crazyed27 said:
So close to a 100 billion dollars is only 19 % of the budget?
Federal expenditures in 2004 will amount to over $2.2 trillion. It was just slightly less in 2003.
crazyed27 said:
(to hell with that UN treaty).
So that would make us the terrorist?
No, that would make us a sovereign nation unwilling to give up our authority of territorial conquest to an unaccountable foreign body.
crazyed27 said:
America needs to stop the oppression of poor people, bad schools, poor police in those neiborhoods, and no funds for the childeren, the rich just want to get richer and the rich does'nt give a flying
fuck about the poor! Be a poor boy in a rich neiborhood and you'll see that most, not all, of the rich are arrogant asses!
Oh, please. This is just more class warfare bullshit. Just how are the poor "oppressed"? They are given ample opportunity to suck from the public teat. If you really want them to stop being poor, help cut taxes and
government intrusion in business so they have more profits to re-invest and grow their businesses to the point of needing more employees.
Schools aren't a federal issue, but if you want them to improve, give parents a choice to where to send their children. Competition works. If not enough parents think a school is adequate for their kids, the school will
have to get rid of the bad teachers and students in order to be a better draw and get the parents' money.
Police aren't a federal issue either, but again, if you get rid of federal intrusion, overhead, and exorbitant taxation, more money will be available at local levels for better public services.
First off, define "rich". I reject the notion that they're mostly arrogant, especially if you use the
clinton definition. Even if you're correct, what's your point? It's their money to spend how they please. What right do you, or anyone else have that gives you a say in the matter? Do I have a say in how you use your private property?
crazyed27 said:
If bush gets it again I can say goodbye to my pocketbook as well! You got two assholes running for pres? Which asshole will america choose?
Bush wants to decrease taxes. Kerry wants to raise them. I'd like to hear (presuming you're not on the dole) how Kerry's better for your bank account.
crazyed27 said:
No WOMD in Iraq, but North Korea has plenty, so why ani't Good Ol Boy Bush going for them!
N. Korea is a much more diplomatically precarious situation because of China and other issues. Iraq did not have those entanglements and could be dealt with much more efficiently. I do think that they're next on the chopping block after some military units get more rested and training for the engagement.
SLICEDBEEF said:
...at least he didn't go Awol like Bush did...and Bush wasn't even in Vietnam.
Being AWOL is a serious criminal charge. Prove it. Just to help you out, at least four fellow servicemen recall Bush serving with them. Dental exams and pay stubs also confirm that. Yes, Bush didn't go to Vietnam. By the
time he had qualified to fly in 1970, we were already pulling out fighter aircraft from the theater. What would you have him do in SE Asia? In fact, Bush and a squad-mate tried to get into a program called "Palace Alert" that would have rotated into Vietnam (I presume to fly some of the remaining aircraft). They were told that they hadn't logged enough hours to enroll.
SLICEDBEEF said:
BUSH LIED ABOUT GOING TO WAR!!! (It doesn't get anymore serious than this... unless he was the culprit behind 911 ) And didn't get shit!!! Clinton got impeached for get'n his nob slobbed!!! There's something seriously fucked up here!
What were the lies? If you're talking about WMD's, it's apparently an intelligence failure. The Clinton administration thought they were making them, and so did congress (including the perponderance of Democrats), and thought so years before President Bush ever became a nominee to the office. Were they all lying, too? As far as intelligence goes, the problems go back at least to the Church commission and the straight jacket they put on human intel gathering.
Clinton was never impeached for any sexual encounter. He was impeached for perjury and subsequent actions to hide that crime. If he was willing to lie about something so relatively inconsequential, what else of greater importance would he be willing to lie about?
SLICEDBEEF said:
As far as T-Queen, she was just one of over half the population that didn't agree with the war... It's called freedom of speach! She didn't want to see her fellow American's going to a war and get killed for what most believe was an unjust war. As far as befriending the enemy... who is the enemy... She was befriending and supporting the innocent people being killed/murdered...intentionally and un-intentionally.
How many of those against the war actually accepted an invitation to sit in a VC AAA gun and broadcast seditious messages from enemy territory? That's not freedom of speech, that's giving aide and comfort to those that would kill our countrymen. As far as just who the enemy was, it was the North Vietnamese Army and VietCong guerrillas. That was who gave her the invitation, and that's where issues of treason are involved, not with any visit to hospitals, orphanages, etc.
SLICEDBEEF said:
By the way... I believe they already announced that the photo was doctored and he was never sitting with her.
There are two pictures in question, the doctored on is of the two standing on the same podium, side by side. The other one, where Kerry is sitting a couple rows behind Treason Queen is real.
SLICEDBEEF said:
HE WAS EXPenis EnlargementRIENCED in an "unjust war" and it seem's that he has a level head on his shoulder and he has way more right than anyone to state his belief's and the reason's why...
Yeah, he had a whole two months of experience. Most who got called to SE Asia stayed for about a year. Kerry got out early and was shipped to the East Coast to serve as some admiral's aid.
SLICEDBEEF said:
Was our country in danger?
Yes, from the USSR and PRC. The more countries they were able to exert control over, The more resources they have to call on to fight against us. I view Vietnam not as a war unto itself, but a hot battle in a cold war. While it can be argued that the battle was a lose (but with a McDonalds and KFC prominent in Saigon, that's debatable), it helped us in a variety of ways to win the war.
SLICEDBEEF said:
Believe it or not there where many cases where our soldier's had raped, tortured, and murdered innocent men, women and childeren...that would have been blew off completely if people like the protestor's hadn't stood up against the atrocities...and would probably go on still if people didn't use the amendment that allow's Free Speach. "FIRST AMENDMENT"
Outside of Mei Lai, tell me just how many "atrocities" occurred that did not serve a legitimate military purpose? Kerry slandered the whole of the military, he wasn't just speaking of a few bad apples. It's telling that he didn't give names, too.
SLICEDBEEF said:
Stop the spread of communism... thats bullshit. Did we wage war on Cuba? Russia? China? Recently Korea? Uh... No.
Again, diplomacy isn't the same from country to country. We almost did wage war on Cuba, to do so would have brought the full force of the Russian military against us. We would have won, but with massive casualties. Same deal with China. As far as Korea goes, the current situation isn't over yet.
As far as Vietnam being a money-making war, that's a straw man. All wars cause money to be pumped into the defense sector.
Swank said:
That being said, this is typical of what I see as the emerging right wing strategy to try and discredit John Kerry as somehow anti-American in his views. As far as his protests against the war, in what way are they anti-American? It is our sacred right and liberty as citizens of the US to criticize the government's actions and leaders. This is essential to our way of life and true democracy. Not all actions undertaken by the US government are intrinsically just and correct, and attacking all who would identify and criticize such actions as traitors is ridiculous, and suggests a somewhat brainwashed mentality. Kerry served his country in war, and has served it as a prosecutor and holder of other public offices for almost all of his adult life. He is and has been a public servant, and I defy anybody to comb his resume and take from it the actions of a person who does not feel both deeply patriotic and committed to improving his country.
Who's said that Kerry should be thrown in prison for his speech? What we're saying is that Kerry's monologues were not conducive to a quick end to the war and ultimately left us weaker. That's free speech to, isn't it? I agree that not all government action is proper (especially in civil affairs), but Kerry's actions helped make politicians vacillate and involve themselves in military action, which prolonged the war and caused more death.
It says something about the man that he's rarely, if ever, received a check that wasn't from the government or a sugermamma.
Swank said:
Bush, meanwhile, spent a life essentially pursuing the bolstering of his own hereditarilly guranteed wealth, often with failing results due to his incompitence as a business manager and leader (as well as at taxpayer expense, for anybody interested do some reserach into how he 'financed' his buy-in into the Astros organization). Although Bush and Kerry both hail from blue blooded New England roots, Kerry chose to serve his country in Vietnam and risked his life along with his fellow soldiers, although he surely could have secured a National Guard tour and avoided any danger, as Bush did. As was mentioned, it is also quite appearent that Bush did not even complete his Guard Tour as seemingly no documentation WHATSOEVER of the President having been in the service for almost a year of his assigned time can be produced (his family, by Bush's own words, "arranged" for him to he dismissed from his obligations of duty months early as well).
First, yes, some of President Bush's business failed, most do. He also had some that succeeded (like his oil business). So what if a portion of his money came from his family? Don't you wish to pass on wealth to your progeny? Yes, Kerry served in Vietnam... for a couple months. Prior, he tried to get a deferment and get his butt over to France, of all places. Prove he didn't finish his term of service in the Guard. His former squad mates, ex girlfriend, and military documentation don't help you with your assertion.
Swank said:
Suggesting that Kerry will be soft on terrorists because he voted down certain spending measures is just more ridiculous propagandizing. Our military is, by all practical purposes, uncontested in strength, size, modernity, and capability. Although nations such as China with formidable man power could offer us an event that could potentially create large numbers of casualties (nothing akin to wars of the past however), no nation could possibly defeat us. Kerry voted down what were often flagrant and unecessary spending measures that did more to fatten the pockets of Lockheed Martin and certain congressional member's pet industries than increase the security of our nation or the potency of our military. The very fact taht so many people are outraged by John Kerry's belief that diplomacy can be just as useful in securing world peace and prosperity as brute military power and force is a sad symptom of just how much damage has occurred to the national mindset since 9/11. Before that tragic day Americans loathed war and combat, seeing it as the necessary evil that it truly is. Today, as we live in fear and are privy to oceans of propaganda and simplistic right-wing theorizing, we have dropped the evil and simply view war and force as necessity.
Here's just a partial list of military expenditures he would have reduced or eliminated:
In 1996, Introduced Bill To Slash Defense Department Funding By $6.5 Billion (S. 1580, Introduced 2/29/96)
Defense spending freeze from 1996-2003 (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181 5/24/95)
In 1995 Proposed and voted to cut the intelligence budget by $1.5 billion over four years (S.1290, Introduced 9/29/95)
In 1995 voted to cut FBI funding by $80 million (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480 9/29/95)
In 1994 proposed cutting $1 billion from two intelligence programs and freezing their budget (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94)
Floated the following ideas in 1993:
Cut the number of Navy suBathmatearines and their crews
Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program
Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year (S.1163, Introduced 6/24/93)
Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay Raise for 1993-1998 (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73 3/24/93)
Voted to cut $6 billion from defense in 1992 (S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #73 4/9/92)
Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion From Defense in 1991 (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182 9/10/91)
Voted to eliminated the B-2 several times
Voted against missile defense several times
Proposed canceling "smart bomb" weapon systems used in Iraqi Freedom
When running for senate in 1984, he proposed to eliminate funding for the following:
B-1 Bomber
B-2 Bomber
AH-64 Apache
Patriot missile system
F-15 fighter
F-14A and D fighter/bomber
F-16 figher
M-1 tank
Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Aegis air defense cruiser
Promised to vote against military appropriations when running for congress in 1972
Yeah, just voted to cut exorbitant spending. Right.
Swank said:
(I never believed there were any links to Al Queda or 9/11 in Iraq, nor did any of the government as they were extremely careful to essentially imply that it was possible without saying that they knew for sure. It seems clear however that they consciously tried to link Iraq and 9/11 [hence a desire for vengence] in the heads and hearts of Americans. A post war Gallup poll revealed that some 48% of Americans suspected that Sadaam Hussein was behind 9/11 in some way, little more needs to be said about the effectiveness of the Bush administration's campaign to sell the war to us). The government quite clearly did lie though. Many will be suprised in the next few years as people quietly retire and write books exposing what was essentially a neoconservative push to go to war at all costs, intelligence and motives used purely as dressing to the action. A steady stream of articles written by former government employees has already started to materialize; more are on the way.
The CIA On November 12, 2003, the Senate intelligence committee released a CIA report detailing three meetings between Mohammed Atta (the man in charge of carrying out 9/11) and Iraqi intelligence agent AHydromaxed al Ani in Prague. During one of those meetings al Ani "ordered the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office."
There was also a relationship, detailed in a October 27, 2003 memo to the Senate from the Defense Department, between Iraqi intelligence and Al Quieda from 1990 to early May, 2003, which Hussein demanded be kept secret. This involved, in part, training in letter bomb and barometric trigger construction, false papers production. Some meetings also involved Tariq Aziz.
Let's see some of those articles by former government employees.
Swank said:
I am always deeply saddened...
You and Tom Daschle
bigbutnottoo said:
All I'm saying is this administration should be careful because they are alienating their own supporters. and If they try to take out someone like Ron Paul they will lose a whole lot more support than they ever imagined.
Agreed. He really dodged a bullet, pardon the pun, on the AWB renewal a few days ago, too.
