+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 8 First 12345 ... Last
  1. #26
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Originally posted by KingHippo
    "maybe our President was praying"

    When you are commander in chief, and you country is under attack, and you have no idea at all what's coming next, it is not prayer time- it's time to excuse yourself, make phone calls, and get down to business. A lot of things can happen in seven minutes.
    Being a fellow firefighter, you should recognize the error in this statement. Bush should have jumped up, left the room and done what?
    At that point, we still didn't know it was al quada/talliban. Maybe we should have sent an ICBM to an aspirin factory?

    When you arrive on scene, do you head right in?

    Or do you take the quick time to assess?

    IMO, Bush did the right thing

    In both business and at fire scenes, the folks that jump in without assessing end up causing more damage. And the folks that don't assess are the first to criticize those that take the assess. I know of a guy who promoted people who "took quick action" because he had no patience and a was impressed with "just do it". He's went under with two companies.

    Your criticism of "7 minutes" plays right into pfd's post about instant gratification. I think Desert Storm spoiled us, and gave some unrealistic expectations. GW said fromat the outset that a war on terrorist, who had no borders and no nations would be a long haul.

  2. #27
    MembersZone Subscriber
    mohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    850

    Talking Scon, how are your wrong? let me count the ways

    Originally posted by scfire86


    This is so much bovine scatology I don't even know where to start. Aside from the usual wacko right wing rhetoric about his Purple Hearts the assertions of perjury and treason are just so much more BS. Bush spends the Vietnam years passed out in an alcoholic stupor and Kerry is criticized for not being heroic enough? I love the logic.

    What weapon did he receive as a 'gift'? And what features did it have that made it unavailable to the general populace? Was it capable of automatic fire? Is its barrel too short? What?

    And fortunately the conservative mindset today that claims disgust regarding any type of protest or dissent wasn't the prevalent mood during the latter part of the 18th Century. If that had been the case we'd still be subjects of the Crown.

    I guess free speech only applies to conservatives.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1. you interject kerry's vietnam record. My post skips past that and starts at his post vietnam period. It's based on things Kerry himself said he did. If he admitted to committing atrocities, why are you pointing the defficator at me? If you would like, I can recommend some courses available on basic reading comprehension.

    2. What is you're proof that Bush was drunk during the whole of Vietnam? Did you personally spend any time with him? If not, must be hearsay. Go back to the Demonrat Underground website, maybe the have some better "proof". Dan Rather doesn't

    3. On the gun thing, read my post. Carefully. Kerry attached his name to (thankfully failed) legislation that would have outlawed the shotgun presented to him because it had an eeeeevilll pistol grip, a semi-auto action, and could be retrofitted with an aftermarket magazine capable of holding too many cartridges. So yes, Matilda, he accepted the gift of a gun with features he tried to outlaw.

    Have you purchased a gun lately? Part of the BATF form you fill out asks whether or not the purchase is for yourself. If you purchase a gun to sell or give to another person, then it can be considered a "straw" purchase.

    What part of "he accepted a gun that he would make illegal" don't you understand?

    4. The "conservatives are against free speech" and "If it had been for conservatives we'd still be a colony" claim is just plain wrong.

    Lets examine the Revolution first.
    The revolutionaries:
    A. were against big government CONSERVATIVE
    B. were against high taxation, especially without representation CONSERVATIVE
    C
    . believed in individual ownership of arms CONSERVATIVE

    Now examine free speech.
    The last president to speak against dissenting views was Clinton. If you can't remember that far back, he was a liberal democrat. Not a conservative.

    The last president to jail dissidents during a war for discent(sp) alone would be FDR. Again, a liberal democrat.

    Arguably, because congress gave approval for the action in Iraq, people like the Dixie Chics, Alec Baldwin, et al could be charged with sedition in a tiem of war. GW has allowed the differing views.

    Rules/laws/regulations on "hate speech", and all the watch what you say PC nonsense are pushed by socialist/liberal democrats. No where does the axiom "if you want to know what the left is doing, listen to what they are accusing others of" is truer than in the arena of free speech.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you want to debate, fine. In the future, please read carefully, and comprehend prior to calling my post BS.

    In truth,you have done nothing to refute my charges.

    Based on what I presented in my post, you have not made a case for Kerry being fit for office, you just tried to smear my post as a "right wing whack job"

    You failed.
    Go out, get info other than New York Times and CBS. You'll find most of the nation is catching on.

  3. #28
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default Re: Scon, how are your wrong? let me count the ways

    Originally posted by pfd3501

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1. you interject kerry's vietnam record. My post skips past that and starts at his post vietnam period. It's based on things Kerry himself said he did. If he admitted to committing atrocities, why are you pointing the defficator at me? If you would like, I can recommend some courses available on basic reading comprehension.

    More right wing wacko rhetoric. I already put this to rest with GWendt and his claims of perjury and treason.



    2. What is you're proof that Bush was drunk during the whole of Vietnam? Did you personally spend any time with him? If not, must be hearsay. Go back to the Demonrat Underground website, maybe the have some better "proof". Dan Rather doesn't

    His DUI's are public record. I could point you to a link, but it would be a much more significant educational experience if you found them on your own.


    3. On the gun thing, read my post. Carefully. Kerry attached his name to (thankfully failed) legislation that would have outlawed the shotgun presented to him because it had an eeeeevilll pistol grip, a semi-auto action, and could be retrofitted with an aftermarket magazine capable of holding too many cartridges. So yes, Matilda, he accepted the gift of a gun with features he tried to outlaw.

    Have you purchased a gun lately? Part of the BATF form you fill out asks whether or not the purchase is for yourself. If you purchase a gun to sell or give to another person, then it can be considered a "straw" purchase.

    What part of "he accepted a gun that he would make illegal" don't you understand?

    Who cares? I don't need anymore guns.


    4. The "conservatives are against free speech" and "If it had been for conservatives we'd still be a colony" claim is just plain wrong.

    Lets examine the Revolution first.
    The revolutionaries:
    A. were against big government CONSERVATIVE
    B. were against high taxation, especially without representation CONSERVATIVE
    C
    . believed in individual ownership of arms CONSERVATIVE

    Standing with blind obedience for the status quo and vehemently against change...you're right CONSERVATIVE



    Now examine free speech.
    The last president to speak against dissenting views was Clinton. If you can't remember that far back, he was a liberal democrat. Not a conservative.

    Huh? When did Clinton advocate that?


    The last president to jail dissidents during a war for discent(sp) alone would be FDR. Again, a liberal democrat.

    There are those jailed during the Nixon administration who might argue that point.


    Arguably, because congress gave approval for the action in Iraq, people like the Dixie Chics, Alec Baldwin, et al could be charged with sedition in a tiem of war. GW has allowed the differing views.

    Rules/laws/regulations on "hate speech", and all the watch what you say PC nonsense are pushed by socialist/liberal democrats. No where does the axiom "if you want to know what the left is doing, listen to what they are accusing others of" is truer than in the arena of free speech.

    Just ask Ann Coulter or Michael Savage. Very open minded and tolerant conservatives.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you want to debate, fine. In the future, please read carefully, and comprehend prior to calling my post BS.

    In truth,you have done nothing to refute my charges.

    Based on what I presented in my post, you have not made a case for Kerry being fit for office, you just tried to smear my post as a "right wing whack job"

    If the shoe fits.....


    You failed.
    Go out, get info other than New York Times and CBS. You'll find most of the nation is catching on. [/B]
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  4. #29
    MembersZone Subscriber
    mohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    850

    Default

    SC
    1. you didn't prove George wrong. And again, you haven't addressed that Kerry admitted to committing atrocities. It's a matter of congressional record, not right wing conspiracy

    2. DUIs? Plural? I've only heard of one, and it was in the 70s or 80s. Not in the Vietnam. Have you evidence of a GW DUI during vietnam? I didn't think so. Are all liberals chronilogically challenged? Or just you and John "Christmas in Cambodia" Kerry

    3. When shown the error of your ways "I don't care" is good enough for you? Or do you believe that Kerry would exempt his fellow liberals from firearms restrictions?

    4. Standing with blind obedience for the status quo and vehemently against change...you're right CONSERVATIVE

    Change? How about the change that gives us relief from oppressive tax rates - Conservative

    Change? How about recognizing that affirmative action is a form of racism - Conservative

    I could go on, but I don't think you'd get it.

    A quote from Clinton "You can't love your country and hate your government". And that is obviously far from the truth.

    5. "Just ask Ann Coulter or Michael Savage. Very open minded and tolerant conservatives"

    Several points - for every Ann Coulter there are two or three Louis Farrakans. I've never read or heard any statements from Ann Coulter wanting to cut off free speech. Tolerance is not always a virtue, and conservatives certainly don't have a monopoly on intolerance. Have you listened to any of AlGores impressions of a Pentecostal on Crack? Oop, those are political speeches of his. By you're initial reaction to this thread, I would say that you are very intolerant.

    Over the years I've observed that the catch phrases liberals/socialist/democrats like to throw at others apply to themselves the most. And when called on it, they become apoplectic.

  5. #30
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Originally posted by pfd3501
    Have you listened to any of AlGores impressions of a Pentecostal on Crack?
    Nope. Haven't done that. But I bet I heard Rush Limbaugh on Oxycontnin more than once. It sure explains a lot.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #31
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    108

    Default sad for them, good for us

    The only defense a lib has for kerry is an attack on Rush Limbaugh

  7. #32
    Forum Member
    FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    scfire86,

    I suggest you rethink your attitude on the issue of Hanoi Johnny's return. If you weren't there, you'll never understand the damage this so-called man caused just because he was looking forward to a political future. Millions of Viet Nam veterans may have put this in the back of their minds but they certainly didn't forget. Hanoi Johnny made BLATANT accusations with NO PROOF and as we know no KNOWLEDGE. I was still in country when this traitor was spouting off his false accusations, thus putting my life in even more danger (yeah I have my medals and $1.25 and those medals will get me a cup of coffee). Now that is dispicable to say the least. He met with the ENEMY while STILL a member of the Armed Forces (Naval Reserve) and without the consent of the U.S. Government. That is TREASON in case you don't comprehend that. I could care less what Kerry did in the Nam but his spouting off of atrocities was WAY BEYOND reason. This would be like an Officer in your department accusing the members of robbing a house while fighting the fire or not doing your job and costing someones life and in essence killing them. Think about that! Maybe you would sit back and take it but I know I sure as he!! wouldn't.
    Last edited by FireLt1951; 09-15-2004 at 04:43 PM.

  8. #33
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    108

    Default

    FireLT

    according to SC, the testimony of sKerry to the Senate is a myth, and unproveable. It's a hoax perpetrated by the Rebublicans.

  9. #34
    Forum Member
    FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Yeah I know, he probably still believes in the Easter Bunny too.

  10. #35
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Originally posted by Farley
    FireLT

    according to SC, the testimony of sKerry to the Senate is a myth, and unproveable. It's a hoax perpetrated by the Rebublicans.
    Never said any such thing. I said the accusations of perjury and treason are unfounded.

    You too should try reading, it's FUNdamental.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #36
    Forum Member
    FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    Never said any such thing. I said the accusations of perjury and treason are unfounded.

    You too should try reading, it's FUNdamental.
    Understand one thing that is FACT. For a member of the Armed Forces to meet and negotiate with the enemy is an act of treason under the UCMJ and to state false accusations under oath while a member of the Armed Forces or otherwise is perjury. Knowingly making false accuastions is simply lying. To tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to do otherwise is perjuring yourself. It's pretty simple actually

  12. #37
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    And I don't need reinforcements.
    Oh yeah. You're doing a great job.

    And you haven't put anything to rest. I just haven't finished the post.

  13. #38
    Forum Member
    FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790
    Last edited by FireLt1951; 09-15-2004 at 07:35 PM.

  14. #39
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Originally posted by FireLt1951


    Understand one thing that is FACT. For a member of the Armed Forces to meet and negotiate with the enemy is an act of treason under the UCMJ and to state false accusations under oath while a member of the Armed Forces or otherwise is perjury. Knowingly making false accuastions is simply lying. To tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to do otherwise is perjuring yourself. It's pretty simple actually
    And like I asked Norm earlier. This 28 y/o just waltzed on in to the Senate and no thought about bringing him up on charges. They just let him go. And if a violation of the UCMJ had occurred why no charges from the military justice side? One big reason. There is no perjury, and there is no treason. That too is pretty simple actually.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #40
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    So tell us, liberal Kool-Aid drinker, how did he get in there, then? Was it a security breach? Was it a gate-crashing? Was it like the guy in the Batman suit at Buckingham Palace? OR was it that he was invited, as the self-proclaimed leader of the VVAW by an anti-war Senator for bogus hearings that were aimed solely at embarrasing Nixon? Which one?

  16. #41
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    So tell us, liberal Kool-Aid drinker, how did he get in there, then? Was it a security breach? Was it a gate-crashing? Was it like the guy in the Batman suit at Buckingham Palace? OR was it that he was invited, as the self-proclaimed leader of the VVAW by an anti-war Senator for bogus hearings that were aimed solely at embarrasing Nixon? Which one?
    All of the above. His presence and testimony at the hearings didn't connote treason or perjury.

    Unless you know of a conspiracy to allow him to break the law intentionally.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #42
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    All of the above. His presence and testimony at the hearings didn't connote treason or perjury.

    Unless you know of a conspiracy to allow him to break the law intentionally.
    Ahhh. I never said his testimony amounted to any crimes. In fact, he probably told the truth. I already outlined how he committed treason. I am not going to repeat myself.

  18. #43
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    Way to hang in there, SC. Pretty soon, you'll be left-wing, pinko commie, un-American scum, too. Life is so much better on the forums when you have these guys on your ignore list; now if there were only a way to ignore the stupid Kerry-bashing threads they start on an almost daily basis. Perhaps you don't mind the baseless attacks and name-calling; but I find it stupid and childish. It is amusing to me how my posts invoke such rage from them, though.

  19. #44
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI


    I already outlined how he committed treason. I am not going to repeat myself.
    Please don't. But it is obvious better legal minds than you decided he didn't commit treason. With all the current ongoing activity someone would have come forward by now and declared why he should have been charged with treason but wasn't.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  20. #45
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Originally posted by ThNozzleman
    It is amusing to me how my posts invoke such rage from them, though.
    They're just so ANGRY!!!
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #46
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    I can only imagine what it would be like, to be a resident of the Hanoi Hilton. Held there for 4 or maybe 5 years. Tortured and beaten daily to turn over statements accusing the U.S. government of war crimes. Resisting because you don't wish to betray those with whom you are currently imprisoned with, or worse, the nation you are defending. I can only imagine how you would feel when your captors show you what 1 individual had to say on capitol hill. How the statements he is making are the one's you are beaten to say daily, if not hourly. I am not talking about the swift vets either. Just some thoughts, some people will never get it FireLt1951.Just an FYI, I have not tossed out the word pinko or commie here, I recognize an individual's right to free speach. This is just my same right.

  22. #47
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    They're just so ANGRY!!!
    Angry? Darn right. When people, who ought to be on their hands and knees thanking God that they live in this country, instead attack and demean it, it invokes anger.

    Its not only un-American, its anti-American. As I said, you are free to find a better country to live in any time you want.

  23. #48
    MembersZone Subscriber
    mohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    850

    Default

    Originally posted by ThNozzleman
    Way to hang in there, SC. Pretty soon, you'll be left-wing, pinko commie, un-American scum, too. Life is so much better on the forums when you have these guys on your ignore list; now if there were only a way to ignore the stupid Kerry-bashing threads they start on an almost daily basis. Perhaps you don't mind the baseless attacks and name-calling; but I find it stupid and childish. It is amusing to me how my posts invoke such rage from them, though.
    Left wing? Yes
    Commie Pinko? Probably

    As far as getting upset by posts, I think you should look in the mirror. During the thread where you were comparing the Boy Scouts to the Hitler youth, and comparing our Pledge to a nazi pledge, I responded that you were indeed bigoted, and you took your ball and went home, so to speak.

    It's amazing how many of us are on you're blocked or ignore list, and yet you show up

    SC - back to the original intent of the thread. Now you are no longer in denial that JF Kerry admitted to war crimes, but your stance is that if he didn't get charged with them by a liberal anti war senator, then it isn't a crime? Kinda Clintonesque. You libs shouted from the roof tops "Clinton was innocent, it didn't go through the Senate", all the while ignoring that he was in fact disbarred, by his home state, no less.

    In reality, I think you folks at the socialist (oops Democrat) party are not voting for Kerry, per se. It's an anti Bush party. There are many prominent dems, including Zell Miller and Ed Koch who are for Bush, and the message that comes back from the Dems is that Kerry is the HollowMan. Not a whole lot of substance.

  24. #49
    Forum Member
    xploded's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    88

    Default Ignore List??

    Once again the libs show their asses. Can't dipute the charges, the liberal spin isn't working, tell a lie over and over maybe it will come true. I know, if none of that works I will just ignore the debate. Like most everything else stick your head in the sand and leave the hard work to the people that can do it. I just do not get how you libs can be so in love with Hanoi John, an ADMITTED war criminal, eliteist that has no credible senate carreer. I forgot, you also loved Slick Willy. Maybe if his head hadn't been in the sand his 8 long years, we may not have had 9/11. Oh I guess using the word "head" and Clinton in the same sentence is not a good idea. So also put me on your ignore lists because your liberal bilge will not go unanswered. Oh and by the way, SC you said earlier that you had enough guns, good that leaves more for me. Also Hanoi John is a traitor. I am sure that you tolerable wordly liberals are mad at me now----Good!!

  25. #50
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Conshohocken, PA
    Posts
    391

    Default What did Kerry do?

    KingHippo posted
    "And I certainly can't imagine GHW Bush sitting there reading a children's book for 7 minutes while his country was under attack- We need to bring that guy back."

    The President has been assulted on this long enough. Let's compare what our hero Senator did and what our present Commander in Chief did on that fateful day.

    Kerry 'couldn't think' on 9/11

    By Bill Sammon
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES

    PORTLAND, Ore. The White House, irked by lingering questions about whether President Bush responded quickly enough to the September 11 terrorist attacks, yesterday slammed Sen. John Kerry for being bewildered by the attacks.
    White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett took Mr. Kerry to task for questioning the president's decision to remain in a Florida classroom for five minutes after learning of the attacks. He noted that the Massachusetts Democrat acknowledged last month that when the terrorists struck, Mr. Kerry was at a Democratic leadership meeting where "nobody could think."

    "It's straining credibility for him to attack the president when he acknowledges the fact that he couldn't think in those minutes after the attack," Mr. Bartlett told The Washington Times at a Bush appearance here.
    "This type of petty, armchair quarterbacking three years after the event demonstrates the lengths the senator will go in order to be president," he said. "Do they really want to have this debate about 9/11? We'd love to have it."
    A Kerry campaign spokesman declined to comment on the broadside, which came less than 24 hours after Mr. Bush was asked on CNN's "Larry King Live" to respond to Mr. Kerry's critique of his September 11 performance.
    "Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whisper in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to, and I would have attended to it," Mr. Kerry said last week.
    But last month, the senator acknowledged his own struggle to comprehend the enormity of the terrorist attacks. Mr. Kerry was attending a Democratic leadership meeting in the Capitol office of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota when two jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center in New York.
    "We watched the second plane come into the building," Mr. Kerry said on "Larry King Live."
    "And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon.
    "And then word came from the White House they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate," he added. "And so we immediately began the evacuation."
    By that time, Mr. Bush had been responding to the attacks for more than 20 minutes and had addressed the nation. Using the Florida school as a makeshift command post, Mr. Bush had telephoned Vice President Dick Cheney, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and New York Gov. George E. Pataki.
    Also during those 20 minutes, the president consulted with Mr. Bartlett, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. Rejecting a statement they drafted for him, the president grabbed a pen and scrawled out his own statement on three sheets of paper.
    On Thursday, the president defended himself against Mr. Kerry's critique.
    "I think it's easy to second-guess," he said. "What's important is how I reacted when I realized America was under attack.
    "It didn't take me long to figure out we were at war," he added. "It didn't take me long to develop a plan that we would go after al Qaeda. We went into action very quickly."
    After the second plane stuck the World Trade Center, Mr. Bush was given minimal information by Mr. Card, who whispered into his ear: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."
    The president had been told upon arrival at the school that a small, twin-engine plane accidentally had crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers.
    "I couldn't envision it," he later told a Washington Times reporter who accompanied him to the school. "I could not envision what it meant to see an airplane fly into a building."
    He added: "But I wasn't thinking about what it looked like. I was thinking about what the heck we were going to do. I'm an action-oriented guy. And I am thinking to myself: What is it I need to do?"
    As for Mr. Kerry's criticism, Mr. Bush was unapologetic about remaining in the classroom.
    "I was collecting my thoughts," he explained on CNN. "I was sitting with a bunch of young kids, and I made the decision there that we would let this part of the program finish, and then I would calmly stand up and thank the teacher and thank the children and go take care of business."

    scfire86 posted:
    "He wasn't charged with treason for one reason. He didn't commit it."

    As I am sure George can do a better job, just because a person hasn't been charged doesn't mean that they didn't commit a crime. I'll bet many who are familiar with one of John Kerry's closest friends, Senator Kennedy, believe he got away with murder many years ago. Because he hasn't been charged, doesn't mean that he didn't do it. It just means that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges. However, mark my word, before this election is done, there will be a move to investigate Senator Kerry for committing treason in 1971.

    You have also made contentions that the President was too drunk to remember his ANG service. His one DUI arrest came in 1976 and he was honorably discharged in 1973. Okay don't take my word for it how about this?

    Bush acknowledges 1976 DUI charge
    November 2, 2000
    Web posted at: 11:00 p.m. EST (0400 GMT)

    From staff and wire reports

    WEST ALLIS, Wisconsin -- Texas Gov. George W. Bush acknowledged Thursday that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine.


    Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush admits that he was arrested in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine ( 433 K/40 sec. AIFF or WAV sound)

    Bush, who was 30 at the time, pleaded guilty, paid a $150 fine and his driving privileges were temporarily suspended in Maine.

    Late Thursday evening, following a campaign rally in this tightly contested Midwestern state, Bush--with his wife, Laura, at his side --told reporters news accounts of the incident were accurate, that he had been drinking in a bar with Australian tennis pro John Newcombe and others.

    "I'm not proud of that. I made some mistakes. I occasionally drank too much, and I did that night. I learned my lesson." Bush said he was not jailed after the arrest. "I told the guy (the arresting officer) I had been drinking, what do I need to do? He said, 'here's the fine.' I paid the fine."

    So again I not only have put your arguements to rest (despite your assersions about Georges arguements) I have backed them up with documentation. Keep drinking that kool-aid.

    And of course, lets not forget the I know how much ya like that!

    You will also notice I didn't call you a pinko, commie or other such name.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 8 First 12345 ... Last

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register