jimshiz Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Please explain to me why exactly you think Kerry will not fight the war on terror, is a pacifist, and will lay down and let the world stomp all over us. Seriously. Please do not just say that he voted against weapons systems because you are discounting all the times, just as many times, that he voted for or in favor of weapons systems. There have been about four major wars in his adult lifetime. He volunteered to go to Vietnam and fought as a soldier. He was FOR the wars in Bosnia and this last Gulf War (as well as for the military action in Panama, Somalia, Haiti, and even Grenada.) The only time he was against a war it seems was the first Gulf War. That's 3 out of 4 in major military conflicts in his life, as well as most or all of the latest smaller military conflicts. Are you just ignoring this? He has NEVER even intimated that we should get out of Iraq immediately. He has pledged even more troops. He lobbied for ground troops as an option in the Bosnian war for crissakes. He's a hunter. He has always been for war and for being tough, and yet you guys seem to just align him with wimpy or pacifist Democrats of the past for no reason. This guy is for war. You may hate him, you may think Bush will do a better job, but how, seriously, can anyone say that this guy is not pro military and pro war, or conclude that he is a wimp? 91676[/snapback] Kerry places too much importance on what the UN, France, Germany, and Russia think the US should do to defend itself. We should do whatever the hell WE think we need to do. If other organizations and countries agree and help, great; if they don't, too bad! Kerry thinks it makes sense to try terrorists in courts rather than simply kill them on the battlefield. I don't agree with Kerry on this. Kerry is for whatever he thinks is politically expedient at the time - for the war when Dean was still in and against the war. Against the war when it was only him & GWB and GWB is obviously for the war. Even when GWB has different opinions about something, it is usually not 180 degrees different than last month and then back again next month. In front of the right audience or at the right time, he does so say we should get out of Iraq or not be there in the first place. When he thinks nobody is listening or they won't remember, he admits we should spend billions more, as much as it takes, to be successful in Iraq. There are other non-war reasons I would never vote for John Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Sure Bib, I'll take you up on your offer of How Things Work 101, on one condition. You, Alasks Daren both take my " How to impress people over the internet 101" Leave your pocket protectors, retainers and taped glasses at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Sure Bib, I'll take you up on your offer of How Things Work 101, on one condition. You, Alasks Daren both take my " How to impress people over the internet 101" Leave your pocket protectors, retainers and taped glasses at home. 91934[/snapback] If that's the best you can do, leave wit to EVERYONE else. Seriously. One other thing: it doesn't enhance your credibility in the least to misspell proper names or states. I understand reading comprehension is below par in America these days, but those words are FIVE letters each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 30, 2004 Author Share Posted October 30, 2004 So which is it? You've been listening him so much even you dont know. KTD, you're one of the few lefties I like to read, but this is an example of what people on the left think like. I voted for, than against? WTF? 91737[/snapback] Having trouble with reading comprehension? He voted against the first Gulf War and voted for this last Gulf War. And voted for the Bosnian War. Where is the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 30, 2004 Author Share Posted October 30, 2004 Kerry said he would increase the regular active military by 40,000 troops and double the amount of special ops, not add 40,000 special ops. And that he would train specific troops for specific types of jobs, not having the regular troops doing the jobs in Iraq that they weren't prepared or trained for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Having trouble with reading comprehension? He voted against the first Gulf War and voted for this last Gulf War. And voted for the Bosnian War. Where is the problem? 91960[/snapback] He was FOR the wars in Bosnia and this last Gulf War The only time he was against a war it seems was the first Gulf War. Ok then, maybe I'm wrong Kelly. But I thought he voted against the first Gulf War. Yet you say, in the above sentence, he was for it. Help me out here. Tell me what I'm reading wrong in your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 30, 2004 Author Share Posted October 30, 2004 So which is it? You've been listening him so much even you dont know. KTD, you're one of the few lefties I like to read, but this is an example of what people on the left think like. I voted for, than against? WTF? 91737[/snapback] This was your response to me. You questioned what I posted about his war votes as if I didn't get the votes correctly or if he voted for and against the same war. Neither is true and I re-emphasized what I said. There were three wars. He voted against the first Gulf War, he voted for the Bosnian War and he voted for the second Gulf War. Nothing has changed. What is hard to figure out about the sentence "The only time he was against a war it seems was the first Gulf War". That means he voted against it. Wasn't for it. The only time he was AGAINST a war... Is it becoming clearer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Apparently VABeachBledsoeFan needs brain food. 91917[/snapback] Darin to think almost 10 years of post-secondary education wasted...Those professors were imposters. I do feel that i'm in the presence of greatness trying to spare with brainiacs...I will remain silent and simply be an interested reader. I have meet my intellectual match on the PPP. I give in, mea culpea, mea culpea, mea culpea.(sorry...you baptist won't under stand that)I should stick to the Bills forum...I understand why Campy hates this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 This was your response to me. You questioned what I posted about his war votes as if I didn't get the votes correctly or if he voted for and against the same war. Neither is true and I re-emphasized what I said. There were three wars. He voted against the first Gulf War, he voted for the Bosnian War and he voted for the second Gulf War. Nothing has changed. What is hard to figure out about the sentence "The only time he was against a war it seems was the first Gulf War". That means he voted against it. Wasn't for it. The only time he was AGAINST a war... Is it becoming clearer? 91973[/snapback] The reference to the first Gulf war should have been, Gulf war 1. You insinuated that he voted for it, that was my reference to your error. I thought maybe you let some of those patrons at Sonny’s buy you to many shots. “He was FOR the wars in Bosnia and this last Gulf War” “The only time he was against a war it seems was the first Gulf War.” My reading comprehension is fine, its your writing that needs help, with all due respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 30, 2004 Author Share Posted October 30, 2004 How is it possible to confuse the terms "the first Gulf War" with "this last Gulf War"? Two wars, one is first, one is last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 How is it possible to confuse the terms "the first Gulf War" with "this last Gulf War"? Two wars, one is first, one is last. 91983[/snapback] “This last Gulf war” means to me the first one, which he voted against. Very easy to differentiate when the writing is not clear. No confusion on my end. Semantics I suppose. Do you want to split some more hairs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Calling it as I see it. I don't care if you agree. You're still wrong. 91753[/snapback] I think that what Westside doesn't like is the fact that someone who is in a better position to have the CORRECT facts is on the board supporting Bush....to me that is the gist of it.... PS....In my Air Force career I was also in the same lines of work....carried a Top Secret SCI Clearance and was responsible for more information then I really would have liked to have been sometimes..... The things that BIB posts sound very close to the mark to me......and that is from my own experiences....which I will not divulge here..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 I'm very aware of the counterproliferation strategies being executed now As far as I'm concerned, at this particular point in this war, that is the primary objective to which we should be commiting ourselves. Is it possible for you to be more specific re: the above sentence? I'd be very interested to know more about this. From an outsider's perspective it appears as if this administration was more concerned about just doing something (i.e. anything) than it was about doing the right things. If that's the case, there is a distinct possibility that they have added more problems to the ledger than they have thus far removed. And that is certainly no way to open a conflict. Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 We (the general public) know only a small amount of what the administration is doing. Kerry is in the same boat, since in his own words, he has been too busy for intelligence committee meetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 I think that what Westside doesn't like is the fact that someone who is in a better position to have the CORRECT facts is on the board supporting Bush....to me that is the gist of it.... PS....In my Air Force career I was also in the same lines of work....carried a Top Secret SCI Clearance and was responsible for more information then I really would have liked to have been sometimes..... The things that BIB posts sound very close to the mark to me......and that is from my own experiences....which I will not divulge here..... 92065[/snapback] I'm actually not supporting the President. I think this administration is terrible for the America our Constitution guarantees. I also think John Kerry will be even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Darin to think almost 10 years of post-secondary education wasted...Those professors were imposters. I do feel that i'm in the presence of greatness trying to spare with brainiacs...I will remain silent and simply be an interested reader. I have meet my intellectual match on the PPP. I give in, mea culpea, mea culpea, mea culpea.(sorry...you baptist won't under stand that)I should stick to the Bills forum...I understand why Campy hates this forum. 91980[/snapback] Your sarcasm is noted. I think it's rather sad that someone with 10 years of post secondary education misuses words like "spare and meet" while proving in post after post he can't think for himself. I'm not a baptist, nor any affiliation. I was raised a Catholic but gave up on God after burying some very good men. I'm not even much of a conservative but don't let that get in the way of your vain attempt to feel better about yourself. Campy hates this forum because of people like you, not people like me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 And you'd be as wrong as you are about your choice of candidates. Don't let that dissuade you from continuing to make an ass of yourself. We do need fodder. 91732[/snapback] You make NO choice AND you offer NO SOLUTIONS, so you have no room to talk. You're worse than ANYONE who votes for Bush OR Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 You make NO choice, so you have no room to talk. You're worse than ANYONE who votes for Bush OR Kerry. 92173[/snapback] That's pretty weak. Choosing differently than Bush or Kerry is not the same as making "NO choice". How does that make a person worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 You make NO choice AND you offer NO SOLUTIONS, so you have no room to talk. You're worse than ANYONE who votes for Bush OR Kerry. 92173[/snapback] And again you prove your ignorance. Darin lives in Alaska that will vote 80% for Bush. He is using that opportunity to vote to a third party candidate who better overall reflects his views. He also realizes that his SPECIFIC vote will have no direct impact on this election, but if he can get a third party more votes, and become a viable alternative with government matching funds than we as a country are better off, as it will force the "major" parties to reconsider their platforms, which is good for both you and me. But then again since you are unable to see beyond today let alone 20 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Please explain to me why exactly you think Kerry will not fight the war on terror, is a pacifist, and will lay down and let the world stomp all over us. Because he's basically said as much all throughout his campaign. Let's go through the BIG 3: 1 - Global test. 'Nuff said. No one who thinks we have to pass a "global test" before we use OUR OWN MILITARY should ever become President. 2 - "If we are attacked, we will strike back" (or something to that effect). The point is to make sure we don't get attacked again, not vow to strike back if we do. This comment showed me that Kerry will not attempt to root out terror where it starts through pre-emptive strikes, and that is troubling. 3 - His obsession with not using force against other countries without the approval/participation of the two most corrupt nations on the UNSC - France and Germany. If elected, he will allow these two countries (and the entire U.N., really) to decide if and when we use our military power. Not good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts