<< You don't make peace with fighting, It doesen't work that way... >>
Only when one side has been dessimated, or runs that chance - is there peace.
Hence the idea of strong military -
Which the socialists (Slick Willie) have destroyed.
<< You don't make peace with fighting, It doesen't work that way... >>
Only when one side has been dessimated, or runs that chance - is there peace.
Hence the idea of strong military -
Which the socialists (Slick Willie) have destroyed.
Gore won that one easily, on better speaking quality and presentation. And he didn't personallt attack Bush like Bush attacked Gore.
Bush delays and studders too much.
I am afraid of Bush's 6year total experience in public service, 6 years as governor just is not enough to become President. Plus, no to mention is past addictions to substances and alchol.
Bush delays and studders too much.
I am afraid of Bush's 6year total experience in public service, 6 years as governor just is not enough to become President. Plus, no to mention is past addictions to substances and alchol.
I kind of understand what you mean, but the whole thing is just wrong. If there is fighting, there is bad feelings. It's just a matter of time before the same old conflict erupts again. Basically is what I was saying is that solving violence with violence isn't the right way, ya know? Maybe it doesen't apply to the World and the Military, but I don't see why not, really.
"HAHAHAHA!!!! he didnt "serve," He took freaking pictures in Vietnam!! He never saw a gun!!"
Ah, actually Futuramatic, less than 10% of soldiers, even in Vietnam, actually used their weapons in combat, but they all served their nation.
Just being in the armed forces is seving the nation, fact is for every 1 serviceman who saw combat in Vietnam, there are at least another 8 servicemen in the rear echalons backing him up. In the Navy & Aiforce its probably double that.
So Futuramatic, at the next legion march are you going to drag 85% of the veterans out, because they didn't serve in frontline combat battalions &/or didn't have a combat role?
Ah, actually Futuramatic, less than 10% of soldiers, even in Vietnam, actually used their weapons in combat, but they all served their nation.
Just being in the armed forces is seving the nation, fact is for every 1 serviceman who saw combat in Vietnam, there are at least another 8 servicemen in the rear echalons backing him up. In the Navy & Aiforce its probably double that.
So Futuramatic, at the next legion march are you going to drag 85% of the veterans out, because they didn't serve in frontline combat battalions &/or didn't have a combat role?
If Bush gets elected he'll replace all the wheels on all the homes in Texas for helping him get to the top 
Was anyone else disgusted by Gores smirking and face-makeing. I thought he lacked any dignity at all.
As for Bush attatcking Gore, he has the ammunition, Gore is guilty.
Gore had nothing to attack Bush with at that stage of the debate.
As for Bush attatcking Gore, he has the ammunition, Gore is guilty.
Gore had nothing to attack Bush with at that stage of the debate.
<< less than 10% of soldiers, even in Vietnam, actually used their weapons in combat >>
I'm going to duck, because you are about to get creamed by veterans. What a crock of crap
If we don't have a strong military, no point in wasting time, we might as well lay down and let Canada conquer us.
."Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding." --- Albert Einstein
Yeah i'm gonna come after you Goog, but up here in Canada we don't have alot of weapons, hey wait a sec, i do have a pair of sharp scissors
Eli-
The question isn't so much "Why vote for Bush?" as it is "What has Clinton/Gore done?"
I think Bush came across as who he was. He is a down-to-earth guy who wants to do what is right.
Gore.. god what a putz...
I think Bush wants to help everyone. All that crap Gore said about the top 1% is just that... crap. Bush was right, if you cut the rates across the boards, the wealthy will pay a bigger percentage of the taxes collected. You give everyone a tax cut while still ensuring that those who have the most pay the most. Its simple mathematics. But why am I focusing on issues.. that isnt what this thread is about... Final impressions on the debate:
Gore - worked his points better, but was very rude. I don't think that Bush had one chance to speak without Gore sighing or sneering. I do not remeber Bush doing that once. If I was an undecided, I would be a little ticked that he avoided questions and kept pounding the same old crap.
Bush - Pure points. The only one worth being made, "They had 8 years, what have they done?" Was not as polished, but that could go either way. Could show that he is down to earth common folk, could show that he was very nervous.
The question isn't so much "Why vote for Bush?" as it is "What has Clinton/Gore done?"
I think Bush came across as who he was. He is a down-to-earth guy who wants to do what is right.
Gore.. god what a putz...
I think Bush wants to help everyone. All that crap Gore said about the top 1% is just that... crap. Bush was right, if you cut the rates across the boards, the wealthy will pay a bigger percentage of the taxes collected. You give everyone a tax cut while still ensuring that those who have the most pay the most. Its simple mathematics. But why am I focusing on issues.. that isnt what this thread is about... Final impressions on the debate:
Gore - worked his points better, but was very rude. I don't think that Bush had one chance to speak without Gore sighing or sneering. I do not remeber Bush doing that once. If I was an undecided, I would be a little ticked that he avoided questions and kept pounding the same old crap.
Bush - Pure points. The only one worth being made, "They had 8 years, what have they done?" Was not as polished, but that could go either way. Could show that he is down to earth common folk, could show that he was very nervous.
While it is true that there are a lot of REMF in 'Nam, it is not true that they never used their gone. The North attacked army bases and in the jungle. The REMF had to fight for their lives at times. Gore was a reporter in a safe zone. Please, my father was a supply accountant/clerk in washington during 'Nam, I know he served his country more than Gore.
Every polititian is basically a puppet of the party they represent. I see Gore as a stereotypical representative of what a polititian basically is. I see Bush as unpolished so far, but who knows what the next debate might bring, Bush might be a little more relaxed and get his message across properly
DABANSHEE -
No, I would not do that. But Gore makes it sound like he saved someone's LIFE by volunteering. He embelishes soooooo much. I take nothing away from those who did not serve on the frontlines, but those who, by exagerating or out-right lying about their roles, minimize the sacrifices made by those who were broken and killed sicken me... Gore jsut happens to be one of them.
No, I would not do that. But Gore makes it sound like he saved someone's LIFE by volunteering. He embelishes soooooo much. I take nothing away from those who did not serve on the frontlines, but those who, by exagerating or out-right lying about their roles, minimize the sacrifices made by those who were broken and killed sicken me... Gore jsut happens to be one of them.
Voting with Red Dawn again...
Anyone see the movie? - Red Dawn - That's where we're heading... especially with the man who invented the dog.
Anyone see the movie? - Red Dawn - That's where we're heading... especially with the man who invented the dog.
RD, you are right. I just know a few things from the many bios I have read on Vietnam. It is one of my favorite wars to study.
I thought Bush did well, he met the challage of debating a Washinton insider. He pointed out very well that Clinton/Gore have been there for the last seven years and have not addressed the problems.
Bush is for smaller government, less taxes for all, not just a few. Simplyfying the tax code instead of making it more complex. All are things that I agree with.
It's a clear consenses(discounting the die hard socialists of the board) that Bush held his own.
One question, Gore pointed out that the old women he kept talking about had to pick up cans every day to pay for her medicine. At the end he said she drove there in her Winabago to be at the debate. Does anyone else think there is something incongruous in those two statements?
Bush is for smaller government, less taxes for all, not just a few. Simplyfying the tax code instead of making it more complex. All are things that I agree with.
It's a clear consenses(discounting the die hard socialists of the board) that Bush held his own.
One question, Gore pointed out that the old women he kept talking about had to pick up cans every day to pay for her medicine. At the end he said she drove there in her Winabago to be at the debate. Does anyone else think there is something incongruous in those two statements?
Millenium
If you served your country during that time and placed yourself available for combat if called upon,weather a clerk stateside or point in the jungle,all the same. I salute and comend you.
I do not nor will I ever give the same salute to those who had thier pappys get them into air national guard,army national guard,or merchant marine or coast guard. Those where cop outs to the war. They did a service but by and large it was a way to avoid combat during that time.
I think it is a non issue though for a President. The commander in chief is a figurehead. The joint chiefs of staff run the military and they are well versed and experienced at matters of war and preperation and support for the military. It is appointments to cabinet and judicial seats that are worthy of more concern.IMHO
If you served your country during that time and placed yourself available for combat if called upon,weather a clerk stateside or point in the jungle,all the same. I salute and comend you.
I do not nor will I ever give the same salute to those who had thier pappys get them into air national guard,army national guard,or merchant marine or coast guard. Those where cop outs to the war. They did a service but by and large it was a way to avoid combat during that time.
I think it is a non issue though for a President. The commander in chief is a figurehead. The joint chiefs of staff run the military and they are well versed and experienced at matters of war and preperation and support for the military. It is appointments to cabinet and judicial seats that are worthy of more concern.IMHO
I'm starting to feel like Dawn is just an antagonist here (and he likes it), anyone else getting that vibe
Futuramatic, yep, that's about all he does around here. Stir the pot just to get people excited. He's harmless and keeps it exciting sometimes. It's kind of like having a little puppy, When he poops in the living room you have to rub his nose in it.
No... never, not you Dawn
Another thing I thought of while reviewing the debates in my head... Everytime GW would start in on how he would handle prescriptions or SS or education, Gore always said the same thing... He want a tax cut for the top 1%. I don't know if it was cause he didn't have a rebuttal (doubt it), but it is more likely that it was jsut the point he wanted to pound home. I would have wanted to hear more about how he would help ME, but he didn't do that much. Bush did. HE told me my taxes would go down. He told me that he wanted to bring in a cultural revolution (in reference to the abortion issue) in which he didnt have to outlaw abortion, but tried to change the country's attitude to one which does not NEED abortion. I think that should appeal to both sides.
Another thing I thought of while reviewing the debates in my head... Everytime GW would start in on how he would handle prescriptions or SS or education, Gore always said the same thing... He want a tax cut for the top 1%. I don't know if it was cause he didn't have a rebuttal (doubt it), but it is more likely that it was jsut the point he wanted to pound home. I would have wanted to hear more about how he would help ME, but he didn't do that much. Bush did. HE told me my taxes would go down. He told me that he wanted to bring in a cultural revolution (in reference to the abortion issue) in which he didnt have to outlaw abortion, but tried to change the country's attitude to one which does not NEED abortion. I think that should appeal to both sides.
<Gore won that one easily, on better speaking quality and presentation. And he didn't personallt attack Bush like Bush attacked Gore.>
First, all the smooth talkers I have met have been looking to take my money from me. Think about car salesmen, lawyers, and con men. Being the smoothest talking Politician doesnt make points with me. I like to see a guy that has worked for living, and you can debate that on both of them...
As for attacks, I look at it as Bush told the truth about Gore. In finance campaign reform, you have Gore as one of the most blatant abusers of campaign financing. To say he wants to do away with soft money while just recently he accepted money from Hollywood after denouncing them as a threat to the children of amaerica, leaves him with no credibility on the issue.
One other thing that REALLY bothers me is that he wants Supreme Court Justices to interpret the Constitution in light of changing times and that is completely wrong. The Constitution is not be interpreted with changing times. The way to reflect changing times is to amend the Constitution. Gore's way bypasses the safeguard that the founding fathers put in place with the three branches of the government. Congress passes laws that reflect the will of the people, the president has veto power over those laws, the Supreme Court decides if those laws are Constitutional. If the will of the people dictaates a change in the Constitution, it can be amended. That power is in the peoples hands, not the Courts hands, and that is the way it should stay. Otherwise the few people that make up the Supreme Court can impose their will on the people of the United States. Bear in mind that the Justices have no term limit and are not elected by the poeple, they are appointed by the President when a vacancy opens. If they do not reflect the will of the people in their "judgements" there is no way to get somebody who will in their place until they die or willingly step down. That is why they must rule on the constitution as it is written. If Gore is worried about the right to choose, he should have pressed for a Constitutional amnedment for that during his "24 years" of public service while he was fighting for the people. IMHO, we should had this voted on long ago, to take it out the Supreme Courts' hands.
First, all the smooth talkers I have met have been looking to take my money from me. Think about car salesmen, lawyers, and con men. Being the smoothest talking Politician doesnt make points with me. I like to see a guy that has worked for living, and you can debate that on both of them...
As for attacks, I look at it as Bush told the truth about Gore. In finance campaign reform, you have Gore as one of the most blatant abusers of campaign financing. To say he wants to do away with soft money while just recently he accepted money from Hollywood after denouncing them as a threat to the children of amaerica, leaves him with no credibility on the issue.
One other thing that REALLY bothers me is that he wants Supreme Court Justices to interpret the Constitution in light of changing times and that is completely wrong. The Constitution is not be interpreted with changing times. The way to reflect changing times is to amend the Constitution. Gore's way bypasses the safeguard that the founding fathers put in place with the three branches of the government. Congress passes laws that reflect the will of the people, the president has veto power over those laws, the Supreme Court decides if those laws are Constitutional. If the will of the people dictaates a change in the Constitution, it can be amended. That power is in the peoples hands, not the Courts hands, and that is the way it should stay. Otherwise the few people that make up the Supreme Court can impose their will on the people of the United States. Bear in mind that the Justices have no term limit and are not elected by the poeple, they are appointed by the President when a vacancy opens. If they do not reflect the will of the people in their "judgements" there is no way to get somebody who will in their place until they die or willingly step down. That is why they must rule on the constitution as it is written. If Gore is worried about the right to choose, he should have pressed for a Constitutional amnedment for that during his "24 years" of public service while he was fighting for the people. IMHO, we should had this voted on long ago, to take it out the Supreme Courts' hands.
<< Who won?? Who won?? Well that's up for debate. I can tell you who lost though. The American Voters! How in the hell did we end up with Gore and Bush( I mean come on this guy is a Rube) It use to be that it was a Special Individual was looked upon to run our country. >>
Red, I finally agree with you. Don't get used to it though.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter