Bush Said Bring-em On!

ironlock

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 29, 2000
447
1
0
BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!
You guys need to stop taking DJV so seriously...a quick review of the thousand political posts he has made will reveal that he seems to find himself on the liberal side of just about every issue, taking pot shots at conservatives at every chance.

He sees the world through his slanted soundbite glasses...and we all know which side he will take before you even open the thread...debating him is nothing diffenent than engaging a fool.

No offense DJV. Just making note of the fact that you side with the Dem's on every issue...even when it comes to gas prices...(they are fixed right? lol)
 

GENO

Registered User
Forum Member
Jan 5, 2002
5,114
17
0
72
Plain City OH
Ironlock you may be onto something, the price of gasoline always jumps on Thursday here in Central Ohio, and the stations move in union with one another regardless of the actual true cost of gas in the tank.:confused: :shrug:
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,858
430
83
54
Belly of the Beast
ironlock said:
and we all know which side he will take before you even open the thread..

as oppossed to all those liberal viewpoints that you take.

Good to see you, ironlock

No, No, It's market forces that dictate the price of gas. LOL
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Iron you maybe on to something. I still do like Bush some what even if he acts like he has no brain at times. And I may be getting to close to a liberial. Becasue if I stay with Bush. He is more liberial then most liberials. Never seen a Republican go thru money and start programs like he has. Now he gives money away to people who dont even pay taxes. So call your man Bush Liberial. Me I will stay indepndent. That way I can bash either side. Lord knows we have plenty on both side that need it. But remarks like bring it on is 18 year old bar chit talk. Not the leader of the greatest country on earth.
And Oil is in the mix in Iraq unless your to blind to see that.;)
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
1. no one would deny that oil is not in the mix....otherwise we woudl not be over there....we should be thankful for that....i myself would rather have oil and gas for my car than have to walk or ride a bicycle or go back to the horse and carriage days

2. Conservative repub's can criticize Bush's spending programs...an Independent isn't the only one entitled to criticize their own party....and DJV you lean liberal about 90% of the time....nothing wrong with that, but don't disguise it as an Independent voice

3. "18 year old bar talk" -- i guess you would rather have a leader speaking down to the average citizen? you would rather choose a condescending leader? Is the common man not fit to be president in this country?

Bush is trying to raise morale in this country...going to the extreme to criticize him for such a miniscule item like saying "bring it on" is a joke when there are a lot of other things out there which should be looked upon with a wary eye
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I can agree Doc, to a much of what you say. But bring it on, does seem a little strange for morale builder. We should not even need a morale boost in Iraq if a sold game plan had been in place.
And remarks made about there nuke program we now find out were just lies. This Is where the wary eyes better take a good look.
Doc something is starting to make many Americans ask questions and all Americans should ask hard questions. The polls be it Fox CNN or CNBC show folks are not as happy about Iraq as they once were. And you can see it in Bushs polls to. Once at 78% now 60%. Still strong but slipping.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Good post Ironlock. It would be just as accurate if you replaced 'DJV' with 'Ironlock', 'liberal' with 'conservatives', and 'dems' with 'repubs'.

Just kidding, buddy. :) .........sort of.


ironlock said:
You guys need to stop taking DJV so seriously...a quick review of the thousand political posts he has made will reveal that he seems to find himself on the liberal side of just about every issue, taking pot shots at conservatives at every chance.

He sees the world through his slanted soundbite glasses...and we all know which side he will take before you even open the thread...debating him is nothing diffenent than engaging a fool.

No offense DJV. Just making note of the fact that you side with the Dem's on every issue...even when it comes to gas prices...(they are fixed right? lol)
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,534
225
63
Bowling Green Ky
How about some happy thoughts in this thread. I am quite happy with way things have are going. Read prior to 9-11 in many other countries papers bout the Islam terrorist movement and knew it was matter of time before they got serious in the ole U.S. Was not to concerned for myself as where I live is not condusive of a terrorts laird as we do not go into much of this P.C. bullshit.They can't move around here freely--but I did have concern for those in other areas. When it came, I was happy to see someone with balls stand up. for a change. In less than 2 years we have taken their training facility (Afgan) set up shop in the heart of their abode and sqealched their previous control of oil prices through out the world.So while there are still battles to be fought the brunt may be behind us and not only we but the rest of the world is better off.
--and the unemployment issue--while I feel for the disabled and people laid off I have no remorse for those on welfare,those that will not work,those that get passed over for felon records or can't pass drug test. Time to fess up It IS your fault and don't expect that those that do have ambition to foot your bills.Redistribution of wealth is great idea for one side but not for those that with responsibily and desire to succeed. I drive in to work at 3am when bars are letting out and am amazed at the # of people on the street leaving the bars. Now to my thinking they can not get up to make that class or job interview but do get up in time to get on forums and whine "it ain't my fault" and real ambitious ones might pick up a sign and go protest for a few hours. (ever wonder why one side ALWAYS does 99% of the protesting?? It takes much less intiative to complain about problems than to try and solve them.
I said I was not going to read these threads anymore as I do not have very good temperment with political issues,but my ole friend Kosar trapped me by posting,you rascal:) as he knows I read all his threads.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
73
Boston
After reading this thread for awhile I have to wonder when it became PC to blame everything on PC:shrug:
 

Bluemound Freak

WAR EAGLE!
Forum Member
Oct 9, 2001
2,249
0
0
North Alabama
Everybody that reads this thread needs to do themselves a favor and piss someone off today by saying something that is not PC! Just try it, you may just like it! It feels good to do something against the grain of our media now and again!



I also was wondering after reading this, How in the hell can a democrat even point a finger at Bush and call him a dodger? I mean shit at least he was in something.............Besides Oxford!
 

slim pickins

Registered User
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2002
117
0
0
Welcome to the Virtual U.S.A.
Gene Lyons

George W. Bush's swaggering, cinematic landing aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln last week dramatized more than the end of the Iraq war and the beginning of Bush's 2004 campaign. It also represented the triumph of symbol over substance in American politics. The president's handlers appear to believe that a public giddy with TV images of U.S. military omnipotence can no longer distinguish between reality and make-believe.

Evidently, Bush will run as a one-man reunion of the Village People, the dreadful disco act. Having previously costumed himself as a Businessman (his ventures mostly failed), and Owner of the Texas Rangers (he had a one percent share), he's added Cowboy and Fighter Pilot to his repertoire. In reality, his Texas ranch was acquired in 1999; Bush's time in the saddle is limited to golf carts.

The Fighter Jock pose has more substance, as Bush did learn to fly F-102s during his foreshortened service in the Texas Air National Guard's renowned "Champagne Brigade" 30 years ago. The White House seemed to hint that the president himself would perform the landing aboard the Abraham Lincoln hundreds of miles at sea--far beyond helicopter range, Ari Fleischer assured the press.

That would have been a reckless stunt. Formally grounded for failure to take a required medical exam soon after completing his pilot's training, Bush hasn't flown a military aircraft since. As you'd think Junior's handlers wouldn't want to remind anybody, the Boston Globe pretty conclusively proved in May 2000 that Bush went AWOL for more than a year during 1972-73-arranging a transfer from the Texas to the Alabama Air National Guard, but never showing up for duty.

The commanding officer of the Alabama unit, Gen. William Turnipseed, unequivocally told the newspaper that Bush failed to report. Back in Texas, Walter Robinson wrote, "his two superior officers at Ellington Air Force Base could not perform his annual evaluation covering the year from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973 because, they wrote, 'Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report.'"

Having falsely assured the press that his Guard enlistment involved no preferential treatment (former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes has since admitted making phone calls on Junior's behalf) Bush also claimed to have done light duty in Alabama, but could provide neither documentary evidence nor witnesses.

This is a dead giveaway. As somebody roughly Bush's age with no eminent connections, I could easily prove my whereabouts, job or institutional affiliations at any time since entering kindergarten. The conclusion is inescapable: Bush took a powder.

Speaking of powder, there's been considerable speculation, based on what he says and doesn't say that Junior took may have experimented with the drug known as "Peruvian marching powder" or cocaine. His failure to submit to a physical exam coincided with the Pentagon's decision to begin drug testing. He's denied using illegal drugs only since 1974, by which time he'd returned to Houston and been granted an honorable discharge.

Does it matter thirty years later? Not much, unless you consider the lying important. Many people did things 30 years ago they wouldn't want in the newspapers. Even so, national media's eagerness to protect Junior from his youthful folly approaches the pathological. Amply documented, the Globe article was all but ignored during the 2000 campaign by a Washington press clique obsessed with made-up tales about Al Gore "inventing the internet" and such.

So does it matter that the Abraham Lincoln was only 39 miles out to sea, and that the Navy admits turning the ship so as to afford President Fighter Jock a backdrop of open ocean instead of the San Diego skyline for his speech? Or, as Paul Krugman points out in the New York Times, that Bush's posturing in military garb breaks an American tradition dating back to the Revolutionary War? Presidents George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower never did. Real soldiers, they emphasized their civilian status as commander-in-chief.

Not so ex-Lt. Junior of the Champagne Brigade. Meanwhile, cable TV pundits swooned. Bob Somerby's dailyhowler.com lampoons the way Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball" gushed over Bush's rugged masculinity. Casting the presidency in purely cinematic terms, Matthews doubted that a Democratic "casting director" could match Junior: "Nobody looks right in the role Bush has set for the presidency--commander-in-chief, medium height, medium build, looks good in a jet pilot's costume--or uniform, rather--has a certain swagger, not too literary, certainly not too verbal, but a guy who speaks plainly and wins wars."

The enraptured Matthews specifically derided Sen. John Kerry, who won the Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts in Vietnam, and George McGovern, whose heroic exploits as a WWII bomber pilot are documented in Stephen Ambrose's book "Wild Blue Yonder."

Reality sucks. Welcome to the Virtual U.S.A.
 

Blazer

ontherocks
Forum Member
Jan 4, 2003
3,201
3
0
49
Nashville
www.madjacksports.com
lenscap.jpg
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
i would like to make a few points:

stevied, you must have made numerous references in your various posts that bush is not qualified to send troops into battle because he took the easy way out when it was his turn to serve. now i see other posters echoing your opinion on this.
to imply that bush has no right to send troops into a military conflict because he served in the national guard, instead of participating in the viet nam war is not valid. that war was fought during a time when the u.s. internally was in chaos over that war & many young men chose different alternatives than being shipped to nam. some went into the reserve(bush), some of them used school(clinton) as a reason to avoid the war, or some went into journalism(gore) so they could report on the war instead of actively fighting.
there are some presidents, at different times in american history, who made critical decisions during war time(lincoln,fdr) & never served in the military. but they are considered to be among the greatest of presidents. so i think that you could do a good job as president during a military conflict.
it is natural, unfortunately, for the opposing party to jump on this issue. it happened with the clinton military record vs. the republicans, & now it's happening with bush vs. the the democrats.
it doesn't do the american citizens any good when the president's credibilty of sending troops to fight wars is questioned in public.


does anybody really think that saddam did not have wmd or was in the process of getting nuclear capabilities. here was a paranoid, power hungry dictator who was sitting in one of his many palaces looking around & seeing that two of his enemies, iran, israel having nuclear capabilities. what does he do ?
does he sit home & pray that neither israel, iran. or even the u.s. attack him? or does he order his crew to start working on their own wmd's ? logic tells me that he chose the latter.

a couple of other thought on saddams wmd's:

after saddam agreed to surrender after the 1st. gulf war, the u.s. learned that our intelligence under estimated his wmd capabilities. saddam admitted that he had wmd's & part of the surrender agreement was that saddam must prove to the world that he discarded his wmd's. he never did this.
last year the u.n. security council voted 15-0 that saddam had wmd's.
in 1998. clinton with the same intelligence that bush used, bombed, what intelligence thought were saddam's wmd's depots.

i agree with dtb, that i am glad that we have a president who is not sitting back & waiting for more attacks like 9/11. the u.s. has to show the muslim world that we are no longer going to tolerate bombing against our people.

do i like everything about the way we have handled the iraq situation? no, but i will save that for another post.

btw, does anyone know where we could find the military records of the democratic candidates?
 

Helen

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 11, 2003
412
0
0
50
Bensalem
I really don't think that it is a Democratic/Republican issue. I don't have bad feelings about Bush because he is a Republican. I think that this guy is just a little too gung ho. He wants to battle everyone. We have soldiers fighting and dying in Afganastan, in Iraq, we have them stationed all over the world. Taunting these other countries puts those soldiers in danger.

As far as 9/11 goes. Maybe it would not have happened if another person was in office. We are supposedly the most powerful country in the world and we had no clue that this was gonna happen. I find that very hard to believe. We have intelligence on many, many things. But not a huge operation like the occurrence of 9/11. It makes absolutely no sense at all. We had intelligence about the attack on Pearl Harbor, when was that 60+ years ago. I know that a ton of people are gonna tell me I'm crazy for thinking that, but there were news reports stating that not even the terrorists themselves thought their actions would cause such destruction.

Ever since Bush came into office the U.S. economy was on a down slope. Look through history, everytime we hit a low point, we have a war. It is sad to say but I really think that politicians think that is the answer to money problems.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
73
Boston
Ar. I am on my way out and I will answer your post more fully but I wanted to point out a statement you made.

"in 1998. clinton with the same intelligence that bush used, bombed, what intelligence thought were saddam's wmd's depots."

"i agree with dtb, that i am glad that we have a president who is not sitting back & waiting for more attacks like 9/11. the u.s. has to show the muslim world that we are no longer going to tolerate bombing against our people."

Seems to me like Clinton did something. Maybe he bombed the site.?

Now as for this
President doing something you have said that time and time again. What has he done about the Saudi bombing. Nothing!

All Bush has done is react the way anyone else would have after 9/11. Hell, the Olson Twins, take your pick either one of them, would have bombed the Hell out of Afaghanastan.

You constantly say Clinton did nothing. What was he supposed to do? I repeat Bush has done nothing to retailiate for the bombing in Saudi that took American lives. You think he should take out another country for that one?

There is a reason the rest of the world didn't go with us to Iraq and it wasn't for a love of Saddam but it was because Bush and Powell, and Rummy couldn't back up their claims to the jury of world opinion.

Sorry I gotta go.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top