Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK?]Nuts
Pretty damn tall. I'm 6'0" and I was looking up at him, so I'd guess that he's about 6'2" or 6'3".
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK?]Nuts
Pretty damn tall. I'm 6'0" and I was looking up at him, so I'd guess that he's about 6'2" or 6'3".
Just to clarify (a buddy at work swears Kerry is short)... was he on a platform? Could you see his feet?
It's got nothing to do with his service, which is an irrelevant issue for a Presidential candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Sonic Boom
It has to do with his voting record, his apparent willingness to bend to the will of the vile, useless UN, and his penchant for telling people what they want to hear to get enough votes and then switching sides to reveal his real agenda. Some of us remember how he sought to weaken our defense and intelligence agencies all those years. And now were supposed to believe he's a hawk when that's just what we need? Yeah riiiggghhht. He hates the military and views the WOT as a police action.
I could care less if Bush kisses the asses of foreign leaders. And I don't believe that just because Kerry says he believes in one thing that he'll still believe it (and endorse it as a course of action) 2 years from now. His track record in this regard sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Sonic Boom
I could see his feet, but I wasn't looking at them. Either way, I sure as hell wasn't looking down at him.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK?]Nuts
If you want a "short story," the Frodo (or was it Sam?) dude from Lord of the Rings was there and he stopped by for a good five minutes and was talking to a little girl standing next to me. He was a really nice, really cool dude... and he certainly wasn't as short as he seemed in the movies, I'd say about 5'4" or 5'5".
Definitely a nice guy. His campaign ID tag said Sean Astin. (Austin?)
Surely you remember Rudy.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Sonic Boom
Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Squidly
I've had enough politics for today, but I will address this post fully tomorrow.
As far as the vile, useless, UN. I don't disagree. However, the fact of the matter is that any UN action will have primarily American forces; we'd essentially be trading desert camo for blue garb. While this might not matter to you and I, it would matter a hell of a lot to the Iraqis, many of whom view us (rightfully) as an occupying force.
Ironically, Bush is now going back to the UN after he gave them "The Mother of All Snubbings."
Additionally, the next five weeks will be crucial for Bush to try to repair the damage he's done to our standing among the international community. Scheduled in June is a commemoration of the 60th anniversary of D-Day in France; a gathering of leaders of the world's top industrialized nations on Sea Island, Ga.; U.S.-European Union talks in Ireland; and a NATO summit in Turkey. He's going to try to bring them back into the fold, but I predict the rest of the world is going to give him the royal middle finger, which will neither help his standing here at home nor help repair his failed cowboy-style foreign policy whatsoever.
I hate Notre Dame more than life itself. Thanx for ruining my day with that POS. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Squidly
The Iraqis don't LIKE the UN. The UN screwed them over for over a decade, and if they had their way Saddam would still be in power. I haven't even touched on the Oil for Food scandal.
Kerry would cede control of our national security to the UN. Bush did not and will not. I view the approach now as nothing more than political posturing to blunt Kerry's arguments heading into the election.
Regarding the other, given the duplicity of France, Russian and Germany
with the UNSCOM debacle, they can stick their finger where the sun doesn't shine for all that their opinion matters.
So why is Bush going back to the UN?Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Squidly
Before you start criticizing Bush's National Guard service (or lack thereof, as liberals love to eroneously point out), why not examine Kerry's supposedly heroic service in Vietnam?
As you may know, Purple Hearts are awarded to soldiers who suffer serious wounds from the enemy in combat. The awarding of three Purple Hearts to a soldier entitles him to be reassigned to non-combat duty. Kerry surely knew this when he petitioned (a rare event, since Purple Hearts are automatically earned when serious injuries are treated) not once, but twice for his first Purple Heart after he received a superficial wound from a his own mortar shell (read about it here). The fact that the wound was not inflicted by the enemy should have ruled out a Purple Heart, but his persistence payed off.
Of course, that was not the last Purple Heart. He would be awarded two more for even more superficial wounds, the last of which was a scratch and a bruise. Soon after he was awarded his last ill-deserved Purple Heart, he left his crew in Vietnam and returned to the US, where he later requested early discharge from the Navy in order to prepare to run for a congressional seat in Massachusettes.
Courageous? You be the judge.
As far as Bush's record as a statesman goes, would you really prefer the approach that Kerry has been saying he would take? Do you really want to rely on the UN, a proven corrupt organization with an abysmal record, for our national security? Do you want this nation's hands tied by the international community, rendering it powerless to defend itself?
Finally, when did Bush say that we are going to abandon Iraq?
And thanks to Squidly for partially stealing my thunder. You respond too damned fast. Don't you have a job or something? ;)
Kerry's also got an ABYSMAL record of voting YES to every bit of gun-control legislation that gets anywhere near his desk. He's just a typical anti-all-personal-freedoms-except-abortion liberal. Of course, he's trying to position himself as the candidate for hunters in the campaign. Too bad his record speaks for itself.
WOW! And I thought that I was opinionated. I have to give it to Sonic though, that quote was darn funny. At least it was to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by '[AK
Bush going back to the UN is a big mistake, in my opinion. I would prefer that he stick to the "cowboy-style foreign policy."
You know what, you guys make a lot of good points here, and I would say that most of your are "Well Informed" and quite; shall I say "non-passive" in your political beliefs. However, I think that most of the American people are first and for most swayed when it comes to their politics, give it to them fast and cheap so they can get on with their lives. That is what a large percentage of Americans view their politics "in my opinion". So my real point is, as I think most of you are trying to speak out on, in the end it will come down to who puts the "best" spin on a particular subject and monopolizes it to help their cause, and this goes from both ends of the spectrum (both Kerry and Bush). I think that as long as the "American way of life" is maintained the fickle public really does not care, even though it seems that they do, or they tell you that they do.
Hmmm and what was the defecit under Clinton?Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Sonic Boom
"This story was published on Friday, March 19, 1993:The negotiations in recent weeks between the administration and conservative House Democrats who demanded more in spending cuts has largely eclipsed concerns about Clinton's fat tax package and the fact that overall federal spending will continue to mount.
Thursday, Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen had to ask Congress to raise the federal government's debt ceiling to $4.37 trillion from the current limit of $4.145 trillion. He said that the Treasury would reach the current limit on April 7 and he asked lawmakers to act by March 26 to "avoid unnecessary uncertainty in financial markets."