With plenty to be thankful for,
Kevin
Say what you will...
-
Kevin Mackie
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Say what you will...
We can argue back and forth about policies, mistakes, intelligence, but dammit, this guy's heart and soul are in the right place.
With plenty to be thankful for,
Kevin
With plenty to be thankful for,
Kevin
This is the type of thing that shows he's the right person for the job. Make fun of his accent, make fun of his word fumblings, make fun of his mannerisms, but he has proven that he was the right person to bring honor, dignity, pride, and character back to the Whitehouse. If history is truthful, he will be judged 1000X the Commander-in-Chief over many of those that have come before him. Sure, there are things he's done that are cause for concern and that I don't agree with, but overall, he's stepped up to the situation. Going to Baghdad certainly gave him major brownie points in my book... and should have in every American's book!
What a Turkey day.
It took brass balls to fly into Baghdad considering the composition that US aircraft are getting shot down there and what's at stake if he gets shot down.
I expect in the future we will hear no end of JDoub's visit from them, and it won't be critique, rather cynic-istic criticism.
What a Turkey day. Great job, Mr. President!
Well the dems have wasted no time at accusing him of creating a setup for election time. Probably because he overshadowed Hillarie's visit to Afghanistan.Going to Baghdad certainly gave him major brownie points in my book
I expect in the future we will hear no end of JDoub's visit from them, and it won't be critique, rather cynic-istic criticism.
What a Turkey day. Great job, Mr. President!
Always with an even keel.
-- Allen
-- Allen
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
....honor, dignity, pride, and character back to the Whitehouse?
With his utter disregard for scientific and academic scholarship, contempt for the opposition party, disdain for anyone with an opinion that differs than his own and ruinous enviromental and social policies, it isn't honor, dignity, pride and character I feel in my President....
Cool trip though.
Gene
With his utter disregard for scientific and academic scholarship, contempt for the opposition party, disdain for anyone with an opinion that differs than his own and ruinous enviromental and social policies, it isn't honor, dignity, pride and character I feel in my President....
Cool trip though.
Gene
Well Allen, it certainly is interesting to see how the ultra-left has all the praise for Hillary and yet have the nerve to call what the Commander-in-Chief did a "political publicity stunt". It seems their hypocracy knows no bounds. Oh the irony of it all... 
Gene, just because the Scientific and Academic information that the President believes and follows does not agree with the Scientific and Academic information espoused by those with a different (and often disguised) environmental or social engineering desire, does not mean that the scientific and academic advisors the President is listening to are not giving valid information to him. Those who have been watching for years as the enviro-socio-extremists have managed to shout down any detractors and get their way, no matter what the cost or even if their information can be shown as exaggerated, are finally happy that more moderate, truthful and reasonable information is being heard. This President hasn't ruined the environment OR society. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with legislation that has passed during this administration, but the environment and social policies aren't at the top of the list. Social spending hasn't been cut (a reduction in the amount of the proposed increase does not equate to a reduction) and just this past week an enormously flawed bill was passed that gave the watermelons a huge land grab at the expense of property rights and funded by the taxpayers (even though the land doesn't becomed owned by the Government, it gets owned and controlled by enviro-groups!) And even though I have much to disagree with President Bush and the Republicans about, I must point out that "his ... contempt for the opposition party, disdain for anyone with an opinion that differs...", compared with his predecessor, Mrs. predecessor and the "opposition party" even now, is basically the pot calling the kettle black. No, he isn't a perfect President, but he has restored dignity, honor, integrity, and character back to an Oval office that was tainted with treason, dishonesty, and the character of an organized crime run two-bit road-house. For that, I give him credit. Then again, I believe that if you want to try to burn the U.S. Flag, try burning the one that's sewn on my jacket!
Gene, just because the Scientific and Academic information that the President believes and follows does not agree with the Scientific and Academic information espoused by those with a different (and often disguised) environmental or social engineering desire, does not mean that the scientific and academic advisors the President is listening to are not giving valid information to him. Those who have been watching for years as the enviro-socio-extremists have managed to shout down any detractors and get their way, no matter what the cost or even if their information can be shown as exaggerated, are finally happy that more moderate, truthful and reasonable information is being heard. This President hasn't ruined the environment OR society. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with legislation that has passed during this administration, but the environment and social policies aren't at the top of the list. Social spending hasn't been cut (a reduction in the amount of the proposed increase does not equate to a reduction) and just this past week an enormously flawed bill was passed that gave the watermelons a huge land grab at the expense of property rights and funded by the taxpayers (even though the land doesn't becomed owned by the Government, it gets owned and controlled by enviro-groups!) And even though I have much to disagree with President Bush and the Republicans about, I must point out that "his ... contempt for the opposition party, disdain for anyone with an opinion that differs...", compared with his predecessor, Mrs. predecessor and the "opposition party" even now, is basically the pot calling the kettle black. No, he isn't a perfect President, but he has restored dignity, honor, integrity, and character back to an Oval office that was tainted with treason, dishonesty, and the character of an organized crime run two-bit road-house. For that, I give him credit. Then again, I believe that if you want to try to burn the U.S. Flag, try burning the one that's sewn on my jacket!
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
First, I didn't accuse anyone of being a flag burner. (If anyone wants to burn the flag of the country I love, then they have that right, I merely suggest trying to burn the one I wear to honor my USAF vet, deceased Dad... and then see what I mean by "personal responsibility".)Gene DeMambro wrote:There you all go again. As soon as someone espouses a position different and contrary to the sitting administration, he gets accused of being a flag-burner and is practically challenged to a duel! Please....
Second, I didn't challenge you to a duel. (If you want to throw down a challenge to me, that's your choice.)
Third, I pointed out that regarding the research and positions being listened to (which are just as valid, perhaps moreso, than in recent history), the pendulum on the enviromental and social issues has swing the other way. Too far? Perhaps. Not far enough? Perhaps. But other scientific and academic views are being listened to and this information is valid just as much as prior information, some of which has been shown to be invalid. Yes, I believe (and there is very strong evidence to back up my position) that they are "watermelons"... Green on the outside and Red on the inside.
Fourth, I pointed out that enviro and social policies haven't taken the hit that some seem to think.
Fifth, I pointed out that I have plenty of disagreement with the current Administration (and the Republicrat party in general), but fair is fair and when President Bush does something good, he gets my kudos. I give Hillary and the Dems kudos for going over also, but their immediate spin on the President's visit erased that by showing that what they were doing was politically motivated and they were just upset because the President had the nerve to something as well! So, erase the kudos for them and point out their hypocracy... simple. If Bush had criticized the Dems for going and called their trip a "political publicity stunt", I'd have erased his kudos and called him a hypocrite, but he didn't. Regardless of what anyone wants to think or the brush they wish to paint me with, I am neither Dem or Rep and I do not agree with the party platforms of either!
Sixth, you've exercised your free speech here. No problem, but don't get upset when others disagree and point out why. You have your beliefs, others can contradict those beliefs. That's fine. You didn't personally attack anyone and no one personally attacked you. (Allen pointed out that your beliefs are mirrored in pravda, etc, but that's just the truth not a personal attack.)But people will believe whatever they want to believe...
God bless free speech
Gene
Seventh, in this instance, the Dems have shown that they were pulling a political stunt and then got upset because the POTUS "one-upped" them by going himself. If he hadn't gone, they'd have made political hay... since he did, they have to spin it differently. So the Dems (yeah, I admit they're on thin ice with me anyway, but so are the Repubs in general), get the big turkey and poor loser award. Disagree... I don't really care. As you say, you're gonna believe whatever you want to believe...
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
Rich,
it's interesting that when I go against the current adminstration or the "conservative's conventional wisdom", I get some debate from certain folks, perhaps a PM or post with other points. But, because I have the nerve to say things against the previous administration or the "liberal's conventional wisdom", I get called on the carpet for it, labelled as an ultra-right-winger, accused of all manner of evil incarnate, along with accusations of being unfair and biased. I admit I have biases. I admit I discriminate. Being a discriminating person isn't a bad thing as long as you have valid reasons. For example, I discriminate against traitors and I discriminate against week-old sushi that's been sitting in the hot sun. I want nothing to do with either! I have been considered a "live and let live" freelance freedom fighter, who is against anyone who wants to stomp on the freedom of others equally regardless of political persuasion, for a long time. But posting (and especially moderating) on these forums has shown me that most often those who are quickest to call foul tend to be on the left. Regardless of prior thoughts on the matter, I guess I have to admit that the actions of some are having an effect.
it's interesting that when I go against the current adminstration or the "conservative's conventional wisdom", I get some debate from certain folks, perhaps a PM or post with other points. But, because I have the nerve to say things against the previous administration or the "liberal's conventional wisdom", I get called on the carpet for it, labelled as an ultra-right-winger, accused of all manner of evil incarnate, along with accusations of being unfair and biased. I admit I have biases. I admit I discriminate. Being a discriminating person isn't a bad thing as long as you have valid reasons. For example, I discriminate against traitors and I discriminate against week-old sushi that's been sitting in the hot sun. I want nothing to do with either! I have been considered a "live and let live" freelance freedom fighter, who is against anyone who wants to stomp on the freedom of others equally regardless of political persuasion, for a long time. But posting (and especially moderating) on these forums has shown me that most often those who are quickest to call foul tend to be on the left. Regardless of prior thoughts on the matter, I guess I have to admit that the actions of some are having an effect.
Bush didn't get enough mileage out of landing on an aircraft carrier, so he had to land in Baghdad. Wonderful publicity stunt, again, taxpayer funded. What would make me feel more comfortable about being a soldier in Iraq would be an honest admission about why we are there (used to be to make us safer after 9/11, tho now everything seems to be about SH just being a tyrant who needed outing, which is a so-so argument inconsistently applied), as well as fewer comments about how our troops are keeping us safer by becoming targets for terrorists...
As for the environment, here's Bush on on their we're sure to pass on to our children: the land and air (top google hits for bush / environment / law)
http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/924
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003 ... allaw.html
try also:
http://www.foxriverwatch.com/nrda/bush_record.html
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/994599.asp?0cv=CB30 excerpts from the last one:
In a Rolling Stone magazine piece called “Crimes Against Nature,” scheduled to hit newsstands Nov. 21, conservationist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. argues that since taking office, President George W. Bush has gone to unprecedented lengths to undo 30 years of environmental law. "All of our major environmental statutes are being eviscerated. This is the first administration in history to not voluntarily list a species under the Endangered Species Act. The Superfund Program [created to eliminate health and environmental threats posed by hazardous waste sites] is now bankrupt because the administration doesn’t want polluters to have to clean up after themselves but wants the tax payers to pay for it. The Clean Water Act is being altered so that it will no longer protect most water in the United States. The fundamental compromise in the Clean Air Act, which was the requirement that old sources at some point upgrade to remove pollutants at the same level as new plants, has now been compromised."
This cronyism, this direct link between industry and policy, if you can corroborate it, is—
If I can corroborate what? This is not a secret. [Vice President Dick] Cheney’s task force, which rewrote the energy laws in this country, met for 106 days; they didn’t meet with a single environmental group. They had 709 meetings, all of them with industry. And the energy policy came out of those meetings, behind closed doors, came from cabinet officials who are all from the energy industry: [Secretary of Energy] Spencer Abrahams, [former Treasury secretary] Paul O’Neill, Don Evans, who is the CEO of an oil company, [Secretary of the Interior] Gail Norton, who’s been a lobbyist for the energy industry.
NB: I'm not jumping up and down applauding Hillary or other hated liberals, I'm just unimpressed with most everything Bush says & does.
As for the environment, here's Bush on on their we're sure to pass on to our children: the land and air (top google hits for bush / environment / law)
http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/924
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003 ... allaw.html
try also:
http://www.foxriverwatch.com/nrda/bush_record.html
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/994599.asp?0cv=CB30 excerpts from the last one:
In a Rolling Stone magazine piece called “Crimes Against Nature,” scheduled to hit newsstands Nov. 21, conservationist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. argues that since taking office, President George W. Bush has gone to unprecedented lengths to undo 30 years of environmental law. "All of our major environmental statutes are being eviscerated. This is the first administration in history to not voluntarily list a species under the Endangered Species Act. The Superfund Program [created to eliminate health and environmental threats posed by hazardous waste sites] is now bankrupt because the administration doesn’t want polluters to have to clean up after themselves but wants the tax payers to pay for it. The Clean Water Act is being altered so that it will no longer protect most water in the United States. The fundamental compromise in the Clean Air Act, which was the requirement that old sources at some point upgrade to remove pollutants at the same level as new plants, has now been compromised."
This cronyism, this direct link between industry and policy, if you can corroborate it, is—
If I can corroborate what? This is not a secret. [Vice President Dick] Cheney’s task force, which rewrote the energy laws in this country, met for 106 days; they didn’t meet with a single environmental group. They had 709 meetings, all of them with industry. And the energy policy came out of those meetings, behind closed doors, came from cabinet officials who are all from the energy industry: [Secretary of Energy] Spencer Abrahams, [former Treasury secretary] Paul O’Neill, Don Evans, who is the CEO of an oil company, [Secretary of the Interior] Gail Norton, who’s been a lobbyist for the energy industry.
NB: I'm not jumping up and down applauding Hillary or other hated liberals, I'm just unimpressed with most everything Bush says & does.
--Ian
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
Clinton didn't kick his science advisors out of the White House like Bush II did.
Clinton didn't prevent the opposition members of Congress from asking questions and requesting clarifications of Administration-approved bills pending in Congress.
The Majority Democrats during the Clinton administration didn't shut-out the minority Republicans from the law-making process like the Republicans have done this year with both the now-scuttled Energy bill and the just-passed Medicare bill.
The Clinton White House didn't have two e-mail addresses to comment on the Administration's policies - one for those who agree and one for those who oppose - like the second Bush White House.
In comparison, please explain again how Pres. Clinton had equal contempt for the opposition party and disdain for anyone with an opinion that differed from his?
But like I said, cool trip by Pres. Bush.
Gene
Clinton didn't prevent the opposition members of Congress from asking questions and requesting clarifications of Administration-approved bills pending in Congress.
The Majority Democrats during the Clinton administration didn't shut-out the minority Republicans from the law-making process like the Republicans have done this year with both the now-scuttled Energy bill and the just-passed Medicare bill.
The Clinton White House didn't have two e-mail addresses to comment on the Administration's policies - one for those who agree and one for those who oppose - like the second Bush White House.
In comparison, please explain again how Pres. Clinton had equal contempt for the opposition party and disdain for anyone with an opinion that differed from his?
But like I said, cool trip by Pres. Bush.
Gene
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
Gene: Say or believe what you will, but the US servicemen and women truly like President Bush. His visit was a huge moral booster and will go a long way in keeping them all motivatedand focused on their mission.
The opposite was true for the prior president. Clinton had an open dislike for the military to the point where he would not permit his senior military advisor, a general, to wear his uniform in the Whitehouse. Likewise, the military were not very fond of Clinton.
I know military personel that have served in the Whitehouse and they were not treated well by Clinton and his administration.
Give President Bush credit for this visit.
Rich
The opposite was true for the prior president. Clinton had an open dislike for the military to the point where he would not permit his senior military advisor, a general, to wear his uniform in the Whitehouse. Likewise, the military were not very fond of Clinton.
I know military personel that have served in the Whitehouse and they were not treated well by Clinton and his administration.
Give President Bush credit for this visit.
Rich
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
