|
Post by Gorf on Jul 24, 2004 1:03:15 GMT -5
How about the difference between you're 130,000 and the 138,000 thousand that are currently deployed and the total number that have been deployed since the beginning of the US invasion of Iraq?
You talk to each of them and get back to me on what they think.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 24, 2004 1:12:19 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1090455976&start=45#3 date=1090648995] You talk to each of them and get back to me on what they think. HAHA! Yes, sir! Right away, sir! Three Bags Full, sir! *Gives the sad sack salute followed by the bird* I'm going to sleep, then tomorrow I'm going to wake up and go play golf on my day off. I don't need to ask every single military person, because I already know. Do you honesty believe the military sector of the vote is even close? Even the stupidest political pundit knows which candidate will carry the military vote, and by how big a margin this candidate will carry the vote. Hint: His initials are George W. Bush. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 24, 2004 1:20:13 GMT -5
"I think President Bush has an electoral edge despite the fact that Senator (John) Kerry has a better military service record," said Loren Thompson, the chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. "That said, the prolonged tours of duty, the unexpected intensity (of the war) and the way reservists are being deployed are working against the president. There is a lot of resentment in the ranks about the level of commitment demanded of the reserves, particularly among the families."
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 24, 2004 1:22:09 GMT -5
"A bipartisan "Battleground" poll of likely voters conducted in September found that Bush's approval rating among relatives of military personnel was only 36 percent. Family members upset by Bush's policy on Iraq are venting through Web sites and public protests."
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 24, 2004 1:25:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 24, 2004 1:28:51 GMT -5
"WASHINGTON - When the Bush campaign asked James McKinnon to co-chair its veterans steering committee in New Hampshire - a job he held in 2000 - the 56-year-old Vietnam veteran respectfully, but firmly, said no.
"I basically told them I was disappointed in his support of veterans," said McKinnon, who served two tours in Vietnam with the Coast Guard. "He's killing the active-duty military. ... Look at the reserves call-ups for Iraq, the hardships. The National Guard - the state militia - is being used improperly. I took the president at his word on Iraq, and now you can't find a single report to back up or substantiate weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush is seeking re-election as a "war president" whose decisive leadership steered the military to victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. But as guerrilla warfare drags on in both countries, casualties mount and the Army is stretched ever thinner, many voters in or affiliated with the military are no longer saluting the commander in chief.
The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or evidence that Saddam Hussein was in league with al-Qaida, lengthy deployments of active-duty soldiers and reservists and proposed cuts in veterans' benefits and perks to military families are threatening to erode Bush's once-strong support among military voters."
|
|
|
Post by swoosh on Jul 24, 2004 1:30:01 GMT -5
hey SBB, THANKS for your service in keeping this sacred land the way it is.....this land is worth killing to defend it.....because of your service i can enjoy the blessings from it....
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 24, 2004 1:41:20 GMT -5
I like this one:
John Kerry Importance: High Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:28 AM Subject: John Kerry March 4, 2004 "I Never Sail on Anything Less Than 135 Feet" The John Kerry Experience By HAL CRANMER I would like to add my two cents about my John Kerry experience.
During my career as an Air Force pilot, I spent two years flying a small twin-engine prop plane around the Pacific from my base in Okinawa, Japan. On one trip we had to fly Senator Kerry, his congressional aide, and a Navy Captain (Vietnam, A-4 fighter pilot) was also in Kerry's party to various locations in Vietnam and Cambodia as part of the MIA/POW talks. When I met him, he was wearing a shirt with a picture of his sailboat on it. I told him I had a small 27 feet sailboat in Okinawa, he remarked 'Oh I never sail on anything less than 135 feet'.
When we first flew him into Phnom Penh, he went to the back of the airplane and grabbed the pizza that was put aside for the crew and passed it around to his staff. He was never offered any pizza because they were supposed to have lunch with the Cambodian government once we landed. The pizza would have been our only meal that day. Then when we picked him up in Cambodia, he was an hour late getting to the airport. We could not start the engines and therefore the air conditioning until he arrived. Phnom Penh at that time was over 100 degrees with 95% humidity and we were basically sitting in a greenhouse behind the cockpit windows. When he finally did arrive, we were wringing out our clothes from the perspiration. He walks out of the air conditioned car, into the airplane and asks us 'Could you guys get the air conditioning running, I'm a little warm." The other pilot had to physically restrain me from going back there and picking a fight.
Then we took him into Noi Bai airfield in Hanoi. After we picked him up the next day (he stayed the night in Vietnam, we stayed in Bangkok) we taxied out, ran up the engines for takeoff, and noticed that our prop rpm was vibrating all over the place. We taxied off to the side to look at it, but there was a good possibility that there was an engine malfunction and the engine may fail if we took off with it. Well, Mr. Senator sticks his head up in the cockpit and says 'this plane WILL take off, I have a press conference in Bangkok in three hours!" (Maybe this is an indication of how he will run the FAA). We ran the engines again, and did not have the problem, so we took off and made it back.
During the flight, he told everyone how he had taken a Cessna (a small General aviation plane) up with a fighter pilot, and the fighter pilot remarked that Kerry was one of the best pilots he had ever seen. I don't know about other pilots out there, but it's hard to imagine a little, single-engine prop plane pilot being able to show the 'right stuff'. After Kerry left the plane, the Navy Captain came up to us, apologized and said basically that he knows Kerry is a jerk and that we should be glad we don't have to deal with him every day....Or will we? Hal Cranmer can be reached at: studioron@verizon.net
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 24, 2004 1:44:28 GMT -5
military.com has no affiliation with the US Military. The site is owned by a company in San Francisco called "Military Advantage, Inc.". That company's parent company is the owner of monster.com so it is essentially a privately held company for recruiting people to military service. It looks like the site provides good services for military folks, however, it isn't a government site. Perhaps you weren't trying to imply that with your post.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 24, 2004 1:50:30 GMT -5
I like this one, too:
Letter to Kerry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Kerry:
After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, you testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents you say you witnessed: "They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Viet Nam."
Spread that on a farmer's field where it will do some good. I spent a year there in 1968-69 in a combat arms unit. I was a Field Artillery Forward Observer in an Infantry company and I saw combat every day until I was wounded. When I returned from the hospital, I was assigned to an artillery battery. I saw brave men fight and die; I saw brave, good men pass out all their rations to hungry kids, build churches and schools, donate to orphanages, cry silently at the sight of villagers slaughtered by North Vietnamese, but I never saw anything approaching the war crimes that you happened to witness as your boat sped by villages on the river bank. If you witnessed atrocities and did not report them, you are guilty of aiding and abetting. If you lied, you are simply unfit for leadership at any level. The most serious incident I witnessed was a young sergeant who grabbed the arm of a Vietnamese woman during a village search. An older, more experienced noncommissioned officer knocked the sergeant to the ground and told him, somewhat forcefully, that that woman was someone's mother and would be treated with respect. That's it, Kerry, that's my confession - I didn't report the incident.
I have children, and my children have children. They will, perhaps, stumble upon your words, much as one might stumble upon a pile of dog droppings. I do not relish the thought of having to explain that your "experiences" are either a bald-faced lie, or you belong to that less-than-1% of Viet Nam veterans who committed war crimes/atrocities. Either way, your words do great harm to the institution of the Senate, my home state of Massachusetts, the Armed Services in which I proudly served for 27 years, and the very country that you aspire to lead.
Is it true that you single-handedly prevented a vote on a Senate version of H.R. 2833, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2001 - a bill that passed the House by a vote of 410-1? There are many who believe that our failure to speak decisively on that issue cost the lives of thousands of Montagnard tribesman in Viet Nam. Where do you stand on H.R. 1587, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2003? Will you support a parallel bill in the Senate? Is it true that you served as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs and in that role you fought hard to limit the expenditure of funds to investigate sightings or search for remains? You have, I believe, been a steadfast, staunch and vocal advocate for normalizing relations with Viet Nam. Could it be that your beloved first cousin, Mr. Forbes, CEO of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi worth billions of dollars? Any truth to the rumor that you didn't really fling your "hard-earned" military medals over the White House fence in a juvenile fit of pique as you say you did, but rather, you threw your roommate's medals instead?
I know dozens of retired military professionals. None of them support you - there is a reason for that. They all served honorably and well, and they all believe that you did not. I know war heroes, and you, sir, are no war hero.
-- Glenn Lackey
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 24, 2004 1:52:16 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1090455976&start=53#3 date=1090651468] military.com has no affiliation with the US Military. The site is owned by a company in San Francisco called "Military Advantage, Inc.". That company's parent company is the owner of monster.com so it is essentially a privately held company for recruiting people to military service. You are so non-intelligent I wonder why I even argue with you. Do you think the people who go there to post have no affliation with the US Military? Do you think those people posting are a "privately held company for recruiting people to military service"? Gawd...some people...you gotta draw EVERYTHING for them.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 24, 2004 1:53:40 GMT -5
Isn't it "funny" though that they don't appear to be writing about GWB's, or Cheney's exploits in military service?
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 24, 2004 1:57:55 GMT -5
I like this one: John Kerry Importance: High Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:28 AM Subject: John Kerry March 4, 2004 "I Never Sail on Anything Less Than 135 Feet" The John Kerry Experience By HAL CRANMER I would like to add my two cents about my John Kerry experience. During my career as an Air Force pilot, I spent two years flying a small twin-engine prop plane around the Pacific from my base in Okinawa, Japan. On one trip we had to fly Senator Kerry, his congressional aide, and a Navy Captain (Vietnam, A-4 fighter pilot) was also in Kerry's party to various locations in Vietnam and Cambodia as part of the MIA/POW talks. When I met him, he was wearing a shirt with a picture of his sailboat on it. I told him I had a small 27 feet sailboat in Okinawa, he remarked 'Oh I never sail on anything less than 135 feet'. When we first flew him into Phnom Penh, he went to the back of the airplane and grabbed the pizza that was put aside for the crew and passed it around to his staff. He was never offered any pizza because they were supposed to have lunch with the Cambodian government once we landed. The pizza would have been our only meal that day. Then when we picked him up in Cambodia, he was an hour late getting to the airport. We could not start the engines and therefore the air conditioning until he arrived. Phnom Penh at that time was over 100 degrees with 95% humidity and we were basically sitting in a greenhouse behind the cockpit windows. When he finally did arrive, we were wringing out our clothes from the perspiration. He walks out of the air conditioned car, into the airplane and asks us 'Could you guys get the air conditioning running, I'm a little warm." The other pilot had to physically restrain me from going back there and picking a fight. Then we took him into Noi Bai airfield in Hanoi. After we picked him up the next day (he stayed the night in Vietnam, we stayed in Bangkok) we taxied out, ran up the engines for takeoff, and noticed that our prop rpm was vibrating all over the place. We taxied off to the side to look at it, but there was a good possibility that there was an engine malfunction and the engine may fail if we took off with it. Well, Mr. Senator sticks his head up in the cockpit and says 'this plane WILL take off, I have a press conference in Bangkok in three hours!" (Maybe this is an indication of how he will run the FAA). We ran the engines again, and did not have the problem, so we took off and made it back. During the flight, he told everyone how he had taken a Cessna (a small General aviation plane) up with a fighter pilot, and the fighter pilot remarked that Kerry was one of the best pilots he had ever seen. I don't know about other pilots out there, but it's hard to imagine a little, single-engine prop plane pilot being able to show the 'right stuff'. After Kerry left the plane, the Navy Captain came up to us, apologized and said basically that he knows Kerry is a jerk and that we should be glad we don't have to deal with him every day....Or will we? Hal Cranmer can be reached at: studioron@verizon.net I can't say I blame them for feeling that way. FWIW: You make the assumption that I'm a Kerry supporter. I've said repeatedly that I don't particularly care for Kerry. I simply think that GWB and his people have done a very poor job in office and I see no reason to believe he will do any better with a second term in office.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Jul 24, 2004 2:01:37 GMT -5
Celebrity Activism: The Right Way and The Wrong Way By Lisa Sarrach July 23, 2004
Well, well, well. Take off for a week and it all breaks loose in Hollywood. Whoopi Goldberg shoots off her mouth at a Kerry fundraiser and subsequently loses her job as a spokesperson for Slim-Fast. Over the weekend, Linda Ronstadt shoots off her mouth in Las Vegas and is fired by and escorted out of the Aladdin Hotel.
A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Hardly, as they said during the Watergate scandal, follow the money.
Corporations hire entertainers and spokespeople to make money. Whether it's to bring in the crowds to a casino or to showcase a celebrity's ability to lose weight on your product, the bottom line is they spend money to make money and to highlight what a particular company has that's better than the competitor and for consumers to spend, spend, spend.
Corporations don't care about the personal politics of celebrities, as long as their personal beliefs don't interfere with their ability to sell their product. In Whoopi's case and with spokespeople in general, your image is what you're selling in conjunction with the product you're endorsing.
Slim-Fast's error was not recognizing Whoopi's past propensity for offensive material in her performances. Slim-Fast shouldn't have been surprised when she went over the edge of good taste in her rip on President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. She had been an outspoken critic of the Administration for quite some time. That aside, they realized their mistake, responded quickly and fired her. It's a company's right to correct their mistake and it shouldn't be interpreted by the Left as censorship. A more accurate explanation would be bad celebrity matching with an advertising campaign that someone at Slim-Fast will also be fired over.
Immediately upon news of her firing, Whoopi lambasted Republicans as being behind it all in another example of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Elton John cried McCarthyism. And Senator Kerry refused to release any tapes of her performance. Why? That's a no brainer - he doesn't want any voter to see him laughing at Whoopi's disgusting tirade and calling the performers who appeared at the fundraiser, "The heart and soul of America." Gee, wonder why not?
On to Linda Ronstadt - It could be argued that the Aladdin Hotel overreacted by forcibly removing the singer from the hotel after her performance over the weekend wherein she promoted Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and dedicated her hit "Desperado" to him. The Aladdin, in this case as well, should have been aware that Ms. Ronstadt has been making political comments all through her current tour. Not being aware caused them an uncomfortable evening where unhappy fans let their feelings known by booing, defacing posters and demanding refunds following a reportedly badly performed show injected with politics.
Again, a company hires an entertainer to entertain its guests, not to espouse their political views. The reason is obvious, whatever the celebrity's views, half the audience is bound to disagree and be offended.
And conversely, it appears that celebrities can be offended by their audiences as well. Ms. Ronstadt's made the following comments in an interview with the San Diego Tribune, "This is an election year, and I think we're in desperate trouble and it's time for people to speak up and not pipe down. It's a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I'd rather not know."
Perhaps Ms. Ronstadt should consider retiring as a performer if performing for Republicans and Christians, who represent over half the population of this country, offends her so much and sign on to Senator Kerry's campaign - truly putting money where her mouth is.
The vitriol with which some celebrities choose to advocate for their candidate is a column for another day.
Today is the day to discuss a very important point in all this controversy with stars and their political activism - the right way to be involved and the wrong way. To reiterate - when you are hired either to perform in any venue or to act as a spokesperson, you are not being paid to espouse your political leanings. You are being paid to be an entertainer or to sell a product, not as an activist or political supporter.
Let's look at a recent example of the right way to be politically active. Ben Affleck, actor and Oscar winning screenwriter, recently announced that he pulled out of a previously slated movie that was to begin filming this fall. He instead announced his intentions to campaign for Senator Kerry and to appear at the Democratic convention next week in Boston, Ben's hometown.
Hollywood-Hero previously commented favorably on Martin Sheen and Rob Reiner earlier this year, when they campaigned for Howard Dean during the primaries. While Hollywood-Hero agrees with absolutely nothing that these two celebrities espouse, they work hard for their beliefs, put their money where their mouth is, and walk the walk of activism. These activists don't use a captive entertainment audience for their own political ends.
That's the proper way for any citizen in this country to advocate for their candidate of choice. Whether you're a teacher, a doctor, an actor, or a factory worker, you're entitled and encouraged to participate in the political process - on your time, not on ours. That's the ticket and the key to successful celebrity activism.
However polarized this nation may be at the moment, Americans can and should come together over the notion that celebrities should refrain from making political statements on our dime and start making them on their dime and during their free time.
The message of the day is - stop messing with our entertainment - the films, concerts, and music we spend our hard earned money to enjoy and get out there with the real people in this country and work for the candidate of your choice on your off hours, just like the rest of us.
-------------
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 24, 2004 2:15:14 GMT -5
You are so non-intelligent I wonder why I even argue with you. Do you think the people who go there to post have no affliation with the US Military? Do you think those people posting are a "privately held company for recruiting people to military service"? Gawd...some people...you gotta draw EVERYTHING for them. Actually there must be a fair number of people that go to the site that aren't actually affiliated with the military or it wouldn't be much use as a recruiting tool would it? It does seem to be a good site for use by veterans and active military people though.
|
|