Ok...I've given the Democrats here their ration of shit...

[cyberhound]

for months now because I largely cannot abide by their political philosphies. But, in the interest of fair play, I would like for the Republicans to make their case. Why should I vote for what is tatamount, when you strip away the rhetoric and actually look at their actions, Democrats for lower taxes and less environmental regulations?

[mdude85]

When you vote for a republican, you are generally voting for a higher degree of government spending, heavier interests in foreign policy, especially with respect to war, and of course, "tradiitional, god-fearing" candidates who will usually agree with the following values: anti-abortion, anti-drugs, pro internet-censorship, and anti-gay marriage.

While OF COURSE these things tend to vary wildly across the conservative base, they are a good starting point I think.

[ambysshrink]

Bush 43 had absolutely no interest in foreign policy coming into the last election, just thought I'd point that out.

[Dancing Ants]

no he did not, ambysshrink, but he got people who knew about it on his cabinet. did he make the best choices...i don't know yet, but he surrounded himself with people who knew about that stuff.

[mdude85]

Not quite true -- Bush always had plans to revamp military technology and give huge amounts of funding to the army to develop new ballistic missiles. The debates would not have let him slide with "absolutely no interest in foreign policy." Besides, there really is no difference between what Bush's interests were when he entered office, and what they were two or three years later. His interests are what he acts on -- increased funding for the military, going to war, and the biggest thing ever: The Bush Doctrine.

[Davenumber40]

for months now because I largely cannot abide by their political philosphies. But, in the interest of fair play, I would like for the Republicans to make their case. Why should I vote for what is tatamount, when you strip away the rhetoric and actually look at their actions, Democrats for lower taxes and less environmental regulations?

This is not the reason I am voting for him but this will probably be the best way of explaining why you should. Do you want to keep the tax cuts? Would you rather have John Kerry defending America or Geroge Bush? Those are two of the biggest questions in this election and I think they point you strongly toward Bush.

[FriedSquad]

is pouring billions into the military really considered foriegn policy now-a-days? i sure don't think so.



Not quite true -- Bush always had plans to revamp military technology and give huge amounts of funding to the army to develop new ballistic missiles. The debates would not have let him slide with "absolutely no interest in foreign policy." Besides, there really is no difference between what Bush's interests were when he entered office, and what they were two or three years later. His interests are what he acts on -- increased funding for the military, going to war, and the biggest thing ever: The Bush Doctrine.

[cyberhound]

It's so good that we actually have a couple of threads (the libertarian one being the other) that do not discuss Vietnam.

[Davenumber40]

is pouring billions into the military really considered foriegn policy now-a-days? i sure don't think so.

It is our military power that prevents many conflicts around the world before they start. If we want to remain the influence we are we need to continue, "pouring billions into the military". I think you can see how much our military declined under liberal administrations (Carter and Clinton) and how much it was boosted under conservatives (Reagan, Bush and W.)

[marco j]

This is not the reason I am voting for him but this will probably be the best way of explaining why you should. Do you want to keep the tax cuts? Would you rather have John Kerry defending America or Geroge Bush? Those are two of the biggest questions in this election and I think they point you strongly toward Bush.


:rolleyes:

ok really

someone with 20+ years of government experience and actual combat leadership experience !!!!

or

failed business man turned governor (mainly because of daddy's ties, even said out of his own mouth) suddenly turned president.

ask yourself who has more experience??? the answer is obviously Kerry

[mdude85]

is pouring billions into the military really considered foriegn policy now-a-days? i sure don't think so.

Um, yes? Who are we fighting... Ourselves?

[SMN43]

:rolleyes:

ok really

someone with 20+ years of government experience and actual combat leadership experience !!!!

or

failed business man turned governor (mainly because of daddy's ties, even said out of his own mouth) suddenly turned president.

ask yourself who has more experience??? the answer is obviously Kerry
if lighting village huts on fire with zippo lighters constitutes combat leadership experience then the world has gone to hell. the man admits to doing war crimes, doesn't that scare anyone at all?

[ambysshrink]

no he did not, ambysshrink, but he got people who knew about it on his cabinet. did he make the best choices...i don't know yet, but he surrounded himself with people who knew about that stuff.
Well then, what's the use in having a President? Why not just have a Cabinet?

A President should have some all-around knowledge regarding how the world works. President Bush does not have that. And what happens when two of his Cabinet members disagree (cough cough Cheney/Powell)?

[ambysshrink]

This is not the reason I am voting for him but this will probably be the best way of explaining why you should. Do you want to keep the tax cuts? Would you rather have John Kerry defending America or Geroge Bush? Those are two of the biggest questions in this election and I think they point you strongly toward Bush.
Yeah, because thanks to the invasion of Iraq, we're much safer. Especially when you consider the fact that Saddam had no WMDs, had no plans to attack the United States, had never even threatened the United States, and had no relationship with al Quaeda.

And thank God for the Saudis, who breed terrorism. But no worries, we won't go there.

Also, where's bin Laden?

[tdowe99]

the man admits to doing war crimes, doesn't that scare anyone at all?
No, because that's what's done in war. If Bush was over there (ha!), then he would have done the same things. Probably from the air, as he was a pilot.

Ok, enough about Vietnam.

The one thing I haven't heard discussed enough is gay rights. It seems to me that the Repbulicans are really bigoted. It's like calling gay people second-class citizens without the same rights (child adoption, visiting a sick partner in the hospital, etc) as straight people. One day we're gonna look back on these times and think we were quite stupid. The same way we do when we think back to before the Civil Rights movement.

My fix for gay marriage: Take the Federal Govt. out of marraige completely. No gay or straight marriage. Then let any two adults form their own union, and let the govt. recognize it. Tax benefits and legal issues included. Both gay and straight people would be "unionized," but of course they'd just say they're married. As for traditional marriages, let the churches do that. Then they'll have a say on whom they marry.

This should keep the Conservatives happy, and the Liberals happy too. And bottom line, it makes every person, no matter what orientation they are, equal in the eyes of the law.


Tony Dowe for President 2020 ;)

[Davenumber40]

:rolleyes:

ok really

someone with 20+ years of government experience and actual combat leadership experience !!!!

or

failed business man turned governor (mainly because of daddy's ties, even said out of his own mouth) suddenly turned president.

ask yourself who has more experience??? the answer is obviously Kerry

He was in Vietnam for all of 4 months. Kerry proved that in his 20 years of "leadership" how seriously he took his votes. He didn't bother to show up for any public hearings of the senate intelligence comittee in the year after 9/11. He voted against funding the B1 bomber, the B2 bomber, the F14, the F15, and the apache helicopter. And voted for or against (take your pick he argued that he did both) funding our troops in Iraq. Of course his defense record is excellent. I'm sure everyone in the Pentagon is hoping he beats W.

[Davenumber40]

Yeah, because thanks to the invasion of Iraq, we're much safer. Especially when you consider the fact that Saddam had no WMDs, had no plans to attack the United States, had never even threatened the United States, and had no relationship with al Quaeda.

And thank God for the Saudis, who breed terrorism. But no worries, we won't go there.

Also, where's bin Laden?

But Saddam did have WMD's and in between the time that inspectors left and now they have disappeared. Should we let rouge nations in clear violation of over a dozen UN resolutions continue to do what they want? He was clearly unstable and proved time and again he had no problem with killing his own people and those of foriegn nations. The region is more stable without him in power.

[ambysshrink]

HHe voted against funding the B1 bomber, the B2 bomber, the F14, the F15, and the apache helicopter.
And thank God for that. Please do your research.

Which of those aircrafts worked well in Afghanistan?

How many Apaches have tumbled down in Iraq so far?

I'm sick of fencing wits with people who throw out blind statistics. It's like fencing with a rubber ball.

[ambysshrink]

Should we let rouge nations in clear violation of over a dozen UN resolutions continue to do what they want? He was clearly unstable and proved time and again he had no problem with killing his own people and those of foriegn nations. The region is more stable without him in power.
Israel leads the world in UN violations. By that logic, why not invade Israel?

And yes he was unstable. SO are a few hundred other countries. The fact of the matter is that The War in IRaq had nothing to do with a War on Terrorism. If Bush wanted to fight terrorism, he wouldn't have gone into Iraq; he'd have gone into Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or...

[Davenumber40]

And thank God for that. Please do your research.

Which of those aircrafts worked well in Afghanistan?

How many Apaches have tumbled down in Iraq so far?

I'm sick of fencing wits with people who throw out blind statistics. It's like fencing with a rubber ball.

How do you even argue with someone that doesn't think the B1, B2, F14, F15, and Apache are not vital to our current military? It blows my mind that you could be this stupid. No we don't need any of those things. For the love of God someone in the military please help me explain how important these aircraft are.

So we get rid of the F14's. What do we launch off carriers? Do we get rid of them too?

What aircraft patrol the skies in America if we don't have F15's?

Without bombers how do we have any chance of hitting long range targets?

Helicoters get shot down. They fly low and take on very dangerous missions.

[ambysshrink]

Uggh, that whole response got truncated somehow and, well, I wound up misquoting myself pretty bad :lol: ... here's what I meant to say.

Yes, Kerry voted against those aircrafts.

But the bill wasn't that simple. There were dozens of other provisions in it that many objected to for several reasons (including other weapons, etc.). WHat I meant to ask was why were those other provisions in there, as many of them were not needed or were wasteful or were purely there for political points?

If a bill was drafted that only had those that you mentioned, it would have been a different picture, but that just isn't what happenned.

And a more general side note to remember, The President controls the military; congress controls the budget. THe only way for a Congressman to stop military action is to deprive it of funding.

[Davenumber40]

Which of those aircrafts worked well in Afghanistan?

How many Apaches have tumbled down in Iraq so far?


I'm still stuck on this. These two statements were intentional.

[ambysshrink]

The second one was, the first wasn't.

"Those aircrafts" was referring to the other aircrafts in the bill that you did not allude to that I just mentioned in my correction post. It wasn't a reference to the aircrafts you mentioned.

The only one that you wrote of that I objected to was the apache helicopter. I'm not saying we shouldn't use them, I"m just noting that they've been problematic.

[devilish@darts]

For the record, Voting Democrat - means higher taxes, more spending and more social programs. In a nut shell, I pay more taxes so the government can spend money on people who (most need it), but a few who abuse the system. I don't need the government spending my money.

Voting Republican - means less government, lower taxes and less social programs. I keep my money, give to the social programs I know are working and feel good about those programs. But, at the same time, I am constantly bombarded as to what is moral.

I vote for the best candidate not the best party. I want to know how Kerry would take a softer approach to the war on terrorism (does that mean he will send a care package first & ask how everyone is doing?). And Bush can keep his sacred marriages and explain it to Cheney's daughter.

I am writing in George Carlin for President - he is the best candidate.

[barefoot]

Yeah, because thanks to the invasion of Iraq, we're much safer. Especially when you consider the fact that Saddam had no WMDs, had no plans to attack the United States, had never even threatened the United States, and had no relationship with al Quaeda.

And thank God for the Saudis, who breed terrorism. But no worries, we won't go there.

Also, where's bin Laden?
Us devilish Republicans are hiding him in a bag until right before the election to sway the vote :devil

[devilish@darts]

Us devilish Republicans are hiding him in a bag until right before the election to sway the vote :devil

:lol sadly, people will believe it.

[ambysshrink]

For the record, Voting Democrat - means... more spending.
Not anymore. Now it just means "don't drive up as big a defacit." Bush's spending is exhorbitant.

[devilish@darts]

Not anymore. Now it just means "don't drive up as big a defacit." Bush's spending is exhorbitant.

Any President's spending will be exhorbitant, when involved in a War, but that is a whole other can of worms that I don't have the brainpower to discuss. Sorry - Friday before a three day weekend.

[nonewdirections]

is pouring billions into the military really considered foriegn policy now-a-days? i sure don't think so.
it's related to foreign policy, but your entire foreign policy stance can't just be "build up the military" (contrary to what i'm sure a large portion of the US population probably believes). foreign policy involves making decisions on relations with other countries, deciding how to react to international situations, how to interact with international organizations/treaties, and forming an informed and just stance on global issues. military spending and development is a part of this overall strategy, but by itself or even in general does not constitute "foreign policy." my opinion is that bush's foreign policy knowledge and concept/ideology was both flawed and misinformed in 2000/2001, and since 2001 has been badly executed and seriously misguided.

[mdude85]

For the record, Voting Democrat - means higher taxes, more spending and more social programs. In a nut shell, I pay more taxes so the government can spend money on people who (most need it), but a few who abuse the system. I don't need the government spending my money.

Voting Republican - means less government, lower taxes and less social programs. I keep my money, give to the social programs I know are working and feel good about those programs. But, at the same time, I am constantly bombarded as to what is moral.

I vote for the best candidate not the best party. I want to know how Kerry would take a softer approach to the war on terrorism (does that mean he will send a care package first & ask how everyone is doing?). And Bush can keep his sacred marriages and explain it to Cheney's daughter.

....snip....

I am writing in George Carlin for President - he is the best candidate.

Vote Republican also equals more spending.

[cyberhound]

For the record, Voting Democrat - means higher taxes, more spending and more social programs. In a nut shell, I pay more taxes so the government can spend money on people who (most need it), but a few who abuse the system. I don't need the government spending my money.

Voting Republican - means less government, lower taxes and less social programs. I keep my money, give to the social programs I know are working and feel good about those programs. But, at the same time, I am constantly bombarded as to what is moral.
Which social programs are working that you give to? How have the Republicans given us less government? Republicans don't spend less money. Show me where they have cut the federal budget.

[ambysshrink]

Which social programs are working that you give to? How have the Republicans given us less government? Republicans don't spend less money. Show me where they have cut the federal budget.
:thumbsup :thumbsup

He as may as well have just said "Birdies are pretty."

[saygoodbye12]

Well then, what's the use in having a President? Why not just have a Cabinet?

A President should have some all-around knowledge regarding how the world works. President Bush does not have that. And what happens when two of his Cabinet members disagree (cough cough Cheney/Powell)?
What qualifications does John Kerry have that make him a foreign policy expert all on his own?

[DMBSignGuy]

Which social programs are working that you give to? How have the Republicans given us less government? Republicans don't spend less money. Show me where they have cut the federal budget.

great point on a broad issue. i dont understand why, in todays political world, we are still using these 19th century definitons of republican and democrat when both sides freely move amongst each others definitions. someone early said it, we should vote for the candidate not the party.

[ambysshrink]

What qualifications does John Kerry have that make him a foreign policy expert all on his own?
You either...
A. Didn't read what I said, or...
B. Want to put words in my mouth or...
C. Both of the above.

[devilish@darts]

Which social programs are working that you give to? How have the Republicans given us less government? Republicans don't spend less money. Show me where they have cut the federal budget.


Local agencies that deal with our local groups in need - i.e. Cedars Home for Children (helps out local children either in foster care or on the streets), I volunteer at Matt Talbot kitchen (local shelter), Nebraska Law Enforcement Officer's Memorial (my father was killed in the line of duty), Lincoln Action Program. You get my drift.

As someone pointed out, the view of the Republicans and Democrats is a bit outdated. So I digress.

[crozetiga]

But Saddam did have WMD's and in between the time that inspectors left and now they have disappeared. Should we let rouge nations in clear violation of over a dozen UN resolutions continue to do what they want? He was clearly unstable and proved time and again he had no problem with killing his own people and those of foriegn nations. The region is more stable without him in power.

I dont think that is correct. The inspectors found no WMDs. I do recall him destroying the last of the scud missiles about a month before we bombed him. I also dont agree that the region is more stable without him in power. There is more terrorists in Iraq now than there ever was with Saddam. Our attack and our occupation (that was for Zell Miller) let terrorists in and turned ordinary citizens into terrorists


He was in Vietnam for all of 4 months. Kerry proved that in his 20 years of "leadership" how seriously he took his votes. He didn't bother to show up for any public hearings of the senate intelligence comittee in the year after 9/11. He voted against funding the B1 bomber, the B2 bomber, the F14, the F15, and the apache helicopter. And voted for or against (take your pick he argued that he did both) funding our troops in Iraq. Of course his defense record is excellent. I'm sure everyone in the Pentagon is hoping he beats W.

Thank you for quoting Zell Miller's speech. You just about got it right. And now here is the rest of the story. If you would have watched CNN or ABC nightly news or listened to All Things Considered on NPR you would already know this.

All those weapons systems were voted against because the cold war had just ended. Some senators thought that with the deficit they were in at the time, that we couldnt justify spending that much. Heres and interesting fact: Dick Cheney while in the 1st Bush) spoke in front of the senate saying that he was against getting them at the time too.

Here is the story behind the voting for the iraq war and then voting against the war.

He voted for the war at the beginning because he was dooped almost everyone in the country by the "bogus intelligence"

He voted for the 87 Billion dollar supplimental budget for supplies when it was funded by repealing the tax cut for the wealthy.

He then voted against the 87 Billion when the republican controlled senate change it so there was no funding for it at all. It was all to be deficit spending.


In both cases, Kerry was act as a fiscal conservative(conservative like as in you conserve your money or your environment not the bastardized version that the Republicans use. He didnt want deficit spending. Is that so wrong. Who wants their children or grandchildren to be paying this off. Not me.

My 2 cents
Josh

[nubby]

I dont think that is correct. The inspectors found no WMDs. I do recall him destroying the last of the scud missiles about a month before we bombed him. I also dont agree that the region is more stable without him in power. There is more terrorists in Iraq now than there ever was with Saddam. Our attack and our occupation (that was for Zell Miller) let terrorists in and turned ordinary citizens into terrorists




Thank you for quoting Zell Miller's speech. You just about got it right. And now here is the rest of the story. If you would have watched CNN or ABC nightly news or listened to All Things Considered on NPR you would already know this.

All those weapons systems were voted against because the cold war had just ended. Some senators thought that with the deficit they were in at the time, that we couldnt justify spending that much. Heres and interesting fact: Dick Cheney while in the 1st Bush) spoke in front of the senate saying that he was against getting them at the time too.

Here is the story behind the voting for the iraq war and then voting against the war.

He voted for the war at the beginning because he was dooped almost everyone in the country by the "bogus intelligence"

He voted for the 87 Billion dollar supplimental budget for supplies when it was funded by repealing the tax cut for the wealthy.

He then voted against the 87 Billion when the republican controlled senate change it so there was no funding for it at all. It was all to be deficit spending.


In both cases, Kerry was act as a fiscal conservative(conservative like as in you conserve your money or your environment not the bastardized version that the Republicans use. He didnt want deficit spending. Is that so wrong. Who wants their children or grandchildren to be paying this off. Not me.

My 2 cents
Josh
Watch them ignore everything you just said.

[crozetiga]

probably so.... it seems to happen alot

Josh

[crozetiga]

Just wanted to say sorry for all of the typos in my previous post. It was 5:00 on a friday at work and I wanted to get out of there quick.

Josh

[DMBSignGuy]

:thumbsup I dont think that is correct. The inspectors found no WMDs. I do recall him destroying the last of the scud missiles about a month before we bombed him. I also dont agree that the region is more stable without him in power. There is more terrorists in Iraq now than there ever was with Saddam. Our attack and our occupation (that was for Zell Miller) let terrorists in and turned ordinary citizens into terrorists




Thank you for quoting Zell Miller's speech. You just about got it right. And now here is the rest of the story. If you would have watched CNN or ABC nightly news or listened to All Things Considered on NPR you would already know this.

All those weapons systems were voted against because the cold war had just ended. Some senators thought that with the deficit they were in at the time, that we couldnt justify spending that much. Heres and interesting fact: Dick Cheney while in the 1st Bush) spoke in front of the senate saying that he was against getting them at the time too.

Here is the story behind the voting for the iraq war and then voting against the war.

He voted for the war at the beginning because he was dooped almost everyone in the country by the "bogus intelligence"

He voted for the 87 Billion dollar supplimental budget for supplies when it was funded by repealing the tax cut for the wealthy.

He then voted against the 87 Billion when the republican controlled senate change it so there was no funding for it at all. It was all to be deficit spending.


In both cases, Kerry was act as a fiscal conservative(conservative like as in you conserve your money or your environment not the bastardized version that the Republicans use. He didnt want deficit spending. Is that so wrong. Who wants their children or grandchildren to be paying this off. Not me.

My 2 cents
Josh

[crozetiga]

successfully ignored!!!

[marco j]

successfully ignored!!!

yep pretty pathetic AND typical.

[saygoodbye12]

In both cases, Kerry was act as a fiscal conservative(conservative like as in you conserve your money or your environment not the bastardized version that the Republicans use. He didnt want deficit spending. Is that so wrong. Who wants their children or grandchildren to be paying this off. Not me.

My 2 cents
Josh
Assuming you're right, I think you should be his PR guy...this certainly is a better explanation than, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

But don't say the man doesn't want deficit spending.

Funny...Since on Tim Russert, he had this to say:

RUSSERT: In the interest of candor and clarity, you have promised to create 10 million jobs and cut the deficit in half in your first four years.

KERRY: Yes, sir.

RUSSERT: If you don't achieve those goals, would you pledge you will not seek re-election?

KERRY: Well, it would depend on the circumstances. If I don't because there's a war or something terrible happens, of course I'm not going to make that pledge.


So he'll approve deficit spending when he's the guy in charge. Excellent.


Plus, there is absolutely NO way he can successfully fund all these programs he is promising (which he said, unlike Bush he WILL fund) and drop the debt. Unless he is planning on raising all our taxes. And wouldn't that be a bitch.

[ambysshrink]

this certainly is a better explanation than, [font=Verdana]"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
If I see that quote one more time I'm going to vomit. Yes, we all know it was a stupid thing to say. I'm pro-kerry, but I think it was a stupid thing to say, just like all other rational pro-Kerry citizens. Democrats and republicans alike have moved on from this PR blunder. I could give you a list of Bush PR blunders if you'd like.

[cyberhound]

successfully ignored!!!
Are you really that big of a tool? Kerry acting like a fiscal conservative and not wanting deficit spending? Hardly. Kerry was acting like a partisan politician and that is all. I'm sure Sen. Kerry's voting record on other bills loaded with pork and unfunded or underfunded mandates is consistent with this vote. Also, since you claim that Sen. Kerry was duped into voting for the war on bogus intelligence, perhaps you can explain how he came to vote for it in the first place, given he was on the senate intelligence committee. Maybe you can explain how since he was duped, that given what he knows now about Iraq, he still would have voted for the war (I know that position can change, and may have changed several times during the writing of this post). Please, put down your cup of purple kool-aid and enlighten us all on these matters once again.

[saygoodbye12]

If I see that quote one more time I'm going to vomit. Yes, we all know it was a stupid thing to say. I'm pro-kerry, but I think it was a stupid thing to say, just like all other rational pro-Kerry citizens. Democrats and republicans alike have moved on from this PR blunder. I could give you a list of Bush PR blunders if you'd like.
No because I'm not talking about Bush, but thanks.

My point simply was, you can't blame people for being confused when he made a statement like that. Plain and simple.

[cyberhound]

If I see that quote one more time I'm going to vomit. Yes, we all know it was a stupid thing to say. I'm pro-kerry, but I think it was a stupid thing to say, just like all other rational pro-Kerry citizens. Democrats and republicans alike have moved on from this PR blunder. I could give you a list of Bush PR blunders if you'd like.
Not for me, I know all about Bush's blunders. But are certain blunders acceptable depending on who you are running against???

Howard Dean: December 15th, 2003- Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles "The capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer." "The difficulties and tragedies we faced in Iraq show the administration launched the war in the wrong way at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at the extraordinary cost so far of $166 billion."

John Kerry: December 16th, 2003 Drake University in Iowa "Those who doubted whether the Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

John Kerry: September 6th, 2004- called the invasion of Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"

"I said this from the beginning of the debate to the walk up to the war," Kerry told supporters. "I said, Mr. President don't rush to war, take the time to build a legitimate coalition and have a plan to win the peace."

[mwjorgens]

the man admits to doing war crimes, doesn't that scare anyone at all?
scares me no more than the man who is bent on creating as much havoc, death, and trouble throughout the world as he can, and in the name of freedom. if that is freedom then i want someone to always be telling me what to do.

[Dancing Ants]

And thank God for that. Please do your research.

Which of those aircrafts worked well in Afghanistan?

How many Apaches have tumbled down in Iraq so far?

I'm sick of fencing wits with people who throw out blind statistics. It's like fencing with a rubber ball.


well, the B1 and B2 work extremely well. The F-15 is the best aircraft in the world right now, well, until the F-22 and F-35 come on line in '08. The F-14 has been the mainstay fighter of the US since the early 70s. It's a great unit, as 30 years of experience have shown.

[Dancing Ants]

scares me no more than the man who is bent on creating as much havoc, death, and trouble throughout the world as he can, and in the name of freedom. if that is freedom then i want someone to always be telling me what to do.

wow, that was clever.

[MattJ]

well, the B1 and B2 work extremely well. The F-15 is the best aircraft in the world right now, well, until the F-22 and F-35 come on line in '08. The F-14 has been the mainstay fighter of the US since the early 70s. It's a great unit, as 30 years of experience have shown.

Don't really agree with you on the first statement. B1 program has been kind of a money black hole and they haven't been used much. Intended pretty much for war with the soviets and it has had lots of technical problems limiting its service. If you're interested:

http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-020514-failures-b1bomber.html

Also (and this is my emprical opinion) I think the tactical usefulness of the B2 is slightly overrated because we don't really deploy them too much in any conflict where they can conceivable be shot down because they are extremely expensive.

And I'm not sure I'd qualify the F14 as a mainstay. They're more for fleet defense and have a total of 4 air to air kills in they're service (2 Libyan encounters in the 80s). That's a semantic argument though.

-m

One last side note about administrations spending a lot on the military. Two gigantic military programs, Comanche and Crusader were both cancelled on this administrations watch, with at least the first making giant ripples in the defense industry. Something to think about.

[Warehouse21]

if lighting village huts on fire with zippo lighters constitutes combat leadership experience then the world has gone to hell. the man admits to doing war crimes, doesn't that scare anyone at all?

All of them did what they had to do to survive. If Bush hd the balls to go over there, he'd have done the same thing. John Kerry appreciates what it means to get involved in a war. Bush doesn't. And voting for Bush would be dishonoring the thousand troops whose innocent lives he greedily wasted.

[crozetiga]

Are you really that big of a tool? Kerry acting like a fiscal conservative and not wanting deficit spending? Hardly. Kerry was acting like a partisan politician and that is all. I'm sure Sen. Kerry's voting record on other bills loaded with pork and unfunded or underfunded mandates is consistent with this vote. Also, since you claim that Sen. Kerry was duped into voting for the war on bogus intelligence, perhaps you can explain how he came to vote for it in the first place, given he was on the senate intelligence committee. Maybe you can explain how since he was duped, that given what he knows now about Iraq, he still would have voted for the war (I know that position can change, and may have changed several times during the writing of this post). Please, put down your cup of purple kool-aid and enlighten us all on these matters once again.


A Tool? Who Me? Hardly ;) I wrote "successfully ingnored" to further the conversation. I wanted someone like you or whoever to get a rise out it and speak your opinion or present new facts.

For now we may just have to agree to disagree on Kerry's voting record. I will though concede defeat to you if you can prove to me that his voting record is filled with yeahs to "bills loaded with pork and ..." You know the rest. Here is a link that may help you discredit me or yourself. www.vote-smart.org Hope I did the HTML right. Or you can wade through the stuff at the library of congress website

I havent had time to look at all of the bills on that link so you could possibly right and I could be wrong, I dont have time to look it up right now. To summarize, I will concede if you can prove your statement.

Now on to the senate intelligence committee thing. John Kerry served on the Senate intelligence committee from 1993 to 2000. Since he wasnt on the committee on 10/10/2002 when the resolution was voted on, he probably didnt have access to what they had. He probably (just speculating here) was going on what the Bush Administration was feeding him.

I really don't know why Kerry said that he would authorize knowing what he knows now. Maybe he misspoke, maybe he didnt hear the question very well, maybe he did it so right-wingers would have something to bitch at him about for the next few months. Who knows? Oh wait. You seem to know a lot, maybe you should tell me.

Pardon that last statement. That was for calling me a tool and making that Kool-Aid comment. What was that about anyway. You calling me a kid or something? So, I am ten years your junior (almost to the day) but that doesnt mean I am an idiot.

Waiting for the response (cause i know i wont be ignored again)
Josh

[cyberhound]

A Tool? Who Me? Hardly ;) I wrote "successfully ingnored" to further the conversation. I wanted someone like you or whoever to get a rise out it and speak your opinion or present new facts.

For now we may just have to agree to disagree on Kerry's voting record. I will though concede defeat to you if you can prove to me that his voting record is filled with yeahs to "bills loaded with pork and ..." You know the rest. Here is a link that may help you discredit me or yourself. www.vote-smart.org (http://www.vote-smart.org/) Hope I did the HTML right. Or you can wade through the stuff at the library of congress website

I havent had time to look at all of the bills on that link so you could possibly right and I could be wrong, I dont have time to look it up right now. To summarize, I will concede if you can prove your statement.

Now on to the senate intelligence committee thing. John Kerry served on the Senate intelligence committee from 1993 to 2000. Since he wasnt on the committee on 10/10/2002 when the resolution was voted on, he probably didnt have access to what they had. He probably (just speculating here) was going on what the Bush Administration was feeding him.

I really don't know why Kerry said that he would authorize knowing what he knows now. Maybe he misspoke, maybe he didnt hear the question very well, maybe he did it so right-wingers would have something to bitch at him about for the next few months. Who knows? Oh wait. You seem to know a lot, maybe you should tell me.

Pardon that last statement. That was for calling me a tool and making that Kool-Aid comment. What was that about anyway. You calling me a kid or something? So, I am ten years your junior (almost to the day) but that doesnt mean I am an idiot.

Waiting for the response (cause i know i wont be ignored again)
Josh
There is no defeat to concede. I was making a point about your saying Kerry was acting like a fiscal conservative on one particular vote. It's doubtful John Kerry is a fiscal conservative. And that he acted as one on that particular vote is less indicative of his fiscal frugalness than it is of his partisanship. As for Kerry and his time on the intelligence committee, if you are going to imply that the information he gained on while serving on that body didn't go into his descion making, I may have to concede that point to you. Given that he missed 78% of those public meetings and there is no reason to believe his record was any better in the private meetings since he refuses to authorize the release of those attendence records, he probably had nothing from past experience to draw upon. Let's just say he should have had a good working knowledge of the situation in Iraq. And if he didn't, given his supposed "credentials", that in and of itself is quite damning.

The kool-aid comment was a veiled reference to Jim Jones, who had his fanatical religious followers drink poisoned purple kool-aid which they all died from. In other words, don't imply Kerry was being a fiscal conservative because it makes you come off like a tool who is lapping up the Democratic purple kool-aid.

[timmyt23]

well, the B1 and B2 work extremely well. The F-15 is the best aircraft in the world right now, well, until the F-22 and F-35 come on line in '08. The F-14 has been the mainstay fighter of the US since the early 70s. It's a great unit, as 30 years of experience have shown.
I thought that the F-22 Raptor was coming on-line next year? Haven't heard anything about the F-35 though, any info on that?

[cyberhound]

I thought that the F-22 Raptor was coming on-line next year? Haven't heard anything about the F-35 though, any info on that?
They are (the F-22's), and they will be down at Langley in Hampton. You can come down and sit right at the end of the runway and watch them.

[MattJ]

I thought that the F-22 Raptor was coming on-line next year? Haven't heard anything about the F-35 though, any info on that?

Lockheed is developing the F35 now. Its set to be used in all the service branches, I think maybe around 2007 or 2008 they'll start coming online. (The marine variant is the coolest).

They're a shit load cheaper than the Raptors, which I would imagine would be a cancellation risk. Hefty price tag for air superiority. Though supercruise is really cool

[tdowe99]

What's the dif between the JSF and the Raptor? Is it just me or do they look identical? I know the JSF has the short take-off jet thingy, right?

[ss10mets]

Watch them ignore everything you just said.

Obviously, thats always what happens or they will start to attack you and your ideas.

[MattJ]

Raptors are bigger, with 2 engines. The body styles look similar and both have internal weapons bays. Lockheed went with a basic design for JSF that worked before. Low observable and all of that. Raptors can supercruise too, that is go supersonic without using afterburners.

JSFs have one engine and there are 3 variants. Air Force, Navy (larger wing area for carrier landings) and the Marine (short take off vertical landing - STOVL). They're also a lot cheaper than Raptors. A LOT cheaper. Well, that's the idea anyway and one of the pitch points to the military.

Generalizing a lot, Raptors are for air superiority where JSF is more of a combo strike fighter. Close air support replacement of harriers for the marines, f18 replacement for the navy and adopting F15E and F16 roles for Air Force.

F16s are still cheaper than F35s and relatively new. Navy has bought F18E/Fs Super Hornets to be a stopgap until JSF (they still kind of suck though - no range).

[ss10mets]

Given that he missed 78% of those public meetings and there is no reason to believe his record was any better in the private meetings since he refuses to authorize the release of those attendence records, he probably had nothing from past experience to draw upon. Let's just say he should have had a good working knowledge of the situation in Iraq. And if he didn't, given his supposed "credentials", that in and of itself is quite damning.

So using that logic, since Bush took vacation time for more then half his term before 9/11, he would have done nothing or knew very little on our fight on terror. Just wondering....

[cyberhound]

So using that logic, since Bush took vacation time for more then half his term before 9/11, he would have done nothing or knew very little on our fight on terror. Just wondering....
Just so you understand, I'm fully aware of Bush and his failings. That's why I didn't vote for him in 2000 and will not 2004. However, pointing them out in order to refute the failings and inconsistencies of Kerry doesn't make Kerry any more suited for the job than Bush. That and it's quite hypocritical of you.

[DMBSignGuy]

Just so you understand, I'm fully aware of Bush and his failings. That's why I didn't vote for him in 2000 and will not 2004. However, pointing them out in order to refute the failings and inconsistencies of Kerry doesn't make Kerry any more suited for the job than Bush. That and it's quite hypocritical of you.

ive got the party for everyone....lets all vote for these guys

http://www.timesizing.com/

its all about upsizing markets by downsizing the workweek baby yea! :D

[schmenencke]

ive got the party for everyone....lets all vote for these guys

http://www.timesizing.com/

its all about upsizing markets by downsizing the workweek baby yea! :D
That's one of the worst designed sites I've ever seen. I can't even begin to read it, my eyes just won't let me.

[AnyonebutBush]

I always have come to rooms like this and gave my opinion and debated side to side. But this is the first time I have came upon a political Thread very drunk and as I am reading on and on the only thing I can come up with is that none of us know a god damn thing about any of thier true motives! How many of you are true friends of Bush or Kerry? We have been fight over two people we have never even met before. This world and everything that comes with it will never be controled it never has and it never will. Eat, Drink "jagermeister" and shut the fuck up :D

[sure2vote]

if lighting village huts on fire with zippo lighters constitutes combat leadership experience then the world has gone to hell. the man admits to doing war crimes, doesn't that scare anyone at all?While at the same time Bush was using his family ties to get out of the reserves, so he could spend his time joyreiding around doing lines of coke and drinking.
Now hes got the balls to question Kerrys military experience.
Kerry is not my favorite, But Bush is the devil placed into the body of a brainless man, with no morals no connictions, and no heart. All his body is filled with is hate and stupidity.
Kerry 04:ggoat