Met President Bush and purchased my Mustang!
10/30/04, 08:17 AM
#61
Banned
Join Date: March 4, 2004
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are all your facts this erroneous?
I can ask you the same thing
Kerry is a multi-decorated war hero who VOLUNTEERED for duty TWICE. He's actually been under fire and bled for his country. The only shooting Bush has ever done is at defenseless animals during his days as an alcoholic - while Kerry was establishing himself as a respected attorney.
While his volunteering for his country was a great thing, notice Kerry himself has never denied the claims that he "overstated" the things he did in Vietnam. Other people in his campaign have, but he himself has never, ever said that he hadn't lied about what he did. Also, what gives him the right to come back after 'Nam and speak out saying we raped and pillaged the villages, and say that the war wasn't right? Give me one example of a soldier coming back from Iraq and saying those kinds of things.
Bush never went to Nam, and Cheney ducked it FIVE times. But Cheney and his evangelical, born-again puppet President who talks to god are all too happy to send today's young people off to die. And for what? For NO weapons of mass destruction and NO Saddam connection to al Quaeda! For an immoral, empirical, Israeli-desired war that has created a chaotic cesspool that's breeding new terrorists. Saddam was an evil despot (CREATED and BACKED by the US in the '80s)...but he was also a DETERRENT to terrorism in that region! Now that he's gone, it's much, much worse than ever before.
Sigh ... do you buy all the propeganda given to you? First, I'd rather see someone who believes in something as President than some moron who probably changes his mind three times a day before he decides on his breakfast. Bush didn't go to Vietnam because he had people that could get him out of it. Hundreds, thousands of "famous" people did the same thing. Kerry wasn't important then, so he had to go. I wonder what his choice would be if he could get out of it. I know he would skip it too. Weapons of mass destruction have not been found. However, its a desert. How hard would it be to take them somewhere and bury them? There is no way to prove they never existed. "NO Saddam connection to al Quaeda! " Wrong. Iraq/Saddam was connected to Al-Qeida. They were just not connected to September 11th. Big difference. Saddam let AQ roam freely around his country, making it a safe haven for terrorists. Remember the speech in which W stated "we make no distinction between the terrorists and the governments that harbor them"? Remember how everyone loved that speech? Well, thats what he did. Saddam was helped by the UN in the early 80s. Yes. Hindsight is 20/20. Anyone can see that was a bad decision (made by a Democrat, btw) 20 some odd years after the fact.
And now the Pentagon is cooking up contradictory lies about those missing weapons that not even FOX news is buying!
We are talking about anywhere from 53-377 pounds of weaponry. Even if its the high amount, its 400 of 400,000 pounds we have destroyed. Thats .1%. **** happens.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitcz and Perle should all be prosecuted for treason and racketeering!
But, hey, I guess you're smarter than the CIA, huh?
Wow, that was one stupid statement
A vote for Bush is a vote for Middle East conflagration...and maybe, just maybe, Armageddon.
I think you just beat the previous one
And that's not even getting into the worst deficit in US history (down from a SURPLUS in the Clinton years) and more lost jobs than any president in 75 years.
The national debt ALWAYS gets bigger. Its 7.5 trillion dollars right now. Under your "beloved" Clinton, who never accomplished anything, the lowest it got was around 5 trillion. If you think the federal budget surplus ever has any effect on money you get, you are gravely mistaken. The federal surplus money that was left over under Clinton went back to the government for other things.
Here's a page for you:
http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html
Don't forget, Clinton didn't have the ***** to go into war after we were attacked (multiple times) and he didn't have to deal with a hit to the economy like Sept 11th was. Democrats are quick to leave those facts out, but the Republicans don't bring them up because these are the cards we were dealt.
Next time you want to make a political post, at least KNOW something.
I can ask you the same thing
Kerry is a multi-decorated war hero who VOLUNTEERED for duty TWICE. He's actually been under fire and bled for his country. The only shooting Bush has ever done is at defenseless animals during his days as an alcoholic - while Kerry was establishing himself as a respected attorney.
While his volunteering for his country was a great thing, notice Kerry himself has never denied the claims that he "overstated" the things he did in Vietnam. Other people in his campaign have, but he himself has never, ever said that he hadn't lied about what he did. Also, what gives him the right to come back after 'Nam and speak out saying we raped and pillaged the villages, and say that the war wasn't right? Give me one example of a soldier coming back from Iraq and saying those kinds of things.
Bush never went to Nam, and Cheney ducked it FIVE times. But Cheney and his evangelical, born-again puppet President who talks to god are all too happy to send today's young people off to die. And for what? For NO weapons of mass destruction and NO Saddam connection to al Quaeda! For an immoral, empirical, Israeli-desired war that has created a chaotic cesspool that's breeding new terrorists. Saddam was an evil despot (CREATED and BACKED by the US in the '80s)...but he was also a DETERRENT to terrorism in that region! Now that he's gone, it's much, much worse than ever before.
Sigh ... do you buy all the propeganda given to you? First, I'd rather see someone who believes in something as President than some moron who probably changes his mind three times a day before he decides on his breakfast. Bush didn't go to Vietnam because he had people that could get him out of it. Hundreds, thousands of "famous" people did the same thing. Kerry wasn't important then, so he had to go. I wonder what his choice would be if he could get out of it. I know he would skip it too. Weapons of mass destruction have not been found. However, its a desert. How hard would it be to take them somewhere and bury them? There is no way to prove they never existed. "NO Saddam connection to al Quaeda! " Wrong. Iraq/Saddam was connected to Al-Qeida. They were just not connected to September 11th. Big difference. Saddam let AQ roam freely around his country, making it a safe haven for terrorists. Remember the speech in which W stated "we make no distinction between the terrorists and the governments that harbor them"? Remember how everyone loved that speech? Well, thats what he did. Saddam was helped by the UN in the early 80s. Yes. Hindsight is 20/20. Anyone can see that was a bad decision (made by a Democrat, btw) 20 some odd years after the fact.
And now the Pentagon is cooking up contradictory lies about those missing weapons that not even FOX news is buying!
We are talking about anywhere from 53-377 pounds of weaponry. Even if its the high amount, its 400 of 400,000 pounds we have destroyed. Thats .1%. **** happens.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitcz and Perle should all be prosecuted for treason and racketeering!
But, hey, I guess you're smarter than the CIA, huh?
Wow, that was one stupid statement
A vote for Bush is a vote for Middle East conflagration...and maybe, just maybe, Armageddon.
I think you just beat the previous one
And that's not even getting into the worst deficit in US history (down from a SURPLUS in the Clinton years) and more lost jobs than any president in 75 years.
The national debt ALWAYS gets bigger. Its 7.5 trillion dollars right now. Under your "beloved" Clinton, who never accomplished anything, the lowest it got was around 5 trillion. If you think the federal budget surplus ever has any effect on money you get, you are gravely mistaken. The federal surplus money that was left over under Clinton went back to the government for other things.
Here's a page for you:
http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html
Don't forget, Clinton didn't have the ***** to go into war after we were attacked (multiple times) and he didn't have to deal with a hit to the economy like Sept 11th was. Democrats are quick to leave those facts out, but the Republicans don't bring them up because these are the cards we were dealt.
Next time you want to make a political post, at least KNOW something.
10/30/04, 08:18 AM
#62
V6 Member
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Grantsdale@October 30, 2004, 8:20 AM
Are all your facts this erroneous?
I can ask you the same thing
Kerry is a multi-decorated war hero who VOLUNTEERED for duty TWICE. He's actually been under fire and bled for his country. The only shooting Bush has ever done is at defenseless animals during his days as an alcoholic - while Kerry was establishing himself as a respected attorney.
While his volunteering for his country was a great thing, notice Kerry himself has never denied the claims that he "overstated" the things he did in Vietnam. Other people in his campaign have, but he himself has never, ever said that he hadn't lied about what he did. Also, what gives him the right to come back after 'Nam and speak out saying we raped and pillaged the villages, and say that the war wasn't right? Give me one example of a soldier coming back from Iraq and saying those kinds of things.
Bush never went to Nam, and Cheney ducked it FIVE times. But Cheney and his evangelical, born-again puppet President who talks to god are all too happy to send today's young people off to die. And for what? For NO weapons of mass destruction and NO Saddam connection to al Quaeda! For an immoral, empirical, Israeli-desired war that has created a chaotic cesspool that's breeding new terrorists. Saddam was an evil despot (CREATED and BACKED by the US in the '80s)...but he was also a DETERRENT to terrorism in that region! Now that he's gone, it's much, much worse than ever before.
Sigh ... do you buy all the propeganda given to you? First, I'd rather see someone who believes in something as President than some moron who probably changes his mind three times a day before he decides on his breakfast. Bush didn't go to Vietnam because he had people that could get him out of it. Hundreds, thousands of "famous" people did the same thing. Kerry wasn't important then, so he had to go. I wonder what his choice would be if he could get out of it. I know he would skip it too. Weapons of mass destruction have not been found. However, its a desert. How hard would it be to take them somewhere and bury them? There is no way to prove they never existed. "NO Saddam connection to al Quaeda! " Wrong. Iraq/Saddam was connected to Al-Qeida. They were just not connected to September 11th. Big difference. Saddam let AQ roam freely around his country, making it a safe haven for terrorists. Remember the speech in which W stated "we make no distinction between the terrorists and the governments that harbor them"? Remember how everyone loved that speech? Well, thats what he did. Saddam was helped by the UN in the early 80s. Yes. Hindsight is 20/20. Anyone can see that was a bad decision (made by a Democrat, btw) 20 some odd years after the fact.
And now the Pentagon is cooking up contradictory lies about those missing weapons that not even FOX news is buying!
We are talking about anywhere from 53-377 pounds of weaponry. Even if its the high amount, its 400 of 400,000 pounds we have destroyed. Thats .1%. **** happens.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitcz and Perle should all be prosecuted for treason and racketeering!
But, hey, I guess you're smarter than the CIA, huh?
Wow, that was one stupid statement
A vote for Bush is a vote for Middle East conflagration...and maybe, just maybe, Armageddon.
I think you just beat the previous one
And that's not even getting into the worst deficit in US history (down from a SURPLUS in the Clinton years) and more lost jobs than any president in 75 years.
The national debt ALWAYS gets bigger. Its 7.5 trillion dollars right now. Under your "beloved" Clinton, who never accomplished anything, the lowest it got was around 5 trillion. If you think the federal budget surplus ever has any effect on money you get, you are gravely mistaken. The federal surplus money that was left over under Clinton went back to the government for other things.
Here's a page for you:
http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html
Don't forget, Clinton didn't have the ***** to go into war after we were attacked (multiple times) and he didn't have to deal with a hit to the economy like Sept 11th was. Democrats are quick to leave those facts out, but the Republicans don't bring them up because these are the cards we were dealt.
Next time you want to make a political post, at least KNOW something.
Are all your facts this erroneous?
I can ask you the same thing
Kerry is a multi-decorated war hero who VOLUNTEERED for duty TWICE. He's actually been under fire and bled for his country. The only shooting Bush has ever done is at defenseless animals during his days as an alcoholic - while Kerry was establishing himself as a respected attorney.
While his volunteering for his country was a great thing, notice Kerry himself has never denied the claims that he "overstated" the things he did in Vietnam. Other people in his campaign have, but he himself has never, ever said that he hadn't lied about what he did. Also, what gives him the right to come back after 'Nam and speak out saying we raped and pillaged the villages, and say that the war wasn't right? Give me one example of a soldier coming back from Iraq and saying those kinds of things.
Bush never went to Nam, and Cheney ducked it FIVE times. But Cheney and his evangelical, born-again puppet President who talks to god are all too happy to send today's young people off to die. And for what? For NO weapons of mass destruction and NO Saddam connection to al Quaeda! For an immoral, empirical, Israeli-desired war that has created a chaotic cesspool that's breeding new terrorists. Saddam was an evil despot (CREATED and BACKED by the US in the '80s)...but he was also a DETERRENT to terrorism in that region! Now that he's gone, it's much, much worse than ever before.
Sigh ... do you buy all the propeganda given to you? First, I'd rather see someone who believes in something as President than some moron who probably changes his mind three times a day before he decides on his breakfast. Bush didn't go to Vietnam because he had people that could get him out of it. Hundreds, thousands of "famous" people did the same thing. Kerry wasn't important then, so he had to go. I wonder what his choice would be if he could get out of it. I know he would skip it too. Weapons of mass destruction have not been found. However, its a desert. How hard would it be to take them somewhere and bury them? There is no way to prove they never existed. "NO Saddam connection to al Quaeda! " Wrong. Iraq/Saddam was connected to Al-Qeida. They were just not connected to September 11th. Big difference. Saddam let AQ roam freely around his country, making it a safe haven for terrorists. Remember the speech in which W stated "we make no distinction between the terrorists and the governments that harbor them"? Remember how everyone loved that speech? Well, thats what he did. Saddam was helped by the UN in the early 80s. Yes. Hindsight is 20/20. Anyone can see that was a bad decision (made by a Democrat, btw) 20 some odd years after the fact.
And now the Pentagon is cooking up contradictory lies about those missing weapons that not even FOX news is buying!
We are talking about anywhere from 53-377 pounds of weaponry. Even if its the high amount, its 400 of 400,000 pounds we have destroyed. Thats .1%. **** happens.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitcz and Perle should all be prosecuted for treason and racketeering!
But, hey, I guess you're smarter than the CIA, huh?
Wow, that was one stupid statement
A vote for Bush is a vote for Middle East conflagration...and maybe, just maybe, Armageddon.
I think you just beat the previous one
And that's not even getting into the worst deficit in US history (down from a SURPLUS in the Clinton years) and more lost jobs than any president in 75 years.
The national debt ALWAYS gets bigger. Its 7.5 trillion dollars right now. Under your "beloved" Clinton, who never accomplished anything, the lowest it got was around 5 trillion. If you think the federal budget surplus ever has any effect on money you get, you are gravely mistaken. The federal surplus money that was left over under Clinton went back to the government for other things.
Here's a page for you:
http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html
Don't forget, Clinton didn't have the ***** to go into war after we were attacked (multiple times) and he didn't have to deal with a hit to the economy like Sept 11th was. Democrats are quick to leave those facts out, but the Republicans don't bring them up because these are the cards we were dealt.
Next time you want to make a political post, at least KNOW something.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1120-01.htm
I guess Mercury standards are over rated.
10/30/04, 08:20 AM
#63
Banned
Join Date: March 4, 2004
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jarednt1@October 30, 2004, 10:21 AM
How are you going to spin this?
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1120-01.htm
I guess Mercury standards are over rated.
How are you going to spin this?
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1120-01.htm
I guess Mercury standards are over rated.
10/30/04, 08:24 AM
#64
Bullitt Member
Join Date: February 5, 2004
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah man. Everything has a spin. What's the point? News spins things the liberal way and so do newspapers .. no point in argueing.
No. Some dude in the military said that they just got done MOVING about that amount of weapons. Some soldiers in Iraq don't even know that this "news" was broken. Now that they do, they aren't sure what was even reported. There were some weapons destroyed by the military in Iraq. I can't find the article right now, but if I can, I'll post it.
BTW: It's sad that people can't respect the President anymore. Attacking him because he is "born-again" is pretty lame. Why don't we have John Kerry be in there? Someone who isn't genuine enough to show his true face. He spews his rhetortic about how he was an alter boy, and that somehow makes him above the rest of us because he attended a Catholic church. It's not for me to judge whether he is a Christian or not, but lots of politicians will use the Christian FACADE to achieve their goals. John Kerry fits into that category. How do I know? John Kerry supports abortion. Enough said. Bush is genuine with his face. Kerry uses it to achieve political goals. Bush definitely doesn't because all the liberals constantly criticize him for following moral guidelines with a published source. Unlike the liberal John Kerry whose moral compass is gallup polls to see what is popular. Good idea there, eh? No.
And now the Pentagon is cooking up contradictory lies about those missing weapons that not even FOX news is buying!
BTW: It's sad that people can't respect the President anymore. Attacking him because he is "born-again" is pretty lame. Why don't we have John Kerry be in there? Someone who isn't genuine enough to show his true face. He spews his rhetortic about how he was an alter boy, and that somehow makes him above the rest of us because he attended a Catholic church. It's not for me to judge whether he is a Christian or not, but lots of politicians will use the Christian FACADE to achieve their goals. John Kerry fits into that category. How do I know? John Kerry supports abortion. Enough said. Bush is genuine with his face. Kerry uses it to achieve political goals. Bush definitely doesn't because all the liberals constantly criticize him for following moral guidelines with a published source. Unlike the liberal John Kerry whose moral compass is gallup polls to see what is popular. Good idea there, eh? No.
10/30/04, 08:26 AM
#65
Banned
Join Date: March 4, 2004
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by USA-Adam@October 30, 2004, 10:27 AM
Ah man. Everything has a spin. What's the point? News spins things the liberal way and so do newspapers .. no point in argueing.
Ah man. Everything has a spin. What's the point? News spins things the liberal way and so do newspapers .. no point in argueing.
But this no longer has anything to do with the 05, so i guess a
is in order.
10/30/04, 08:30 AM
#66
Bullitt Member
Join Date: February 5, 2004
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Grantsdale+October 30, 2004, 8:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Grantsdale @ October 30, 2004, 8:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-USA-Adam@October 30, 2004, 10:27 AM
Ah man. Everything has a spin. What's the point? News spins things the liberal way and so do newspapers .. no point in argueing.
Ah man. Everything has a spin. What's the point? News spins things the liberal way and so do newspapers .. no point in argueing.
But this no longer has anything to do with the 05, so i guess a
is in order. [/b][/quote]There is a point but argueing with liberals is like racing people in a Honda Civic. Even if you win, you're both still retarded
J/K man
10/30/04, 08:34 AM
#67
V6 Member
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So are DENYING Bush lowered Mercury Standards?
The problem with you W. lovers is, this guy could go on national TV and kill a little baby, and you would still defend him.
Response "Well he was linked to Saddam"
ITS VERY bad for a incumbent president to NOT be pulling away. Bush in all sense should be stomping Kerry but he is NOT.
What also should SCARE people is the terrorists want Bush in office. I think the “new” Osama video is proof enough.
The problem with you W. lovers is, this guy could go on national TV and kill a little baby, and you would still defend him.
Response "Well he was linked to Saddam"
ITS VERY bad for a incumbent president to NOT be pulling away. Bush in all sense should be stomping Kerry but he is NOT.
What also should SCARE people is the terrorists want Bush in office. I think the “new” Osama video is proof enough.
10/30/04, 08:36 AM
#68
I Have No Life
First things first
#1 Hugle, you have a PM.
#2 This is a mustang thread in mustang forum. Take it offtopic if you want. I see not even a page of mustang related info.
I understand you guys have a very important decision, and its crunchtime, but please take it elsewhere. This isn't www.thevotingsource.com or www.why_insertcandidatesnamehere_shouldwin.com
This thread is getting locked down.
#1 Hugle, you have a PM.
#2 This is a mustang thread in mustang forum. Take it offtopic if you want. I see not even a page of mustang related info.
I understand you guys have a very important decision, and its crunchtime, but please take it elsewhere. This isn't www.thevotingsource.com or www.why_insertcandidatesnamehere_shouldwin.com
This thread is getting locked down.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
tj@steeda
2015 - 2023 MUSTANG
0
9/16/15 06:44 PM