If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Wise" wrote in message ... Your imagination does not translate into reality. The Democrats have know reason not to focus on record. Of course they have a reason, they want to win the election. Focus on Kerry's record and Bush wins in a landslide. Really? It most certainly has and continues to happen. You need to find better sources of information. Q. When did Bush become president? A. January 2001 Q. When did Bush first set foot in NYC after becoming president? A. a few days after 9/11 Bush visited a lot of places (all of which coincidentally supported him) during his campaign and after his entry into office...but yet couldn't find the time to visit the largest city and the financial capitol of this country (NYC) until after it was attacked. Then you couldn't stop him from mugging for the camera with his arms around a firefighter. WTF was Bush in NYC prior to 9/11? A second bonus question.... Q. San Francisco is a fairly large urban city on the West Coast. In terms of population, it's not the largest, but it is the financial center as well as the most urban city on the West Coast. When was the last time Bush came to SF since becoming president? A. Never. The fact is the Bush regime has established a pattern since Day 1 of ignoring those who did not support them while showering all attention on those who did. Is that representing the entire country? Is that fulfilling of the job and moral responsibilities of the presidential office? Okay. That confirms it. You're a loon. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"david raoul derbes" wrote in message news In article .net, Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "david raoul derbes" wrote in message ... There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry, obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry, in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record. That said, I want to make three points. First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what _other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and had told him that. Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself. "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals." John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971 What you've posted is not completely contradictory to what I said. The sorts of things I was writing about (rapes, decapitations) and the sort of things you're talking about are, in my opinion, the differences between misdemeanors and felonies. I think that Kerry's calling these things "atrocities" was a weird way of trying not to smear his fellow soldiers, i.e., I'm just as guilty as you are. It was dumb, and he regrets some of the language that he used. You said the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed was to a small extent taken out of context, that he was "quoting what _other_ people said." He said he committed atrocities himself. My guess is that many, many soldiers of the last century fired randomly into places out of fear, anger or were ordered to do so. This is a very different thing from rape. Yes it is, but I don't recall Kerry mentioning rape. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
In article t,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: Your imagination does not translate into reality. The Democrats have know reason not to focus on record. Of course they have a reason, they want to win the election. Focus on Kerry's record and Bush wins in a landslide. We'll see who is saying that after the first debate. Really? It most certainly has and continues to happen. You need to find better sources of information. I live in SF and I can tell you Bush has never been here since becoming president. What better source of information is there demonstrating me to be incorrect??? The fact is the Bush regime has established a pattern since Day 1 of ignoring those who did not support them while showering all attention on those who did. Is that representing the entire country? Is that fulfilling of the job and moral responsibilities of the presidential office? Okay. That confirms it. You're a loon. I see your pattern of resorting to insults when you are incapable of responding with facts (an all too frequent occurrence) is alive and well. Why bother even jumping in on a thread when you have nothing to add but juvenile retorts and insults? --Mike |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Wise" wrote in message ... I live in SF and I can tell you Bush has never been here since becoming president. What better source of information is there demonstrating me to be incorrect??? You wrote: "And that record will not include the loss of 2+ million jobs; starting a war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of his own country; and generally being unfit to lead a Boyscout pack...much less the country." What in hell has any of that to do with living in San Francisco? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
In article t,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: I live in SF and I can tell you Bush has never been here since becoming president. What better source of information is there demonstrating me to be incorrect??? "And that record will not include the loss of 2+ million jobs; starting a war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of his own country; and generally being unfit to lead a Boyscout pack...much less the country." What in hell has any of that to do with living in San Francisco? The relevant passage for that is "ignoring large chunks of his own country." SF is just one example. NYC is another...that is until 9/11 when Bush all of the sudden seemed to care about the city and people his admin/campaign had ignored throughout his campaign and well into his presidency. --Mike |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Wise" wrote in message ... The relevant passage for that is "ignoring large chunks of his own country." SF is just one example. NYC is another...that is until 9/11 when Bush all of the sudden seemed to care about the city and people his admin/campaign had ignored throughout his campaign and well into his presidency. It is irrelevant to what we were discussing. Follow the thread. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote: And he said in an interview 2-3 days ago (I'm sorry, but I can't remember the source) that he always thought he had received the Bronze Star for saving the mined boat and that he did not know the citation (as well as the post op reports) stated that he had done so under fire. That was not the impression I got from the interview and I doubt your version of it simply because it's ridiculous. You are trying to say that a man just realized what the text of his citation read after 35 years. I just located the source I got the info from: Washington Post, 08.19.04, Michael Dobbs http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug18.html Here are some relevant excerpts: ------------------------------------ ...."It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."... ------------------------------------ Seems to me he's claiming he always believed his award was for coming to the rescue of the mined boat and the fact that his citation states in numerous instances that he was under fire. How could he not know what his citation said? How is it he can say in the ABC interview your heard (do you know if a written transcript exists?) that he knew what his citation stated and simply shrugged it off? But it gets better... ------------------------------------ Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. ------------------------------------ This even further suggests he is claiming that we wasn't aware of what his citation said...and now that he is aware (after having the text read to him), he considers his own award to be fraudulent. Naturally, he doesn't go on to say whether or not be will be petitioning to have his "fraudulent" award revoked. The only way this is possibe is if he were awarded the Bronze Star after seperating and received it in the mail and never read the citation. Could be. The same article states that Mr. Thurlow claims to have lost his award 20 years ago. A different article (also in the W. Post, I believe) stated that he received his award via mail in Kansas after returning home. Fair enough, seems like an air-tight case of him not being aware of what his Bronze Star was for. How to you reconcile that claim with his other claim (which you yourself cite as evidence) that he knew what the award was for all along and just "shrugged" it off? He's claiming the whole under fire thing for his citation is a current surprise to him That's not the impression I got from the ABC interview and it seems absurd no? It seems absurd until confronted with Mr. Thurlow's own words. --Mike |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Wise wrote:
Can you prove other Presidents have visited NYC in their first 8 months? I never really paid attention to it in the past. So you have no idea if Bush is doing any thing any other President has done. That settles that! Then I took a look around and figured out he and his administration was snubbing the geographic locations where he lost big and where he doesn't have a lot of fans. However, you have no idea if this is buisness as usual for a sitting President since you never paid attention to any President but Bush. You may be whining about Presidential SOP. It's been nearly four years, and Bush still hasn't been in the financial capital of the West Coast I don't believe you need to visit any location to still represent them and work in their behalf. So what he never visited San Fran, has he ignored your issues? A president needs to rise above that pettiness. Again, you don't know if your asking Bush to do what every other President in the past has also failed to do. Doesn't seem fair, but I've come to expect that from the anti-Bush crowd. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Or just watch Bush's tv commercials. Every one I have seen in the Philadelphia area has been completely negative. "Negative" does not mean "smear". Well, the DNC has broadened the term considerably this election. Any mention of Kerry's senate voting record is considered "going negative". BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Swift Boat Guys Caught in Some Great Big Lies | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 44 | August 23rd 04 08:30 PM |
General Zinni on Sixty Minutes | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 428 | July 1st 04 11:16 PM |
Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 196 | June 14th 04 11:33 PM |
~ BEND OVER VETERANS & PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS - BUSH GOT SOMETHINGFOR YA ~ | ~ BIG STOOPID HATS ~ | Military Aviation | 1 | May 31st 04 10:25 PM |
11 Nov 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | November 11th 03 11:58 PM |