Troops Abroad Terrified Of Possible Kerry Presidency

Jimmyeatworld said:
Comic strips aside, comparing Democrats of today with Democrats of the era of World War 1 or World War 2 is like comparing apples to oranges. Going all the way back to FDR doesn't make sense when you have Clinton and Carter to reference when it comes to today's standards.

I know, it seemed humorously apropos, though :)
 
nakedemperor said:
In lieu of presidents or presidential candidates endangering troops, and because the debates are coming up, here's a snipet of what Dubya said vs. Gore: (pledging that if he put Amerian troops into combat) "The force will be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well defined." :smoke:

Hahahahaha. Well done, Dubya, stretch our forces out way, way too thin, and sent them into a war without a plan the get them out, even though you pledged to do quite the opposite. Who is endangering the troops? DUBYA.

Oh, other things he pledged to do in the debates 4 years ago during the debates: support allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada (flippity floppity). He promised his tax cuts would produce millions of new jobs (crash!). He vowed to end partisan bickering in Washington (anyone who succeeds in doing this should have his bust on Mt. Rushmore).

Once again, you're completely leaving out everything that's happened since then. You are right about the partisan bickering, but it doesn't help when buttheads like Ted Kennedy aren't doing anything to help matters.
 
musicman said:
I am by no means a Kennedy-worshipper, but I believe John Kennedy would have personally shot Clinton and Kerry as traitors were he alive today.

Something ironic with Kennedy shooting anyone...
 
Jimmyeatworld said:
Once again, you're completely leaving out everything that's happened since then. You are right about the partisan bickering, but it doesn't help when buttheads like Ted Kennedy aren't doing anything to help matters.

The word 'butthead' is vastly underutilized in this day and age. Atta boy Jimmy! :rock:
 
-=d=- said:
Hmm...milions of jobs HAVE been created...he doesn't partisan-bicker, he's NOT stretched our Army too thin, and there IS an exit strategy.

Do you even believe the bullshit you post?

There has been a NET loss of jobs since Bush took office, and jobs recently replaced by significantly less than the jobs lost. How does this constitute "millions of jobs being created"?

Our army IS spread too thin. Lt. General James Helmly recently pointed out that the Army faces serious risk of running out of crucial specialists who can be involuntarily called up for duty. "The manning-the-force issue for me is the single most pressing function I worry about." (9/16/04).

Exit strategy, ha. When "greeted as liberators" didn't pan out, it was back to the drawing board.
 
nakedemperor said:
There has been a NET loss of jobs since Bush took office, and jobs recently replaced by significantly less than the jobs lost. How does this constitute "millions of jobs being created"?

Our army IS spread too thin. Lt. General James Helmly recently pointed out that the Army faces serious risk of running out of crucial specialists who can be involuntarily called up for duty. "The manning-the-force issue for me is the single most pressing function I worry about." (9/16/04).

Exit strategy, ha. When "greeted as liberators" didn't pan out, it was back to the drawing board.

Once again you conveniently forget that the mechanism for the loss of jobs was the dot com bust and the recession which was well under way before Clinton left office. Then, of course there was 9-11, but somehow you seem to blame that on GW too.

"When "greeted as liberators" didn't pan out, it was back to the drawing board." As far as trying to forecast what moslems will do or how they will react - well if you think you can do it, I'd bet there's a six figure job in the CIA, the FBI, or the State Department that you can nail down.
 
nakedemperor said:
There has been a NET loss of jobs since Bush took office, and jobs recently replaced by significantly less than the jobs lost. How does this constitute "millions of jobs being created"?

Our army IS spread too thin. Lt. General James Helmly recently pointed out that the Army faces serious risk of running out of crucial specialists who can be involuntarily called up for duty. "The manning-the-force issue for me is the single most pressing function I worry about." (9/16/04).

Exit strategy, ha. When "greeted as liberators" didn't pan out, it was back to the drawing board.

I don't remember Bush saying anything about Iraqis tossing roses at us as liberators, but I do remember on many occasions Bush stating empahitically the long difficult process this whole war on terror would be including war in Iraq...........Which many people conveniently forget.
 
nakedemperor said:
There has been a NET loss of jobs since Bush took office, and jobs recently replaced by significantly less than the jobs lost. How does this constitute "millions of jobs being created"?

Where do you guys get this net loss? The unemployment rate is freakin lower than during the Clinton administration. the numbers just dont mesh.
 
Merlin1047 said:
Then, of course there was 9-11, but somehow you seem to blame that on GW too.

Link me to where I said that. Oh wait, you can't. Stop putting words in my mouth!
 
Avatar4321 said:
Where do you guys get this net loss? The unemployment rate is freakin lower than during the Clinton administration. the numbers just dont mesh.

Don't confuse the poor guy with 'reality' and/or 'facts'. ;)
 
-=d=- said:
Don't confuse the poor guy with 'reality' and/or 'facts'. ;)

Speaking of reality, D, you might want to check out the 'Need for more U.S. Troops' thread in the war on terrorism folder, since you're of the opinion that the U.S. armed forces are stretched too thin and undermaned. ;)
 
don't forget Bush has a secret plan to bring back the draft!!!!!!!
-stupid libs!!!!!
 
Well apparently there is a rush of retired vets who are tripping over their own feet to re-enlist.......This weekend I had the privelige to meet one such military man. He is currently flying as an airline pilot, but had spent 20 years in the military as a Black Hawk helicopter pilot and flew in Bosnia, and the First Gulf War. He is in the process of getting his paperwork in order to go back within the year, citing renewed committment, and better pay. He said since he retired if he goes back in he will likely not get a plumb assignment but rather go right back to the Middleast, and he could not wait to do it.

And he did tell me quite a few things re Clinton and Bosnia, but that's a whole different post.
 
duke said:
don't forget Bush has a secret plan to bring back the draft!!!!!!!
-stupid libs!!!!!

Ah but if anyone will bring back the draft it will be Kerry. He is after all considering Senator Biden for his staff, the man who is cosponsoring the initiative to bring back the draft.
 
pffft. Whent he Democrats talk about bringing back the draft, it isn't out of the actual need for more troops. Its about pure spite; the more rich guys they get drafted and killed/wounded, the better.
 
Bonnie said:
Well apparently there is a rush of retired vets who are tripping over their own feet to re-enlist.......This weekend I had the privelige to meet one such military man. He is currently flying as an airline pilot, but had spent 20 years in the military as a Black Hawk helicopter pilot and flew in Bosnia, and the First Gulf War. He is in the process of getting his paperwork in order to go back within the year, citing renewed committment, and better pay. He said since he retired if he goes back in he will likely not get a plumb assignment but rather go right back to the Middleast, and he could not wait to do it.

And he did tell me quite a few things re Clinton and Bosnia, but that's a whole different post.



Check out "Dereliction of Duty", by Lt. Col. "Buzz" Peterson ( USAF, Ret.), for more on Clinton vis-a-vis the military. It'll give you nightmares.
 
theim said:
pffft. Whent he Democrats talk about bringing back the draft, it isn't out of the actual need for more troops. Its about pure spite; the more rich guys they get drafted and killed/wounded, the better.


Nah, the Democrats are doing that in a sad attempt to get the under 29 vote.

They think if they scare them into believing this is Bush's fault, when it is their bill that would do it (they are only introducing it so they can truthfully say it has been introduced, they know it will be voted down immediately), they can get elected. They use this tactic every election.

With one it was starving old people and children. I remember the high-pitched whiney voice of our Congresswoman from Denver saying "They are coming for our children!" and expressing a belief that
Republicans celebrated when "Their Grandmothers have to eat cat food." Patsy Schroeder was always an inflammatory one. That was Clinton's first run I believe.

I always bring that one up when the Democrats attempt to blame Republicans for the divide in the country. They say Republicans starve children and old folk, but it is the Republicans that are saying divisive things supposedly and not them. Plah. :eek: Get a grip.
 

Forum List

Back
Top