John Kerry - Did I say that?!?!

[Celeste 341]

After listening to opinion after opinion today on the talk radio station (only station we could pick up well on the jobsite) I came home to this photo in my email box.

I think Kerry is a pompous ass...He hasn't even bothered to try to retract, back up & punt...nothing.........and this picture is HILARIOUS!

[kevinw 14]

As long as you don't feel strongly about it Ryan. :-)

[Deck Guy 14]

Geez!!! Don't shoot the messenger! I was answering a question.

Our income tax has always been a progressive tax Ryan. You can't blame only the Dems for that one. I'm sure you went to a school where they taught the rationalization behind it. Bottom line, 10% to a guy making $10,000 dollars a year takes food out of his mouth. 10% to a guy making $35,000 doesn't.

I'm not arguing over this, but factually, individuals making over $200,000 (Adjusted Gross Income) are the most "wealthy," are they not? I don't understand your use of quotations there. It's just a simple definition, nothing implied at all. What's to get worked up about? I can tell you, a married couple in my neighborhood making $400,000 (AGI) would consider themselves pretty wealthy too!

I don't have the time to go back and research the last century and see specifically who's responsible, but obviously both parties subscribe to this current system, since both have had control of our government at one time or another, and neither has done much to change it. Bush's tax breaks were only a couple percent in a few places too. No attempt to overhaul the tax code by any stretch of the imagination.

Personally, I'm all for a more simplified plan. No deductions, no exclusions, just a flat tax. You could do your taxes on a postcard with a few blanks to fill in. After exempting, for example, the first $30,000 for everybody, it would go like this...

How much did you make after the standard exemption?________

Multiply by x% ________

Total ________

Send a check for that amount.

Of course, many lawyers and accountants would be in the unemployment lines as a result, and tax shelters would dissappear forever.

Now, back to why Democrats (particularly John Kerry today) are all Evil!!!

[StainlessDeal 16]

Why is some loser making $10k/year MY problem? Why should *I* pay more because he's either too lazy or too stupid to make more than $10k/year???

Mike, with all due respect, you will pay for the unlucky and irresponsible whether or not we have progressive taxes. Unless, of course, you'd advocate letting the poorest people die as they made that little money. As they are losers, perhaps they deserve termination? When you say stupid, do you mean literal low intelligence, or just hopeless dreamers, too?

I mean, we all agree that there is no room on the raft for scalliwags (however we define them), but how about the actual mentally deficient?

Just trying to get a handle on the whole "Christian" conservative thing here.

I can follow the libertarians' points, and tend to agree while I still worry that people that don't need money for anything other than as "a symbol of my success", would claim that they don't get more protection or use of what those dollars are spent on after collection as taxes. I think one of the great attractions of wealth is the better access to education and opportunities to make yet more money. Nothing can be done (nor, probably, should it) about the inequalities that come with the accidents of birth. But we can't claim to be about liberty and opportunity if we constantly strive to lock people in steerage until the lifeboats are full.

It is amazing how much free stuff the private sector donates to socialites and other wealthy celebs, while people still starve and infant mortality rises in the shining beacon of western democracy.

None of that strikes me as particularly logical or Christian. It is just avarice.

I have always worked, and I respect the desire to keep what we earn, but we ARE our brothers' keepers, whether we like it or no. People don't have to be losers to only make $10000 a year. Misfortune can start anyone on the way.

I don't believe in luck, I generally believe that behind most stories of "bad luck" is some bad decision. I know what it is to have to own my own sins and failures. However, I also don't believe we can be perfect all the time, and there are always the calculated risks we take. Like letting your spouse get on an airliner for a business trip.

One mistake by a pilot that kills the folks on that plane certainly can't be the fault of the passenger. Yet it could rain misfortune down on you, the widow/widower. Especially if the company you work for is bought soon after (maybe because you and your coworkers are diligent, responsible, employees) and your seat isn't there after the music stops. Now you make nothing, have a mortgage, children, no family... now ten grand in the local coffee shop looks good. Especially if you have made any financial blunders at all, ever.

Certainly not everybody will fit this case, but lets not forget that we need ditch-diggers, too. Why are we faulty if we wind up starting over, or starting at the bottom? Why are those who choose to work for others reviled so often? People are not irresponsible, or weak, or "bad", or lazy, or losers, just because they work for others. Being an employee isn't a flaw, it is a way to make a living. Granted, it isn't the way to riches usually, but everything that needs to be accomplished in this nation, requires that somebody does it. Generally that will require that they can live another day on those earnings.

So, yes we should be able to cut waste, and pay less of what we all make in taxes, and still be a great democracy. We just ought to remember that we don't really know all those "others" out there soaking up our tax dollars, we only think we do.

I'm bothered by the hubris, the lack of humility, and the ill will that seems to permeate some of these discussions. Kerry said a stupid thing, Bush has as well, but we citizens have chosen these people from amongst ourselves: They are we!

You want better? Be better! Participate in the running of some local part of this great country. Add some diligence to the government, and some perspective in your own life. Pay attention to what the people on "your" side say and do as much as you do the others.

And we should all remember that a 51/49 split is hardly a mandate from the governed. It is a sign that each side is offering neither powerful, reasoned arguments nor powerful, reasonable candidates.

Here endeth my rant, go in peace, praise the Lord!

(Sorry Mike, if that seemed personal. Please rest assured that I respect you, and in no way mean to impugn your religion or your experience of it.)

[Deck Guy 14]

Guys, I wasn't advocating progressive taxation, and if you read my post I clearly state the type of tax I support. I was just explaining (maybe oversimplifying) the rationale behind it. If you don't like it, call your congressman (Democrat or Republican)! Don't complain to me!

Now, as I said, let's get back to bashing Democrats and John Kerry (the Dem de jour)! We'll move on to Hillary when we run out of steam! Then maybe those no-good welfare cheats and illegal immigrants?

[PLD 14]

Our income tax has always been a progressive tax Ryan.

That may be technically correct, but the first "true" federal income tax enacted in 1913 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 and a 6% tax on incomes of more than $500,000. In todays dollars, that's 1% on incomes over $280k/yr and 6% on incomes over $46.7million/yr.

That's one hell of a long way from the socialist graduated income tax we labor under today. FWIW, the chief opposition to passing the bill was that the lower bracket may someday rise to the absurd level of 5% ?!?

Bottom line, 10% to a guy making $10,000 dollars a year takes food out of his mouth. 10% to a guy making $35,000 doesn't.

I hear you, but does that guy use any less Fire, Police, Roads, or Military infrastructure? Does Wal-Mart charge him any less? McDonalds? Do you? Of course not. The cost of operations does not vary by one's economic status, neither should the burden.

[Mike Williamson 198]

Our income tax has always been a progressive tax Ryan. You can't blame only the Dems for that one. I'm sure you went to a school where they taught the rationalization behind it. Bottom line, 10% to a guy making $10,000 dollars a year takes food out of his mouth. 10% to a guy making $35,000 doesn't.

Why is some loser making $10k/year MY problem? Why should *I* pay more because he's either too lazy or too stupid to make more than $10k/year???

[Jeff 232]

I've been off the internet for a couple weeks since we moved to the new house

WHAT HAVE I BEEN MISSING, political stuff. Who whats to argue with me?????

KERRY IS A FOOL. I used to like him years ago in Mass, he always was for the working man more so than many other pols. Now he should just shut up, he lost , he's the past

George W is a fool too!!!!!!!!! You want to know why? LOL

[Mountain View 14]

That may be technically correct, but the first "true" federal income tax enacted in 1913 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 and a 6% tax on incomes of more than $500,000. In todays dollars, that's 1% on incomes over $280k/yr and 6% on incomes over $46.7million/yr.

That's one hell of a long way from the socialist graduated income tax we labor under today. FWIW, the chief opposition to passing the bill was that the lower bracket may someday rise to the absurd level of 5% ?!?

I hear you, but does that guy use any less Fire, Police, Roads, or Military infrastructure? Does Wal-Mart charge him any less? McDonalds? Do you? Of course not. The cost of operations does not vary by one's economic status, neither should the burden.

Does that mean everyone pays a flat percentage rate on their entire income?

Thank goodness for the 22nd amendment!!

[Mountain View 14]

You,I and everyone else in this country wanted Bush to go get the bad guys after 9/11 and now that he's done it you bastardise him.

Last time I checked, Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

[kevinw 14]

Last time I checked, Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

Exactly! Saddam Hussein didn't sell any weapons to the terrorists. He didn't give them safe haven in Iraq. He didn't support them financially.

No wait...he did. Never mind.

[Mike Williamson 198]

Last time I checked, Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

Who'd you check with?

[RyanH 14]

Does anybody remember when Clinton went after Slobodan Milosevic? Anybody? I don't get it....we go in after him, the UN tries guy for crimes against humanity, blah blah blah. But for whatever reason Bush does THE SAME DAMNED THING to Saddam and all of a sudden we put our heads in the sand and say "oh, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." Nobody moaned about Clinton and Kosovo, but maybe it's because it all happened when Lewinski was playing her games. We are an entertainment culture, after all. Real news be damned. I just don't understand why this administration is getting such a bad rap for trying to bring down a ruler who had intentions of building forces against us, but was all for Clinton going after someone who was only guilty of harming his own people.

Can anybody paint some logic into this picture for me because I truly don't know. Perhaps, like Gump, "I'm not a smart man, Jenny."

[Jeff 232]

Does anybody remember when Clinton went after Slobodan Milosevic? Anybody? I don't get it....we go in after him, the UN tries guy for crimes against humanity, blah blah blah. But for whatever reason Bush does THE SAME DAMNED THING to Saddam and all of a sudden we put our heads in the sand and say "oh, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." Nobody moaned about Clinton and Kosovo, but maybe it's because it all happened when Lewinski was playing her games. We are an entertainment culture, after all. Real news be damned. I just don't understand why this administration is getting such a bad rap for trying to bring down a ruler who had intentions of building forces against us, but was all for Clinton going after someone who was only guilty of harming his own people.

Can anybody paint some logic into this picture for me because I truly don't know. Perhaps, like Gump, "I'm not a smart man, Jenny."

People actually did complain about Kosov, but Clinton went anyway. We won that war

Logic is - Bush is getting crap because he went to Iraq under false pretenses. If he said we are going to Iraq to get Saddam, because he kills his people, because Saddam had a hit out on GW Sr., Or we want to take his oil. But Bush attached Iraq to the war on terror and really we all know 9/11 & Iraq was 2 different things, It REALLY WAS. He should have finished the job in Afganistan, gotten Bin Laden , tracked other terrorist areas, Then at a much later date, maybe go after Saddam. We had Saddam contained, we all know it and the world knew it, thats why we didnt get a lot of support like the 1st Iraq war.

Bin ladan Killed our people on 9/11 not Saddam. I for one would really like to see Bin Laden DEAD.

Theres a lot of bad people in this world, but 9/11 was a HORRIBLE DAY in my and all us Americans, wether it was bad intel or just plain lying on the Bush admin, we should have got Bin Laden and not ditracted from that to go after Saddam, just because Bush doent like Saddam. Bush knew he was going to go after Saddam before 9/11, but 9/11 gave him the chance and thats why I feel Bush lied to all of us. Thats why I say what Bush did wasnt the same as Clinton & Milosevic

KILL BIN LADEN I hate that he's still alive

JL

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Kerry is as intelligent as they come but when intelligent people make jokes, they usually make reeeeeaaaaalllllllyyyy BAD ones.

He still hasn't made Bush (prop) look smart.

Rod!~

[John T 744]

People actually did complain about Kosov, but Clinton went anyway. We won that war

Logic is - Bush is getting crap because he went to Iraq under false pretenses. If he said we are going to Iraq to get Saddam, because he kills his people, because Saddam had a hit out on GW Sr., Or we want to take his oil. But Bush attached Iraq to the war on terror and really we all know 9/11 & Iraq was 2 different things, It REALLY WAS. He should have finished the job in Afganistan, gotten Bin Laden , tracked other terrorist areas, Then at a much later date, maybe go after Saddam. We had Saddam contained, we all know it and the world knew it, thats why we didnt get a lot of support like the 1st Iraq war.

Bin ladan Killed our people on 9/11 not Saddam. I for one would really like to see Bin Laden DEAD.

Theres a lot of bad people in this world, but 9/11 was a HORRIBLE DAY in my and all us Americans, wether it was bad intel or just plain lying on the Bush admin, we should have got Bin Laden and not ditracted from that to go after Saddam, just because Bush doent like Saddam. Bush knew he was going to go after Saddam before 9/11, but 9/11 gave him the chance and thats why I feel Bush lied to all of us. Thats why I say what Bush did wasnt the same as Clinton & Milosevic

KILL BIN LADEN I hate that he's still alive

JL

The only part that your missing here Jeff and its a huge part is that Saddam Hussien who hates us like no other was harboring terrorist especially the Al Qaeda terrorist. Yes I agree that Bush could have done a much better job getting Osama Bin Laden but once again your over looking the FACT that Clinton could have easily taken Osama Down on 3 seperate occasions. But since Clinton(Who was to busy playing with Monica--OK I'm just throwing a sneaky Jab here) didn't do his job and he admits to this we finally got hit which was 9/11. I don't blame Clinton for us getting hit and the same goes with Bush. The bottom line there was that Osama was smart enough to go after the Twin Towers because those buildings represent American Success and on top of that Osama had even bigger nuts to go after our Nations Capital and other surrounding buildings. For what he and his group that he founded the Al Qaeda did was a complete suicide attack by them...So with that being said we now have an obligation to track him and his group down no matter where they are...and this is where Saddam comes in..and Now Saddam is gone...No simpathy here from me about that.

Personally if I was in Bush's shoes when 9/11 happened I would have incorporated the draft immiedately. This way we would have had enough troups to zap out Saddam and his evilness and also probably within the first year after 9/11 would have caught and killed Osama and decimated his Al Qaeda and If Bush would have lost the 2004 election because the draft was brought back then so be it..but a politician being a politician which Bush and Clinton are first they care more about themselves then anything else..Such is a Politician.

[StainlessDeal 16]

I have to agree with you about the double standard, but I'll pick a different instance that particularly irks me.

About the same time that we began stepping up the saber-rattling in preparation for entering Iraq, there was serious trouble a-brewin' in the Sudan or Liberia (I think that's where).

The US was being chastised on the one hand for contemplating going into Iraq to deal with a man/gov't that had never been in compliance with UN sponsored resolutions that were the peace settlement from a prior war; while on the other hand we were being reviled for being unwilling to enter this other nation in Africa to stop a genocidal war.

The world likes to have it both ways with us. The secret is that without the US providing the manpower, money, and spine, the UN ceases to exist as a real tool for world diplomacy or mediation.

I think that is the big arrow in our quiver, and that it is about time we and the world came to realize this.

Saddam had to go, he was overdue. I just think we needed to get our ducks a little straighter before we went. The time to rectify that is gone, so let's deal with what we have in play.

Bin Laden has to go. We need both to catch him, and to be seen as actually pursuing him.

Kerry is a fool for many reasons including this dumb move.

Bush needs effective leaders in charge below him, and to realize that loyalty to subordinates can only take you so far when they are ineffective. This is true no matter the cause of the ineffectiveness.

Good to see you back, Jeff, now I don't have to argue against these redoubtable neoconservatives and libertarians! I'm not liberal or smart enough to do the arguments justice, and I lack your passionate fire.

No more books from me.:lgkick:

[Mike Williamson 198]

People actually did complain about Kosov, but Clinton went anyway. We won that war

We WHAT??? We pulled out long before anything was "won"...The 1993 raid was a fiasco, and it took until 1995 to get him to sign the Dayton Accord...which didn't stop him from continuing the horrible things he was doing to the Serbs. It wasn't until 2000 that he was removed from power by his own people....

We didn't win a damn thing in Kosovo...

Logic is - Bush is getting crap because he went to Iraq under false pretenses.

No, we went in under partially erroneous intelligence. We went in because Saddam refused to comply with UN resolutions. We went in when we did, in part, because of intelligence that led some to believe that Saddam was aggressively pursuing WMD programs. Some of that intelligence turned out to be faulty. Whether there were ever any WMDs, or a nuclear program, is a topic for debate.

If he said we are going to Iraq to get Saddam, because he kills his people, because Saddam had a hit out on GW Sr., Or we want to take his oil. But Bush attached Iraq to the war on terror and really we all know 9/11 & Iraq was 2 different things, It REALLY WAS.

No, "we all" don't "really" know that at all. While there is no apparent direct link between Saddam and 9/11, there ARE links between Saddam and terrorism...

He should have finished the job in Afganistan, gotten Bin Laden , tracked other terrorist areas, Then at a much later date, maybe go after Saddam. We had Saddam contained, we all know it and the world knew it, thats why we didnt get a lot of support like the 1st Iraq war.

Did we pull out of Afghanistan? I don't think so. In fact, we're STILL there...That's a silly arguement. Going into Iraq had no effect on our operations in Afghanistan.

Bin ladan Killed our people on 9/11 not Saddam. I for one would really like to see Bin Laden DEAD.

Theres a lot of bad people in this world, but 9/11 was a HORRIBLE DAY in my and all us Americans, wether it was bad intel or just plain lying on the Bush admin, we should have got Bin Laden and not ditracted from that to go after Saddam, just because Bush doent like Saddam.

First you say "Bush lied" and now you say "IF he lied, or IF he had bad intel". Which is it? Or does it just feel good to say "Bush lied", even if you know you really don't have any basis for that accusation?

What, specifically, should we have done in Afghanistan that, in your opinion, we didn't do because of the timing of the Iraq invasion? I don't mean "get OBL"...I mean, what specific military operations?

Bush knew he was going to go after Saddam before 9/11, but 9/11 gave him the chance and thats why I feel Bush lied to all of us. Thats why I say what Bush did wasnt the same as Clinton & Milosevic

He did? He knew? Do you have proof of that, or is this just another anti-Bush accusation that has no basis in fact?

KILL BIN LADEN I hate that he's still alive

JL

There were rumors in late September that he was dead. Of course, they're unverified...for all we know, he's buried under a mountain of rubble, or dead somewhere from heal problems. Or not. We just don't know. I'm sure we're still looking, and I just don't see how being in Iraq has any effect on that whatsoever. Do you think EVERY military planner and leader in our nation's military is focused on Iraq and no one is watching Afghanistan, or anywhere else??? LOL!

[Mike Williamson 198]

Personally if I was in Bush's shoes when 9/11 happened I would have incorporated the draft immiedately.

Most of the military leadership disagrees with this position...

No one wants a draftee military...

If I'm out there fighting, I want the guy watching my back to be there because he chose to be, because he believes in what he's doing, not because he got a draft card in the mail.

[John T 744]

Most of the military leadership disagrees with this position...

No one wants a draftee military...

If I'm out there fighting, I want the guy watching my back to be there because he chose to be, because he believes in what he's doing, not because he got a draft card in the mail.

Thats a very valid point. I just have this all or nothing attitude when it comes to getting things done. I can't stand to see things done half assed thats why I brought up the draft point so we could have alot more troops where they need to be. But being a person of reason I'll retract that draft point I made but I will say this and I've felt this for years. Every 18 yr old male should be made to serve our Military for 2 yrs from the age of 18-20 or as soon as there summer ends when they get out of High School. OF course no one under 17 should be allowed to serve. This way this country as a whole stays patriotic instead of what your seeing now with this off the charts liberalism, Militia's and flag burners. This kind of crap never was around like this years ago until the Vietnam era but thats for another debate..

[Mike Williamson 198]

Thats a very valid point. I just have this all or nothing attitude when it comes to getting things done. I can't stand to see things done half assed thats why I brought up the draft point so we could have alot more troops where they need to be. But being a person of reason I'll retract that draft point I made but I will say this and I've felt this for years. Every 18 yr old male should be made to serve our Military for 2 yrs from the age of 18-20 or as soon as there summer ends when they get out of High School. OF course no one under 17 should be allowed to serve. This way this country as a whole stays patriotic instead of what your seeing now with this off the charts liberalism, Militia's and flag burners. This kind of crap never was around like this years ago until the Vietnam era but thats for another debate..

Not sure how I feel about that...It would solve some problems, but I'm not crazy about forced service...

[Jeff 232]

We WHAT??? We pulled out long before anything was "won"...The 1993 raid was a fiasco, and it took until 1995 to get him to sign the Dayton Accord...which didn't stop him from continuing the horrible things he was doing to the Serbs. It wasn't until 2000 that he was removed from power by his own people....

We didn't win a damn thing in Kosovo...

We helped bring him down

No, we went in under partially erroneous intelligence. We went in because Saddam refused to comply with UN resolutions. We went in when we did, in part, because of intelligence that led some to believe that Saddam was aggressively pursuing WMD programs. Some of that intelligence turned out to be faulty. Whether there were ever any WMDs, or a nuclear program, is a topic for debate.

Partially erroneous is putting it mildly

No, "we all" don't "really" know that at all. While there is no apparent direct link between Saddam and 9/11, there ARE links between Saddam and terrorism...

Did we pull out of Afghanistan? I don't think so. In fact, we're STILL there...That's a silly arguement. Going into Iraq had no effect on our operations in Afghanistan.

First you say "Bush lied" and now you say "IF he lied, or IF he had bad intel". Which is it? Or does it just feel good to say "Bush lied", even if you know you really don't have any basis for that accusation?

What, specifically, should we have done in Afghanistan that, in your opinion, we didn't do because of the timing of the Iraq invasion? I don't mean "get OBL"...I mean, what specific military operations?

He did? He knew? Do you have proof of that, or is this just another anti-Bush accusation that has no basis in fact?

There were rumors in late September that he was dead. Of course, they're unverified...for all we know, he's buried under a mountain of rubble, or dead somewhere from heal problems. Or not. We just don't know. I'm sure we're still looking, and I just don't see how being in Iraq has any effect on that whatsoever. Do you think EVERY military planner and leader in our nation's military is focused on Iraq and no one is watching Afghanistan, or anywhere else??? LOL!

ooooooooo

[Jeff 232]

We WHAT??? We pulled out long before anything was "won"...The 1993 raid was a fiasco, and it took until 1995 to get him to sign the Dayton Accord...which didn't stop him from continuing the horrible things he was doing to the Serbs. It wasn't until 2000 that he was removed from power by his own people....

We didn't win a damn thing in Kosovo...

Removed with our help & pressure

No, we went in under partially erroneous intelligence. We went in because Saddam refused to comply with UN resolutions. We went in when we did, in part, because of intelligence that led some to believe that Saddam was aggressively pursuing WMD programs. Some of that intelligence turned out to be faulty. Whether there were ever any WMDs, or a nuclear program, is a topic for debate.

Partially erroneous - thats putting it mildly.

No, "we all" don't "really" know that at all. While there is no apparent direct link between Saddam and 9/11, there ARE links between Saddam and terrorism...

Theres links to terrorism in many countries. We are spending all/most of our time , money & blood in Iraq because we were told by Bush that 9/11 & Saddam were one in the same.

Did we pull out of Afghanistan? I don't think so. In fact, we're STILL there...That's a silly arguement. Going into Iraq had no effect on our operations in Afghanistan.

We took the majority of our troops out to go to Iraq, before the job was done in afganistan and we shouldnt have. Saddam was contained we should of stayed longer looking for Bin Laden

NO EFFECT are you crazy, we went from what 150K troops in Afganistan to what 20K

First you say "Bush lied" and now you say "IF he lied, or IF he had bad intel". Which is it? Or does it just feel good to say "Bush lied", even if you know you really don't have any basis for that accusation?

What, specifically, should we have done in Afghanistan that, in your opinion, we didn't do because of the timing of the Iraq invasion? I don't mean "get OBL"...I mean, what specific military operations?

Bush lied, Bad intel, basis for my accusation. 1st - Yes there was bad intel, but there was intel that was skewed by the admin to make their point for going into Iraq.

Lied or bad intel, I was trying to be diplomatic

Basis for my accusation, theres proof out there if you werent blinded by your unconditional love/support for Bush you would/could see it, read it and common sense would help you see that Bush lied. But you'll never see it

WHAT SHOULD WE HAVE DONE IN AFGHANISTAN. Maybe not taken out over 100,000 troops, before the job was done. We took our troops out of the area that the one man that was truly the cause of 9/11 was hiding and sent them to Iraq

He did? He knew? Do you have proof of that, or is this just another anti-Bush accusation that has no basis in fact?

Mike there is proof out there, there is documentaion, there was high level meetings. Do I have proof, are you just that blind

There were rumors in late September that he was dead. Of course, they're unverified...for all we know, he's buried under a mountain of rubble, or dead somewhere from heal problems. Or not. We just don't know. I'm sure we're still looking, and I just don't see how being in Iraq has any effect on that whatsoever. Do you think EVERY military planner and leader in our nation's military is focused on Iraq and no one is watching Afghanistan, or anywhere else??? LOL!

You dont see any effect - WOW - I give up

Believe me I wish I was completly wrong, I wish I could trust Bush. Theres just to much that is wrong and I can never trust him. I personally think he's a liar and a hypocrite and I think he's helping to tear apart this country. He doesnt unite as a leader he divides. Plus he's an *******- OOOPS DID I SAY THAT

It's proven every day, month, year that Bush didnt plan well for going into Iraq. I HEARD RUMSFELD & BUSH SAY - The war will cost 10 billion, Iraq oil will pay for the war, mission accomplished, We will be treated as liberators, That the Iraq people will stand behind us, I've heard them say that the iraq military & police are trained and almost ready for over a year & a half.

I dont want to lose, but I see no winning strategy coming from anywhere and we still dont have BIN LADEN and now since we've been in Iraq terrorism has gotten worse

Bush is going to democratize the Middle East. Did they ask us to?

VOTE DEM IN 2006

[Mountain View 14]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain View

Last time I checked, Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

Who'd you check with?

Um, everyone. Even Bush had to finally fes up on this one.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Well, here we are all saying the basics of what reduces to the simple fact that we all have problems with our government and the people leading it.

Suffice it to say we are in for more problems on the home front and forget about bin laden, he was let go and as long as he stays on the loose we have reason to be in Iraq. Can anyone say scapegoat? Fall guy? Patsy? Misdirection? Diversion? Gambit, Ruse, Manipulation, Maneuver and most importantly Circumvention?

One of our customers had this sign in their window with a URL www.worldcantwait.org and it is a bit extreme but it is formed by people who are sick of what has been going on and what is being done to them and their families.

Have fun!

Rod!~

[John T 744]

Hey Jeff we all know your a good guy but man you sound like one of the Dixie Chicks :-D

You make it seem like George Bush is the enemy..Just like the Dixie chicks. Bush did all of this just to be the bad guy and Saddam well he's not that bad of a guy..George Bush is.

Hey You will be so sorry if your girl Hillary becomes president..yea you know the one who says she's a Yankee fan but yet she can't name anybody on the team except for Jeter..

There's some good Dems running for positions as there are republicans. This is where I think alot of people like yourself get crossed. You say vote Dems which is fair but that is a divided attitude which this country has bigtime. Why not just say vote for the best person. But then the debate begins which states that you must vote party line to get things done..This is where this country messes up and it will stay divided untill this thinking changes. All Dems are not good and some are flat out crooks as is some republicans but for the ones who vote strictly party line then they vote in the Good, The Bad and will throw in the ugly.

As for the Dixie chick line you know I'm just joking but I couldn't resist it.