What would the founding fathers think about this.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE:

Bush has the best interests of the nation at heart, on that you can rely. Whether his actions are the best option, or if there are other things that would work better for the current situation is a viable subject of debate. The problem is, your side doesn't want to discuss different ideas, you just want to undermine our President and the armed forces, and somehow ride that bandwagon from Hell to victory in 2006. "Support our troops, oppose the war" is one of the dumbest slogans I have ever heard. Kind of in the vein of "Support your church, but don't attend services", or "Support your team, oppose them playing the game".

Egads! I actually agree with Dave!

[zardoz]

Blah, blah, blah.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Whatever.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz[zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Girl_4005

Regardless of if this war if for "democracy" or for "oil", I seriously doubt anyone that died on September 11th would want 2000 more of their fellow citizens to die for them.

There is a saying "Charity starts at home". When there is less poverty , less homelessness, less hardship overall here at home I might believe Bush has interests other than his own and his "base" as he calls the "haves and the have mores".

I was incensed by September 11th, I was thrilled when we invaded Afghanistan and again when we went into Iraq. I stood by Bush ,even though I consider myself a Democrat, when he unveiled the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Even for awhile after that I still thought we had done the right thing.

Then more guys started dying, more troops started going over there. When a mission is "accomplished" we are supposed to ramp down, not up. When it started coming out that the intelligence was flawed I didn't want to believe it at first but since it was the same news agencies that had led me to believe we were right to go into Iraq why shouldn't I believe them when they have new information.


I want to say that I totally support the military-they had no choice. They are doing the job they signed up for. The problem is they are obeying faulty orders given by people that ( I don't think anyway) really don't have the best interests of this country or the men they are commanding at heart.

I also don't think we can just pull out-the war has destroyed so much that we have to clean up our mess. Were we to just leave things as they are the warlords would take over and everything we supposedly fought to end would come back to being.

Therein lies your hypocrasy. Those same news services did mention that the intellegence turned out to be faulty to a certain degree (yes, there were no WMD's found, but there were WMD plans found, buildings that could only be designed for the purpose of manufacturing WMD's, traces of WMD material such as yellow cake uranium), yet somehow you and the others are blaming Bush for the faulty intellegence. Don't you know that when a new President takes office, he inherents the CIA, State Department, et al, of his predecessor. You can't make wholesale replacements of CIA agents out in the field just because a new Administration has taken office. You can't make wholesale replacements of diplomats and State Department beauracrats just because a new Administration has taken over. Like Rumsfeld said, you don't go to war with the army you wish you had, you go to war with the army that you've got. The same holds for those other agencies - you don't go to war with the CIA you wish you had, you go to war based on the CIA you've got. I for one wish it had been possible to fire every single one of the Clintonista's that had inflitrated the CIA and State Department when Bush came to office. I have no doubt that if that could have been availed, we would have had a different outcome of events, including the probability that 9-11 never happens.

You make the allegation that the President, whatever his faults may be, does not have the best interests of the nation at heart. Tell me, do you think Clinton had the best interests of the nation at heart when he bombed the hell out of our ally Serbia? What did he accomplish with that war, other than to divert attention away from the Lewinsky scandal? "But no one died when Clinton lied" is your mantra, yet 10,000 Serbs died needlessly. Well, at least your side admits Clinton lied, and therein lies the basis for your hatred of Bush, in that you assume the worst in him based on your assessment of Clinton's character. Every president slides to the lowest common denominator in your narrow view, so you assume Bush lied about WMD's because you are so used to the lies of Clinton that you think such action is par for the course for US Presidents.

The truth is, you are right to assume Clinton did not have the best interests of the nation at heart, because that fits his personallity profile, e.g. it was all about him, not us. That's one of the prima facia aspects of today's Democrats, it's all about what's best for the party, and screw the nation in the process. Republicans don't think like that, they put the nation first, even to the point of being politically naive. Sometimes I wi***he Republicans would play as dirty as the Democrats just to keep the slime from regenerating into office, but they just won't play that game.

Bush has the best interests of the nation at heart, on that you can rely. Whether his actions are the best option, or if there are other things that would work better for the current situation is a viable subject of debate. The problem is, your side doesn't want to discuss different ideas, you just want to undermine our President and the armed forces, and somehow ride that bandwagon from Hell to victory in 2006. "Support our troops, oppose the war" is one of the dumbest slogans I have ever heard. Kind of in the vein of "Support your church, but don't attend services", or "Support your team, oppose them playing the game".

[blhanel]

I can check and see if they're done with the popper over at the diner, and wheel it back over here!

I have to agree with Big_Girl_4005 and ouengr re the side topic. Now if we could just prevent the idiots in this world from recruiting and training more idiots, maybe the government would be able to afford considering HSR.

[rvos1979]

Munch, munch, munch.... OWWW!!!! #^^# seeds!!

Munch, munch, munch........

Anyone for popcorn? I've got chocolate and caramel corn as well........


Randy

[Big_Boy_4005]

Ed, unfortunately we don't have the "eyeroll" smiley in our forum library, but there are outside sources of smileys available on the web. Actually the [banghead] and [sigh] work well.[;)]

[edkowal]

Was going for irony rather than sarcasm.

-Ed

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edkowal

I've not been paying attention to this thread for a number of days, but it's certainly gratifying to see that the discussion has managed to remain on-topic, reasonable, and interesting, without major bouts of irrationality, name calling, mis-spellings, and personal vitriol.

-Ed

Gee Ed, either you are being sarcastic, or you missed reading 6 pages in the middle. Please use more smileys so we can tell. [swg]

[Anonymous]

Ed, was that sarcastic, or not?

[edkowal]

I've not been paying attention to this thread for a number of days, but it's certainly gratifying to see that the discussion has managed to remain on-topic, reasonable, and interesting, without major bouts of irrationality, name calling, mis-spellings, and personal vitriol.

-Ed

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis

G'day, Y'all,
James,
You may recall that the early American government provided for post roads, which of course were not made of 4x4 treated posts, but were for the postal riders to use while delivering the mail. While Jefferson, Madison, et al, were a bunch of theorists with their own views on what a democrarcy should be, George Washington was a pragmatist who understood very well that a government had to provide certain things for the states and people to survive the real world. At the time of his death, the only railroads were coal minetrains hauled by horses. The 29 mph recorded by the steam locomotive 30 years later would have been considered HSR. Knowing how Washington felt about being out of touch with his troops during battle and with those in other areas of the conflict, I think that he would have been the first to approve of a system which would have allowed him to send orders from one end of the country to the other in the dizzying speed of about a day rather than a couple of weeks or so. I don't think that as the centuries progressed he'd expect it to stay at that same speed. As a farmer, he understood the need to have income when you have outgo. He was very, very adamant that whatever Mount Vernon did promised a profit. He would have been renting out the railroad track down the eastern seaboard and turning a profit for the government.
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

The Federal Government has been involved in the funding and building of transportation facilities from it's founding.

As I have pointed out several times in this thread, Jefferson was not against spending Federal money on transportation facilities. The Gallatin Report which established the basic policy for financing transportation facilities came from his Administration.

The primary question regarding Federal funding of AMTRAK, HSR or any other transportation mode are: 1. Does it serve a national need? 2. Will it yield a reasonable return on investment? 3. Does it serve national defence?

In the 1800's the goverment decided that for rail across the American west that the answer to these qustions was yes.

Today with the automobile/highway, air transportation, and an established private rail system to haul freight , the debate is whether Federal spendind is justifiable for AMTRAK and/or HSR.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Did you serve? Are your children serving? Are any Democrats children serving?

My parents are Democrats...and I am serving...right now, so you you can continue to spout whatever.....

[jockellis]

G'day, Y'all,
James,
You may recall that the early American government provided for post roads, which of course were not made of 4x4 treated posts, but were for the postal riders to use while delivering the mail. While Jefferson, Madison, et al, were a bunch of theorists with their own views on what a democrarcy should be, George Washington was a pragmatist who understood very well that a government had to provide certain things for the states and people to survive the real world. At the time of his death, the only railroads were coal minetrains hauled by horses. The 29 mph recorded by the steam locomotive 30 years later would have been considered HSR. Knowing how Washington felt about being out of touch with his troops during battle and with those in other areas of the conflict, I think that he would have been the first to approve of a system which would have allowed him to send orders from one end of the country to the other in the dizzying speed of about a day rather than a couple of weeks or so. I don't think that as the centuries progressed he'd expect it to stay at that same speed. As a farmer, he understood the need to have income when you have outgo. He was very, very adamant that whatever Mount Vernon did promised a profit. He would have been renting out the railroad track down the eastern seaboard and turning a profit for the government.
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

[Anonymous]

Big_Girl_4005 and ouengr,

You have stated very eloquently what so many others have tried to say, but unfortunately got caught up in their emotions. I was rather surprised by how irate some people were getting. Many of them had in the past posted very informative and interesting threads and topics. But this was getting absurd.

I remember reading somewhere that the two things one should never discuss unless you want an argument are politics and religon.

Thank you both for your clarity.


So...........who wants to discuss the existence / nonexistence of God? [}:)]

[ouengr]

I too am very concerned about the continual loss of Americans lives in Iraq. I believe that much of the violence could be quelled if we were willing to accept limited civilian casulties. At the present time we seem to be willing to accept the deaths of our soldiers instead of allowing for the use of tactics that could break the will of the insurgency. We need to free the hands of out military and allow them to do their job. War is an ugly thing and things will happen that do not make since back home. We have good men and women who are trained to do the job. We need to let them do it and not second guess their every action. There is a apolitical was to deal with US Military personell that do not act in accordance with the UCMJ and this procees should be followed. We must not try our soldiers in the stateside media for doing what is neccessary to win the war. The enemy that we face knows our weaknesses and knows how to manipulate the media.
I do not know what we need to do to end the insurgency, but I have heard far to many time from our soldiers that they feel as though their hands are tied and that they are not able to do what is neccessary to end the conflict.

When President Bush gave the speech abourd the Aircraft Carrier with the Mission Accomplished, my reccollection was that he was referring to the removal of saddam from office. I also believe that he indicated that we continued to face challenges in the reconstruction of Iraq. Personally I believe that the banner in the back ground of his speech only confused the message and was a mistake. I understand that the purpose of his speech was to honor the sacrafice and the success of the early phases of Iraqi Freedom.

[Anonymous]

Regardless of if this war if for "democracy" or for "oil", I seriously doubt anyone that died on September 11th would want 2000 more of their fellow citizens to die for them.

There is a saying "Charity starts at home". When there is less poverty , less homelessness, less hardship overall here at home I might believe Bush has interests other than his own and his "base" as he calls the "haves and the have mores".

I was incensed by September 11th, I was thrilled when we invaded Afghanistan and again when we went into Iraq. I stood by Bush ,even though I consider myself a Democrat, when he unveiled the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Even for awhile after that I still thought we had done the right thing.

Then more guys started dying, more troops started going over there. When a mission is "accomplished" we are supposed to ramp down, not up. When it started coming out that the intelligence was flawed I didn't want to believe it at first but since it was the same news agencies that had led me to believe we were right to go into Iraq why shouldn't I believe them when they have new information.


I want to say that I totally support the military-they had no choice. They are doing the job they signed up for. The problem is they are obeying faulty orders given by people that ( I don't think anyway) really don't have the best interests of this country or the men they are commanding at heart.

I also don't think we can just pull out-the war has destroyed so much that we have to clean up our mess. Were we to just leave things as they are the warlords would take over and everything we supposedly fought to end would come back to being.

[DSchmitt]

ouengr, a voice of reason.[#ditto]

[ouengr]

This post appeared to start out asking the whether or not our founding fathers would have supported the confiscations or private resources by the government (a.k.a. taxes) to provide funding for high-speed rail. This debate is one that I wish we could actually have during the election season. What is the fundamental role of government?

I personally am split on a high-speed rail system. I am in complete support of allowing the private sector to capitalize and construct such a system for a profit. I am however completely opposed to constructing the system with taxpayers’ money. Any effort to make the system public will result in yet another Amtrak or other failed quasi-government corporation.

I wi***hat we had a decent PRIVATE passenger system in this country but I believe that passenger rail is as antiquated as old stagecoach routes. Would anyone actually support a national stagecoach line? No, of course not.

Passenger rail systems are successful for local and commuter systems. The nationwide system simply does not have the ridership necessary to support the long distance system. High-speed rail may be able to provide a transportation alternative for regional travel but the additional time needed for long distance travel will make it an impractical option compared to air travel.

It seems to me that long distance Amtrak trains have become a form of taxpayer-subsidized vacation. If Amtrak was completely privatized and was able to support long distance trains with their fares, then I would completely support their operation. However, since their operation requires money from my pocket, I do not.

Many supporters of Amtrak point to the “federal” subsidies to airports or interstate highways as a rational reason to support Amtrak. Currently the biggest cost in a gallon a fuel is taxes. These taxes are supposed to be spent to construct and maintain their respective transportation systems. It is not a federal subsidy; it is the expenditure of a collected user fee.

If we want to debate the role of government in national transportation systems, then let have that debate without the venom and anger.

I also want to comment about the ongoing war, which I believe will be viewed in history as WWIII. I am a disabled veteran of the United States Navy and was on active duty from 2000 until 2002. I was on duty on September 11, 2001 and remember the expressions on the faces of the men and women with whom I served. These are the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen who are risking their lives for us know. If you had asked us on 9/10 if we wanted to go to war, the answer was no, but we will if it is necessary to protect the United States. By midday 9/11 we knew that we did not have a choice. We are in a war for the survival of our nation and our way of life. Although we may not agree with why we are here, we cannot change that fact and we need to do what is necessary to win the war.

We cannot turn our backs on our soldiers and give up. If we do we will be doing a great disservice to our men and women who put their lives on the line for us. We must stop radical islam before our nation faces attacks that will dwarf 9/11. We have already lost thousands of our citizens on 9/11 and far to many since then. We must never forget the events that have led to this war. 9/11 was not a single isolated event. We need to win the war and then allow history to judge the merits of our actions. No we did not go to “war for oil.” The war came to us a number of time through the 1990’s and finally in a way that we could not ignore on 9/11. Iraq is a battle in this war. With the recent events in England, Jordan, and France we may be facing new battles in the not too distant future. We must support the war and do what is necessary to win. If we do not then we will face the situation that is currently out of control in France.

There have been comments that “Bush Lied” or that President Bush could have prevented 9/11. Intelligence is not perfect and it is possible that it was completely wrong. However the intelligence that we had leading to the current battle in Iraq was supported but the intelligence of a number of nations for more than 10-years. To this point we have not found a single stockpile with all of saddam’s WMD. The total quantity would fill a small warehouse in an area larger than California. We have found small quantities of WMD in Iraq, but not yet a significant stockpile. There have been a number or reports in the major media of convoys removing material from the WMD sites shortly before the way. We have no way of knowing if this is true. It may turn out that the intelligence that led to the current battle was wrong. It this is true then we must find out what happened and what to do in the future to ensure that it does not happen again.

Personally I do not care for President Bush and I supported another candidate in the 2000 Republican primary. We are free to disagree with him on policy matters and matter of national defense. If we are to disagree then please keep it civil. I can criticize Bush on many issues starting with not securing our southern border but I will not stoop to name calling or other childish antics. If we want to have a debate about policy then let at least be civil.

[rvos1979]

I think I'd better run to the Diner and grab something. I'll be right back.....

Randy

[Anonymous]

I thought I was more like Ribbon Magohnoy(sp)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098
IF THIS IS BAD YOU ARE A BIG, NO HUGE, NO GIANTIC, NO ENOUROUS, PESITMIST.

er, ah, was that English you were using?

Perhaps when you grow up you will understand things a bit clearer; if not, you will just join the ranks of the followers, believing everything the press tells you, and you will continue to watch Fox for the latest "unbiased" news.

haha that was a good one [(-D]

[zardoz]

futuremodal and lotus98;

Congratulations. You have bested me with your lengthy diatribes. I give up.

As a very intelligent person recently told me, ""Son, talking to some people is like talking to a tree, you can talk all you want, doesn't mean the tree will hear you".

So my fellow Pine and Oaks, I relinqui***he floor to you.

signed, the Aspen.

p.s. Is a 'shrub' anything like a tree?

[Anonymous]

Slam dunk futre modal. I would like to add to this.

QUOTE: Freedom to drill for oil? Yea, screw the the wildlife refuges, to hell with the environment. And anyway, what does that have to do with the record profits of the oil companies? You seem to have forgotten that little tidbit.

You seem, to have picked up a stutter.

Let’s take a look at a map of Alaska; it is almost three times bigger than the state of Texas. The proposed drilling area would be like the size of a small town. Now, take look at your map the drilling area is smaller than you can mark with a pencil. You can’t convince me all of the Caribou in Alaska collect at one little point. So how would drilling in Alaska hurt the wildlife? I have seen subdivisions going up like crazy out here, and nobody complains. The deer adapt and move on.

QUOTE: How about an even more novel concept? Take some of that subsidy money and put it towards developing "alternative" sources of energy, so we can tell the whole middle-east what they can do with their oil! But that is likely too forward-thinking for some; they would prefer to continue the madness.

Of course the environmentalist weenies won’t let you do that either, we have discovered a fuel source that is very efficient and does not hurt the environment. Nuclear power. Why should the government pay for the research? Thomas Edison didn’t get government funding to invent the light bulb. If some one discovers something, it is in their best interest to develop it, to make money on their invention.

How about an even more novel concept. Give the money back to the people.


P.S. I don’t like bu***oo much either, he tends to wimp out too much; but he is a whole hell of a lot better than anybody else.

[Anonymous]

Big Boy and zardoz - all that can be said of your posts here is that you both are beyond hope. You continue to ignore facts, prefering instead to replace fact with obfuscation. As if Wal-Mart represents the average US wage! Perhaps in your little world that is a *fact*, but it is so far out of the mainsteam of reality that one has to wonder what you both are really smoking. The Bush Administration does not, indeed cannot "subsidize" any industry, what so-called "Big Oil" is getting is by the directive of Congress, with the purpose of aiding in new exploration, drilling, refining, and distributing fuel to the economy. If anything, these aid programs are nothing more than mitigation for all the artificial cost increases foisted upon our industrial sector by you environmental extremists.

Oh, and will you admit that your precious environmental movement IS directly subsidized by statute? Every time an environmental group files one of their myriad of frivolous lawsuits (usually to stop some form of economic development, to the detriment of US producers and to the benefit of foriegn producers), the taxpayers are FORCED to pay the legal fees of the eco-attorneys. Nice little scam you all got going there. AND FOR WHAT? Not one single environmental lawsuit has ever resulted in an improved environment. Usually what happens is that the US producer loses the business to a foreign producers, where environmental standards (de facto and de jure)are much lower, worker/capital productivity are much less, and the result is much more pollution et al per unit of production than could have ever happened if that production was taking place in the USA. Yeah, you all are really saving the planet. (insert sarcastic smilie here)

BTW, the energy bill doesn't just aid so-called "Big Oil" in increasing the nation's energy portfolio, it also aids "Big Coal", "Big Utility", "Big Gas Pipeline", "Big Renewable", "Big Hydropower", "Big Solar", "Big Wind", and every other "Big" energy related entity you can think of. But most importantly, all this aid to "Big Energy" will obviously find its way into the coffers of "BIG RAIL."

And since when does someone have to have served in the Military in order to be Commander in Chief or to serve in Congressional military panels? What a load of rubbish.

Yes, we've lost over 2000 of our military personelle in Iraq and Afghanistan, that prospect was made clear to all when this action was started. All but a few Democrats signed on to this action, having had the exact same access to the exact same intel. I find it appalling that these exact same people who voted for the war are now claiming that they opposed it all along. I also find it disgraceful that all you leftist *Americans* who also gave at least tacit approval for the war are now trying to weasal out of that commitment, based on the psychotic notion that you all actually believe the lies and slander you are directing toward Bush. "Tell a lie long enough, and it becomes the truth" is your new motto, and it is telling that you would borrow that motto from Adolf Hitler and the ***. It is also telling that everytime there is a military death in Iraq, it adds fuel to your cause. Your side gains by the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, so in that vein you have another common interest with the terrorists besides a hatred of Bush.

But here is the stupidist statement I have ever seen. Quothe Big Boy "When we leave, the bombings will stop." If we pull out now, the bombings will only increase, because the terrorists mentality draws it's strengths from our actions of weakness. That is why Al Qaeda gained strength during the reign of Clinton, he would just lob a few cruise missles into the desert, and then convince the American people that all was hunky-dory. What he was telling Al Qaeda was that America would not commit ground troops to stop them, and that emboldeded them all the more.

One thing is undeniably true: If Clinton had dealt forcefully with the terror threat instead of trying to appease them, 9-11 never happens. This is why this nation can never again make the mistake of electing a spineless modern day Democrat or a so-called "moderate" Republican to the nation's highest office.

[Anonymous]

No, nobody wants to Americans to die. However if all the terrorist are in Iraq, they aren’t here. It is the military’s job to die for our nation, the are protecting the civilians back here. This is the greatest honor, in the world, so one day I hope to join the ranks of those great men. Ask the soldiers what they are fighting for. To say, “Saddam is not a nice guy”, is akin to saying “cyanide will make you sick,” a huge understatement. He ran people through plastic shredders, killed any one who resisted; he ran the country in way Stalin would be proud of. Of course if we were doing anything similar to your analogy to the Chinese. We wouldn’t see reports like this, our soldiers were greeted like when we liberated France in the Second World War.
Look at what this soldier said, as our troop rolled into a village, releasing from the terror of Saddam. It is an outrage, and a dishonor to say the troops there are fighting for oil, it is an abomination of everything America stands for 'I was not expecting this at all. Seeing the civilians right on the other side of the border was not what I expected,' said Second Lieutenant Julia MacRory. 'But we are here to look out for the population. We are actually here to liberate Iraq.'
Or this report. Ricky Fisher, 18, is the youngest soldier in the British force. As he drove his vehicle further into Iraq he was calm, but slightly bemused. 'I am nervous but we have to keep our task in hand. We have to focus on what we are doing,' he said. 'I was expecting some sort of violence but so far it's good to see people waving.'

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

James, the job of Commander in Chief goes with the office of President. Unfortunately there are no special skills required for either job.

I pity the military under Bush. He has sent more than 2000 soldiers to their deaths (so far) for NOTHING!!!! And don't give me that crap about freeing the Iraqi people, or weapons of mass distruction. The taxpayers have poured more money into this fight for oil, than they have into relief for the hurricaine victims, or the 9/11 victims combined.

Grow up, wake up!

Oh by the way, the debt he's running up is on YOU young man.[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

I for one like to see my money going to save the lives of the people Saddam was killing, you cannot deny it, he was murdering people; it is sorrow full to see greed blind you like that. Economically putting more oil on the market lowers the price of oil meaning oil companies make less, so don't give me any crap about a war for oil.[:D]

James, I will be the first to admit that Saddam was not a nice guy, but as an American taxpayer, I don't care what he did to his people. I care more about Americans dying in a foreign land.

He had his own form of law and order which worked. We invaded a soverign nation under the misguided intent of searching for WMD, and made a bad situation worse.

The Iraqi people don't need freedom western style. What they need is law and order without armed foreigners roaming their streets. We have become a terrorist magnet in Iraq. When we leave, the bombings will stop.

Would you like it if the Chineese army landed in your town, and said they were there to protect you? My guess is you would be among the resistors.

This is a war for oil. The uncertainty that the chaos creates, drives up the price on world markets, and ultimately oil company profits. It is as simple as 1+1=2. Now don't you wish you were in the oil business?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

James, the job of Commander in Chief goes with the office of President. Unfortunately there are no special skills required for either job.

I pity the military under Bush. He has sent more than 2000 soldiers to their deaths (so far) for NOTHING!!!! And don't give me that crap about freeing the Iraqi people, or weapons of mass distruction. The taxpayers have poured more money into this fight for oil, than they have into relief for the hurricaine victims, or the 9/11 victims combined.

Grow up, wake up!

Oh by the way, the debt he's running up is on YOU young man.[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

I for one like to see my money going to save the lives of the people Saddam was killing, you cannot deny it, he was murdering people; it is sorrow full to see greed blind you like that. Economically putting more oil on the market lowers the price of oil meaning oil companies make less, so don't give me any crap about a war for oil.[:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Did you serve? Are your children serving? Are any Democrats children serving?

Avoid the question by asking another. My kids used to try that on me, too.

However, no, I did not serve. I was fortunate that when I turned 18, the draft had be changed to a 'birthday lottery' type system. I was drafted to be in the second of three groups to go to Viet Nam, but thankfully the war was winding down at that time, and I just barely avoided having to go.

And two other of my nephews are almost at draft age. So yes, I do have a personal reason to see the madness end. By the way, have you signed up yet???

And you totally missed my point. I agree that there are Democrats that invoked their position of power so their children do not have to serve. That does not make it any more correct for the Republicans. I repeat: I am not a democrat or republican. I just want the truth. You do not have; I do not have it. I just wish someone did.

You bet your boots I will!

[Big_Boy_4005]

James, the job of Commander in Chief goes with the office of President. Unfortunately there are no special skills required for either job.

I pity the military under Bush. He has sent more than 2000 soldiers to their deaths (so far) for NOTHING!!!! And don't give me that crap about freeing the Iraqi people, or weapons of mass distruction. The taxpayers have poured more money into this fight for oil, than they have into relief for the hurricaine victims, or the 9/11 victims combined.

Grow up, wake up!

Oh by the way, the debt he's running up is on YOU young man.[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]