD is the key word here. And who would argue this? He got them from us.
Yup, not after 1988 though.
How do you know? All I know is that people better informed then you or me have told us otherwise.
FTR: Combat Casualties,Yugoslavia March–June 1999 = 0
I agree.I dont dissagree with the war in Iraq cause most countries didnt agree with us.
This is just rude. Im sorry if we disagree about the war in Iraq. But it is quit clear that Iraq presented no threat to my country, community, familiy, or life. This does not mean that I dont agree with the other actions we have taken to to fight terror organizations that threaten us. Do I feel guilty because im able to debat this from the comfort of my home on not on the front lines? Of course I do. That doesnt mean my opinion isnt legitimate.
And from France, and Germany, and Russia, and China, and....
The point is he had them and was willing to use them.
There is a comforting thought. A brutal dictator ONLY used WMD on his people as recently as 1998 (as far as you know). No problem.
Please cite the source of the destruction of WMD in Iraq. A large part of the point of UN Resolution 1441 in Nov 2002 was the demand Iraq provide proof of the destruction of their WMD. Didn't happen.
To quote you: people better informed then you or me have told us otherwise.
There was one country firing on American forces on a regular basis - Iraq. They were firing on American fighter pilots (I am intimately familiar with this - are you?) during ONW and OSW missions. This same country had terrorist training in country. This same country had WMD. This same country supported families of terrorists and terrorist attacks on innocent men, women, and children in Israel. This same country had a judgement against it by a Carter appointed liberal judge stating there was sufficient proof of material support of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden as it relates to 9/11 attacks to warrent a 100 MILLION+ settlement. There is a long laundry list of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations connections with Iraq.
This is a front on the Global War on Terror.
To compare Michael Moore to Hannity is to compare Krusty the clown with Plato.
A10 Pilot
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,585
- Reaction score
- 1,455
So...that's pretty much what I thought - Hannity is one of the great thinkers of modern times, eh? While Moore has a unique style, a lot of what he says is the painful truth. Not everything mind you, but a lot. So tell me...do you ever disagree with Hannity? I already admitted that Moore isn't right all the time. How about super-patriot Hannity?
sentrido
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 0
1988
How do you use something you dont have?
How do you prove you destroyed something you dont have?
"[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim. "
As for Isreal, I think they can take care of themselves.
http://www.hannityisamoron.com/
http://www.moorewatch.com/
Sorry... typing too fast. Restate: There is a comforting thought. A brutal dictator ONLY used WMD on his people as recently as 1988 (as far as you know). No problem.
PS. Take a moment to go to this site and absorb the horrific nature of this attack:
Saddam WMD attack on Iraqi people
This is just ridiculous. Why did the United Nations DEMAND the proof of destruction of something they didn't have? (Source: UN Resolution 1441).
They had KNOWN possession of WMD. They showed they were willing to SLAUGHTER innocent women and children using said WMD. (see link above). Your point is useless.
Did Hussein MEET DIRECTLY with each hijacker? Did he have a DIRECT handshake with them? Not sufficiently proven to politically say yes. But, there is a mountain of evidence, which I have cited the tip of, showing a material support for Al Qaeda, the 9/11 hijackers, and numerous other terrorists. EVEN A CARTER LIBERAL JUDGE ruled that there was sufficient MATERIAL evidence of this link that he ruled in favor of 9/11 victim's families in a 100+ MILLION lawsuit.
We were not flying 'in a hostile fashion' you dolt. We (and I) were enforcing UN Resolutions and protecting Iraqi citizens from attack by a brutal dictator responsible for the deaths of nearly (and some estimate more than) a million people! Are you siding with Hussein and saying we should not have been enforcing the UN No-Fly zones?!?!?!?!!? Good grief. :angry:
A10 Pilot
TWAnr
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- 0
First, you conveniently left out the number of voters who voted for Gore, Bush and Nader, when you tried to convince us that the square mileage of the area populated by the Bush voters had some relevance to the legitimacy of Shrub's selection as President by a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees.A10Pilot said:
Now, you overlook that fact that the Balkan war was a NATO operation. Every member of NATO participated in that endeavor.
The ONLY thing that matters concerning the election of the President is the Electoral College (Reference: US Constitution. Read it sometime). The map shows how widespread in the country the support for Bush was - not just pockets of super-cities like NY, LA, Chicago. And not just in rural areas. Counties with cities of significant sizes all over the US supported President Bush. When you see it in map form it really demonstrates this.
The Supreme Court did not 'select' the President. The President was duly elected by the Electoral College as per the US Constitution. Unlike Nixon vs Kennedy, where Nixon spared the nation the horrendous angst a fruitless challenge would bring, Gore and his operatives chose the opposite. Despite the initial result showing a Bush WIN. A LEGAL recount showing a Bush WIN. Another LEGAL recount showing a BUSH WIN. And finally, another LEGAL recount showing a BUSH WIN.
This whole thing would have been moot if Gore could have AT LEAST carried his home state of Tennessee. But, pathetically, he could not even muster the support of his 'home' state.
You can talk all you want about the Balkan ops. I was there - working the CAOC in Vicenza. Were you there? Did Clinton get the UN ok to attack? Or did he 'go it alone' and drag NATO into it?
The point is - where were all you naysayers whining about US not getting worldwide (UN) support for Clinton's attack in the Balkans? In that case, there wasn't even US national interests at stake. No imminent threat from Molosovic. And if it was okay to stop some minor ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, why isn't it better to free millions of people from a far worse slaughter in Iraq?
A10 Pilot
