Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience

View Poll Results: Who do you support for President?

Voters
149. You may not vote on this poll
  • George W. Bush

    98 65.77%
  • John Kerry

    38 25.50%
  • Ralph Nader

    3 2.01%
  • Undecided

    10 6.71%
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 120
  1. #21
    the 4-1-4 Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    There is no real connection between Iraq's government and organized teror groups.
    So I guess hamas and hezbollah are not terrorist groups then ? Or is it that they are not organized? Saddam has long payed vast sums of money to the families of homicide bombers, at least to me this indicates a direct connection. These are facts that can be found almost anywhere. To just make a blanket statement that Saddam did not support terrorism is ridiculous. It can be debated whether or not al queda was heavily involved in Iraq, but all organizations talked about here are terrorist groups. All these organizations murder innocent people. And all of these organizations to one extent or another were funded and or supported by Iraq's government prior to 3-19-2003. It is a fact that saddam was not a religous zealot, but he did openly support those who are. Its important to not let partisan politics influence a perception of facts.


  2. #22
    Forum Member BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default

    Originally posted by ThNozzleman

    This is a bunch of crap. Just who decides this? At what point do nations qualify for our aggression? Why did we not invade China or North Korea? This idea of justifying the war in Iraq as "getting them before they get us" is ridiculous.
    Another liberal straw man argument. The battle of Iraq was a continuation of hostilities from the 1991 war, whose cease fire terms Saddam never complied with in 12 years, even though the impotent UN Security Council lobbed 17 resolutions at him. When you lose a war, you generally have to abide by the cease fire agreement. Otherwise the victor is free to ignore that cease fire in the same manner that you have.

    Hey, just for fun, want to know what Mr. Kerry said about it?

    "JOHN KERRY 2002: 'If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.' (John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)

    So why is he critical now? Easy - it's because he's a spineless political opportunist who will say whatever his focus groups tell him he has to say to get elected. Not the type of man I want in the White House. The President has both credibility and integrity. If he says we're going to do something, we do it. That's called leadership.
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  3. #23
    Forum Member BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default

    Originally posted by ThNozzleman

    There is no real connection between Iraq's government and organized terrorist groups. The things you talk of were found in U.S. controlled areas of Iraq. Saddam did not tolerate the religious terrorist groups. This has been hashed out in other threads. I will not start again, here. It is quite clear now, that the reasons GWB gave for invading Iraq were not true. All the yacking about him being a "bad person" and Iraq being better off than before are invalid points, in my opinion. We cannot continue to invade countries and overthrow their governments, simply because we do not like them. This is wrong.
    So I'll ask again, why did Al Qaeda state in their claim of responsiblity for the Madrid bombings that they were in retaliation for Spain's participation in Iraqi Freedom? Why have they declared a tentative cease fire, with the condition being that Spain withdraw its troops from Iraq? If Saddam was so tough on "the religious terrorist groups", then why should Al Qaeda care if Spain sends a couple thousand troops to Iraq?

    Wouldn't you say that they have more important things to worry about right now than a tiny group of Spanish soliders?

    This demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the dynamics of the Middle East. Saddam supported terrorists - he funded suicide bombers in Israel. There is documentation out there, not yet corroborated, that there were high level contacts between groups associated with Al Qaeda and the Baathist Party. Saddam will support anyone who is against the US - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Al Qaeda is similarly opportunistic. To think otherwise is to completely ignore reality.

    Yet another liberal argument falls...
    Last edited by BucksEng91; 03-20-2004 at 05:15 PM.
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  4. #24
    Forum Member firespec35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Milford MI USA
    Posts
    213

    Default

    I was watching a news show today and saw an interview done by Kerry on 9/14/2003 1 week before the 87 billion vote. The archive footage was courtesy CBS. Kerry was asked, even if the amendment to roll back the tax cuts to pay for the 87 billion was shot down would he still vote for the funding for the troops.

    He said that no lawmaker would be that irresponsible as to leave our troops out there without support.

    My brothers and sisters he did just that with his vote.

    Guess what the only thing that changed was?

    That was the week that Howard Dean started taking off in the polls for the democratic nomination.

    Lets see. He tried to leave our troops out there unsupported because he wanted to use his vote for political gain. Mr. Kerry is that slime oozing from your pores?

    Also a parting thought. Kerry voted 315 times to raise taxes in his tenure. Hmmmm?


    I still believe any firefighter that votes for Kerry has truly forgotten

    I know I won't
    Never Forget 9-11-01!!!!!!
    There wasn't just 343, the other 73 rescue workers deserve to be remembered too!!!!

  5. #25
    MembersZone Subscriber E229Lt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    I still believe any firefighter that votes for Kerry has truly forgotten

    I know I won't
    I believe any firefighter who votes for Bush has truly forgotten his pledge to us.

    I know I haven't.

  6. #26
    Forum Member BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default

    Originally posted by E229Lt


    I believe any firefighter who votes for Bush has truly forgotten his pledge to us.

    I know I haven't.
    Lt. -

    With all due respect both for your position as an officer, and as a member of the finest firefighting force in the world, since when is buying the FDNY (or any fire department, for that matter) new gear a federal responsibility?

    I'm in complete agreement with you that we all need the newest gear and the best training, especially in a post-9/11 world. BUT the funding should come from local sources. There are constitutional and practical reasons why this makes sense, and I've discussed a few of them before. I don't see a need to rehash them here.

    In my opinion, and it's only my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, I'd rather the feds concentrate on REAL homeland security - finding and killing terrorists, preventing further terrorist acts on our soil, and coordinating the massive intelligence effort necessary to make the other two elements a success.

    If we have to USE our spiffy new equipment and our spiffy new training, it means that homeland security has failed. As much as we (and others) puff us up as the "first line of defense against terrorism", it's just not true. The first line of defense is the US military and intelligence agencies. I don't know about you, but I don't think a 2 1/2" straight bore or a new digital radio has ever killed a terrorist.

    Now, if you think that all of the equipment lying around gathering dust is a waste, then by all means vote for John Kerry. I guarantee that his approach to terrorism, which is essentially the same as Clinton's, will almost inevitably result in another, and probably worse, terrorist holocaust in the US. Then we'll get to use all that new Haz Mat equipment and WMD training.

    But even beyond that, I can't get past Kerry's political opportunism and his deft ability to change positions on just about every important issue in the last 20 years. The one issue he has NEVER changed his position on is the US military. He wants it smaller, less well funded, with less weapons, less new weapon systems, and less involved in killing terrorists. If you can hold your nose and vote for him because Bush didn't buy us all new turnouts, then God bless you - that's your right as an American. I can't.
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  7. #27
    Junior Member H0tAngel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pensacola FL
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Ok, here I go but please be gentle with me as this is my first debate on a forum.

    Last election, I voted for Gore. I didn't think this country was ready for another 4 years of "Reaganomics" and I had a sneaky suspicion that "W" would be bringing that to the table. When he won, I was furious. I just KNEW we were gonna be screwed by him but boy did I mis-read who was gonna be doing the "screwing" to our country.

    Put aside the WMD's for a bit and look at a few other points about Sadam and his "boys". Every single person reading this post has either a Mother, Sister, Aunt, Grandmother, Wife, and/or Daughter. Imagine that you are sitting at home with all of your loved ones around you and there is a knock at the door. You answer it to find some of Sadam's men at your door and they are taking the women and/or female children with them to rape them and if you do ANYTHING to try to stop them, THEY WILL KILL YOU. You have to stand there and watch your terrified loved one being dragged of to be humiliated beyond anything you could imagine (unless you've been raped and beaten yourself). What do you do? Call the police? Ohhhhhhhhhh, that's right, they are Sadam's men. Call the Governor?!? Ooops, Sadam's man again. Hmmm... there is NOBODY to call for help. You have to just sit at home waiting to see if your loved one will be returned to you. Or maybe your loved one tried to fight for themselves and were killed. That's a possibility also. As an American, as a decent human being, do you see anything wrong with this picture??

    Still not sure? Well how about this information.

    Largest Death Toll From Chemical Weapons Attack
    The greatest number of people killed in a single chemical weapons attack is estimated at 4,000, when President Saddam Hussein of Iraq attacked members of his country's Kurdish minority at Halabja, Iraq, in March 1988. The attack was ostensibly punishment for the support the Kurds had given to Iran in the Iran–Iraq war. - Information obtained from Guinness World Records at http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/

    Now correct me if I'm wrong but aren't "Chemical Weapons" the same as WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?????

    Oh, and another little piece of info that you can find online at the Associated Press website. Al Qaeda has recently acquired WMD's. Of course they claim to have gotten them from the internet but for an advanced terrorist group, why did it take them so long to "find" these online? Or did they come from Sadam's stash. I mean, it's not like Sadam didn't know we were coming well in advance. How much time would he actually need to get his WMD's out of Iraq? Only as much time as we gave him. Hmmmmm... makes you wonder.

    "W" led our country through one of it's darkest moments in history. To see him standing amongst the firemen in NY that had lost SO MANY of their loved ones brought comfort to me. Firemen & women ROCK, and to lose so many on 9-11 was heart wrenching. Bush jumped right up onto that unstable ground and swore that he would NOT let these murders go unpunished and he has kept his word. How can you find fault in that?

    Deborah
    >Opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one< This one is mine but feel free to share it with others.

    Love and respect to you all regardless of who you vote for.

  8. #28
    Forum Member BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default

    Originally posted by H0tAngel
    Ok, here I go but please be gentle with me as this is my first debate on a forum.

    Last election, I voted for Gore. I didn't think this country was ready for another 4 years of "Reaganomics" and I had a sneaky suspicion that "W" would be bringing that to the table. Love and respect to you all regardless of who you vote for.
    Angel, generally everyone on here plays nice. The ones that don't simply get ignored, so don't worry about getting flamed. Opine away!

    Re: your comment about "Reaganomics" - Dubya has already put a large piece of it in place with the tax cuts. I hope he does more, and persuades Congress to make them permanent.

    The little secret that Dems don't like people to know is that the Reagan tax cut of 1984 actually INCREASED the inflow of money to the Federal Treasury. "My God!! How is this possible????", you ask?

    Easy. Tax cuts mean that the people who pay taxes get some of their money back (or don't have to pay it out in the first place). The entreprenurial among us (and the US has a lot of 'em, thank God) use that money to expand their businesses and buy more services in the B-to-B market. Know what that means? More jobs available, an increase in average income, more corporate profitability because people with jobs buy more, and/or use their tax cut money to buy marginally more products and services, more taxpayers have higher paying jobs, and....voila! Higher tax revenues.

    I used to work for the transit authority here in the Philly area, and I could never understand why, in budget crunch times, the authority's knee jerk response was to raise fares and cut service. The REAL way to increase revenues would have been to cut fares (or at least hold them steady) and increase service (or the quality of the service). Give people a better product for less, and they'll buy more of it. Essentially, you can have 10 people buying your product at $5 a pop and making $50, or you could have 15 people buying it for $4 and making $60.

    But governmental and quasi-governmental organizations rarely think about lowering anything because they're stuck in that simplistic and out of touch mindset that says lowering peoples' taxes (or fares) will bankrupt the Treasury (or the authority). Most of these organizations, by the way, are run by Democrats...you make the connection.
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  9. #29
    MembersZone Subscriber mohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    850

    Default

    Kerry is Klintoon without the aw shucks southern charm/charisma thing


  10. #30
    Junior Member H0tAngel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pensacola FL
    Posts
    18

    Default

    The first thing that annoyed me about Kerry is the fact that the man is so wishy-washy. Say what you mean and stick to your guns. Don't say what you think people want to hear, tell them how you really feel. He fought in Vietnam (for a minute) then you see him sitting at a rally behind the "oh so patriotic" Jane Fonda.

    Here's something to think about. The President of the United States is the Big boss of the Military, right? If Kerry is SOOOO anti-war, then why would he even want the job? I mean y'all are firemen because that is what you chose to be. You didn't say to yourself "Well I don't like fighting fires so I think I'll take the job as a fireman", did you? What happens to America if Kerry is elected President and he is told that another Sept. 11th is about to happen? If he's against war, are we all just screwed now? Will he leave us hanging out there while some terrorists kill thousands of Americans? Oh wait, he won't care, he'll be held up in some secure hole somewhere with MILITARY PERSONNEL protecting his butt.

    >>stepping down from the soapbox<<

  11. #31
    Forum Member DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    PFD,

    That is precious. I have sent it out to a few of my friends, they'll love it.

    By the way, do you think the US flag on his lapel is upside down accidently, or was it fixed by a computer editing program? The things that make you go Hmmmmm.

    Bucks:

    The little secret that Dems don't like people to know is that the Reagan tax cut of 1984 actually INCREASED the inflow of money to the Federal Treasury. "My God!! How is this possible????", you ask?
    Ah yup. Imagine that. Even Rudy Giuliani said the same thing when he was Mayor of New York and the economy was slumping - prior to 9/11.

    He cut hotel room taxes and a few others and the coughers started to get bigger. Go figure, you put more money in my pocket I will spend more money and you will get more money by having more goods being purchased. When the economy slumps it is a bad thing to stop spending money as nation becasue it worsens the economy by taking more money out of circulation and not purchasing goods that support businesses and keep people employed.

    Look at wht the automakers did a few years ago after teh economy slumped, cut some prices, increased rebates, and reduced interest rates. What did it do? They had record earnings for several quarters. Huh, go figure.
    Last edited by DaSharkie; 03-23-2004 at 08:16 PM.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  12. #32
    Forum Member firespec35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Milford MI USA
    Posts
    213

    Default

    Alright boys and girls here we go with more flipfloppiness (Y'all like that word?) from the Kerry camp.

    It turns out that the FBI was watching Kerry in the early 70's (So whats new Hoover watched everybody) and it was found out that Kerry was at a November 1971 meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War meeting in Kansas City where someone brought up assasinating Senators that support the war effort. Well that flew about as far as a cement balloon even with them. When this FBI stuff was brought out a KC paper set out talk to the Kerry camp about this incident.

    When they were asked, the reply was that John Kerry was not at that meeting and that he had severed ties with the VVAW at a June 1971 meeting in St. Louis. The paper brought up the fact that there was surveillence footage of Kerry at the November meeting. The Kerry camp responded that if there is surveillence footage they will submit to that historical footnote, but the important fact is when the assasinations were brought up, Kerry stormed out.

    WHY LIE ?!?!?!?

    If he was there than say so. If he left then he left, why try to cover it up and then when busted try to spin it so it seems they didn't lie.

    This one even astounds me

    Anyone else see the slime trail following Kerry?

    If you vote for Kerry, you truly have forgotten.

    I know I won't
    Never Forget 9-11-01!!!!!!
    There wasn't just 343, the other 73 rescue workers deserve to be remembered too!!!!

  13. #33
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,672

    Default

    1971.

    I'm not a fan of Kerry, but I'm not really going to base voting for/against him on something that was over 30 years ago. Some people have actually changed in 30 years worth of life experiences.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  14. #34
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    175

    Default

    When this FBI stuff was brought out a KC paper set out talk to the Kerry camp about this incident.

    When they were asked, the reply was that John Kerry was not at that meeting and that he had severed ties with the VVAW at a June 1971 meeting in St. Louis. The paper brought up the fact that there was surveillence footage of Kerry at the November meeting. The Kerry camp responded that if there is surveillence footage they will submit to that historical footnote, but the important fact is when the assasinations were brought up, Kerry stormed out.

    Sounds like the "Kerry Camp" reply was recently not in 1971
    SB (local 1355 retired)
    Last edited by StoveBolt; 03-23-2004 at 06:06 PM.

  15. #35
    55 Years & Still Rolling hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Question Now What?????????????????????????

    Here's the Question, Was he there or not? It's like pregnancy, you are or you aren't. If he wasn't there, how could he "Storm out"? If he did in fact storm out, then he was there. Period. If he wasn't there, it would have been hard to catch him on tape. I'm sorry that this guy is lumped in the same state that also has some Firefighters that I have a great deal of respect for.
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  16. #36
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Even better put Woods .. lol

    SB (local 1355 retired)

  17. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northern Panhandle of WV
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Originally posted by Bones42
    1971.

    I'm not a fan of Kerry, but I'm not really going to base voting for/against him on something that was over 30 years ago. Some people have actually changed in 30 years worth of life experiences.
    Bones, it's not the fact that he was at a meeting 30 years ago, it's the fact that they're lying about it. All we hear from them is how Bush lied about WMDs (if that's the case, so did most democrats including Kerry), and they are lying again. Kerry just can't be trusted.

  18. #38
    Forum Member BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default

    Originally posted by Bones42
    1971.

    I'm not a fan of Kerry, but I'm not really going to base voting for/against him on something that was over 30 years ago. Some people have actually changed in 30 years worth of life experiences.
    You're missing the point though, Bones, which is this: it's not what happened 30 years ago that concerns people so much at the almost AUTOMATIC lie that spills out when someone brings up things that happened 30 years ago.

    I mean, one could argue that his views really haven't changed all that much in 30 years if you look at his anti-military voting record in the Senate. That's fine. I tend to agree.

    But the bigger problem, and the point being made here, is that you simply cannot trust the guy to tell the truth on seemingly ANYTHING. If that doesn't worry you, I don't know what should.
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  19. #39
    55 Years & Still Rolling hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Talking Well.......................... ....

    Originally posted by BucksEng91


    You're missing the point though, Bones, which is this: it's not what happened 30 years ago that concerns people so much at the almost AUTOMATIC lie that spills out when someone brings up things that happened 30 years ago.
    I'm not taking up for Kerry by any means, but don't most politicians do this?????????????
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  20. #40
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,582

    Default

    I did some wild, crazy and downright stupid things 30 years ago too... that's why the only thing I could be President of is the IACOJ!

    As far as I am concerned...everyone who runs for ofice, from dog catcher to President has a few bones or two buried in the backyard....
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts