A question for Republicans

As for NPR being biased to the left...again in our conservative country it just seems that way.

The more money a media outlet makes, the more conservative they will probably be. Fox makes tons of money, ultra conservative...NPR is not for profit...pretty liberal (by the U.S.'s ultra conservative standards).

Follow the money people...follow the money.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Snowcone'][quote name='loserboy']Of course I can go on and on about the hypocritical and lying administration that contorts the truth and manipulates the media, but what good would it do against a media that is so unabashedly conservative and afraid to make waves they practically worship the ground out president walks on.[/quote]

Do you live in the same country as the rest of us? It blows my mind when people use the phrase "right wing media" like there is an overabundance of cconservative mass media outlets when the vast majority have a left slant to them. The media rips on GWB every chance they get and the administration has no control over what the media reports.[/quote]

Do you not remember how Clinton was drug through the mud for 8 solid years by the "liberal" media? Bush got the benefit of the doubt from the meida right after he took office. After several news organizations investigated and did a recount in Florida showing Gore had more votes, there was barely a peep. Then after 9/11, Bush hardly ever got bad press until the Democrats started their primaries. And even then the conventional wisdom was that none of those guys could touch Bush in the election.

"Liberal media" is a myth. Fox News is the number one rated news organization and Rush Limbaugh is the number one rated radio talk show. MSNBC dropped the one liberal they had (Phil Donahue) right before the Iraqi war started. Air America is liberal, I'll give you that one, but it is still a minor league player.[/quote]

Actually the recount showed Bush winning. Sorry liberal, try again.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
But if you watch say Fox news, it's almost terrifying, I saw a whole segment where they were trying to persuade people that the Patriot Act was the best thing since sliced bread, and the anchorman was encouraging people to spy on their neighbors. That's not even bothering to look remotely impartial.
Click to expand...

When was this? Serious, when was it, who said it. I have Fox News on throughout the day in the background when I'm working and I never hear anything close to this. I have NEVER heard one personality ask people to spy on their neighbors. Not even their commentators Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity say this. You are seriously delusional.[/quote]

Just look at the replies of posts from democrats and republicans in ANY post. Then you'd see who is delusional and moronic (liberals).
 
How is it coming from the Navy? It's his website, he could easily add or detract any records and reports he felt like. Kerry's war service record may trump Bush's, but it's nothing to brag about at all. Neither canidate seems to care about what they really did 30-40 years ago, they just want the votes without having to focus on the issues at hand which is what should be the focus of their campaigns.

LOL again! Have you read through any of these records? How can he add or detract from official naval records? Don't you think the Navy, the RNC or Bush's campaign would be crying foul. You say its nothing to brag about......uh excuse me! Did you fail to read about what he did to get the silver star? You republicans are really foolish. John Kerry has been campaigning on the issues with almost daily reports on policy. I find it hilarious that the republicans continue to try and mud sling on this issue of military service while turning a blind eye to George W. Bush's awesome military service. Like I said before-John Kerry fought for his country when his country called and George W. Bush fought for himself when his country came calling. Plain and simple so just get over it.
 
whocares1.jpg
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Ugh, apparently you didn't actually read the article. Well, I'll save you the time. Jeffrey Dvorkin (from NPR) called HIS OWN organization left wing.

The right doesn't need to accuse NPR of being left wing if NPR wears its left wingedness with pride.

.[/quote]

Apparently you didn't actually understand (Brent Bozell, the author and well known right-winger didn't either) what Jeffrey Dvorkin said. He wasn't saying anything "with pride" he merely stated that Terry Gross's Interview with Bill O'Reilly would confirm the belief by some that NPR is liberal. And let's be honest, anything short of an on-air blowjob would lead most conservatives to think that.

the qoute " "Unfortunately, the (O'Reilly) interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias ... by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop."

Seeing as how Mr. Bozell distorts qoutes on a regular basis I have to wonder about the missing part of the qoute.
 
I really don't give a crap about Kerry's war record, nor I do I care about Bush's. I can't see this one thing as an important basis of what they can do as president. I feel it's a cheap ploy to lure people to or from one's campaign. They're basically playing on some people's emotions.

I had the same problem when Gray Davis did the same thing when he was trying to be re-elected as govenor (and when he was trying to keep his job). He kept pulling out the "I was a Vietnam Veteran card", and I felt that was a cheap way to gain support.

Yeah, you served in a war or during battle. So did millions of other people. So why are they (the politicans) a special case? Why was their time spent in battle more important than others? If Kerry (or anyone else) feels that fighting in war/confilict is well enough reason to be elected, then why the hell aren't we seeing government offices packed with veterans?

The whole topic on who fought in what, and who actually served is grade-A B.S. to me. I don't really care about their past unless the decisions they made (such as ones in a previous held office) is an example of what we could expect. That means the economy, governing policy, world affairs, etc.
 
[quote name='redgopher']I think the question to republicans should be, "Why are you all just a bunch of cocks?"[/quote]

And why are democrats a bunch of pussies?

You set yourself up on that one.
 
Blue Storm...you obviously have no sense of history.

Vietnam - Johnson - Democrat
Korea - Truman - Democrat
WWII - FDR - Democrat
WWI - Wilson - Democrat

Are you beginning to see a pattern here. Democrats have never been pussies. They have fought in, supported, and understood the consequences of war.

Let's look at today's Republicans and Democrats...the cocks and the pussies, if you will. Who in the Republican party has served in the military they use as a money making machine for their cronies...

It is Republicans, and thier military-industrial complex, that fight pussy wars. Covert, behind the publics back, in the dark of night. Not wars for truth or justice, but wars for money or weapons or drugs. Now, as always, the Republicans are the draft dodgers, the war evaders, the privileged.

Let's look at today's Republicans and Democrats...the cocks and the pussies, if you will. Who in the Republican party has served in the military they use as a money making machine for their cronies...
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.
* Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.
* House Majority Leader Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve (1). "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself."
* House Majority Whip Roy Blunt - did not serve
* Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve.
* Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve (1)
* Rick Santorum, R-PA, third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve. (1)
* Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Pretty damning...eh? How about these coward Democrats...hmmm...let's see:

Representative Richard Gephardt, former House Minority Leader - Missouri Air National Guard, 1965-71. (1, 2)
* Representative David Bonior - Staff Sgt., United States Air Force 1968-72 (1, 2)
* Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle - 1st Lt., U.S. Air Force SAC 1969-72 (1, 2)
* Former Vice President Al Gore - enlisted August 1969; sent to Vietnam January 1971 as an army journalist, assigned to the 20th Engineer Brigade headquartered at Bien Hoa, an airbase twenty miles northeast of Saigon. More facts about Gore's Service

* Former Senator Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Lt. j.g., U.S. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam (1, 2)
* Senator Daniel Inouye, US Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, World War Two (1, 2)
* Senator John Kerry, Lt., U.S. Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat (1)
* Representative Charles Rangel, Staff Sgt., U.S. Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea (1, 2)
* Former Senator Max Cleland, Captain, U.S. Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam (1, 2)

* Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953. (1)
* Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - Lt., U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. (1, 2)
* Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) - U.S. Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91 (1)
* Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - served as a U.S. Army officer in World War II, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. (1)
...


It is the Republicans who are afraid of getting their hands dirty, who are afraid of real truth or real justice. They use the megamedia corporations they have allowed to be created through monoplies and dergulation to spew forth horrible, twisted lies and paint a picture so unlike the truth that it is impossible to distinguish what the truth really is.

When it comes to military service the Republicans have no idea what they're talking about.
 
Yeah, I think you're a little off on what I was trying to get at. The person before me posted an association with republicans being "cocks". I retailiated with something of the opposite, which is a pussy.

Also, you really didn't read my post before that when I said that I didn't give a shit about anyone's war record. I don't consider that when I vote for someone. I basically fell that that's playing the sypathy card. And I'm not just saying that I don't care about Kerry's record or any other democrat, I don't care about Bush's or any other republican's record either.

You can be the most decorated soldier and know sqaut about public relations. So to me, war history, records, what not does not make me want to vote for a paticular candidate. It doesn't matter to me, and it shouldn't matter to everyone else. We need to stop living in the past and think about the reality of today and tomorrow.
 
Blue...I was only taking what you said and using it for my own nefarious purposes.

I just get sick and tired of republicans thinking the left wing controls the media, thinking that their party is somehow more militarily "proper", thinking that they are somehow more entitled. Over the last few weeks I've been doing a lot of reading and thought about the right wing and the bullshit that we have to put up with on a daily basis.

Bush and his party pretty much have carte blanche to do and say whatever they want with no apologies, explanations or reasons. The press NEVER challenges him, even when he makes BLATANT lies to the people of this country.

So for any right winger to discuss war records especially any of the following right wing media experts (with their military record)

George Will, did not serve
* Chris Matthews, Mediawhore, did not serve.
* Bill O'Reilly, did not serve
* Paul Gigot, did not serve.
* Bill Bennett, Did not serve
* Pat Buchanan, did not serve
* Rush Limbaugh, did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst' [see "The Rush Limbaugh Story" by Paul D. Colford, St. Martin's Press, 1993, Chapter 2: Beating the Draft.])
* Michael Savage (aka Michael Alan Weiner) - did not serve, too busy chasing herbs and botany degrees in Hawaii and Fiji
* John Wayne, did not serve
* Pat Robertson - claimed during 1986 campaign to be a "combat veteran." In reality, was a "Liquor Officer."
* Bill Kristol, did not serve
* Sean Hannity, did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr, did not serve
* Antonin Scalia, did not serve
* Clarence Thomas, did not serve
* Ralph Reed, did not serve
* Michael Medved, did not serve
* Charlie Daniels, did not serve
* Ted Nugent, did not serve


So while it may not have that much meaning to you Blue Storm, many of the above mentioned members of the media and the Republican Illuminati often make an issue of it. And yet they, themselves, have never served.
 
Yeah, I might question you on some of those people. I'm not sure how much sway Ted Nugent or John Wayne has on our media. And on the flipside, we have Al Franken, Janeane Garafallo, Barbra Striesand and a whole load of other celebrities who
spout their mouth off on all the wrong the Republican party has done, and they haven't done military service either. It's a two-way street. And when you talk about the media, look at the strong pull networks such as MTV has to get people to vote democrat. MTV is pretty damn liberal, and look at the market they reach: first time voters. That's a major problem today with the media is that certain networks have certain agendas (as well as political personllities). People really need to filter out what they're fed.

I'll give you the point that Democrats have pulled their fair share millitary-wise. But what I want is for the association of Republicans of being cold-hearted assholes to end. Not all of us are, you know. And not all of us are bible-thumping extremists. I consider myself a moderate. And not every Republican are upper class. I, myself, are far from it.
 
u just proved nothing...

you simply named a few Republicans who did not serve in the war, and then named a few democrats who did. i dont really see what that proves.

i also like how Democrats talk about how they're anti-war, then they brag about how their representatives in congress served in the military. But they also like to point out when Republicans didnt fight in a war, and say thats a bad thing.

There seems to be a double standard. You're against war, but when democrats serve in it, they did something good. When Republicans dont serve in the war, they did something bad... even though you yourself do not support war.
 
Loserboy, in all fairness many people have come up through the ranks never having had to serve or asked to serve. Let's use myself as an example. I'm 34 years old and the draft was ended in what, 1972? During the 80's I had a legal and moral obligation to register for selective service in case there was a draft. I did it, no big deal.

When I was a junior in college Iraq invaded Kuwait. There was no doubt we were going to war. Now under many previous draft rules I may have been eligible for deferment as a college student had there been a draft for Desert Shield/Storm. However there was no draft. Two of my roommates were both in reserve units. Neither unit went to the Gulf and if they had been called up their commanders told them point blank that because they were in college they would NOT have been pulled out of school to go.

So do I have no credibility as a Republican speaking on military matters? Now take this into account. As my elective classes I took mid to high level military courses that typically only ROTC members took. I trashed their test and paper scores on a regular basis on matters of military history and doctrine. They went on to take commissions as 2nd Lt's in either the army, navy or air force. I sold TV time for Viacom.

I turned down offers to join the reserves at the urging of my teachers, even as an officer upon completion of training. I would have been something ridiculous like an E-4 coming out of basic alone. So clearly many in the profession thought I had the skills and ability. I took the ASVAB and scored in the 99th percentile however I wasn't willing to miss a fall semester to do 18+ weeks of training from May-November for a mere $1,500 or so annually for school.

I could teach a Doctorate level course on World War II, I took one of those "for fun" MENSA tests on the subject and maxed it. I'm a walking encylcopedia for modern hardware and the Jane's books for me are entertainment reading. Yet despite all of these intersts, abilities and knowledge because I didn't do one push up in uniform people like me are wholly unqualified to talk about matters of military import?

I've known my share of people in uniform, some were brilliant, some were outmatched in a battle of wits with an entrenching tool. Just because you wore the uniform does not qualify you.

To me the whole issue of military service or lack thereof politically is a non-starter. To say that people who are pro-war or who support military action are "chicken hawks" if they didn't serve is BS. Military action is a direct extension of politics itself, so says Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. The emphais of the American military has been on civillian control always has, always will. Whether or not those civillians served is irrelevant Constitutionally. However one thing is abundantly clear, an active duty military officer or enlisted man cannot be President.

The whole issue is moot.

Oh and in historical context it's completely impossible to lay blame at the feet of a political party for war. Whether it's the war of 1812, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI, our roles in the Boxer Rebellion, Nicaragua, Haiti, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Genada, Panama or Iraq there was enough common sense to make them non-partisan issues. The forces of history don't recognize the politics of the day when the books are written.
 
[quote name='Cracka']u just proved nothing...

you simply named a few Republicans who did not serve in the war, and then named a few democrats who did. i dont really see what that proves.

i also like how Democrats talk about how they're anti-war, then they brag about how their representatives in congress served in the military. But they also like to point out when Republicans didnt fight in a war, and say thats a bad thing.

There seems to be a double standard. You're against war, but when democrats serve in it, they did something good. When Republicans dont serve in the war, they did something bad... even though you yourself do not support war.[/quote]

We have to give Cracka's response its due after all its coming from a member of the republican party which is the expert on double standards.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] The forces of history don't recognize the politics of the day when the books are written.[/quote]

I have a feeling the politics of the day will be remembered in history books this time around. Read any history books about Vietnam lately?
 
Hey- I want in too!

Bush = My daddy was president so I should be too.
Bush = Saddam tried to kill my daddy- I want to get Saddam
Bush = I spend all your money because daddy always gave me money when I needed it.
Bush = I did cocaine, its does not really affect me- its ok that I did coke, because another president did Pot and we all know that cocaine is the "same" as pot.
Bush = I'm going to cut taxes, reducing the $ we have to pay for the things I want to spend money on, and then reduce taxes. That means- the government takes less in revenue, and spends more.

If Bush ran a company the way he is running the country- he would be shredding documents just like the folks at Enron.
 
[quote name='BlueStorm781'][quote name='redgopher']I think the question to republicans should be, "Why are you all just a bunch of cocks?"[/quote]

And why are democrats a bunch of pussies?

You set yourself up on that one.[/quote]

Who said I was a democrat? Or that I believe in any one party?
 
We don't have a draft now, but did any of you notice the military keep pushing back the return dates of the soldiers currently serving in Iraq. Many were slated to have returned long ago, but are still there with no relief in sight. By doing so they are circumventing the need to bring in more troops. I am an independent and have supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but what is happening to the forces over there is not good. We need to get the rest of the world onboard to help with what needs to be done.
 
[quote name='SatchmoKhan']We don't have a draft now, but did any of you notice the military keep pushing back the return dates of the soldiers currently serving in Iraq. Many were slated to have returned long ago, but are still there with no relief in sight. By doing so they are circumventing the need to bring in more troops. I am an independent and have supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but what is happening to the forces over there is not good. We need to get the rest of the world onboard to help with what needs to be done.[/quote]

The rest of the world doesn't even think we should be there! This isn't World War III, man. This is just a stupid conflict that a coke addict decided to stir up to distract us from his other mistakes, you know, like the economy.
 
I agree our reasoning for going to Iraq in the first place was flawed and it may not be World War III, but we still have troops over there dying everyday who deserve your respect and support. And whether or not they want us to be there, if countries like France and Russia want some involvment in the rebuilding (for their financial gain), then they should contribute something. Though they don't like the fact we are there, they should at least be concerned with stability in the world around them instead of just leaving post-war Iraq to chaos.
 
Cracka,

when you talk about about Franken and Garafalo, how long have they had regular media gigs...three months on Air America? How long has Limbaugh been lying to the American public? How long have we had to put up with Bill O'Reily?

As for MTV being a source of poltiical influence...it might be. But MTV's PURPOSE is not political...it is entertainment. Any political sway MTV has a a byproduct of its main goal. Compare that to Fox News whose soul purpose is the promote ultra conservartivism and its ideals.

PITSSBURGH-
While your test taking skills are impressive, and you near Mensa level intelligence quite staggering, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

However, your closing line, which seems to be some sort of summation is completely and factually wrong.

"The forces of history don't recognize the politics of the day when the books are written." You say you studied World War II and could teach doctorate level classes, if that's true then you know the politics of the day is most certainly recognized as these history books are written. The rise of nationalism in Germany, the end of WWI, all of these things are the politics of the day.

History also recognizes the politics of the Civil War and the Revolutionary War...I agree that it is very difficult to recognize the politics of many modern wars, but that has to do more with the insignificant, apolitical, hypocritical wars that Republican administrations have gotten us involved in. We sell arms to a countries we later invade. We buddy up and laugh with dictators we later spend years trying to oust.
So, when you talk about the shit that modern day conservative administrations have gotten us involved in, I would agree...but when you talk about wars that are about justice and human rights, then history most certainly looks at the politics of the day. History is obliged to.
 
Wow. This guy is so deep into Corporate conspiracies that he ignores what most Corporate Conspiracies are allegedly about... If fox is only about the "ultra-conservative agenda" doesn't that sort of go against the general liberal theory that corporations only look at the bottom line as "money grubbing bastards"?

Anywho, in response to:
 
[quote name='everdave']i am scared for our country and our world, and I believe the best man for the job is GWB, a man who has a close relationship with God.[/quote]

I am having trouble trying to figure out if you are serious or not. Since you seem to be pro-Bush, I'll assume you are here. I'd have to say, I feel strongly opposed to this statement. In his current term, I feel Bush has done a horrible job, if not for any other reason but his alienation of the US from the world community. Although many talk about Bush's close relationship with God, I question the genuineness of it. And, even if it is genuine, I don't feel it is appropriate to be doing what you perceive God to want you to do as president. I'm certainly not against having strongly religious beliefs, because I am a very religious man myself, but that does not mean I want a re-born Christian in the highest office of my government.

In another issue mentioned before about the "liberal" or "right wing media"...
People like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are certainly not news reporters. But, unfortunately, they have very large audiences who take their dialogs as the factual when they are in fact very, very biased towards the right.
 
People deny same-sex marriages because most people in this country are ill informed because of the hate mongering that goes on daily in the conservative controlled media. As for those in the military right now, I think you will see a change in exactly who they support as they begin to realize the pointlessness of their extended, extended, extended tour of duty.

kev,
Of course ultra conservativism is ALL ABOUT making money. That's the point. That's why you control the media and you control information. Media conglomerates want Republican rule so they can continue to skirt the rules, rip off their employees, avoid paying taxes and ultimately make more money. I didn't mention it because it is an inherrent part of the Republican Party and their main goal.

For this country to truly protect the alleged "sanctity" of marriage we better work extra hard making it completely illegal for all forms of divorce for any reason. Anyone who has an extramarital affair of any kind, or who files for divorce should be beaten with a stick until they've changed their mind. We live in a society where wll over 40% of marriages end in divorce. There's nothing holy about marriage, there's nothing sacred about marriage.

Here are some holy conservative marriages:
Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan who bore him a daughter 7 months after the marriage.
Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced.
Senator Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced.
Governor John Engler of Michigan - divorced.
Governor Pete Wilson of California - divorced.
George Will - divorced.
Senator Lauch Faircloth - divorced.
Rush Limbaugh - and his current wife, Marta, have six marriages and four divorces between them.

Senator Bob Barr of Georgia - not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. He had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act" The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr - WHICH marriage are you defending?!?)

Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced.
Senator John Warner of Virginia - once married to Liz Taylor
Governor George Allen of Virginia - divorced.
Representative Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced.
Senator John McCain of Arizona - divorced.
Representative John Kasich of Ohio - divorced.


Wow. Again, the hypocritical nature of the conservatives whose iron fists rule this country. Talk one thing, do another. Lesbians, gays, men, women, all should be allowed to marry whoever they want to marry. Instead of preaching lies that they themselves don't even follow or believe, they should expend their energy taking lessons in integrity and honesty.
 
Is Military Service an issue that should the determine the Presidency?
Seem's like Kerry's campagin was based around it a month ago, that's why it's talked about.

The sad reality is more people voted for American Idol than the President of the United States.
 
[quote name='Cracka']which is why you should be able to vote for your president via text messaging[/quote]


hahaha, ryan seacrest host the voting show
 
i really have to agree with loserboy on the whole marriage, why should people who can't even keep their own marriage working, make decisons about other peoples'. This is plain old discrimination against Gays. I myself have a couple gay friends and they know as of right now they cant get married even if they wanted to. They are citizens of the US and should be given equality like there fellow man.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Loserboy, in all fairness many people have come up through the ranks never having had to serve or asked to serve. Let's use myself as an example. I'm 34 years old and the draft was ended in what, 1972? During the 80's I had a legal and moral obligation to register for selective service in case there was a draft. I did it, no big deal.

When I was a junior in college Iraq invaded Kuwait. There was no doubt we were going to war. Now under many previous draft rules I may have been eligible for deferment as a college student had there been a draft for Desert Shield/Storm. However there was no draft. Two of my roommates were both in reserve units. Neither unit went to the Gulf and if they had been called up their commanders told them point blank that because they were in college they would NOT have been pulled out of school to go.

So do I have no credibility as a Republican speaking on military matters? Now take this into account. As my elective classes I took mid to high level military courses that typically only ROTC members took. I trashed their test and paper scores on a regular basis on matters of military history and doctrine. They went on to take commissions as 2nd Lt's in either the army, navy or air force. I sold TV time for Viacom.

I turned down offers to join the reserves at the urging of my teachers, even as an officer upon completion of training. I would have been something ridiculous like an E-4 coming out of basic alone. So clearly many in the profession thought I had the skills and ability. I took the ASVAB and scored in the 99th percentile however I wasn't willing to miss a fall semester to do 18+ weeks of training from May-November for a mere $1,500 or so annually for school.

I could teach a Doctorate level course on World War II, I took one of those "for fun" MENSA tests on the subject and maxed it. I'm a walking encylcopedia for modern hardware and the Jane's books for me are entertainment reading. Yet despite all of these intersts, abilities and knowledge because I didn't do one push up in uniform people like me are wholly unqualified to talk about matters of military import?

I've known my share of people in uniform, some were brilliant, some were outmatched in a battle of wits with an entrenching tool. Just because you wore the uniform does not qualify you.

To me the whole issue of military service or lack thereof politically is a non-starter. To say that people who are pro-war or who support military action are "chicken hawks" if they didn't serve is BS. Military action is a direct extension of politics itself, so says Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. The emphais of the American military has been on civillian control always has, always will. Whether or not those civillians served is irrelevant Constitutionally. However one thing is abundantly clear, an active duty military officer or enlisted man cannot be President.

The whole issue is moot.

Oh and in historical context it's completely impossible to lay blame at the feet of a political party for war. Whether it's the war of 1812, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI, our roles in the Boxer Rebellion, Nicaragua, Haiti, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Genada, Panama or Iraq there was enough common sense to make them non-partisan issues. The forces of history don't recognize the politics of the day when the books are written.[/quote]

I agree that the military issue is moot, as far as effectiveness in leadership. Of course you dont have to serve in the military to be able to comment on it. It is kind of irksome though when people who arent/werent willing to serve seem to be more pro-conflict. So the fact that you seem to know a lot about Military history is great, but the fact that you weren't
"willing to miss a fall semester to do 18+ weeks of training from May-November for a mere $1,500 or so annually for school." kinda shows the attitude that bothers some people. You couldve just as well said that you werent willing to serve your country because hey, someone else will do it, it wasnt worth your time. Currently it seems that the most vocal conservatives in the media and Washington seem to be the most willing to send the sons and daughters of someone else into battle. Of course these attitudes dont follow party lines, and there are exceptions up and down the table, but that is the perception that is out there.
 
alright our first performer is George W. Bush ..

*bush sings a song*

now if you want to vote for G.W. Bush for president, call this number... BUT NOT YET!

out next performer is John F. Kerry

he'll be singing "It's Raining Men"

*Kerry sings the song*

now if you want to vote for J.F.Kerry, call this number...
 
[quote name='friedram']Hey- I want in too!

Bush = My daddy was president so I should be too.
Bush = Saddam tried to kill my daddy- I want to get Saddam
Bush = I spend all your money because daddy always gave me money when I needed it.
Bush = I did cocaine, its does not really affect me- its ok that I did coke, because another president did Pot and we all know that cocaine is the "same" as pot.
Bush = I'm going to cut taxes, reducing the $ we have to pay for the things I want to spend money on, and then reduce taxes. That means- the government takes less in revenue, and spends more.

If Bush ran a company the way he is running the country- he would be shredding documents just like the folks at Enron.[/quote]

He already ran a couple of companies into the ground before going into politics. Everything the guy touches turns to shit.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']i really have to agree with loserboy on the whole marriage, why should people who can't even keep their own marriage working, make decisons about other peoples'. This is plain old discrimination against Gays. I myself have a couple gay friends and they know as of right now they cant get married even if they wanted to. They are citizens of the US and should be given equality like there fellow man.[/quote]

I agree that gay marraige should be legalized universally; I personally find nothing wrong or offensive about it, and don't understand how anyone else could.

As it was explained to my by a conservative friend of mine: it is believed that homosexual marraiges should not be legal not due to the "sanctity of marraige" but because our government gives certain breaks and privileges to married couples that would aide them in their attempts to raise children and, since it is assumed that homosexual couple could not naturally conceive a child, they should not be granted the privileges of a couple that could.

I think that is BS as well - why shouldn't a gay couple who adopts and raises a child be allowed the same privileges as any other couple.
 
Many people who oppose gay marriage haven't had too many dealings with openly gay people. One of the many many many problems with Republicans is that they want you to believe that they are about LESS government. The reality is they are for LESS government when it comes to corporations and the environment and the wealthy but are for much much more government when it comes to personal freedoms and choices.

It is the Republicans who want to enact constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage, banning flag burning, banning abortion. It is the Republicans who want the FCC to become stormtroopers against free speech. So while the Republicans may want to keep their hands off any laws telling XYZ Chemical Co. where to dump their waste, they would be the first to pass a law telling you what you can and can't do in your own life.

They are deceitful in their own practices and misrepresent themselves at every turn.
 
It is the Republicans who want to enact constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage, banning flag burning, banning abortion.
Click to expand...

umm... yea?

i know you democrats must be pissed. seeing us republicans tryin to deny you the right to burn our US flag...

damn we're even tryin to ban abortion? now thats just stupid. everyone should have to the right to kill their children. if you heard about some of the ways babies are aborted, you may not agree with it. Aborting babies before they begin developing is cool, but its not as bad as aborting a more mature fetus.

i'll explain a way or two in which fetuses are aborted.. and of course i'm guessing you support these ways.

The 1st way is by injecting a needle through the mothers abdomen, and into the baby's skull. They then suck the brain matter out of the babies skull and then the mother gives birth to it YAY!

One of the other ways, i dont remember exactly everything done, but it involves breaking all the fetuses limbs. But of course you democrats like that huh?

also i'm tired of hearing this shit about Bush attacking Iraq because Saddam tried to kill his dad, or because of oil.

apparently yall know nothing about Saddam, and i'm guessing you've never seen any of the documentaries done on Saddam or his sons.

Saddam is doing the exact same shit that Hitler was doing, except he's doing it on a smaller scale.

For any of you who have not seen any documentaries done on Saddam or his sons, check some of em out. Maybe after you see how he came to power... how he slaughtered innocent people.. killed his opponents, you might think differently.
Maybe if you saw how he called a meeting of his cabinet of around 100 people.. and told them that he knew that around 10 of them thought he was a bad leader, and then got another person to point them out, then took those 10 people outside, and lined them up and had the rest of his cabinet act as a firing squad, you might have a different opinion.

Or maybe if you saw the fucked up birth defects that the Kurdish people have because of Saddam's use of chemical weapons on them, you might think differently.

but of course Democrats dont see all of this, because they're too busy trying to prove that Bush is attacking Iraq for oil, or because Saddam tried to kill his dad.
 
Cracka-actually I'm opposed to abortion and I think it should be banned in most instances. I'm not your typical liberal. I often fight with my liberal friends about abortion because I see it as a quick and terrible answer to something that can ultimately be wonderful and beautiful. But then I'm also opposed to capital punishment, and believe in stringent gun control laws...

You see, you missed my point, my point was that Republicans PRETEND TO BE ALL ABOUT PERSONAL LIBERTY.

They're not. They are not for less government, they are for more government. They are not for more freedom, they are for more control.

Liberals are what they appear to be, Conservatives are not. They say one thing and do another. That was my point.

As for flag burning, we should be able to shit and piss all over the flag if that's what we want to do. Hopefully we'll live in times in this country where we will be proud to be Americans and have no inkling to do such terrible things (I don't think that now are such times).

As for Saddam, I've posted before and said I was all for eliminating Saddam regardless of whether or not he had WMDs...however that was based on an administration that KNEW what they were doing....it's obvious this administration does not. I am also of the belief that as the world's greatest superpower we should be doing all we can to eliminate tyrants and dictators around the world...that includes those we are allies with when it is convenient for us. However I don't see that happening either.

As for Bush attacking Iraq for oil...that's debatable. It was obviously a priority for him and he was going to do it sooner or later. But why hasn't he attacked the third part of his Axis of Evil...why haven't our troops entered North Korea yet. Bush talked up a bunch of shit about NKorea...of course that was to justify the war in Iraq. We won't set foot into North Korea because the Republicans have nothing to gain. No big oil contracts, not a lot to plunder and sell...

Again my support of the war even without WMD got me a lot of shit from my friends, but I'm not your standard liberal. But Bush's lies and treachery have gone on long enough. We entered without a plan, with bad information and without enough manpower to finish the job. It was touted as a war that was won quickly, but ultimately it is a situation that is dragging on and on because of the incompetence of our Commander in Chief and the idiots he appointed as his advisors.
 
Hey Cracka "Saddam is doing the exact same shit that Hitler was doing, except he's doing it on a smaller scale"

Well u see we never gave Hitler weapons to battle other countries, but guess who gave Sadaam weapons, US. US backs dictators until they bite the hand that feed them and they act like they are surprised about it. If it wasnt for Republicans 20 years ago Sadaam would not nearly have been as powerful and if we did not give Osama weapons when he is was fightin Russia, he probably wouldnt still be alive.

Just speculation about that though
 
[quote name='Monkey Spitty Pie']Actually the recount showed Bush winning. Sorry liberal, try again.[/quote]

I'm quoting:

"A study commissioned by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other news organizations has concluded that George W. Bush would have maintained his lead in Florida and captured the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts – one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court – had been completed.

However, if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had insisted on it, the result would have been very different. An examination of some 175,000 uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins."

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=17670
 
No need to ask...it was a good one.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but each and every one of my posts is a good one. That's my nature...it's just how I am.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top