|
|
Post by TNRighty on Aug 24, 2005 21:30:08 GMT -5
George Bush served honorably in the Air National Guard, not that you'd care. And I'm sure that while you were casting your vote for Slick Willie in '92 you probably could've cared less that Bush 41 was a bona fide war hero.
That's the thing with you liberals. When Clinton was in office it was never really an issue that he never served in any shape, form, or fashion. Yet when its Bush, somehow his national guard service just isn't good enough. I'd love to see you walk into our office at work and tell the wife of a National Guardsman from the 278th Combat Regiment from Chattanooga that somehow her husband's service in the National Guard isn't good enough. Please, I invite you to come tell her to her face that her husband (who is about the same age as W) is a draft-dodging coward. I'd love to see her stomp your face into the carpet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patriot on Aug 25, 2005 0:45:05 GMT -5
Midcan:
My hunch is that "schoolyard tough guy" is the only type of tough you've come across in your sheltered life. Thank you for showing us your frame of reference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Aug 25, 2005 8:07:14 GMT -5
TNR,
You know I love you, but George Bush's service in Vietnam was tiny bit different than some average Joe in the 278th Combat Regiment in Iraq right now. How many missions did he fly again? Oh, that's right, none. And for all of Clinton's faults, he never got us in a war for Israel. In fact I remember many of my conservative counterparts condemning the Clinton Administration for not doing enough. So what would I rather have, a draft dodger who never gets us in any major conflict for better or worse, or a rich kid who flew through the Air National Guard (pardon the pun) and sacrifices the lives of 1873 patriotic Americans to secure the state of Israel and then not even take a hard-line position on that (support of the recent Gaza pullout)? You don't know how much it pains me to take the side of Bill Clinton, but that's how deep my dislike of George Bush and the republican hypocrisy runs.
Then there are those overlooked issues on spending, immigration, gas prices, almost every social issue...
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Aug 25, 2005 10:51:25 GMT -5
My frame of reference is Vietnam not the National Guard today. George was a draft dodger to my generation, spin it however you like. Don't get me wrong, many wanted that way out or any other way they could find, and before you get personal I enlisted.
"Sheltered life" too funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Aug 25, 2005 15:21:02 GMT -5
No, he just got us in the middle of a civil war to help islameics kill the Christian minority in an area of Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Aug 25, 2005 15:47:07 GMT -5
I never supported our intervention in Kosovo, but unlike most Republicans these days, I have the integrity to condemn the concept of "nation-building" no matter which side is implementing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Aug 25, 2005 22:50:27 GMT -5
Was Afghanistan "nation building" too?
As far as I'm concerned, the war in Iraq wasn't new. It started when Saddam attacked his neighbor and heated up again when he wouldn't comply with 1441 and at the same time, was funding terrorism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Aug 26, 2005 9:40:27 GMT -5
Was Afghanistan "nation building" too? No, of course not and I never said that it was. Afghanistan had direct ties to 9/11, the supposed reason for going over to that region. Bush did a half-assed job in Afghanistan by uprooting troops and sending them to Iraq, which didn't have any direct tie to the WTC. You finish the job you start. If Bush thought we had enough power to secure Iraq then we should have "stayed the course" in Afghanistan and caught the architects of the attack. It was almost the equivalent of Nixon pulling troops out of Vietnam and attacking Russia "Because they're commies too!". So is Iran, which was and is a much bigger threat than Iraq. Are we going to invade Iran next? No. Why? Because General Bush has shown himself to be more of a General McClellan than a General McArthur. He thought Iraq would be a cakewalk, it would be a great PR stunt just like his entire presidency has been or has attempted to be. First it was WMDs, which weren't found. Plan two, the Iraq-9/11 connection, nothing there. Plan three, democracy spreading and nation building which again is failing. Give me one great conservative stride George Bush has made in his 5 years. We have illegals flooding across the border, we have spending that Clinton-era Republicans would be having strokes over, no Gay marriage amendment (Hell, Clinton made greater progress on that front when he signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" faults and all), the list goes on. And all the while lemming party-liners like you defend everything Bush does, and deep down your support is only based on the fact that "He isn't John Kerry". We can see what a great idea this democratic crusade is turning out to be; the Iraqis missed their 3rd dateline. The Shiites are wearing white turban associated with the Mullahs of Iran. Next stop, 24,000,000 more Iranians. But don't worry, the Iranian people love us, just ask George.  |
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Aug 26, 2005 16:36:33 GMT -5
Ian,
It wasn't the point of my post to convey Bush as some kind of war hero because he served in the Air National Guard. I was simply pointing out the double standard liberals have when it comes to military service. Clinton-conciencous objector, Bush-draft dodger.
As for the spending and immigration issue, I'm right there with you. Fighting terror without securing the border is like pouring water into a bucket with a hole in it. And Bush spends money like a drunk sailor on shore leave. I used to believe that the Republican Party was the party of smaller government, but they're not. This just confirms the political theory that political power takes precedence over political ideology. The party in power will spend as much money as they have to in order to stay in power. Republicans, Democrats: they are the same when it comes to fiscal irresponsibility.
Democrats spend money on sex education, Republicans spend in on abstinece education. Democrats take money from pro-abortion groups. Republicans take money from anit-abortion groups. But both parties spend it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patriot on Aug 27, 2005 10:50:57 GMT -5
TN Righty:
Democrats spend money on sex education, Republicans spend in on abstinece education. Democrats take money from pro-abortion groups. Republicans take money from anit-abortion groups. But both parties spend it.
What an interesting observation. I never thought of it that way but, indeed you're right! "Fiscal mismanagement" would be one of the milder terms applicable to the Bush administration's economic policies. And just think-- we're pre-ordained to worship our godly ruler till 2010!
Hard to watch the country unravel before your very eyes, knowing what policies should be reversed or halted entirely. But, when called to be martyrs, we can play that role too!
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Aug 30, 2005 17:39:38 GMT -5
When the Democrats were in power during the 90's Republicans of course were quick to criticize the Dems for spending too much money. In reality what they meant was, "They're not spending money on what we would spend money on."
Both parties spend money on the same issues, they just spend it on different ends of the issue. Democrats: give clean syringes to heroine addicts; Republicans: Just Say No programs. Democrats: How to have safe sex; Republicans: How to abstain.
Regardless of whether you believe in safe drug use or no drug use, safe sex or no sex, these aren't things government should be spending taxpayer dollars on. There are responsibilities that you as a father or mother should take on for yourself. There are personal financial issues that you should be responsible for yourself, not the government. This is why I would call myself a conservative Libertarian. Its not about what side of the issue you fall on, its about whether or not you think the government should have the authority to involve itself in the issue in the first place.
|
|
