Bush just called himself KING...

I love how this country is falling apart. It's people like this thread poster that will cause the U.S. to crumble. I don't care if you like the president or not, you must support him. I voted for Bush in 04, with that said if Kerry would have won I would still be posting this. I hate how people don't support the president. I don't agree with everything he does, but that is no reason to call him a "fucking asshole". I guess this is what America is coming to though.

 

I'm working from memory..and I'm not pulling links from everywhere.

Here is an interesting way to look at things. Both Bush and Kerry were students at the same college. I'm almost positive Kerry is a bit older and graduated 1-3 years before Bush.

I'd bet that during the mid 60's as the Vietnam War proceeded there were more and more young men that were graduating from college that found ways to avoid being drafted directly into the military and/or enlisted.

Each year the war was questioned by a greater number and larger percentage of Americans. More facts came to light. More situations didn't seem to fit what the government leaders were saying.

Its now more than 30 years since America's involvement in Vietnam ended and I guess more than 40 years since it started. With time, some of the people who ran the US government at that time have changed their perspectives.

There are members of the Senate who served in the military and in Vietnam who have significantly different opinions than Bush. They include Senators Hagel and McCain, who are Republicans and Kerry, who is a Democrat.

McCain totally disagreed with the policy on torture. The Congress agreed with him. Check what Hagel says about the war in Iraq. It differs from Bush. Kerry, we know, is way different than Bush. They all have different opinions and they disagree with one another...but they are not lockstep behind Bush all the way. (they all are also considering running for the presidency )

It is clear though, that guys who fought in wars have very different opinions from guys who didn't.

 

No, it wasn't. But now that you've posted it, I can see why you didn't initially.

Just extract what I say, not what you think I say.

Your words were dishonest, period. Next time, quote my words, not what's taking place in your head.

I'm only talking down to you, if you allow it

Is this really the best you have?

 

Bush....Whenever I hear his name I think of this scripture Daniel 2:44

 

Just being in the military gives you a different outlook I think. I was in the military and if it taught me anything it was to respect the president and everything he does. If you don't agree with it tough luck I'm sure kerry would have done some stuff that people wouldn't agree with also. No matter what though he is our president and we should support him not degrade him for every little thing he does.

 

Yeah, it was.

Since the rest of your post was more of an attempt to muddle things than anything even resembling an answer I'm not going to bother with it.

However, I will ask you this...

That is a bold-faced lie.

So, what does make it justified in your case?

-Michael

 

Um, GTech doesn't lie...

 

Well this is Prime Minister Koizumi farewell tour since he has to step down in
September, and really the whole reason that he is here, is to see Graceland.
The Prime Minister is a huge Elvis fan they share the birthday, lol and on Bush's birthday last year Koizumi performed a Elvis song for Bush. All GW did was turn the truth into a joke.

 

Hey hey hey! So, ok, yeah... it was a hijacked thread. That's doesn't give you the right to hijack it back!

-Michael

Ok, maybe it does...

 

Sorry, I can't help you find a reason to justify lying. I'm sure there are reasons why you would and those may be a reflection of your home training. Have you thought about seeking counselling for your condition? Welfare recipients usually qualify for Medicare.

 

You know, when you do sober up (and I don't mean tomorrow, I mean long term), you are going to hate yourself more than you do now.

-Michael

 

What's up with the direct insults in political debates?

Politics isn't SUPPOSED to have direct hate, debates especially; personal feelings for other people in the debate should be left unsaid and the topic should be strictly the political debate topic; yet, here on DP it seems, there's a HUGE, broad spectrum difference.

I just don't see why you guys need to throw those in...

 

Are you speaking from your own experiences with self-hatred? Are you a drunk too, like Ted Kennedy?

 

Hey retard, he didn't call himself the King. he was referring to elvis "the King" presley. You are ridiculous.

 

Its great to get into debate w/ Gtech.

here is my part:

In post 105 I referenced that Bush was in the National Guard and Kerry was in the military in Vietnam. I clearly inferred that Bush and Cheney's perspective (neither of whom were in Vietnam was very different) and I think off base from people who served in Vietnam.

In post 107 Gtech used a term, (which I never used) like ....liberals bad mouth service in the National Guard as dishonerable.

I never used the term.

I went on to say that during Vietnam the Guard was a way to avoid service in Vietnam. GTech showed that I made a mistake.

There were National Guard troops there. Evidently, at least in 1968. He pulled two citations, one from a National Guard website referencing Guard participation and one with statistics showing the number of Guard who died while serving in Vietnam.

I was wrong in details but I believe correct in esssence that there is a huge difference in service in the National Guard now and service in the Guard then.

Per the statistics, 97 National Guard died in the War in Vietnam. From the same statistic a total of 58,193 American military soldiers died in that conflict.

That means that less than .0017% of the American soldiers who died in that war were members of the National Guard.

Currently slightly more than 2500 American soldiers have died in this conflict in Iraq since 2003. If the same percentage of American soldiers who have died were members of the National Guard that would equate to 4 members of the National Guard who had been killed in conflict in this war.

Clearly that is not the case. The Guard has suffered far more fatalities. Rediculously more.
(I forgot, or never realized the Guard was in Vietnam. It evidentally occurred in 1968 (and maybe earlier) '68 was also the year of the most deaths of American soldiers according to the statistics GTech referenced.

It was also a year when American citizen opposition to the war really started to take off. Possibly I suggest in retrospect, that with opposition growing it might have been that Washington decided to cut back or eliminate use of the guard in Vietnam. That would have been politically smart so as to cut back and/or slow down political opposition. But I don't really know why they were used then and not used later on.)

I'm certainly not claiming service in the Guard is or was dishonerable. I'm pointing out different points.

But thanks for the statistics GTech. I'll keep them in mind. I'll do my research and find out how many members of the National Guard have died in this latest war. (Gruesome research, isn't it).

Having lived through that period it aggravates me to see how people throw around distorting facts. It is even more aggravating to see how people put an attacking label on others who disagree with them.


Those attacking labels distort well meaning and deeply concerned intelligent perspectives on what is healthy for America.

For a country that was founded to rebel against an autocratic king it is scary to see an aggregation of powers into one source (The Administration) and destruction of the other elements of the government which were set up so that one person (or a small group of people) couldn't act like a king.

That is where I think we are going.

Coming out of nowhere to make the comments about equating service in the National Guard with being dishonerable is an example of the twisted efforts that pull us away from honest debate about this very serious issue.

Nobody has the 100% solution to this tragic costly situation. When the guys who put us in there, and there supporters attack any and all who disagree and label them in deeply negative ways (such as Gtech's pulling up the "dishonerable" stuff it moves honest debate into name calling and distorts the widepread and differing patriotic perspectives of those who want the best for the country.

Bigrollerdave told us that being in the military added to his perspective.

It is a shame that Bush and Cheney, and a few others who got us into this war make it a habit, and get there minions, to go on the attack and label those who disagree with them as "dishonerable", unpatriotic, people who want to "cut and run" etc.

The more they do this the more soldiers will die while we delay and postpone serious discussions and debate on the best ways to move forward.

Dave

 

I'm out of this debate as I have lost interest in it a while ago after it was "pwned", but.... haha, I have to say this:

How can you get into a debate withOUT Gtech?

 

Earlpearl,

I believe the subject of the moment was kerry's treason. Of which, for some reason, you were not happy to see discussed, and afforded:

Note what I bolded. You were prepared to change the course to Bush's service, but not prepared to discuss kerry's treason. Are those comments the best way one might describe someone's National Guard service to our country?

Then an interesting twist takes place. A genuine concern for the topic, where you offer:

You did note, that the National Guard was for people wanting to avoid serving in Vietnam. Does that not suggest that National Guard service was dishonorable?

Is claiming Bush was busy in the National Guard (I think he was defending Texas against either Oklahoma or New Mexico (oh yeah and partying and working in politics so he could leave early) how you define honorable service? The opposite of dishonorable?

If that's what you want to think, I have no problem with that. I call you on it, because your initial post to deflect away from kerry's treason did, in fact, suggest serving in the National Guard was "(I think he was defending Texas against either Oklahoma or New Mexico (oh yeah and partying and working in politics so he could leave early)" and later, suggest "Coming out of nowhere to make the comments about equating service in the National Guard with being dishonerable is an example of the twisted efforts"

I don't think it's twisted at all. I think the equation I offered was right on target.

Bush may not have been the country's next Audie Murphy and he may not have put himself in for medals and used that to get out of 'nam service early, but he didn't sell his country out like kerry did. And there is nothing wrong with serving one's country in the National Guard, back then, or today. It's a lot more than some people ever do to serve their country.

 

Who got PwnT?

 

Well, guru_seo for starting this thread, turns out "King" was referring to Elvis, not President Bush lol

And anybody that supported him, too...

 

Well in that case, Guru (and his believers) in blue and evil Nixon-Nazi republican propagandists in white!



(I'm the keeper!)